{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_59133/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_59133","id":"gutenberg_59133","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59133","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Presbyterian Church -- Doctrines","Presbyterianism","Theology, Doctrinal","Westminster Assembly (1643-1652). Larger catechism"],"text":"Produced by Richard Hulse, David King, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                          Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the underscore character as _italic_.\n\nFootnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\nreferenced.\n\n                           A Body of Divinity\n\n\n\n\n                          A BODY OF DIVINITY:\n\n   WHEREIN THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ARE EXPLAINED AND\n                               DEFENDED.\n\n    BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF SEVERAL LECTURES ON THE ASSEMBLY\u2019S LARGER\n                               CATECHISM.\n\n                        BY THOMAS RIDGLEY, D. D.\n\n                   WITH NOTES, ORIGINAL AND SELECTED,\n                       BY JAMES P. WILSON, D. D.\n\n                            IN FOUR VOLUMES.\n\n                               _VOL. I._\n\n        FIRST AMERICAN EDITION, FROM THE THIRD EUROPEAN EDITION.\n\n                             PHILADELPHIA:\n\n  PRINTED BY AND FOR WILLIAM. W. WOODWARD, CORNER OF CHESNUT AND SOUTH\n                            SECOND STREETS.\n\n                                 1814.\n\n\n\n\n_District of Pennsylvania, to wit_:\n\nBE IT REMEMBERED, That on the seventeenth day of May, in the\nthirty-eighth year of the Independence of the United States of America,\nA. D. 1813, William W. Woodward, of the said District, hath deposited in\nthis office the title of a Book, the right whereof he claims as\nproprietor, in the words following, to wit:\n\n    \u201cA Body of Divinity: wherein the doctrines of the Christian\n    religion, are explained and defended. Being the substance of several\n    lectures on the Assembly\u2019s larger catechism. By Thomas Ridgley, D.\n    D. With notes, original and selected, by James P. Wilson, D. D. In\n    four volumes. First American, from the third European Edition.\u201d\n\nIn conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, intitled,\n\u201cAn Act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of\nMaps, Charts and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such Copies\nduring the times therein mentioned.\u201d\u2014And also to the Act, entitled \u201cAn\nAct supplementary to An Act, entitled \u2018An act for the encouragement of\nLearning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the\nauthors and proprietors of such Copies during the times therein\nmentioned,\u2019 and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing,\nengraving, and etching historical and other prints.\u201d\n\nD. CALDWELL, Clerk of the\nDistrict of Pennsylvania.\n\n\n\n\n                             TO THE READER.\n\n\n_In this first American edition the original text remains unaltered, the\nnotes which Dr. Ridgley had subjoined to his work are retained, and for\nthe sake of distinction, printed in Italics. The other notes have been\nadded by Dr. Wilson; and in every instance wherein they have been\nselected by him from others, they are accompanied by marks of quotation,\nand the name of the author or book from whence they were taken._\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE.\n\n\nThe influence which the different sentiments of men, in matters of\nreligion, have, for the most part, on their temper and behaviour towards\none another, affords very little ground to expect that any attempt to\nexplain or defend the most important doctrines of Christianity, should\nnot be treated with dislike and opposition by some, how much soever it\nmay afford matter of conviction to others. This consideration would have\nput a stop to my pen, and thereby saved me a great deal of fatigue, in\npreparing and publishing the following sheets, had it not been\nover-balanced by what I cannot, at present, think any other than a sense\nof duty, in compliance with the call of providence. I heartily wish\nthere were no occasion to vindicate some of the great doctrines of the\ngospel, which were more generally received in the last age, than at\npresent, from misrepresentation, as though the method in which they had\nbeen explained led to licentiousness, and the doctrines themselves,\nespecially those of election, particular redemption, efficacious grace,\nand some others, that depend upon them, were inconsistent with the moral\nperfections of the divine nature: these are now traduced by many, as\nthough they were new and strange doctrines, not founded on scripture,\nnor to be maintained by any just methods of reasoning deduced from it,\nor as if the duties of practical religion could not be inculcated\nconsistently therewith. If this insinuation were true, our preaching\nwould be vain, our hope also vain, and we should be found false\nwitnesses for God, and have no solid ground whereon to set our feet,\nwhich would be a most tremendous thought. And, if this be not sufficient\nto justify my present undertaking, I have nothing to allege of equal\nweight.\n\nI must confess, that when I took the first step, in order to the setting\nthis design on foot, by consenting that proposals should be printed,\nabout two years since, I reckoned it little other than an expedient to\ndisengage myself from any farther thoughts, and my friends from any\nexpectation of it, which I could not well do, but by having a proof of\nthe backwardness of persons to encourage, by subscription, a work which\nwould be so very expensive to the undertakers; but, the design being\ncountenanced, beyond what I could have imagined, and numbers subscribed\nfor, with more expedition than is usual, I was laid under an obligation\nimmediately to prepare my notes for the press, and set forward the work,\nwhich, through the divine goodness, has been thus far carried on; and I\ncannot but take occasion to express my grateful acknowledgment of the\nrespect that has been shewed me, by those who have encouraged this\nundertaking. If it may answer their expectation, and subserve their\nspiritual advantage, I shall count my labour well employed, and humbly\noffer the glory thereof, as a tribute due to God, whose interest is the\nonly thing that demands all our time, strength, and utmost abilities. If\nI may but have a testimony from him that I have spoken nothing\nconcerning him that is a dishonour to his name, unbecoming his\nperfections, or that has a tendency to lead his people out of the right\nway to the glorifying and enjoying of him, my end is fully answered.\nWhatever weakness I have discovered, arising from mine inequality to the\ngreatness of the subjects insisted on, I hope to obtain forgiveness\nthereof from God, whose cause I have endeavoured to maintain; and, to be\nexcused by men, as I may truly say, I have not offered, either to him or\nthem, what cost me nothing. I have, as far as I am able, adapted my\nmethod of reasoning to the capacities of those who are unacquainted with\nseveral abstruse and uncommon words and phrases, which have been often\nused by some who have treated on these subjects, which have a tendency\nrather to perplex, than improve the minds of men: terms of art, as they\nare sometimes called, or hard words, used by metaphysicians and\nschoolmen, have done little service to the cause of Christ.\n\nIf I have explained any doctrine, or given the sense of any scripture in\na way somewhat different from what is commonly received, I have never\ndone it out of the least affectation of singularity, nor taken pleasure\nin going out of the beaten path, having as great a regard to the\nfootsteps of the flock, as is consistent with that liberty of thinking\nand reasoning, which we are allowed to use, who conclude nothing to be\nan infallible rule of faith, but the inspired writings.\n\nAs to what I have advanced concerning the eternal generation of the Son,\nand the procession of the Holy Ghost, I have thought myself obliged to\nrecede from some common modes of explication, which have been used, both\nby ancient and modern writers, in insisting on these mysterious\ndoctrines, which, probably, will appear, if duly weighed, not to have\ndone any great service to the cause, which, with convincing evidence,\nthey have maintained; since it is obvious that this is the principal\nthing that has given occasion to some modern Arians to fill the margins\nof their books with quotations, taken out of the writings of others,\nwhom they have either, without ground, pretended to have been on their\nside of the question, or charged with plucking down with one hand, what\nthey have built up with the other.\n\nWhether my method of explaining these doctrines be reckoned just, or no,\nI cannot but persuade myself, that if what I have said, concerning the\nsubordination of these divine persons, be considered in any other view,\nthan as an explication of the Sonship of Christ, and the procession of\nthe Holy Ghost, it will not be reckoned a deviating from the common\nfaith of those who have defended the doctrine of the ever-blessed\nTrinity; and, if it be an error to maintain that these divine persons,\nas well as the Father, are independent, as to their personality, as well\nas their essence, or to assert that the manner of their having the\ndivine essence, as some express it, is independent, as well as the\nessence itself, then what I have delivered, on that subject, is to no\npurpose, which, when I am convinced of, I shall readily acknowledge my\nmistake, and count it an happiness to be undeceived.\n\nAs to what respects the decrees of God, and more particularly those that\nrelate to angels and men, and his providence, as conversant about sinful\nactions, and the origin of moral evil, I have endeavoured to account for\nthem in such a way, as, I trust, does not in the least, infer God to be\nthe author of sin; nor have I, in any instance, represented God as\npunishing sin, or determining to do it, out of his mere sovereignty, as\nthough he designed to render his creatures miserable, without\nconsidering them as contracting guilt, and thereby procuring this to\nthemselves. And, when I have been led to insist on the freeness of\ndivine grace, and the covenant of grace, as made with Christ, and, in\nhim, with the elect, and maintained the absoluteness and independency\nhereof on the will of man to render it effectual to salvation, I have,\nnotwithstanding, said as much as is necessary concerning the\nconditionality of our claim to the blessings thereof, and the\ninseparable connexion that there is between practical religion and\nsalvation, which fences against the charge that is often brought against\nthis doctrine, as though it led to licentiousness. This I could not omit\nto mention, that the reader might not entertain groundless prejudices\nagainst some of the doctrines insisted on, before he duly weighs the\nmethod in which they are handled, or considers whether my defence of\nthem against the popular objections, of that or any other kind, be just\nor no. Some, it may be, will see reason to conclude that it is; and\nothers, who think that there are many unsurmountable difficulties on our\nside of the question, may be convinced, that there are difficulties of\nanother nature, as great, if not greater, attending the opposite scheme,\nwhich they themselves maintain. But this I rather chuse to submit to the\nimpartial judgment of those who are not disposed to condemn a doctrine,\nwithout desiring to know what may be said in its defence.\n\nAs to what concerns the work in general, it may be observed, that when I\nhave occasion to illustrate an argument, by making use of any criticism\nthat may be of advantage to it, or to give the sense of ancient writers,\neither for or against what I have laid down, I have inserted it in\nItalics in the notes, that it might not appear to be a digression, or\nbreak the thread of the discourse.\n\nThough the title of every page mentions only the general subject of the\nquestion, there is a table prefixed to each volume, that comprises the\ncontents thereof, laid down in such a form, as that the reader may\neasily see the heads of argument, under every question, in their proper\nmethod and connexion.\n\nAnd, at the end, there is an index of scriptures, in which only those\nare inserted that are either more largely or concisely explained. This,\ntogether with the table, was drawn up by a kind brother, which I\nthankfully acknowledge, as having afforded me more leisure to attend to\nthe work itself.[1]\n\nAs to what concerns the second edition,[2] it was undertaken at the\nrequest of some who did not expect that the former would be so soon out\nof print. That which gives me great satisfaction is, the acceptance it\nhas met with from many judicious divines and others, in North-Britain;\nand I cannot but reckon the honour that the learned professors in the\nuniversity of Aberdeen did me, in signifying their approbation of it,\nmuch more to be desired, than the highest titles that could have been\nconferred upon me without it.\n\nI have nothing farther to trouble the reader with in this preface; but\nwould only request of him, that, what thoughts soever he may entertain\nconcerning the way in which I have endeavoured to state and defend some\ngreat and important truths, he would search the scriptures, and explain\nthem agreeably to the divine perfections, and not think the worse of the\ngospel, which stands upon a firmer basis, than the weak efforts of\nfallible men, who use their best endeavours to defend it. If we had not\na surer rule of faith, than the methods of human reasoning, religion\nwould be a matter of great uncertainty, and we should be in danger of\nbeing _tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of\ndoctrine_. But our best security against this, will be our having hearts\nestablished with grace, and rightly disposed to make a practical\nimprovement of what we learn; and, if we are enabled to follow on to\nknow the Lord with minds free from prejudice, and, if under a due sense\nof our weakness, we humbly present our supplications to him, who is able\nto make us wise to salvation, we may then hope to attain to that\nknowledge of the truth, as it is in Jesus, which shall be attended with\npeace and comfort here, and crowned with blessedness and glory\nhereafter.\n\nMay the great God, in whose hand is the life and usefulness of all men,\nsucceed, with his blessing, what is humbly offered to his service, so\nfar as it is adapted thereunto, and approved of by him, that hereby it\nmay be conducive to the spiritual advantage of professing families, and\nthe rising generation.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  _And besides the above-mentioned Indexes there are now added to this\n  edition an alphabetical index to the whole matters contained in the\n  work._\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  _And the same reason may be assigned why this third is now offered to\n  the public._\n\n\n\n\n                   THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.\n\n\nQUEST. I. Of glorifying God, and the enjoyment of him.\n\n\n_With what distinction the glorifying and enjoyment of God may both be\nsaid to be man\u2019s chief and highest end_, _Page_ 13\n\n_What it is to glorify God_ _ibid_\n\n    _How God glorifies himself_ _ibid_\n\n    _How creatures glorify him_ 14\n\n_What it is to enjoy God_ 17\n\n    _The connexion between glorifying God and the enjoyment of him_ 18\n\n_Contentedness to perish, that God may be glorified, unjustly made a\nmark of grace_ 19\n\n_To be quickened to duty by a respect to the heavenly glory, no sign of\na mercenary spirit_ 20\n\n\nQUEST. II. Of the Being of a God.\n\n\n_Reasons why we should be able to prove this by arguments_ 21\n\n_The Being of a God may be evinced, From the light of nature_ _ibid_\n\n    _What meant thereby_ _ibid_\n\n    _How it proves the Being of a God_ 22\n\n_From the works of creation_ 24\n\n    _from creatures below man_ 32\n\n    _from the structure of man\u2019s body_ 33\n\n    _from the nature of his soul_ 34\n\n    _from the nature and office of conscience_ 35\n\n    _from the boundless desires of the soul_ 37\n\n_From the consent of all nations_ _ibid_\n\n    _Objection, That there have been some speculative_ Atheists,\n    _answered_ 38\n\n    _The belief of a God took not its rise from human policy_ 40\n\n    _It was not propagated merely by tradition_ _ibid_\n\n_From the works of providence_ 41\n\n_From the foretelling future events_ 42\n\n_From the provision made for all_ 43\n\n    _Particularly for man\u2019s safety_ 44\n\n_The objections taken from the prosperity of the wicked, answered_ 45\n\n_Nothing short of revelation sufficient to give a saving discovery of\nGod_ 47\n\n\nQUEST. III. Of the Holy Scripture.\n\n\n_The names given to it_ 48\n\n    _Why called a Testament_ 50\n\n_How the want of a written word was supplied to the church before_ Moses\n52\n\n_Whether the church, under the Old Testament, understood the spiritual\nmeaning of the laws contained in it_ 53\n\n_Whether the prophets understood their own predictions_ 54\n\n_How far the Old Testament is still a rule_ 56\n\n_How the scriptures are a complete revelation of the will of God_ 58\n\n_The scripture a sufficient rule of faith and obedience_ 59\n\n    _Its properties as a rule_ 61\n\n    _It is the only rule_ _ibid_\n\n_Human traditions of no divine authority_ 62\n\n    _The Popish doctrine of them confuted_ _ibid_\n\n_The Canon of scripture preserved entire_ 65\n\n    _Is not perverted_ 66\n\n\nQUEST. IV. Of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures.\n\n\n_In what respects called divine_ 69\n\n_A divine revelation necessary_ 71\n\n_Not contrary to God\u2019s perfections_ _ibid_\n\n_Inspiration not impossible_ 72\n\n_The scripture proved to be the word of God_ _ibid_\n\n_From the majesty of its style_ 73\n\n_From the purity of its doctrines_ 74\n\n    _Its holiness considered absolutely_ _ibid_\n\n    _And as compared with other writings_ 76\n\n_From the harmony of all its parts_ 78\n\n_Dr. Paley on the genuineness of the scriptures, in a note_ 79\n\n    _Its harmony shewn in the accomplishment of many predictions_ 86\n\n    _It doth not contradict itself_ 87\n\n    _Various objections answered_ 88\n\n    _Rules for reconciling seeming contradictions in scripture_ 94\n\n        _Grotius on their authority, in a note_ 97\n\n_From its scope and design_ 98\n\n_From the character of the penmen_ 102\n\n    _These were faithful_ _ibid_\n\n    _They were not imposed on_ 106\n\n    _How they might know they were under inspiration_ 108\n\n    _They mistook not the devil\u2019s impressions for divine revelation_ 109\n\n    _The words as well as matter of scripture were given by inspiration_\n    110\n\n_From its antiquity and preservation_ 112\n\n_From the testimony of God by miracles_ _ibid_\n\n    _Two objections answered_ 114, 115\n\n    _By the conviction and conversion of sinners_ 116\n\n_How Christians come to a full persuasion of the divinity of scripture_\n118\n\n_The inward testimony of the Spirit explained_ _ibid_\n\n\nQUEST. V, VI. The principal matters contained in scripture.\n\n\nQUEST. VII. Of the nature and perfections of God.\n\n\n_How we may conceive aright of the divine perfections_ _ibid_\n\n_Of the communicable and incommunicable perfections of God_ 122\n\n_Nothing common between God and the creature_ _ibid_\n\n_God is a Spirit; what a Spirit is_ 123\n\n    _Difference between other spiritual substances and God_ 124\n\n    _Independent_ 124. _Infinitely perfect_ 126\n\n    _All-sufficient_ 127. _When this perfection is in effect denied_ 127\n\n    _Eternal_ 129. _His eternal duration not successive_ 132. _How the\n    parts of time are attributed to God_ 133\n\n    _Immutable. When immutability is a perfection. How peculiar to God_\n    135. _Arguments to prove him so_ 136\n\n    _Incomprehensible_ 138\n\n    _Omnipresent_ 139, _and Almighty_ 140\n\n        _Wherein his power appears_ 141\n\n        _What things God cannot do_ 142\n\n        _The improvement of this subject_ 143\n\n    _Omniscient_ 145. _He knows all future contingencies_ 147\n\n        _Properties of God\u2019s knowledge_ 149. _Its improvement_ 150\n\n        _When it is practically denied_, _ibid_.\n\n    _Wisdom of God infinite_ 152\n\n    _Different from knowledge_ _ibid_\n\n    _Wherein it appears_ _ibid_\n\n    _In Creation_ 154. _Providence_ 155. _Redemption_ 156\n\n    _In the constant government of the church_ _ibid_\n\n    _Inferences from God\u2019s wisdom_ 158\n\n_Holiness of God infinite_ 159\n\n    _What it is_, _ibid_. _Instances of it_ 160\n\n    _His suffering the entrance of sin, was no refection on it_ 161\n\n    _\u2019Tis the standard of doctrines_ 162\n\n    _Instances of doctrines which lead to licentiousness_ 162, 163\n\n    _When God\u2019s holiness is contemned_ 163\n\n_Justice of God infinite_ 164\n\n    _How distinguished from his holiness_ _ibid_\n\n    _Glory, how called a reward_ 167\n\n    _Afflictions of believers not properly a punishment_ _ibid_\n\n_Mercy and grace of God infinite_ 168\n\n    _Difference between goodness, mercy, grace, and patience_ 169\n\n    _Mercy is either common or special_ 171\n\n    _Grace free and sovereign_ 172\n\n        _Discriminating_ 173. _Instances of it_, _ibid_. _Afflictions\n        not inconsistent with it_ 174\n\n        _Leads not to licentiousness_ _ibid_\n\n_Patience of God, what it is_ 176\n\n    _Whether devils are objects of it_ _ibid_\n\n    _Instances of God\u2019s patience_ 178\n\n    _Wherein manifested to the wicked_ 179\n\n    _Not inconsistent with justice_ 181\n\n    _How to be improved_ 183\n\n    _By whom it is abused_ 184\n\n_Truth, God is abundant therein_ 186\n\n    _How he is called a God of truth_ 187\n\n_Faithfulness of God_, _ibid_. _No impeachment hereof that some\nthreatenings have not been executed_ 188. _Nor that some promises have\nnot presently been performed_ 190\n\n    _How this perfection is to be improved_ 191\n\n\nQUEST. VIII. Of the Unity of the Godhead.\n\n\n_How God is styled the living God_ 194\n\n_Unity of the Godhead proved_ _ibid_\n\n    _Abernethy on that subject, in a note_ 197\n\n    _Was not denied by the wiser Heathen_ 200\n\n    _Inferences from it_ 202\n\n    _How we should conceive of it_ 203\n\n_Different modes used in speaking of the perfections of God_ 204\n\n\nQUEST. IX, X, XI. Of the Doctrine of the Trinity.\n\n\n_Calvin on the word Person, in a note_ 207\n\n_The doctrine of the highest importance_ 209\n\n    _How to determine the importance of a doctrine_ 211\n\n    _What knowledge of it necessary to salvation_ 213\n\n_It is a great mystery_, 214. _What a mystery is_, _ibid_.\n\n_It is incomprehensible_ 216\n\n        _Dr. Bates on mysteries_, in a note 217\n\n    _Objections on this account answered_ 220\n\n    _Whether to receive it be to use words without ideas_ _ibid_\n\n    _Whether the revelation of it be unintelligible_ 221\n\n    _Whether that which is unintelligible be the object of faith_ 222\n\n_How this doctrine promotes religion_ 223\n\n    _In what sense revelation is an improvement of the light of nature_\n    224\n\n_Not contrary to reason, though above it_ 226\n\n    _When a doctrine is contrary to reason_ _ibid_\n\n_It is not chargeable with Tritheism_ 227\n\n    _The use of reason in proving doctrines of pure revelation_ 229\n\n_It cannot be known by the light of nature_ 230\n\n    _How it was made known to_ Adam _ibid_\n\n    _Whether the heathen knew it_ 231\n\n        _Whitaker on the word_ Logos _used by the Jews_, in a note 233\n\nTrinity, _not to be illustrated by similitudes_ 235\n\n    _Rules for interpreting scriptures relating to it_ 236\n\n    _The word_ Trinity _explained_ 239\n\nPerson, _the word explained_ 239\n\n    _The difference between divine and human persons_ 242\n\n_Sacred Three, in what respect One_ 243\n\n        _Dr. Jamieson on the Trinity_, in a note 243\n\n    _How their glory equal, how the same_ _ibid_\n\n_Personality of the Son_, 248. _Of the Spirit_ 250\n\n    _Not metaphorically ascribed to either_ 252\n\n_Eternal generation of the Son, how understood by many_ 259\n\n    _Another method of accounting for it_ 261\n\n    _This account thereof proved_ 264\n\n    _Scriptures relating to Christ\u2019s sonship explained_ 274\n\n    _Christ\u2019s sonship as Mediator, considered_ 276\n\n    _Another view of the subject_, in a note 279\n\n_Procession of the Spirit, how understood by many_, 260. _What it is_\n261\n\n    _The scripture doctrine of it_ 280\n\n_\u0152conomy of the sacred Three explained_ 291\n\n    _How distinct works are ascribed to them_ 292\n\n_The Deity of the Son proved_ _ibid_\n\n_From his divine names_ 295\n\n    Jehovah _God\u2019s incommunicable name_ 296\n\n        _Never given to creatures_ 297\n\n        _It is not applied to angels_ 301\n\n        _Christ\u2019s Deity proved from it_ 302\n\n    God _and_ Lord, _how applied in scripture_ 304\n\n        _Christ\u2019s Deity proved thereby_ 306\n\n        _This argued from_ 1 Tim. iii. 16. 311\n\n        _And from_ Acts xx. 28. 313. Rom. ix. 5. _ibid_.\n\n        _From_ 1 John v. 20. 315. Isa. ix. 6. 317\n\n        _From_ Titus ii. 13. _ibid_. John xx. 28. 319\n\n    _When the word_ God _is used absolutely_ 321\n\n        _Its meaning when so used_ 321\n\n    _In what sense Christ is styled God by the_ Socinians 322\n\n_From the ascription of the divine nature to him in_ Col. ii. 9. 325\n\n    _In_ Philip, ii. 6. _this explained and defended_ 326\n\n    _Genuineness of_ 1 John v. 7. _defended_ 329\n\n_From his conference with the_ Jews 335\n\n_From his Attributes_ 342\n\n    _Eternity_, 343. _Immutability_, _ibid_.\n\n    _Omnipresence_ 345\n\n        _This proved from_ John iii. 13. 347\n\n    _Omniscience_, 349. _Objections answered_ 350\n\n    _Omnipotency_ 352\n\n_From his glorious titles_ 353\n\n_From his work of creation_ 357\n\n        _The_ Socinian _account thereof_ 359\n\n    _Christ no instrument in creation_ 361\n\n    _How the Father made the world by him_ 362\n\n    _Men only moral instruments in miracles_ 365\n\n_From his works of providence_ 366\n\n    _Christ the Governor of all things_ 367\n\n_From his acting as Judge_ 368\n\n    _Subserviency of his kingdom to the Father_ 371\n\n    _Christ as Mediator below, yet equal with the Father_ 374\n\n    _Inferiority of Christ, how to be understood in scripture_ 376\n\n_From the worship paid him_ 377\n\n    _Christ the Object of religious worship_ 379\n\n_From Baptism_ 382\n\n_From the doxologies applied to him_ 386\n\n    Anti-Trinitarians _differ about the worship due to Christ_ 388\n\n_Right to divine worship is incommunicable_ 389\n\n    _Objections against the deity of Christ answered_ 391\n\n    _Dr. Priestley\u2019s disingenuity_, in a note 397\n\n_Of the divinity of the Holy Ghost_ 398\n\n    _His divinity proved_ _ibid_\n\n    _From_ Acts v. 3, 4. 400\n\n    _From his divine Attributes_ 404\n\n    _From his divine works_ 405\n\n        _Such works performed by him_ 407\n\n    _From the worship given to him_ 408\n\n        _Objections answered_ 410\n\n_Practical inferences from the doctrine of the Trinity_ 414\n\n\nQUEST. XII, XIII. Of God\u2019s Decrees.\n\n\n_Some things premised in general_ 417\n\n    _Dissuasives from prejudices_ 419\n\n_The general method laid down_ 421\n\n_In what sense God fore-ordained all things_ 422\n\n    _That he did so, proved_ 424\n\n        _Dr. Smalley on the origin of sin_ 425\n\n_Purpose of God free, wise, holy_ 432\n\n    _How it renders salvation necessary_ 484\n\n    _It is unchangeable_ 481\n\n    _Repentance, how ascribed to God_ 483\n\n_Predestination, the word explained_ 433\n\n    _Consequences of denying it_ 499\n\n_Election, the word explained_ 434\n\n    _How used in the Old Testament_ 438\n\n    _How in the New_ 441\n\n    Fathers, _their sense about this doctrine_ 507\n\n_Election to salvation asserted in scripture_ 442\n\n    _Churches, how styled elect_ 443\n\n_Chosen, part of mankind were so_ 447\n\n        _These styled a_ Remnant 449\n\n    _A Remnant chosen out of the_ Jews 450\n\n    _Men elected to sanctification as well as salvation_ 461\n\n    Acts xiii. 48. _explained and defended_ 463\n\n    _Men chosen in Christ_ 467\n\nSupra-lapsarian _and_ Sub-lapsarian _schemes differ_ 446\n\n_Proofs of the doctrine of Election_ _ibid._\n\n        _from God\u2019s fore-knowledge_ 452\n\n        _from his giving the means of grace_ 454\n\n    Jacob _loved_, Esau _hated, explained_ 456\n\n        _Objections answered_ 458\n\n    _The opposite doctrine, how defended_ 501\n\n_Properties of Election_ 469\n\n    _Misrepresentations of it answered_ 465\n\n_Reprobation, how to be explained_ 486\n\n    _Preterition a branch of it_ (vide the note, 529) 488\n\n_Predamnation considered from_ Jude, _ver._ 4. 491\n\n    Rom. ix. 22. and xi. 7-10. _explained_ 492\n\n    2 Thes. ii. 11, 12. Psal. lxxxi. 12. John xii. 39, 40. _explained_\n    494\n\n_Wicked, how made for the day of evil_ 495\n\n_Will of God secret and revealed_ 471\n\n    _Is free, sovereign, and unconditional_ 476\n\n    _Its absoluteness_ 477\n\n    _That it is conditional, cannot be proved from scripture_ 480\n\n    _Conditional propositions, how understood there_ 479\n\n    _How God will have all saved_ 501\n\n_Expectation of God not disappointed by the will of man_ 505\n\n    _God not really disappointed, grieved, or resisted_ 506\n\n_Bounds of life fixed by him_ 508\n\n_Stoical fate, how it differs from God\u2019s decrees_ 516\n\n_Objections against Election answered_ 507\n\n    _Practical improvement of it_ 526\n\n_Dr. Williams on election_, in a note 529\n\n\n\n\n                           THE INTRODUCTION.\n\n\n_Before we enter on our present undertaking, we shall premise a few\nthings leading to the subject matter thereof; and that we may begin with\nwhat is most obvious, let it be considered,_\n\n_I. That it is a duty incumbent on all who profess the Christian name,\nto be well acquainted with those great doctrines on which our faith,\nhope, and worship are founded; for, without the knowledge hereof, we\nmust necessarily be at a loss as to the way of salvation, which none has\na right to prescribe, but he who is the author thereof._[3]\n\n_II. This knowledge of divine truth must be derived from the holy\nscriptures, which are the only fountain of spiritual wisdom, whereby we\nare instructed in those things that could have been known no other way,\nbut by divine revelation._\n\n_III. It will be of singular use for us not only to know the doctrines\nthat are contained in scripture; but to observe their connexion and\ndependence on one another, and to digest them into such a method, that\nsubsequent truths may give light to them that went before; or to lay\nthem down in such a way, that the whole scheme of religion may be\ncomprised in a narrow compass, and, as it were, beheld with one view,\nwhich will be a very great help to memory: and this is what we call a\nsystem of divine truths, or a methodical collection of the chief\narticles of our religion, adapted to the capacity of those who need to\nbe taught the first principles of the oracles of God: and if they are\ndesigned to give the world a specimen of that form of sound words, which\nthe church thinks itself obliged to hold fast, and stedfastly to adhere\nto, then we call it a confession of faith; or, if digested into\nquestions and answers, we call it a catechism. And though systems of\ndivinity, confessions of faith, and catechisms, are treated with\ncontempt, instead of better arguments, by many who are no friends to the\ndoctrines which they contain, and who appear to be partial in their\nresentment, in as much as they do not dislike those treatises which are\nagreeable to their own sentiments, by whatever name they are called; yet\nwe are bound to conclude that the labours of those who have been happy\nin the sense they have given of scripture, and the method in which they\nhave explained the doctrines thereof, in what form soever they have\nbeen, are a great blessing to us; though we are far from concluding that\nthey are of equal authority with scripture, or that every word which\nthey use is infallible; nor do we regard them any farther than as they\nare agreeable to, or sufficiently proved from scripture._\n\n_IV. Confessions of faith and catechisms are not to be reckoned a novel\ninvention, or not consonant to the scripture rule, since they are\nnothing else but a peculiar way of preaching or instructing us in divine\ntruths. Therefore, since scripture lays down no certain invariable rule\nconcerning this matter, the same command that warrants preaching the\nword in any method, includes the explaining of it, as occasion serves,\nin a catechetical one._\n\n_V. As there are many excellent bodies of divinity printed in our own\nand foreign languages, and collections of sermons on the principal heads\nthereof; so there are various catechisms, or methodical summaries of\ndivine truths, which, when consonant to scripture, are of great\nadvantage to all Christians, whether elder or younger._\n\n_VI. The catechisms composed by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster,\nare esteemed as not inferior to any that are extant, either in our own\nor foreign languages, the doctrines therein contained being of the\nhighest importance, and consonant to scripture; and the method in which\nthey are laid down is so agreeable, that it may serve as a directory for\nthe ranging our ideas of the common heads of divinity in such an order,\nthat what occurs under each of them may be reduced to its proper place.\nIt is the_ larger _of them that we have attempted to explain and\nregulate our method by; because it contains several heads of divinity\nnot touched on in the_ shorter. _And if, in any particular instance, we\nare obliged to recede from the common mode of speaking, (though it is to\nbe hoped not from the common faith, once delivered to the saints) we\nsubmit our reasoning to the judgment of those who are disposed to pardon\nless mistakes, and improve what comes with sufficient evidence to the\nbest purposes._\n\n_The work indeed is large, but the vast variety of subjects will render\nit more tolerable; the form in which it appears is somewhat differing\nfrom that in which it was first delivered, in a public audience, though\nthat may probably be no disadvantage to it, especially since it is\nrather designed to be read in families than committed to memory, and\nrepeated by different persons, as it has been. The plainness of the\nstyle may contribute to its usefulness; and its being less embarrassed\nwith scholastic terms than some controversial writings are, may render\nit more intelligible to private Christians, whose instruction and\nadvantage is designed thereby. It would be too great a vanity to expect\nthat it should pass through the world without that censure which is\ncommon to all attempts of the like nature, since men\u2019s sentiments in\ndivinity differ as much as their faces; and some are not disposed to\nweigh those arguments that are brought to support any scheme of\ndoctrine, which differs from what they have before received. However,\nthe work comes forth with this advantage, that it has already conflicted\nwith some of the difficulties it is like to meet with, as well as been\nfavoured with some success, and therefore the event hereof is left in\nhis hand whose cause and truth is endeavoured to be maintained._\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  \u201cCHRISTIANITY,\u201d it hath been said, \u201cis not founded in argument.\u201d If it\n  were only meant by these words, that the religion of Jesus could not,\n  by the single aid of reasoning, produce its full effect upon the\n  heart; every true Christian would cheerfully subscribe to them. No\n  arguments unaccompanied by the influences of the Holy Spirit, can\n  convert the soul from sin to God; though even to such conversion,\n  arguments are, by the agency of the Spirit, rendered subservient.\n  Again, if we were to understand by this aphorism, that the principles\n  of our religion could never have been discovered, by the natural and\n  unassisted faculties of man; this position, I presume would be as\n  little disputed as the former. But if, on the contrary, under the\n  cover of an ambiguous expression, it is intended to insinuate, that\n  those principles, from their very nature, can admit no rational\n  evidence of their truth, (and this, by the way, is the only meaning\n  which can avail our antagonists) the gospel, as well as common sense,\n  loudly reclaims against it.\n\n  \u201cThe Lord JESUS CHRIST, the author of our religion, often argued, both\n  with his disciples and with his adversaries, as with reasonable men,\n  on the principles of reason, without this faculty, he well knew, they\n  could not be susceptible either of religion or of law. He argued from\n  prophecy, and the conformity of the event to the prediction. Luke\n  xxiv. 25, &c. John v. 39, & 46. He argued from the testimony of John\n  the Baptist, who was generally acknowledged to be a prophet. John v.\n  32, & 33. He argued from the miracles which he himself performed, John\n  v. 36. x. 25, 37, 38. xiv. 10, 11. as uncontrovertible evidences, that\n  GOD Almighty operated by him, and had sent him. He expostulates with\n  his enemies, that they did not use their reason on this subject.\n  _Why_, says he, _even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?_ Luke\n  xii. 57. In like manner we are called upon by the apostles of our\n  Lord, to act the part of _wise men_ and _judge_ impartially of _what_\n  they _say_. 1 Cor. x. 15. Those who do so, are highly commended, for\n  the candour and prudence they discover, in an affair of so great\n  consequence. Acts xvii. 11. We are even commanded, to be _always ready\n  to give an answer to every man that asketh_ us _a reason of our hope_;\n  1 Pet. iii. 15. _in meekness to instruct them that oppose themselves_;\n  2 Tim. ii. 25. _and earnestly_ to _contend for the faith which was\n  once delivered to the saints_. Jude 3. God has neither in natural nor\n  revealed religion, _left himself without a witness_; but has in both\n  given moral and external evidence, sufficient to convince the\n  impartial, to silence the gainsayer, and to render inexcusable the\n  atheist and the unbeliever. This evidence it is our duty to attend to,\n  and candidly to examine. We must _prove all things_, as we are\n  expressly enjoined in holy writ, if we would ever hope to _hold fast\n  that which is_ good. 1 Thess. v. 21.\u201d\n\n  CAMPBELL.\n\n\n\n\n                               Quest. I.\n\n\n    QUEST. I. _What is the chief and highest end of man?_\n\n    ANSW. Man\u2019s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to\n    enjoy him for ever.\n\n\n1. It is supposed, in this answer, that every intelligent creature,\nacting as such, designs some end, which excites endeavours to attain it.\n\n2. The ends for which we act, if warrantable, may be considered as to\ntheir degree of excellency, and, in proportion to it, are to be pursued\nby proper means conducing thereto.\n\n3. There is one that may be termed the chief and highest end, as having\nan excellency and tendency to make us blessed above all others: this\nconsists, as it is observed in this answer, in the glorifying and\neternal enjoyment of God, the fountain of blessedness.\n\nIf it be enquired with what propriety these may both be called chief and\nhighest, the answer is obvious and easy, _viz._ That the former is\nabsolutely so, beyond which nothing more excellent or desirable can be\nconceived; the latter is the highest or best in its kind, which,\nnotwithstanding, is referred, as a means leading to the other; and both\nthese ends, which, with this distinction, we call chief and highest, are\nto be particularly considered by us, together with the connexion that\nthere is between them.[4]\n\nI. We are to consider what it is to glorify God. In order to our\nunderstanding of this, let it be premised,\n\n1. That there is a great difference between God\u2019s glorifying himself and\nour glorifying him; he glorifies himself when he demonstrates or shews\nforth his glory; we glorify him by ascribing to him the glory that is\nhis due: even as the sun discovers its brightness by its rays, and the\neye beholds it. God glorifies himself, by furnishing us with matter for\npraise; we glorify him when we offer praise, or give unto him the glory\ndue to his name.\n\n2. Creatures are said to glorify God various ways: some things do it\nonly objectively, as by them, angels and men are led to glorify him;\nthus _the heavens declare his glory_, Psal. xix. 1. The same might be\nsaid of all other inanimate creatures which glorify God, by answering\nthe end of their creation, though they know it not: but intelligent\ncreatures, and particularly men, are said to glorify God actively; and\nthis they do by admiring and adoring his divine perfections: these, as\nincomprehensible, are the object of admiration; and accordingly the\napostle admires the divine wisdom, Rom. xi. 33. _O the depth of the\nriches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are\nhis judgments, and his ways past finding out!_ and as they are divine,\nso they are the object of adoration: God is to be admired in all the\ndisplays of his relative or manifestative glory; and _his work which men\nbehold_, is to be _magnified_, Job xxxvi. 24. But he is to be adored\nmore especially for his essential perfections.\n\nWe are to glorify God, by recommending, proclaiming, and setting forth\nhis excellency to others. What we have the highest value for, we desire\nthat others may have the same regard to it with ourselves: thus it is\nobserved by the evangelist, that when the disciples received their first\nconviction that Jesus was the Messiah, they imparted this to others; as\nAndrew to Peter, and Philip to Nathanael, John i. 41, 45. so the woman\nof Samaria being convinced hereof, endeavoured to persuade all her\nneighbours to believe in him, as she did, John iv. 28, 29. Thus we\nglorify God by making mention of his name with reverence, proclaiming\nhis goodness with thankfulness, and inviting others, as the Psalmist\ndoes, Psal. xxxiv. 8. to _taste and see that he is good_.\n\nBut since this is a very comprehensive duty including in it the whole of\npractical religion, it may be considered under the following\nparticulars.\n\n1. We glorify God by confessing and taking shame to ourselves for all\nthe sins we have committed, which is interpretatively to acknowledge the\nholiness of his nature, and of his law, which the apostle asserts to be\n_holy, just, and good_, Rom. vii. 12. This Joshua advises Achan to do;\n_to give glory to God, by making confession to him_, Josh. vii. 19. And\nthus the penitent thief, who was crucified with our Saviour, glorified\nGod, by confessing that he received the _due reward of his deeds_, Luke\nxxiii. 40, 41. So did the Levites, in their prayer recorded by Nehemiah,\nwhen they said to God, _Thou art just in all that is brought upon us,\nfor thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly_, Neh. ix. 33.\n\n2. By loving and delighting in him above all things, which is to act as\nthose who own the transcendent amiableness of his perfections, as the\nobject of their highest esteem. Thus the Psalmist says, Psal. lxxiii.\n25. _Whom have I in heaven but thee; and there is none_, or nothing,\n_upon earth, that I desire besides thee_.\n\n3. By believing and trusting in him, committing all our concerns, both\nin life and death, for time and eternity, into his hands: thus Abraham\nis said _to be strong in faith, giving glory to God_, Rom. iv. 20. And\nthe apostle Paul, 2 Tim. i. 12. to have _committed his all to him_.\n\n4. By a fervent zeal for his honour; and that either for the honour of\nhis truth and gospel, when denied, disbelieved, or perverted; or for the\nhonour of his holiness, or any of his other perfections, when they are\nreflected on, or reproached, either by the tongues or actions of those\nwho set themselves against him.\n\n5. By improving our talents, and bringing forth fruit in proportion to\nthe means we enjoy; _herein_, says our Saviour, _is my Father glorified,\nthat ye bear much fruit_, John xv. 8.\n\n6. By walking humbly, thankfully, and chearfully before God. Humility\nacknowledges that infinite distance which is between him and us; retains\na due sense of our own unworthiness of all we have or hope for; and owns\nevery thing we receive to be the gift of grace; _By the grace of God_,\nsays the apostle, _I am what I am_, 1 Cor. xv. 10. Thankfulness gives\nhim the glory, as the author of every mercy; and accordingly sets a due\nvalue on it, in that respect. And to walk chearfully before him, is to\nrecommend his service as most agreeable, whereby we discover that we do\nnot repent that we were engaged therein; which is what the Psalmist\nintends, when he says, Psal. c. 2. _Serve the Lord with gladness_.\n\n7. By heavenly-mindedness; when we desire to be with him to behold his\nglory. To which we must add, that all this is to be done in the name of\nChrist, our great Mediator, and by strength derived from him.\n\n8. As we are to glorify God, by yielding obedience to his commanding\nwill, as in the aforesaid instances, so we are to do it by an entire\nsubmission to his disposing will; particularly, when under afflictive\ndispensations of providence, we must own his sovereignty and right to\n_do what he will with us as his own_, Matth. xx. 15. and that these\nafflictions are infinitely _less than our iniquities deserve_, Ezra ix.\n13. And we must adore his wisdom and goodness in trying our graces\nhereby, and dealing with us in such a way as is _needful_, and that only\n_for a season_, 1 Pet. i. 6. And we are to own his goodness in suiting\nour strength to our burdens, and over-ruling all this for our spiritual\nadvantage. It also consists in an easy, patient, and contented frame of\nspirit, without the least murmuring or repining thought; concluding,\nthat whatever he does is _well done_, Psal. cxix. 65. And, which is\nsomething more, in rejoicing that we are counted worthy to suffer the\nloss of all things, yea, even of life itself, if called to it, for his\nsake; of which we have various instances in scripture, Acts v. 41. Heb.\nx. 34. Acts xx. 24.\n\nMoreover, we ought to glorify God in all the natural, civil, and\nreligious actions of life, which are to be consecrated or devoted to\nhim. We enjoy the blessings of life to no purpose if we do not live to\nthe Lord, and thankfully acknowledge that we receive them all from his\nhand; and whatever the calling be, wherewith we are called, we must\ntherein abide with him, and see that we have his warrant to engage in\nit, and expect success from his blessing attending it, or else it will\nbe to no purpose. Thus says Moses, _It is the Lord thy God that giveth\nthee power to get wealth_, Deut. viii. 18. And, in all our dealings with\nmen, we are to consider ourselves as under the inspection of the\nall-seeing eye of God, to whom we are accountable for all we do, and\nshould be induced hereby, to exercise ourselves always to keep\nconsciences void of offence towards God and man.\n\nAs for religious duties, wherein we have more immediately to do with\nGod, we are to glorify him, by taking up a profession of religion in\ngeneral, as being influenced by his authority, encouraged by his\npromised assistance, and approving ourselves to him, as the searcher of\nhearts: and we must take heed that we do not rest in an outward form or\nshew of godliness, without the power thereof; or in having a name to\nlive without a principal of spiritual life, by which we may be enabled\nto put forth living and spiritual actions agreeable thereunto: and all\nthese religious duties must be performed by faith, whereby we depend on\nChrist, our great Mediator, both for assistance and acceptance; by which\nmeans we glorify him, as the fountain of all grace, in whom alone both\nour persons and services are accepted in the sight of God, and redound\nto his glory. And this is to be done at all times; so that when our\nthoughts are not directly conversant about any of the divine\nperfections, as it often happens, when we are engaged in some of the\nmore minute, or indifferent actions of life; yet we are to glorify him\nhabitually, as having our hearts right with him; so that whatever we do\nmay refer ultimately to his glory. As every step the traveller takes is\ntoward his journey\u2019s end, though it may not be every moment in his\nthoughts; so the less important actions of life should be subservient to\nthose that are of greater consequence, in which the honour of God and\nreligion is more immediately concerned; in which sense we maybe said to\nglorify him therein.\n\nThus having considered, that it is our indispensable duty to make the\nglory of God our highest end in all our actions, we might farther add,\nas a motive to enforce it, that God is the first cause of all things,\nand his own glory was the end he designed in all his works, whether of\ncreation or providence: and it is certain, that this is the most\nexcellent end we can propose to ourselves; therefore the most valuable\nactions of life ought to be referred to it, and our hearts most set upon\nit; otherwise we act below the dignity of our nature; and, while other\ncreatures, designed only to glorify him objectively, answer the end for\nwhich they were made, we, by denying him that tribute of praise which is\ndue from us, abuse our superior faculties, and live in vain.\n\nII. The next thing to be considered is what it is to enjoy God.\n\n1. This supposes a propriety in, or claim to him, as our God. We cannot\nbe said to enjoy that which we have no right or claim to, as one man\ncannot be said to enjoy an estate which belongs to another; so God must\nbe our God in covenant, or we cannot enjoy him; and that he is so, with\nrespect to all that fear him, is evident, inasmuch as he gives them\nleave to say, Psal. xlviii. 14, _This God is our God_; and, Psal. lxvii,\n6. _God, even our God, shall bless us_.\n\n2. To enjoy God, is to have a special gracious communion with him, to\nconverse or walk with him, and to delight in him; as when we can say, 1\nJohn i. 3. _Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son\nJesus Christ_. This enjoyment of God, or communion with him, is,\n\n(1.) That which we are blessed with in this world, which is but\nimperfect, as we know and love him but in part, and our communion with\nhim is often interrupted and weakened, through the prevalency of\nindwelling sin: and that joy and delight which arises from thence is\noften clouded and sullied; and, at best, we enjoy him here but in a\nmediate way, in and under his ordinances, as agreeable to this present\nstate.\n\n(2.) Believers shall enjoy him perfectly and immediately in heaven,\nwithout intermission or abatement, and that for ever; this is called,\n_Seeing him as he is_, 1 John iii. 2. and being _with him where he is,\nto behold his glory_, John xvii. 24. And in order hereto, their souls\nshall be made capable or receptive hereof, by the removal not only of\nall sinful but natural imperfections, and shall be more enlarged, as\nwell as have brighter discoveries of the divine glory: and this shall be\nattended with a perfect freedom from all the consequences of sin; such\nas sorrow, divine desertion, and the many evils that attend us in this\npresent life; as well as from all temptations to it. So that their\nhappiness shall be confirmed and secured to them, and that with this\nadvantage, that it shall be impossible for them to be dispossessed of\nit. This is certainly the most desirable end, next to the glory of God,\nthat can be intended or pursued by us.[5]\n\nIII. This leads us to consider the connexion that there is between our\nglorifying God and enjoyment of him. God has joined these two together,\nso that one shall not be attained without the other. It is the highest\npresumption to expect to be made happy with him for ever, without living\nto his glory here. For in as much as heaven is a state of perfect\nblessedness, they, who shall hereafter be possessed of it, must be\ntrained up, or made meet for it; which is the grand design of all the\nmeans of grace. How preposterous would it be to suppose, that they, who\nhave no regard to the honour of God here, shall be crowned with glory,\nhonour, immortality, and eternal life, in his presence hereafter!\nTherefore a life of holiness is absolutely necessary to the heavenly\nblessedness; and since these two are so connected together, they who\nexperience the one, shall not fail of the other; for this is secured to\nthem by the faithfulness of God, who has promised to give _grace and\nglory_, Psal. lxxxiv. 11. Therefore, _he who begins a good work in them,\nwill perform it_, Phil. i. 6. and give them _the end of their faith,\neven the salvation of their souls_, 1 Pet. i. 8.\n\nFrom the connexion that there is between our glorifying and enjoying\nGod, we may infer,\n\n1. That it is a very preposterous thing for any one to assign this as a\nmark of grace, that persons must be content to perish eternally, that\nGod may be glorified. It is true, it is alleged in favour of this\nsupposition, that Moses, and the apostle Paul, seem to give countenance\nto it; one by saying, Exod. xxxii. 32. _If thou wilt forgive their sin;\nand, if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of the book which thou hast\nwritten_; the other, Rom. ix. 3. _I could wish that myself were accursed\nfrom Christ, for my brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh_.\n\nBut to this it may be answered, that Moses, in desiring to be blotted\nout of the book which God had written, must not be supposed to be\nwilling to perish eternally for Israel\u2019s sake; but he is content to be\nblotted out of the book of the living, or to have his name no more\nremembered on earth; and seems to decline the honour which God had\noffered him, when he said, Exod. xxxii. 10. _Let me alone, that I may\nconsume them; and I will make of thee a great nation_; he desires not\nthe advancement of his own family, if Israel must cease to be a people,\nto whom God had promised to be a God.\n\nAs for the apostle Paul\u2019s wish, it is either, as some suppose, a rash\nand inconsiderate flight of zeal for God, and so not warrantable, though\nin some respects proceeding from a good principle; or rather, as I\nhumbly conceive the meaning is, he could wish himself accursed from\nChrist, so far as is consistent with his love; or he is content to be\nunder the external marks of God\u2019s displeasure; or deprived of the\ncomfortable sensation of his love, or many of those fruits and effects\nthereof, which the believer enjoys in this life: for I cannot, in the\nleast, think he desires to be deprived of a real interest in it, or to\nbe eternally separated from Christ, on any condition whatsoever.[6]\n\n2. Since the eternal enjoyment of God is one great end which we ought to\nhave in view, it is no sign of a mercenary spirit to have an eye to the\nheavenly glory, to quicken us to duty; seeing this is promised by God to\nthose who are faithful, thus, Psal. lxxxiii. 24. _Thou shalt guide me\nwith thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory_. The like promises\nwe have in many other scriptures, which are designed to excite our\ndesire and hope of this blessedness; therefore the exercise of these\ngraces, from such motives, is far from being unlawful: yea, it is\ncommended in the saints, who are said, Heb. xi. 16. to _desire a better\ncountry, that is, an heavenly_. And Moses is commended for having the\n_recompence of reward_ in view, when he preferred the _reproach of\nChrist_ before the _treasures of Egypt_, ver. 26.\n\nNevertheless, when this respect to future blessedness is warrantable, it\nmust be considered as an expedient for our glorifying God, while we\nbehold his glory; and when we consider it as a reward, we must not look\nupon it as what is merited by our service, or conferred in a way of\ndebt, but as a reward of grace, given freely to us, though founded on\nthe merits of Christ.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  He who glorifies God intentionally, thereby promotes his own\n  happiness. Our enjoying God is glorifying him. The two objects\n  coalesce. Vide note on page 19.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  The answer connected with this question makes the glorifying and\n  enjoyment but _one_ end; and thus the enjoyment is supposed to consist\n  in the glorifying God.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  It is not probable that the idea of a _book of life_, which is not to\n  be understood literally, was at all in use in the days of Moses. The\n  term \u03b7\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd used by Paul is not hypothetical, but affirmative, and in\n  the past tense, _I did wish_, or rather _I was wishing_ to be\n  separated from Christ. The truth of this assertion no one, who is\n  acquainted with his history, can doubt; for he had been a persecutor.\n  Such a wish, made after he was a subject of saving grace, would have\n  been unnatural, irrelevant, impious and impossible. It has been\n  nevertheless, zealously contended by some learned and pious modern\n  divines that, \u201cthe benevolent person is disposed, and willing to give\n  up, and relinquish his own interest and happiness, when inconsistent\n  with the public good, or the greatest good of the whole.\u201d[7] By\n  _benevolence_ they mean love to being in general, without regard to\n  any excellency in that being, \u201cunless mere existence\u201d[8] be such. In\n  this they place all virtue, and all religion. And that they may the\n  more clearly distinguish this species of love from that of\n  _complacency_ and _gratitude_, in which the party ever has his eye\n  upon his own advantage, they usually adopt the phrase _disinterested\n  benevolence_, yet not wholly discarding the idea of the party\u2019s own\n  interest, but viewing it only on the general scale with that of all\n  other beings.\n\n  True holiness consists in a disposition, and suitable expressions of\n  it, in conformity to the _revealed will_ of God; so far as this\n  accords with the good of the whole, such benevolence will run parallel\n  with holiness; but every attempt to substitute any other rule of\n  action or ground of obligation than the authoritatively expressed will\n  of God, approaches the crime of idolatry. It is certainly a very high\n  stand we assume, when we profess to pass by all the amiableness, and\n  excellency of the divine character; and all his goodness, and mercy to\n  us; and to love his _being_ only together with created existences,\n  with the same independent, and dignified love of benevolence, which he\n  exercises towards his helpless creatures. All the displays of his\n  perfections and compassions seem designed rather to elicit the\n  affections of _complacency_ and _gratitude_. That the advantages of\n  religion in this world, and the next may be sought from selfish, and\n  mercenary views is a lamentable truth; but because carnal minds may\n  find their own destruction in aiming at the blessings which the\n  spiritual only can enjoy, this is no reason wherefore the saints\n  should not find their ultimate interest to accompany their duty in\n  every instance. Accordingly, for their encouragement, the blessings of\n  peace, and spiritual consolations here, and of eternal happiness, are\n  exhibited to their view in glowing colours. But this would not have\n  been done if it were essential to the character of their love, that\n  they should be willing to be _separated from Christ_. That we have by\n  nature a fearful propensity to earthly good, which is vain, illusory,\n  disgusting and debasing, must be acknowledged; and that we are\n  therefore required to _deny our_ natural _selves_ is known unto every\n  Christian. But it by no means results, that because we must turn away\n  from the temptations of _temporal things_, we may not aspire to those\n  blessings which are _spiritual and eternal_. God himself is eternally\n  happy in his _own self complacency_, and has encouraged us to expect\n  everlasting happiness from the same source. Jesus Christ, whose\n  benevolence towards us is an eternal appeal to our _gratitude_, which\n  supposes a regard to our own interest; in suffering death had respect\n  also to the joy which was set before him, and shall see of the travail\n  of his soul and shall be satisfied. Love is essential to duty, without\n  which it is forced, and cannot be deemed obedience in the view of him\n  who searches the heart. This has been noticed by the Saviour, but he\n  has omitted those distinctions, which are accounted so important in\n  modern times; yet his doctrines are _not less_ spiritual, than ours\n  after we have sublimated the gospel to the highest pitch of\n  refinement.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Dr. HOPKINS.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  President EDWARDS.\n\n\n\n\n                               Quest. II.\n\n\n    QUEST. II. _How doth it appear that there is a God?_\n\n    ANSW. The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare\n    that there is a God; but his word and Spirit only, do sufficiently\n    and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.\n\n\nBefore we enter on the proof of this important doctrine, let it be\npremised, that we ought to be able to prove by arguments, or give a\nreason of our belief that there is a God.\n\n1. Because it is the foundation of all natural and revealed religion;\nand therefore it must not be received merely by tradition, as though\nthere were no other reason why we believe it, but because others do so,\nor because we have been instructed herein from our childhood; for that\nis unbecoming the dignity and importance of the subject, and would be an\ninstance of great stupidity, especially seeing we have so full and\ndemonstrative an evidence thereof, taken from the whole frame of nature;\nin which there is nothing but what affords an argument to confirm our\nbelief that there is a God.\n\n2. There is a great deal of atheism in our hearts, by reason whereof we\nare prone sometimes to call in question the being, perfections, and\nprovidence of God. To which we may also add, that the Devil frequently\ninjects atheistical thoughts into our minds; which is a great affliction\nto us, and renders it necessary that we should use all possible means\nfor our establishment in this great truth.\n\n3. The abounding of atheism in the world, and the boldness of many in\narguing against this truth, renders it necessary that we should be able\nto defend it, that we may stop the mouths of blasphemers, and so plead\nthe cause of God, and assert his being and perfections against those\nthat deny them; as Psal. xiv. 1. _The fool, who saith in his heart there\nis no God._\n\n4. This will greatly tend to establish our faith in those comfortable\ntruths that arise from our interest in him, and give us a more solid\nfoundation for our hope, as excited by his promises, which receive all\ntheir force and virtue from those perfections which are implied in the\nidea of a God.\n\n5. This will make us set a due value on his works, by which we are led\nto conclude his eternal power and Godhead, and so to admire him in them,\nJob xxxvi. 24. _Remember that thou magnify his work, which men behold._\n\nWe shall now consider those arguments mentioned in this answer, by which\nthe being of a God may be evinced; as,\n\nI. From the light of nature in man, by which we understand that reason\nwhich he is endowed with, whereby he is distinguished from, and rendered\nsuperior to, all other creatures in this lower world, whereby he is able\nto observe the connexion of things, and their dependence on one another,\nand infer those consequences which may be deduced from thence. These\nreasoning powers, indeed, are very much sullied, depraved, and weakened,\nby our apostacy from God, but not wholly obliterated; so that there are\nsome remains thereof, which are common to all nations, whereby, without\nthe help of special revelation it may be known that there is a God.\n\nBut this either respects the principle of reasoning, which we were born\nwith, upon the account whereof infants are called intelligent creatures;\nor the exercise thereof in a discursive way, in the adult, who only are\ncapable to discern this truth, which they do more or less, in proportion\nto their natural capacity, as they make advances in the knowledge of\nother things. Now for the proof of the being of a God from the light of\nnature, let the following propositions be considered in their respective\norder.\n\n1. There hath been, for many ages past, a succession of creatures in the\nworld.[9]\n\n2. These creatures could not make themselves, for that which is nothing\ncannot act; if it makes itself, it acts before it exists; it acts as a\ncreator before it exists as a creature; and it must be, in the same\nrespect, both a cause and an effect, or it must be, and not be, at the\nsame time, than which nothing can be more absurd; therefore creatures\nwere made by another, upon which account we call them creatures.\n\n3. These creatures could not make one another; for to create something\nout of nothing, or out of matter altogether unfit to be made what is\nproduced out of it, is to act above the natural powers of the creature,\nand contrary to the fixed laws of nature; and therefore is too great a\nwork for a creature, who can do nothing but in a natural way, even as an\nartificer, though he can build an house with fit materials, yet he\ncannot produce the matter out of which he builds it; nor can he build it\nof matter unfit for his purpose, as water, fire, air, &c. All creatures\nact within their own sphere, that is, in a natural way: but creation is\na supernatural work, and too great for a creature to perform; therefore\ncreatures cannot be supposed to have made one another.\n\n4. If it was supposed possible for one creature to make another, then\nsuperiors must have made inferiors; and so man, or some other\nintelligent creature, must have made the world: but where is the\ncreature that ever pretended to this power or wisdom, so as to be called\n_the Creator of the ends of the earth_.\n\n5. If any creature could make itself, or other creatures of the same\nspecies, why did he not preserve himself; for he that can give being to\nhimself, can certainly continue himself in being? or why did he not make\nhimself more perfect? Why did he make himself, and other creatures of\nthe same species, in such a condition, that they are always indigent, or\nstand in need of support from other creatures.\n\nOr farther, supposing the creature made himself, and all other things,\nhow comes it to pass that no one knows much of himself comparatively, or\nother things? Does not he that makes things understand them? therefore\nman could not make himself, or other creatures.\n\n6. It follows therefore from hence, that there must be a God, who is the\nfirst cause of all things, necessarily existing, and not depending on\nthe will of another, and by whose power all things exist; _Of him, and\nthrough him, and to him are all things_, Rom. xi. 36. _In him we live,\nand move, and have our being_, Acts xvii. 28.\n\nThus much concerning the more general method of reasoning, whereby the\nlight of nature evinces the being of a God; we proceed,\n\nII. To consider more particularly how the being of God may be evinced\nfrom his works. The cause is known by its effects; since therefore, as\nwas but now observed, creatures could not produce themselves, they must\nbe created by one who is not a creature.\n\nNow, if there be no medium between God and the creature, or between\ninfinite and finite, between a self-existent or underived, and a derived\nbeing; and if all creatures exist, as has been shewn, by the will and\npower of their Creator, and so are finite and dependent; then it\nfollows, that there is one from whom they derived their being, and on\nwhom they depend for all things; that is, God. This is usually\nillustrated by this similitude. Suppose we were cast on an unknown\nisland, and there saw houses built, but no men to inhabit them, should\nwe not conclude there had been some there that built them? Could the\nstones and timber put themselves into that form in which they are? Or\ncould the beasts of the field build them, that are without\nunderstanding? Or when we see a curious piece of workmanship, as a\nwatch, or a clock, perform all its motions in a regular way, can we\nthink the wheels came together by chance?[10] should we not conclude\nthat it was made by one of sufficient skill to frame and put them\ntogether in that order, and give motion to them? _Shall the clay say to\nhim that fashioned it, What makest thou, or thy work, He hath no hands?_\nIsa. xlv. 9.\n\nThis leads us to consider the wisdom of God in his works, which\ndemonstrates his being. This the Psalmist mentions with admiration,\nPsal. civ. 24. _O Lord, how manifold are thy works; in wisdom hast thou\nmade them all!_ When we see letters put together, which make words or\nsentences, and these a book, containing the greatest sense, and the\nideas joined together in the most beautiful order, should we not\nconclude that some man, equal to this work, had put them together? Even\nso the wisdom that shines forth in all the parts of the creation, proves\nthat there is a God. This appears,\n\nIn the exact harmony and subserviency of one part of the creation to\nanother, Hos. ii. 21, 22. _I will hear, saith the Lord; I will hear the\nheavens, and they shall hear the earth. And the earth shall hear the\ncorn, and the wine, and the oil, and they shall hear Jezreel._ One part\nof this frame of nature ministers to another. Thus the sun, and other\nheavenly bodies, give light to the world, which would be no better than\na cave or dungeon without them; and afford life and influence to plants\nand trees; and maintain the life of all living creatures. The clouds\nsend down rain that moistens the earth, and makes it fruitful; and this\nis not poured forth by whole oceans together, but by small drops, Job\nxxxvi. 27. _He maketh small the drops of water; they pour down rain\naccording to the vapour thereof_; and these are not perpetual, for that\nwould tend to its destruction. The moist places of the earth, and the\nsea supply the clouds with water, that they may have a sufficient store\nto return again to it. The air fans and refreshes the earth, and is\nnecessary for the growth of all things, and the maintaining the life and\nhealth of those that dwell therein. This subserviency of one thing to\nanother is without their own design or contrivance; for they are not\nendowed with understanding or will; neither doth this depend on the will\nof the creature. The sun doth not enlighten or give warmth to the world,\nor the clouds or air refresh the earth at our pleasure; and therefore\nall this is subject to the order and direction of one who is the God of\nnature, who commands the sun, and it shineth, and the clouds to give\nrain at his pleasure. It is he that gave the regular motion to the\nheavenly bodies, and, by his wisdom, fixed and continues the various\nseasons of the year, summer and winter, seed-time and harvest, day and\nnight, and every thing that tends to the beauty and harmony of nature;\ntherefore these curious, and never-enough to be admired, works, plainly\ndeclare that there is a God. This is described with unparalleled\nelegancy of style, Job xxxvii. 9, &c. _Out of the south cometh the\nwhirlwind; and cold out of the north. By the breath of God, frost is\ngiven; and the breadth of the waters is straitened. Also by watering he\nwearieth the thick cloud; he scattereth his bright cloud. Dost thou know\nthe balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect\nin knowledge? How thy garments are warm when he quieteth the earth by\nthe south-wind?_[11]\n\nBut that we may farther evince this truth, we shall lay down the\nfollowing arguments to prove the being of a God, which appears,\n\nI. From those creatures that are endowed with a lower kind of life than\nman.\n\n1. No creature can produce a fly or the least insect, but according to\nthe fixed laws of nature; and that which we call life, or the principle\nof their respective motion and actions, none but a God can give; so that\nhis being is plainly proved, from all living creatures below man, which\nare subservient, many of them, to one another, and all to man, and that\nnot by our ordering; therefore this is done by the hand of him who is\nthe God of nature.\n\n2. The natural instinct of living creatures, every one acting according\nto its kind; and some of the smallest creatures producing things that no\nhuman art can imitate, plainly proves a God. Thus the bird in building\nits nest; the spider in framing its web; the bee in providing\nstore-houses for its honey; and the ant in those provisions which it\nlays up in summer against winter; the silk-worm in providing cloathing\nfor man, and in being transformed into various shapes, and many others\nof smaller sort of creatures, that act in a wonderful way, without the\nexercise of reason or design, these all prove the being of God.\n\n3. The greater, fiercer, or more formidable sort of living creatures, as\nthe lion, tiger, and other beasts of prey, are so ordered, that they fly\nfrom man, whom they could easily devour, and avoid those cities and\nplaces where men inhabit, that so we may dwell safely. They are not\nchased into the woods by us; but these are allotted, as the places of\ntheir residence by the God of nature.\n\n4. Those living creatures that are most useful to men, and so subject to\nthem, _viz._ the horse, camel, and many others, these know not their own\nstrength, or power, to resist or rebel against them; which is ordered by\ninfinite wisdom: and there are many other instances of the like nature,\nall which are very strong arguments to prove that there is a God, whose\nglory shines forth in all his works.\n\nII. From the structure of human bodies, in which respect we are said to\nbe fearfully and wonderfully made; this, if it be abstractedly\nconsidered without regard to the fixed course and laws of nature,\nexceeds the power and skill of all creatures, and can be no other than\nthe workmanship of a God, and therefore is a demonstration of his being\nand perfections. No man ever pretended to give a specimen of his skill\ntherein. The finest statuaries or limners, who have imitated or given a\npicture, or representation of human bodies, have not pretended to give\nlife or motion to them; herein their skill is baffled. The wisest men in\nthe world have confessed their ignorance of the way and manner of the\nformation of human bodies; how they are framed in their first rudiments,\npreserved and grow to perfection in the womb, and how they are\nincreased, nourished, and continued in their health, strength, and\nvigour for many years. This has made the inquiries of the most\nthoughtful men issue in admiration: herein we plainly see the power and\nwisdom of God, to which alone it is owing.\n\nHere it may be observed, that there are several things very wonderful in\nthe structure of human bodies, which farther evince this truth. As,\n\n1. The organs of sense and speech.\n\n2. The circulation of the blood, and the natural heat which is preserved\nfor many years together, of which there is no instance but in living\ncreatures. Even fire will consume and waste itself by degrees, and all\nthings, which have only acquired heat, will soon grow cold; but the\nnatural heat of the body of man is preserved in it as long as life is\ncontinued.\n\n3. The continual supply of animal spirits, and their subserviency to\nsense and motion.[13]\n\n4. The nerves, which, though small as threads, remain unbroken, though\nevery one of these small fibres performs its office, and tends to convey\nstrength and motion to the body.\n\n5. The situation of the parts in their most proper place: the internal\nparts, which would be ruined and destroyed if exposed to the injuries\nthat the external ones are: these are secured in proper inclosures, and\nso preserved, Job x. 11. _Thou hast cloathed me with skin and flesh, and\nhast fenced me with bones and sinews._\n\n6. All the parts of the body are so disposed, that they are fitted for\ntheir respective uses, as being situate in those places which render\nthem most fit to perform their proper actions.\n\n7. The differing features of different bodies, so that we scarce see\npersons in all respects alike, is wonderful, and the result of divine\nwisdom: for even this is necessary for society, and our performing the\nduties we owe to one another.\n\n8. The union of this body with the soul, which is a spirit of a very\ndifferent nature, can never be sufficiently admired or accounted for;\nbut gives us occasion herein to own a superior, infinitely wise being.\nWhich leads us,\n\nIII. To consider how the being of God may be evinced from the nature of\nthe soul of man. He is said, Zech. xii. 1. _To have formed the spirit of\nman within him._ And hereby his power and wisdom, and consequently his\nbeing, is declared. For,\n\n1. The nature of a spiritual substance is much less known than that of\nbodies; and therefore that which we cannot fully understand, we must\nadmire.\n\nIf the wisdom and power of God is visible in the structure of our\nbodies, it is much more so in the formation of our souls; and since we\ncannot fully describe what they are, and know little of them but by\ntheir effects, certainly we could not form them; and therefore there is\na God, who is the _Father of spirits_.\n\n2. The powers and capacities of the soul are various, and very\nextensive.\n\n(1.) It can frame ideas of things superior to its own nature, and can\nemploy itself in contemplating and beholding the order, beauty, and\nconnexion of all those things in the world, which are, as it were, a\nbook, in which we may read the divine perfections, and improve them to\nthe best purposes.\n\n(2.) It takes in the vast compass of things past, which it can reflect\non and remember, with satisfaction, or regret: and it can look forward\nto things to come, which it can expect, and accordingly conceive\npleasure or uneasiness in the forethoughts thereof.\n\n(3.) It can chuse or embrace what is good, or fly from and reject what\nis evil and hurtful to it.\n\n(4.) It is capable of moral government, of conducting itself according\nto the principles of reason, and certain rules enjoined it for the\nattaining the highest end.\n\n(5.) It is capable of religion, and so can argue that there is a God,\nand give him the glory that is due to his name, and be happy in the\nenjoyment of him.\n\n(6.) It is immortal, and therefore cannot be destroyed by any creature;\nfor none but God has an absolute sovereignty over the spirits of men;\n_No man hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he\npower in the day of death_, Eccles. viii. 8.\n\nIV. From the nature and office of conscience, which is that whereby the\nsoul takes a view of itself, and its own actions, as good or evil; and\nconsiders itself as under a law to a superior being, from whom it\nexpects rewards or punishments; and this evidently proves a God. For,\n\n1. Conscience is oftentimes distressed or comforted by its reflection on\nthose actions, which no man on earth can know: and therefore when it\nfears punishment for those crimes, which come not under the cognizance\nof human laws, the uneasiness that it finds in itself, and its dread of\npunishment, plainly discovers that it is apprehensive of a divine being,\nwho has been offended, whose wrath and resentment it fears. All the\nendeavours that men can use to bribe, blind, or stupify their\nconsciences, will not prevent these fears; but the sad apprehension of\ndeserved punishment, from one whom they conceive to know all things,\neven the most secret crimes committed, this makes persons uneasy,\nwhether they will or no. Whithersoever they fly, or what amusement\nsoever they betake themselves to, conscience will still follow them with\nits accusations and dread of divine wrath: _The wicked are like the\ntroubled sea, when it cannot rest_, Isa. lvii. 20. _A dreadful sound is\nin his ears; in prosperity the destroyer shall come upon him_, Job xv.\n21. _Terrors take hold of him as waters, a tempest stealeth him away in\nthe night. The east-wind carrieth him away, and he departeth; and as a\nstorm hurleth him out of his place. For God shall cast upon him, and not\nspare; he would fain flee out of his hand_, Job xxvii. 20, 21, 22. _The\nwicked flee when no man pursueth_, Prov. xxviii. 1.\n\nAnd this is universal, there are none but are, some time or other,\nliable to these fears, arising from self-reflection, and the dictates of\nconscience; the most advanced circumstances in the world will not\nfortify against, or deliver from them, Acts xxiv. 25. _As Paul reasoned\nof righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled._\nEven Pharaoh himself, the most hard-hearted sinner in the world, who\nwould fain have forced a belief upon himself that there is no God, and\nboldly said, _Who is the Lord, that I should obey him?_ yet he could not\nward off the conviction that there is a God, which his own conscience\nsuggested. Therefore he was forced to say, Exod. ix. 27. _I have sinned\nthis time; the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked._ And\nindeed all the pleasures that any can take in the world, who give\nthemselves up to the most luxurious way of living, cannot prevent their\ntrembling, when conscience suggests some things terrible to them for\ntheir sins. Thus Belshazzar, when in the midst of his jollity and\ndrinking wine, having made a great feast to a thousand of his lords,\nwhen he saw the finger of a man\u2019s hand upon the wall, it is said, Dan.\nv. 6. _The king\u2019s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled\nhim; so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote\none against another._\n\nThus concerning those dictates of conscience, which make men very\nuneasy, whereby wicked men are forced to own that there is a God,\nwhether they will or no; we now proceed to consider good men, as having\nfrequently such serenity of mind and peace of conscience, as affords\nthem farther matter of conviction concerning this truth. It is, indeed,\na privilege that they enjoy, who have the light of scripture revelation,\nand so it might have been considered under a following head; but since\nit is opposed to what was but now brought, as a proof of the being of a\nGod, we may here observe, that some have that composure of mind, in\nbelieving and walking closely with God, as tends to confirm them yet\nmore in this truth. For,\n\n(1.) This composure of mind abides under all the troubles and\ndisappointments they meet with in the world: those things which tend to\ndisturb the peace of other men, do not so much affect them; _He shall\nnot be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is fixed, trusting in the\nLord_, Psal. cxii. 7. And as this peace abides under all the troubles of\nlife, so it does not leave them, but is sometimes more abundant, when\nthey draw nigh to death.\n\n(2.) It is a regular and orderly peace that they have, accompanied with\ngrace, so that conscience is most quiet when the soul is most holy;\nwhich shews that there is a hand of God in working or speaking this\npeace, as designing thereby to encourage and own that grace which he has\nwrought in them: Rom. x. 13. _thus the God of hope_ is said _to fill us\nwith all joy and peace in believing_.\n\n(3.) Let them labour never so much after it, they can never attain this\npeace, without a divine intimation, or God\u2019s speaking peace to their\nsouls; therefore when he is pleased, for wise ends, to withdraw from\nthem, they are destitute of it; so that God is hereby known by his\nworks, or by those influences of his grace, whereby he gives peace to\nconscience.\n\nV. The being of a God appears from those vast and boundless desires,\nwhich are implanted in the soul; so that it can take up its rest, and\nmeet with full satisfaction, in nothing short of a being of infinite\nperfection: therefore there is such an one, which is God. This will\nfarther appear if we consider,\n\n1. We find, by experience, that though the soul, at present, be\nentertained, and meets with some satisfaction in creature-enjoyments,\nyet it still craves and desires more, of what kind soever they be; and\nthe reason is, because they are not commensurate to its desires; _The\neye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear with hearing_, Eccles. i.\n8. _That which is wanting cannot be numbered_, ver. 15.\n\n2. We cannot rationally suppose that such boundless desires should be\nimplanted in the soul, and yet that there should be nothing sufficient\nto satisfy them; for then the most excellent creature in this lower\nworld would be, in some respects, more miserable than other creatures of\na lower order, which obtain their ultimate desire. Thus the Psalmist,\nspeaking of the brute creatures, says, Psal. civ. 28. _They are filled\nwith good_; that is, they have all that they crave. Therefore,\n\n3. There must be one that is infinitely good, who can satisfy these\ndesires, considered in their utmost extent; and that is God, the\nfountain of all blessedness.\n\nVI. The being of a God may be farther evinced, from the consent of all\nnations to this truth. Now that which all mankind agrees in, must be\nfounded in the nature of man, and that which is so, is evident from the\nlight of nature. It is true, there are many who have thus _known God,\nwho have not worshipped and glorified him as God; but have been vain in\ntheir imaginations, and have changed the truth of God into a lie, and\nworshipped and served the creature more than the Creator_, as the\napostle says, Rom. i. 21, 25. But it doth not follow from hence, that\nthe heathen, who were guilty of idolatry, had no notion of a God in\ngeneral, but rather the contrary; that there is something in the nature\nof man, which suggests, that they ought to worship some divine being,\nwhom they could not, by the light of nature, sufficiently know, and\ntherefore they did service to those who were by nature no gods; however,\nthis proves that they were not wholly destitute of some ideas of a God,\nwhich therefore are common to all mankind. Now that all nations have had\nsome discerning that there is a God, appears,\n\n1. From the credit that is to be given to all ancient history; which\nsufficiently discovers that men, in all ages, have owned and worshipped\nsomething that they called a God, though they knew not the true God.\n\n2. The heathen themselves, as may easily be understood from their own\nwritings, reckoned atheism a detestable crime, for this reason, because\ncontrary to the light of nature; and therefore some of them have\nasserted, that there is no nation in the world so barbarous, and void of\nreason, as to have no notion of a God.\n\n3. We may consider also, that no changes in the world, or in the\ncircumstances of men, have wholly erased this principle: whatever\nchanges there have been in the external modes of worship, or in those\nthings which have been received by tradition, still this principle has\nremained unalterable, that there is a God. Therefore the being of a God\nmay be proved by the consent of all nations.\n\n_Object._ 1. But it is objected to this, that there have been some\nspeculative atheists in the world. History gives us an account of this;\nand we are informed, that there are some whole countries in Africa and\nAmerica, where there is no worship, and, as to what appears to us, no\nnotion of a God. Therefore the being of a God cannot be proved by the\nconsent of all nations.\n\n_Answ._ 1. As to the first branch of this objection, that there have\nbeen some speculative atheists in the world; it is true, history\nfurnishes us with instances of persons who have been deemed so, yet\ntheir number has been very inconsiderable; so that it will not follow\nfrom hence, that the idea of a God is not some way or other, impressed\nupon the heart of man. Might it not as well be said, that, because some\nfew are born idiots, therefore reason is not natural to man, or\nuniversal? And it may be farther observed, that they who are branded\nwith the character of atheists in ancient history, or such as appear to\nbe atheists in our day by their conversation, are rather practical\natheists than speculative. We do not deny, that many in all ages have,\nand now do, assert, and pretend to prove, that there is no God; but it\nis plain that they discover, at some times, such fear and distress of\nconscience, as is sufficient to disprove what they pretend to defend by\narguments.\n\n2. As to the second branch of the objection, that there are some parts\nof the world, where the people seem to be so stupid, as not to own or\nworship a God; this is hard to be proved; neither have any, that have\nasserted it, had that familiarity with them, as to be able to determine\nwhat their sentiments are about this matter.\n\nBut suppose it were true in fact, that some nations have no notion of a\nGod or religion, nothing could be argued from it, but that such nations\nare barbarous and brutish, and though they have the principle of reason,\ndo not act like reasonable creatures; and it is sufficient to our\npurpose to assert, that all men, acting like reasonable creatures, or\nwho argue from those principles of reason, that they are born with, may\nfrom thence conclude that there is a God.\n\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected by atheists against the being of\nGod, and indeed against all religion, which is founded thereon, that\nboth one and the other took its rise from human policy, that hereby the\nworld, being amused with such-like speculations, might be restrained\nfrom those irregularities, which were inconsistent with the well-being\nof civil government; and that this was readily received, and propagated\nby tradition, and so by an implicit faith transmitted from one\ngeneration to another, among those who enquired not into the reason of\nwhat they believed; and that all this was supported by fear, which fixed\ntheir belief in this matter: so that human policy invented, tradition\npropagated, and fear rooted in the minds of men, what we call the\nnatural ideas of God and religion.\n\n_Answ._ This is a vile insinuation, but much in the mouths of atheists,\nwithout any shadow of reason, or attempt to prove it; and indeed it may\nbe easily disproved. Therefore,\n\n1. It appears that the notices we have of the being of a God, are not in\nthe least founded in state policy, as a trick of men, to keep up some\nreligion in the world, as necessary for the support of civil government.\nFor,\n\nIf the notion of a God, and religion consequential hereon, were a\ncontrivance of human policy, it would follow,\n\n(1.) That it must be either the invention of one single man, or else it\nwas the result of the contrivance of many convened together in a joint\nassembly of men, in confederacy, to impose on the world.\n\nIf it was the invention of one man, who was he? when and where did he\nlive? What history gives the least account of him? or when was the world\nwithout all knowledge of a deity, and some religion, that we may know,\nat least, in what age this notion first sprang up, or was contrived? Or\ncould the contrivance of one man be so universally complied with, and\nyet none pretend to know who he was, or when he lived? And if it was the\ncontrivance of a number of men convened together, how was this possible,\nand yet the thing not be discovered? or how could the princes of the\nearth, who were at the head of this contrivance, have mutual\nintelligence, or be convened together? By whose authority did they meet?\nor what was the occasion thereof?\n\n(2.) It is morally impossible, that such a piece of state policy should\nbe made use of to deceive the world, and universally take place, and yet\nnone in any age ever discover the imposture. The world could never be so\nimposed on, and yet not know by whom; the plot would certainly have been\nconfessed by some who were in the secret.\n\n(3.) If human policy had first invented this notion, certainly the\nprinces and great men of the world, who had a hand in it, would have\nexempted themselves from any obligation to own a God, or any form of\nworship, whereby they acknowledge him their superior; for impostors\ngenerally design to beguile others, but to exempt themselves from what\nthey bind them to. If any of the princes, or great men of the world, had\ninvented this opinion, that there is a God, and that he is to be\nworshipped, their pride would have led them to persuade the world that\nthey were gods themselves, and ought to be worshipped; they would never\nhave included themselves in the obligation to own a subjection to God,\nif the notion of a God had, for political ends, been invented by them.\n\n(4.) If the belief of a God was invented by human policy, how came it to\nbe universally received by the world? It is certain, that it was not\npropagated by persecution; for though there has been persecution to\ninforce particular modes of worship, yet there never was any such method\nused to inforce the belief of a God, for that took place without any\nneed thereof, it being instamped on the nature of man.\n\nIf therefore it was not propagated by force, neither was the belief of a\nGod spread through the world by fraud, what are those arts which are\npretended to have been used to propagate it? It took its rise, say they,\nfrom human policy; but the politicians not known, nor the arts they used\nto persuade the world that there is a God found out. How unreasonable\ntherefore is this objection, or rather cavil, against a deity, when the\natheists pretend that it was the result of human policy!\n\n2. It appears that the belief of a God was not propagated in the world\nmerely by tradition, and so received by implicit faith. For,\n\n(1.) Those notions that have been received with implicit faith by\ntradition, from generation to generation, are not pretended to be proved\nby reason; but the belief of a God is founded on the highest reason; so\nthat if no one in the world believed it besides myself, I am bound to\nbelieve it, or else must no longer lay claim to that reason which is\nnatural to mankind, and should rather shew myself a brute than a man.\n\n(2.) No schemes of religion, that were propagated merely by tradition,\nhave been universally received; for tradition respects particular\nnations, or a particular set of men, who have propagated them. But as\nhas been before considered the belief of a God has universally\nprevailed. Moreover, if the belief of a God was thus spread by tradition\nthrough the world, why was not the mode of worship settled, that so\nthere might be but one religion in the world? The reason is, because\ntheir respective modes of worship were received, by the heathen, by\ntradition: whereas the belief of a God was not so, but is rooted in the\nnature of man.\n\n(3.) Whatever has been received only by tradition, has not continued in\nthe world in all the turns, changes, and overthrow of particular\nnations, that received it; but the belief of a God has continued in the\nworld throughout all the ages and changes thereof: therefore it is not\nfounded in tradition, but by the light of nature.\n\n3. It appears, moreover, that the belief of a God could not take its\nfirst rise merely from fear of punishment, which men expected would be\ninflicted by him, though that be a strong argument to establish us in\nthe belief thereof. For,\n\n(1.) A liableness to punishment for crimes committed, supposes that\nthere is a God, who is offended by sin, and from whom punishment is\nexpected. Therefore as the effect cannot give being to the cause, so\nfear could not be the first ground and reason of the belief of a God.\nBut,\n\n(2.) The principal idea which mankind has of God, and that which is most\nnatural to us, is, that of an infinitely amiable object, and so we\nconceive of him, as a being of infinite goodness, 1 John iv. 8. _God is\nlove._ Thus we conceive of him, as the spring of all we enjoy and hope\nfor; and as for fear, that is only what arises in the breasts of wicked\nmen, and is founded in the secondary ideas we have of him; to wit, as\ntaking vengeance, supposing he is offended. But they who do not offend\nhim are not afraid of his vengeance; and the sentiments of the worst of\nmen are not to be our rule in judging concerning the being of a God. If\nthese believe that there is a God, only because they fear him, others\nbelieve him to be the fountain of all blessedness, and as such they love\nhim: therefore the ideas that men have of the being of a God, did not\narise from fear.\n\nVII. The being of a God, may be proved from the works of providence,\nwhereby the world is governed, as well as preserved from returning to\nits first nothing. It is that which supplies all creatures with those\nthings that their respective natures or necessities require: creatures\ncould no more provide for themselves than they could make themselves;\ntherefore he that provides all things for them is God. All finite beings\nhave their respective wants, whether they are sensible thereof or no;\nand he must be all-sufficient that can fill or supply the necessities of\nall things, and such an one is God.\n\nThus the Psalmist speaks of this God, as supplying the necessities of\n_beasts and creeping things_; who are said, _to wait upon him, that he\nmay give them their meat in due season_, Psal. civ. 25, 27. Psal. cxlv.\n15,16.\n\nIn considering the providence of God, whereby his being is evinced, we\nmay observe,\n\n1. The extraordinary dispensations thereof, when things happen contrary\nto the common course, and fixed laws of nature, as when miracles have\nbeen wrought. These are undeniable proofs of the being of a God; for\nherein a check or stop is put to the course of nature, the fixed order\nor laws thereof controuled or inverted; and this none can do but he who\nis the God and author thereof. To deny that miracles have been wrought,\nis little better than scepticism; since it hath been proved, by the most\nunquestionable testimony, contained not only in scripture, but in other\nwritings, and is confessed, even by those who deny the principal things\ndesigned to be confirmed thereby. It is true, they were never wrought\nwith an immediate design to prove that there is a God, since that is\nsufficiently demonstrated without them; but in as much as they have been\nwrought with other views, the being of a God, whose immediate power has\nbeen exerted therein, appears beyond all contradiction.\n\n2. This may be proved from the common dispensations of providence, which\nwe daily behold and experience in the world.\n\nThese we call common, because they contain nothing miraculous, or\ncontrary to the laws of nature: they are indeed wonderful, and have in\nthem the traces and footsteps of infinite wisdom and sovereignty, and\ntherefore prove that there is a God. For,\n\n(1.) It cannot otherwise be accounted for, that so many things should\nbefal us, or others in the world, that are altogether unlooked for. Thus\none is cast down, and a blast thrown on all his endeavours, and another\nraised beyond his expectation, Psal. lxxv. 6, 7. _Promotion cometh\nneither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is\nthe judge; he putteth down one, and setteth up another._\n\n(2.) The wisest and best concerted schemes of men are often baffled, and\nbrought to nought, by some unexpected occurrence of providence, which\nargues a divine controul, as God says, 1 Cor. i. 19. _I will destroy the\nwisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the\nprudent._ And who is it that can turn the counsels of men into\nfoolishness; but an infinitely wise God?\n\nVIII. The being of a God may be proved by the foretelling future events,\nwhich have come to pass accordingly. For,\n\n1. No creature can, by his own wisdom or sagacity, foretel future\ncontingent events with a certain peremptory and infallible knowledge,\nand not by mere conjecture, Isa. xli. 24. _Shew the things that are to\ncome hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods._ And the reason is\nplain, because our knowledge reaches no farther than to see effects, and\njudge of them in and by their causes. Thus we may easily foretel that\nnecessary causes will produce those effects that are agreeable to their\nnature: but when the effect is not necessary, but contingent, or purely\narbitrary, then we have nothing to judge by, and therefore cannot come\nto the knowledge of things future, without an intimation given us\nthereof, by him who orders and disposes of all things, and that is God:\nand therefore to foretel things to come in this sense, is an evident\nproof of the being of God.\n\n2. That there have been such predictions, and that the things foretold\nhave come to pass accordingly, is very obvious from scripture: and if it\nbe highly reasonable to believe that which is so well attested, as\nscripture is, we are bound from hence to conclude that there is a God.\n\nBut since we are arguing, at present, with those who deny a God, and\nconsequently all scripture-revelation, we will only suppose that they\nwhom we contend with will allow that some contingent events have been\nforetold; and then it will follow, that this could be done no other way,\nbut by some intimation from one that is omniscient, and that is God.\n\nIX. The being of a God appears from his providing for the necessities of\nall living. Here let us consider,\n\n1. That there is a natural instinct in all creatures, to take care of\nand provide for their young, before they are capable of providing for\nthemselves. This is not only observable in mankind, as the prophet says,\nIsa. xlix. 15. _Can a woman forget her sucking child?_ but also in the\nlower sort of creatures; and among them in those who are naturally most\nfierce and savage, even they provide for their young with extraordinary\ndiligence, and sometimes neglect, and almost starve, themselves to\nprovide for them, and sometimes endanger their own lives to defend them.\n\n2. They bring forth their young at the most convenient season of the\nyear, when the grass begins to spring to supply them with food, and when\nthe fowls of the air may get a livelihood by picking up the seed that is\nsown, and not covered by the earth, and when the trees begin to put\nforth their fruits to supply and feed them.\n\n3. When they bring forth their young, there is a providence that\nprovides the breast, the paps, the udder replenished with, milk to feed\nthem; and there is a natural instinct in their young, without\ninstruction, to desire to receive their nourishment that way.\n\n4. Providence has furnished many of the beasts of the fields with\nweapons for their defence, and has given others a natural swiftness to\nfly from danger, and has provided holes and caverns in the earth to\nsecure them from those that pursue them. And this cannot be the effect\nof mere chance, but it is an evident proof of the being of a God.\n\n5. Providence is, in a peculiar manner, concerned for the supply of man,\nthe noblest of all creatures in the world; _He giveth food to all\nflesh_, Psal. cxxxvi. 25. _Thou preservest man and beast_, Psal. xxxvi.\n6. The earth is stored with variety of food; and whereas the poor, which\nis the greater part of mankind, cannot purchase those far-fetched, or\ncostly dainties, which are the support of luxury, these may, by their\nindustry, provide that food which is most common, and with which the\nearth is plentifully stored, whereby their lives and health are as well\nmaintained, as the rich, who fare deliciously every day; and if their\nfamilies increase, and a greater number is to be provided for, they\ngenerally have a supply in proportion to their increasing number.\n\n6. Providence has stored the earth with various medicines, and given\nskill to men to use them as a relief against the many sicknesses that we\nare exposed to. All these things, and innumerable other instances that\nmight be given, argue the care and bounty, and consequently prove the\nbeing of God, whose tender mercies are over all his works.\n\nHere let us consider how the providence of God provides for the safety\nof man against those things that threaten his ruin.\n\nThe contrariety and opposition of things one to another would bring with\nthem inevitable destruction, did not providence prevent it. As,\n\n(1.) Those things, which are the greatest blessings of nature, would be\ndestructive, were there not a providence: as the sun that enlightens and\ncherishes the world by its heat and influence, would be of no advantage,\nwere it situate at too great a distance, and would burn it up if it were\ntoo near. So the sea would swallow up, and bring a deluge on the earth,\nif God had not, by his decree, fixed it within certain bounds, and made\nthe shore an inclosure to it, and said hitherto shalt thou go and no\nfarther.\n\n(2.) The elements are advantageous to us, by their due temperature and\nmixture; but, were it otherwise, they would be destructive. So the\nvarious humours and jarring principles in our bodies would tend to\ndestroy us, but that they are so mixed, as the God of nature, has\ntempered and disposed them, for the preservation of life and health.\n\n(3.) The wild beasts would destroy us, had not God put the fear and\ndread of man into them, or, at least, caused them not to desire to be\nwhere men live; the forests and desert places, remote from cities, being\nallotted for them; and some creatures would be destructive to men, by\nthe increase of their number, did they not devour one another. And\ninsects would destroy the fruits of the earth, did not one season of the\nyear help forward their destruction, as another tends to breed them.\n\n(4.) Men by reason of their contrary tempers and interests, and that\nmalice and envy, which is the consequence of our first apostacy, would\ndestroy one another, if there were not a providence that restrains them,\nand gives a check to that wickedness that is natural to them, whereby\nthe world is kept in a greater measure of peace than otherwise it would\nbe; hence, the Psalmist says, Psal. lxxvi. 10. _Surely the wrath of man\nshall praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain._\n\n_Object._ It is objected, by atheists, against the being of a God, that\nthe wicked are observed to prosper, in the world, and the righteous are\noppressed. This temptation the Psalmist was almost overcome by; as he\nsays, _my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipt. For I was\nenvious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked_, Psal.\nlxxiii. 2, 3.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered,\n\n1. That the idea of infinite sovereignty is included in that of a God;\nand this distribution of good and evil, if made at any time, without\nregard to the deserts of men, argues the sovereignty of providence; and\ntherefore proves that there is a God, who gives no account of his\nmatters, but has an absolute right to do what he will with his own.\n\n2. There is a display of infinite wisdom in these dispensations of\nprovidence, in that the good man is made better by affliction, as hereby\nthe kindness and care of providence appears; and the wicked man is\nforced to own, by his daily experience, that all the outward blessings\nhe enjoys in this world, cannot make him easy or happy, or be a\nsufficient portion for him.\n\n3. Outward prosperity doth not prevent or remove inward remorse, or\nterror of conscience, which embitters the joys of the wicked; _A\ndreadful sound is in his ears; in prosperity the destroyer shall come\nupon him_, Job xv. 21. _Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the\nend of that mirth is heaviness_, Prov. xiv. 13. And, on the other hand,\noutward trouble in the godly is not inconsistent with spiritual joy and\ninward peace, which is more than a balance for all the distresses they\nlabour under; it is said, _The heart knoweth his own bitterness, and a\nstranger doth not intermeddle with his joy_, Prov. xiv. 10. _He shall be\nsatisfied from himself_, ver. 14.\n\n4. We are not to judge of things according to their present appearance,\nwhen we determine a person happy or miserable, but are to consider the\nend thereof, since every thing is well that ends well. Thus the\nPsalmist, who, as was before observed, was staggered at the prosperity\nof the wicked, had his faith established, by considering the different\nevents of things. Concerning the wicked he says Psal. lxxiii. 18, 19,\n20. _Thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down to\ndestruction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they\nare utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one awaketh: so, O\nLord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image_; which is a\nvery beautiful expression, representing all their happiness as\nimaginary, a vain dream, and such as is worthy to be contemned: but as\nfor the righteous, he represents them as under the special protection\nand guidance of God here, and at last received to glory, and there\nenjoying him as their everlasting portion.\n\nHaving considered how the light of nature, and the works of God prove\nhis being, we shall proceed to shew how this appears from scripture, as\nit is observed in this answer, that the word and Spirit only do\nsufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.\nThe arguments hitherto laid down are directed more especially to those\nwho are not convinced that there is a God, and consequently deny the\ndivine original of scripture: but this argument supposes a conviction of\nboth; but yet it must not be supposed unnecessary, in as much as we are\noftentimes exposed to many temptations, which tend to stagger our faith;\nso that though we may not peremptorily deny that there is a God, yet we\nmay desire some additional evidence of his being and perfections, beyond\nwhat the light of nature affords; and this we have in scripture. Herein\nthe glory of God shines forth with the greatest lustre, and we have an\naccount of works more glorious than those of nature, included in the way\nof salvation by a Mediator. The light of nature, indeed, proves that\nthere is a God; but the word of God discovers him to us as a reconciled\nGod and Father to all who believe, and is also attended with those\ninternal convictions and evidences of this truth, which are the peculiar\ngifts and graces of the Holy Spirit; and therefore it is well observed,\nthat this knowledge only is sufficient and effectual to salvation; which\nleads us to consider the insufficiency of the light of nature to answer\nthis end. The knowledge of God, that may be attained thereby, is\nsufficient, indeed, in some measure, to restrain our corrupt passions,\nand it is conducive to the peace and welfare of civil societies: it\naffords some conviction of sin, and, in some respects, leaves men\nwithout excuse, and renders their condemnation less aggravated than that\nof those who sin against gospel light; but yet it is insufficient to\nsalvation, since it is a truth of universal extent, that _there is\nsalvation in no other, but in Christ_, Acts iv. 12. and that it is _life\neternal to know_ not only _the true God, but Jesus Christ, whom he hath\nsent_, John xvii. 3. and this cannot be known by the light of nature,\nbut by divine revelation; which leads us to consider in what respect the\nknowledge of God, as it is contained in and derived from scripture, is\nsufficient to salvation.\n\nHere we do not assert the sufficiency thereof, exclusive of the aids of\ndivine grace, so as to oppose the word to the Spirit: therefore it is\nsaid, in this answer, that the word and Spirit of God alone can reveal\nhim to men sufficiently to their salvation. The word is a sufficient\nrule, so that we need no other to be a standard of our faith, and to\ndirect us in the way to eternal life; but it is the Spirit that enables\nus to regard, understand, and apply this rule, and to walk according to\nit: these two are not to be separated; the Spirit doth not save any\nwithout the word,[14] and the word is not effectual to salvation, unless\nmade so by the Spirit.\n\nThat nothing short of scripture-revelation is sufficient to salvation,\nwill appear, if we compare it with the natural knowledge we have of God.\nFor,\n\n1. Though the light of nature shews us that there is a God, it doth not\nfully display his perfections, so as they are manifested in scripture,\nwherein God is beheld in the face of Christ.\n\n2. Neither doth it discover any thing of the doctrine of a Trinity of\npersons in the divine essence, who are equally the object of faith: nor\ndoth it give us any intimation of Christ, as the Lord our righteousness,\nin whom we obtain forgiveness of sins: this is known only by\nscripture-revelation; therefore, since this is necessary to salvation,\nwe are bound to conclude that the scripture alone is sufficient to lead\nto it.\n\n3. The light of nature suggests, it is true, that God is to be\nworshipped; but there is an instituted way of worshipping him, which\ndepends wholly on divine revelation; and since this is necessary, it\nproves the necessity of scripture.\n\n4. There is no salvation without communion with God; or he that does not\nenjoy him here, shall not enjoy him for ever hereafter. Now the\nenjoyment of God is what we attain by faith, which is founded on\nscripture. Thus the apostle says, 1 John i. 3. _That which we have seen\nand heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with\nus; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his son Jesus\nChrist._\n\nBut since it is one thing to say, that the knowledge of God, which is\nderived from scripture, is sufficient to salvation in an objective way;\nthat is, that it is a sufficient rule to lead us to salvation, and\nanother thing to say, that it is made effectual thereunto: we are now to\ninquire when it is made so. In answer to which, let us consider, that\nthe doctrines contained in scripture are made effectual to salvation;\nnot by all the skill or wisdom of men representing them in their truest\nlight, nor by all the power of reasoning, which we are capable of,\nwithout the aids of divine grace, but they are made effectual by the\nSpirit; and this he does,\n\n(1.) By the internal illumination of the mind, giving a spiritual\ndiscerning of divine truth, which the natural man receiveth not, as the\napostle says, 1 Cor. ii. 14. and it is called, 2 Cor. iv. 6. _a shining\ninto our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God,\nin the face of Jesus Christ_.\n\n(2.) By subduing the obstinate will of man, and so enabling it to yield\nto a ready, chearful, and universal obedience to the divine commands\ncontained in scripture; and, in particular, inclining it to own Christ\u2019s\nauthority, as king of saints; and to say, as converted Paul did, _Lord,\nwhat wilt thou have me to do?_ Acts ix. 6.\n\n(3.) He works upon our affections, exciting in us holy desires after God\nand Christ, and a very high esteem and value for divine truth, and\nremoves all those prejudices which are in our minds against it, opens\nand enlarges our hearts to receive the word, and comply with all the\ncommands thereof, thus, Acts xvi. 14. _The Lord opened the heart of\nLydia, that she attended to the things that were spoken of Paul._ So\nDavid prays, Psal. cxix. 18. compared with v. 5. _Open thou mine eyes,\nthat I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. O that my ways were\ndirected to keep thy statutes!_\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  \u201cAs for _our own existence_, we perceive it so plainly, and so\n  certainly, that it neither needs, nor is capable of any proof. For\n  nothing can be more evident to us than our own existence; _I think, I\n  reason, I feel pleasure and pain_: can any of these be more evident to\n  me, than my own existence? If I doubt of all other things, that very\n  doubt makes me perceive my own _existence_, and will not suffer me to\n  doubt of that. For if I know _I feel pain_, it is evident I have as\n  certain perception of my own existence, as of the existence of the\n  pain I feel: or, if I know _I doubt_, I have as certain perception of\n  the existence of the thing doubting, as of that thought which I call\n  _doubt_. Experience then convinces us, that _we have an intuitive\n  knowledge of our own existence_, and an internal infallible perception\n  that we are. In every act of sensation, reasoning or thinking, we are\n  conscious to ourselves of our own being, and, in this matter, come not\n  short of the highest degree of _certainty_.\u201d\u2014\u2014\n\n  \u201cIn the next place, man knows by an intuitive certainty, that bare\n  _nothing can no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to\n  two right angles_. If a man knows not that non-entity, or the absence\n  of all being, cannot be equal to two right angles, it is impossible he\n  should know any demonstration in Euclid. If, therefore, we know there\n  is some real being, and that non-entity cannot produce any real being,\n  it is an evident demonstration, that from eternity there has been\n  something; since what was not from eternity, had a beginning, and what\n  had a beginning, must be produced by something else.\n\n  \u201cNext, it is evident, that what had its being and beginning from\n  another, must also have all that which is in, and belongs to its being\n  from another too. All the powers it has must be owing to, and received\n  from the same source. This eternal source, then, of all being, must\n  also be the source and original of all power; and so _this eternal\n  Being must be also the most powerful_.\n\n  \u201cAgain, a man finds in himself _perception_ and _knowledge_. We have\n  then got one step farther; and we are certain now, that there is not\n  only some being, but some knowing intelligent being in the world.\n\n  \u201cThere was a time, then, when there was no knowing being, and when\n  knowledge began to be; or else there has been also _a knowing being\n  from eternity_. If it be said, there was a time when no being had any\n  knowledge, when that eternal Being was void of all understanding: I\n  reply, that then it was impossible there should ever have been any\n  knowledge; it being as impossible that things wholly void of\n  knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any perception, should\n  produce a knowing being, as it is impossible that a triangle should\n  make itself three angles bigger than two right ones. For it is as\n  repugnant to the _idea_ of senseless matter, that it should put into\n  itself sense, perception and knowledge, as it is repugnant to the\n  _idea_ of a triangle, that it should put into itself greater angles\n  than two right ones.\n\n  \u201cThus, from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly\n  find in our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of\n  this certain and evident truth, that _there is an eternal, most\n  powerful, and most knowing being_; which whether any one will please\n  to call _God_, it matters not. The thing is evident, and from this\n  _idea_ duly considered, will easily be deduced all those other\n  attributes, which we ought to ascribe to this eternal Being. If,\n  nevertheless, any one should be found so senselessly arrogant, as to\n  suppose man alone knowing and wise, but yet the product of mere\n  ignorance and chance; and that all the rest of the universe acted only\n  by that blind hap-hazard: I shall leave with him that very rational\n  and emphatical rebuke of _Tully, l. 2. de leg._ to be considered at\n  his leisure.\n\n  \u201cWhat can be more sillily arrogant and misbecoming than for a man to\n  think that he has a mind and understanding in him, but yet in all the\n  universe beside there is no such thing? Or that those things, which\n  with the utmost stretch of his reason he can scarce comprehend, should\n  be moved and managed without any reason at all?\u201d _Quid est enim\n  verius, quam neminem esse oportere tam stulte arrogantem, ut in se\n  mentem et rationem putet inesse, in c\u0153lo mundoque non putet? Aut ea\n  qu\u00e6 vix summa ingenii ratione comprehendat, nulla ratione moveri\n  putet?_\n\n  \u201cFrom what has been said, it is plain to me, we have a more certain\n  knowledge of the existence of a God, than of any thing our senses have\n  not immediately discovered to us. Nay, I presume I may say, that we\n  more certainly know that there is a God than that there is any thing\n  else without us. When I say we _know_, I mean there is such a\n  knowledge within our reach, which we cannot miss, if we will but apply\n  our minds to that, as we do to several other inquiries.\u201d\n\n  LOCKE.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  \u201cIn crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a _stone_, and\n  were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer,\n  that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for\n  ever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to shew the absurdity of\n  this answer. But suppose I had found a _watch_ upon the ground, and it\n  should be enquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I\n  should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for\n  any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet, why\n  should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone?\n  Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For\n  this reason, and for no other, _viz._ that, when we come to inspect\n  the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that\n  its several parts are framed, and put together for a purpose, _e. g._\n  that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that\n  motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the\n  several parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a\n  different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner,\n  or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no\n  motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which\n  would have answered the use, that is now served by it. To reckon up a\n  few of the plainest of these parts, and of their offices, all tending\n  to one result: We see a cylindrical box, containing a coiled elastic\n  spring, which, by its endeavour to relax itself, turns round the box.\n  We next observe a flexible chain (artificially wrought for the sake of\n  flexure) communicating the action of the spring from the box to the\n  fusee. We then find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in,\n  and apply to, each other, conducting the motion from the fusee to the\n  balance, and from the balance to the pointer; and at the same time, by\n  the size and shape of those wheels, so regulating that motion, as to\n  terminate in causing an index, by an equable and measured progression,\n  to pass over a given space in a given time. We take notice that the\n  wheels are made of brass, in order to keep them from rust; the springs\n  of steel, no other metal being so elastic; that over the face of the\n  watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of\n  the work, but, in the room of which, if there had been any other than\n  a transparent substance, the hour could not be seen without opening\n  the case. This mechanism being observed (it requires indeed an\n  examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of\n  the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have\n  said, observed and understood,) the inference, we think, is\n  inevitable; that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have\n  existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer, or\n  artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to\n  answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.\n\n  \u201cI. Nor would it, I apprehend, weaken the conclusion that we had never\n  seen a watch made; that we had never known an artist capable of making\n  one; that we were altogether incapable of executing such a piece of\n  workmanship ourselves, or of understanding in what manner it was\n  performed: all this being no more than what is true of some exquisite\n  remains of some ancient art, of some lost arts, and, to the generality\n  of mankind, of the more curious productions of modern manufacture.\n  Does one man in a million know how oval frames are turned? Ignorance\n  of this kind exalts our opinion of the unseen and unknown artist\u2019s\n  skill, if he be unseen and unknown, but raises no doubts in our minds\n  of the existence and agency of such an artist, at some former time,\n  and in some place or other. Nor can I perceive that it varies at all,\n  the inference, whether the question arise concerning a human agent, or\n  concerning an agent of a different species, or an agent possessing, in\n  some respects, a different nature.\n\n  \u201cII. Neither, secondly, would it invalidate our conclusion, that the\n  watch sometimes went wrong, or that it seldom went exactly right. The\n  purpose of the machinery, the design, and the designer, might be\n  evident, and in the case supposed would be evident, in whatever way we\n  accounted for the irregularity of the movement, or whether we could\n  account for it or not. It is not necessary that a machine be perfect,\n  in order to shew with what design it was made: still less necessary,\n  where the only question is, whether it were made with any design at\n  all.\n\n  \u201cIII. Nor, thirdly, would it bring any uncertainty into the argument,\n  if there were a few parts of the watch, concerning which we could not\n  discover, or had not yet discovered, in what manner they conduced to\n  the general effect; or even some parts, concerning which we could not\n  ascertain, whether they conduced to that effect in any manner\n  whatever. For, as to the first branch of the case; if, by the loss, or\n  disorder, or decay of the parts in question, the movement of the watch\n  were found in fact to be stopped, or disturbed or retarded, no doubt\n  would remain in our minds as to the utility or intention of these\n  parts, although we should be unable to investigate the manner\n  according to which, or the connection by which, the ultimate effect\n  depended upon their action or assistance: and the more complex is the\n  machine, the more likely is this obscurity to arise. Then, as to the\n  second thing supposed, namely, that there were parts which might be\n  spared without prejudice to the movement of the watch, and that we had\n  proved this by experiment; these superfluous parts, even if we were\n  completely assured that they were such, would not vacate the reasoning\n  which we had instituted concerning other parts. The indication of\n  contrivance remained, with respect to them, nearly as it was before.\n\n  \u201cIV. Nor, fourthly, would any man in his senses think the existence of\n  the watch, with its various machinery, accounted for, by being told\n  that it was one out of possible combinations of material forms; that\n  whatever he had found in the place where he found the watch, must have\n  contained some internal configuration or other; and that this\n  configuration might be the structure now exhibited, _viz._ of the\n  works of a watch, as well as of a different structure.\n\n  \u201cV. Nor, fifthly, would it yield his enquiry more satisfaction to be\n  answered, that there existed in things a principle of order, which had\n  disposed the parts of the watch into their present form and situation.\n  He never knew a watch made by the principle of order; nor can he even\n  form to himself an idea of what is meant by a principle of order,\n  distinct from the intelligence of the watch-maker.\n\n  \u201cVI. Sixthly, he would be surprised to hear, that the mechanism of the\n  watch was no proof of contrivance, only a motive to induce the mind to\n  think so.\n\n  \u201cVII. And not less surprised to be informed, that the watch in his\n  hand was nothing more than the result of the laws of _metallic_\n  nature. It is a perversion of language to assign any law, as the\n  efficient, operative, cause of any thing. A law presupposes an agent;\n  for it is only the mode, according to which an agent proceeds: it\n  implies a power; for it is the order, according to which that power\n  acts. Without this agent, without this power, which are both distinct\n  from itself, the law does nothing; is nothing. The expression, \u2018the\n  law of metallic nature,\u2019 may sound strange and harsh to a philosophic\n  ear; but it seems quite as justifiable as some others which are more\n  familiar to him, such as \u2018the law of vegetable nature,\u2019 \u2018the law of\n  animal nature,\u2019 or indeed as \u2018the law of nature\u2019, in general, when\n  assigned as the cause of ph\u00e6nomena, in exclusion of agency and power;\n  or when it is substituted into the place of these.\n\n  \u201cVIII. Neither, lastly, would our observer be driven out of his\n  conclusion, or from his confidence in its truth, by being told that he\n  knew nothing at all about the matter. He knows enough for his\n  argument. He knows the utility of the end: he knows the subserviency\n  and adaptation of the means to the end. These points being known, his\n  ignorance of other points, his doubts concerning other points, affect\n  not the certainty of his reasoning. The consciousness of knowing\n  little, need not beget a distrust of that which he does know.\u201d\u2014\u2014\n\n  \u201cSuppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch,\n  should, after some time, discover, that, in addition to all the\n  properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the\n  unexpected property of producing, in the course of its movement,\n  another watch like itself; (the thing is conceivable;) that it\n  contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts, a mould for\n  instance, or a complex adjustment of laths, files, and other tools,\n  evidently and separately calculated for this purpose; let us enquire,\n  what effect ought such a discovery to have upon his former conclusion!\n\n  \u201cI. The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the\n  contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the\n  contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the\n  distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible,\n  mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive, in this new\n  observation, nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had\n  already done; for referring the construction of the watch to design,\n  and to supreme art. If that construction _without_ this property, or,\n  which is the same thing, before this property had been noticed, proved\n  intention and art to have been employed about it; still more strong\n  would the proof appear, when he came to the knowledge of this further\n  property, the crown and perfection of all the rest.\n\n  \u201cII. He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, _in some\n  sense_, the maker of the watch, which was fabricated in the course of\n  its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that, in\n  which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair; the author\n  of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their\n  use. With respect to these, the first watch was no cause at all to the\n  second: in no such sense as this was it the author of the constitution\n  and order, either of the parts which the new watch contained, or of\n  the parts by the aid and instrumentality of which it was produced. We\n  might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a\n  stream of water ground corn: but no latitude of expression would allow\n  us to say, no stretch of conjecture could lead us to think, that the\n  stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to\n  know who the builder was. What the stream of water does in the affair,\n  is neither more nor less than this: by the application of an\n  unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged\n  independently of it, and arranged by intelligence, an effect is\n  produced, _viz._ the corn is ground. But the effect results from the\n  arrangement. The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or\n  author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and\n  plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary, for any\n  share which the water has in grinding the corn: yet is this share the\n  same, as that which the watch would have contributed to the production\n  of the new watch, upon the supposition assumed in the last section.\n  Therefore,\n\n  \u201cIII. Though it be now no longer probable, that the individual watch\n  which our observer had found, was made immediately by the hand of an\n  artificer, yet doth not this alteration in any wise affect the\n  inference that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned\n  in the production. The argument from design remains as it was. Marks\n  of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now, than they\n  were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different\n  properties. We may ask for the cause of the colour of a body, of its\n  hardness, of its heat; and these causes may be all different. We are\n  now asking for the cause of that subserviency to an use, that relation\n  to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is\n  given to this question by telling us that a preceding watch produced\n  it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a\n  contriver; order without choice; arrangement, without any thing\n  capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without\n  that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and\n  executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever\n  having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it.\n  Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end,\n  relation of instruments to an use, imply the presence of intelligence\n  and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe, that the\n  insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued,\n  was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire in it; could\n  be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts,\n  assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual\n  dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that\n  also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these\n  properties therefore, are as much unaccounted for as they were before.\n\n  \u201cIV. Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty further back,\n  _i. e._ by supposing the watch before us to have been produced by\n  another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going\n  back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of\n  satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for.\n  We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by\n  this supposition, nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were\n  diminished the further we went back, by going back indefinitely we\n  might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of\n  reasoning applies. Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the\n  number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, _there_, by\n  supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may\n  conceive the limit to be attained: but where there is no such tendency\n  or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series. There is\n  no difference as to the point in question, (whatever there may be as\n  to many points) between one series and another; between a series which\n  is finite, and a series which is infinite. A chain composed of an\n  infinite number of links, can no more support itself, than a chain\n  composed of a finite number of links. And of this we are assured,\n  (though we never _can_ have tried the experiment) because, by\n  increasing the number of links, from ten for instance to a hundred,\n  from a hundred to a thousand, &c. we make not the smallest approach,\n  we observe not the smallest tendency, towards self-support. There is\n  no difference in this respect (yet there may be a great difference in\n  several respects) between a chain of a greater or less length, between\n  one chain and another, between one that is finite and one that is\n  indefinite. This very much resembles the case before us. The machine,\n  which we are inspecting, demonstrates, by its construction,\n  contrivance and design. Contrivance must have had a contriver; design,\n  a designer; whether the machine immediately proceeded from another\n  machine, or not. That circumstance alters not the case. That other\n  machine may, in like manner, have proceeded from a former machine: nor\n  does that alter the case: contrivance must have had a contriver. That\n  former one from one preceding it: no alteration still: a contriver is\n  still necessary. No tendency is perceived, no approach towards a\n  diminution of this necessity. It is the same with any and every\n  succession of these machines; a succession of ten, of a hundred, of a\n  thousand; with one series as with another; a series which is finite,\n  as with a series which is infinite. In whatever other respects they\n  may differ, in this they do not. In all equally, contrivance and\n  design are unaccounted for.\n\n  \u201cThe question is not simply, How came the first watch into existence?\n  which question, it may be pretended, is done away by supposing the\n  series of watches thus produced from one another to have been\n  infinite, and consequently to have had no such _first_, for which it\n  was necessary to provide a cause. This, perhaps, would have been\n  nearly the state of the question, if nothing had been before us but an\n  unorganized unmechanised substance, without mark or indication of\n  contrivance. It might be difficult to shew that such substance could\n  not have existed from eternity, either in succession (if it were\n  possible, which I think it is not, for unorganized bodies to spring\n  from one another,) or by individual perpetuity. But that is not the\n  question now. To suppose it to be so, is to suppose that it made no\n  difference whether we had found a watch or a stone. As it is, the\n  metaphysics of that question have no place; for, in the watch which we\n  are examining, are seen contrivance, design; an end, a purpose; means\n  for the end, adaptation to the purpose. And the question, which\n  irresistibly presses upon our thoughts, is, whence this contrivance\n  and design? The thing required is the intending mind, the adapting\n  hand, the intelligence by which that hand was directed. This question,\n  this demand, is not shaken off, by increasing a number or succession\n  of substances, destitute of these properties; nor the more, by\n  increasing that number to infinity. If it be said, that, upon the\n  supposition of one watch being produced from another in the course of\n  that other\u2019s movements, and by means of the mechanism within it, we\n  have a cause for the watch in my hand, _viz._ the watch from which it\n  proceeded, I deny, that for the design, the contrivance, the\n  suitableness of means to an end, the adaptation of instruments to an\n  use (all which we discover in the watch,) we have any cause whatever.\n  It is in vain, therefore to assign a series of such causes, or to\n  allege that a series may be carried back to infinity; for I do not\n  admit that we have yet any cause at all of the ph\u00e6nomena, still less\n  any series of causes either finite or infinite. Here is contrivance,\n  but no contriver; proofs of design, but no designer.\n\n  \u201cV. Our observer would further also reflect, that the maker of the\n  watch before him, was, in truth and reality, the maker of every watch\n  produced from it; there being no difference (except that the latter\n  manifests a more exquisite skill) between the making of another watch\n  with his own hands by the mediation of files, laths, chisels, &c. and\n  the disposing, fixing, and inserting, of these instruments, or of\n  others equivalent to them, in the body of the watch already made, in\n  such a manner, as to form a new watch in the course of the movements\n  which he had given to the old one. It is only working by one set of\n  tools, instead of another.\n\n  \u201cThe conclusion which the _first_ examination of the watch, of its\n  works, construction, and movement suggested, was, that it must have\n  had, for the cause and author of that construction, an artificer, who\n  understood its mechanism, and designed its use. This conclusion is\n  invincible. A _second_ examination presents us with a new discovery.\n  The watch is found in the course of its movement to produce another\n  watch similar to itself: and not only so, but we perceive in it a\n  system of organization, separately calculated for that purpose. What\n  effect would this discovery have, or ought it to have, upon our former\n  inference? What, as hath already been said, but to increase, beyond\n  measure, our admiration of the skill, which had been employed in the\n  formation of such a machine? Or shall it, instead of this, all at once\n  turn us round to an opposite conclusion, _viz._ that no art or skill\n  whatever has been concerned in the business, although all other\n  evidences of art and skill remain as they were, and this last and\n  supreme piece of art be now added to the rest? Can this be maintained\n  without absurdity? Yet this is atheism.\u201d\n\n  PALEY.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  \u201cThe works of nature want only to be contemplated. When contemplated,\n  they have every thing in them which can astonish by their greatness;\n  for, of the vast scale of operation, through which our discoveries\n  carry us, at one end we see an intelligent Power arranging planetary\n  systems, fixing, for instance, the trajectory of _Saturn_, or\n  constructing a ring of a hundred thousand miles diameter, to surround\n  his body, and be suspended like a magnificent arch over the heads of\n  his inhabitants; and, at the other, bending a hooked tooth, concerting\n  and providing an appropriate mechanism, for the clasping and\n  reclasping of the filaments of the feather of a humming-bird. We have\n  proof, not only of both these works proceeding from an intelligent\n  agent, but of their proceeding from the same agent: for, in the first\n  place, we can trace an identity of plan, a connexion of system, from\n  Saturn to our own globe; and when arrived upon our own globe, we can,\n  in the second place, pursue the connexion through all the organized,\n  especially the animated, bodies, which it supports. We can observe\n  marks of a common relation, as well to one another, as to the elements\n  of which their habitation is composed. Therefore one mind hath\n  planned, or at least hath prescribed a general plan for, all these\n  productions. One being has been concerned in all.\n\n  \u201cUnder this stupendous Being we live. Our happiness, our existence, is\n  in his hands. All we expect must come from him. Nor ought we to feel\n  our situation insecure. In every nature, and in every portion of\n  nature, which we can descry, we find attention bestowed upon even the\n  minutest parts. The hinges in the wings of an _earwig_, and the joints\n  of its antenn\u00e6, are as highly wrought, as if the Creator had had\n  nothing else to finish. We see no signs of diminution of care by\n  multiplicity of objects, or of distraction of thought by variety. We\n  have no reason to fear therefore, our being forgotten, or overlooked,\n  or neglected.\n\n  \u201cThe existence and character of the Deity, is, in every view, the most\n  interesting of all human speculations. In none, however, is it more\n  so, than as it facilitates the belief of the fundamental articles of\n  _Revelation_. It is a step to have it proved, that there must be\n  something in the world more than what we see. It is a further step to\n  know, that, amongst the invisible things of nature, there must be an\n  intelligent mind, concerned in its production, order, and support.\n  These points being assured to us by Natural Theology, we may well\n  leave to Revelation the disclosure of many particulars, which our\n  researches cannot reach, respecting either the nature of this Being as\n  the original cause of all things, or his character and designs as a\n  moral governor; and not only so, but the more full confirmation of\n  other particulars, of which, though they do not lie altogether beyond\n  our reasonings and our probabilities, the certainty is by no means\n  equal to the importance. The true Theist will be the first to listen\n  to _any_ credible communication of divine knowledge. Nothing which he\n  has learnt from Natural Theology, will diminish his desire of further\n  instruction, or his disposition to receive it with humility and\n  thankfulness. He wishes for light: he rejoices in light. His inward\n  veneration of this great Being, will incline him to attend with the\n  utmost seriousness, not only to all that can be discovered concerning\n  him by researches into nature, but to all that is taught by a\n  revelation, which gives reasonable proof of having proceeded from him.\n\n  \u201cBut, above every other article of revealed religion, does the\n  anterior belief of a Deity, bear with the strongest force, upon that\n  grand point, which gives indeed interest and importance to all the\n  rest\u2014the resurrection of the human dead. The thing might appear\n  hopeless, did we not see a power under the guidance of an intelligent\n  will, and a power penetrating the inmost recesses of all substance. I\n  am far from justifying the opinion of those, who \u2018thought it a thing\n  incredible that God should raise the dead;\u2019 but I admit that it is\n  first necessary to be persuaded, that there _is_ a God to do so. This\n  being thoroughly settled in our minds, there seems to be nothing in\n  this process (concealed and mysterious as we confess it to be,) which\n  need to shock our belief. They who have taken up the opinion, that the\n  acts of the human mind depend upon _organization_, that the mind\n  itself indeed consists in organization, are supposed to find a greater\n  difficulty than others do, in admitting a transition by death to a new\n  state of sentient existence, because the old organization is\n  apparently dissolved. But I do not see that any impracticability need\n  be apprehended even by these; or that the change, even upon their\n  hypothesis, is far removed from the analogy of some other operations,\n  which we know with certainty that the deity is carrying on. In the\n  ordinary derivation of plants and animals from one another, a\n  particle, in many cases, minuter than all assignable, all conceivable\n  dimension; an aura, an effluvium, an infinitesimal; determines the\n  organization of a future body: does no less than fix, whether that\n  which is about to be produced, shall be a vegetable, a merely\n  sentient, or a rational being; an oak, a frog, or a philosopher; makes\n  all these differences; gives to the future body its qualities, and\n  nature, and species. And this particle, from which springs, and by\n  which is determined a whole future nature, itself proceeds from, and\n  owes its constitution to, a prior body: nevertheless, which is seen in\n  plants most decisively, the incepted organization, though formed\n  within, and through, and by a preceding organization, is not corrupted\n  by its corruption, or destroyed by its dissolution; but, on the\n  contrary, is sometimes extricated and developed by those very causes;\n  survives and comes into action, when the purpose, for which it was\n  prepared, requires its use.\u2014Now an \u0153conomy which nature has adopted,\n  when the purpose was to transfer an organization from one individual\n  to another, may have something analogous to it, when the purpose is to\n  transmit an organization from one state of being to another state: and\n  they who found thought in organization, may see something in this\n  analogy applicable to their difficulties; for, whatever can transmit a\n  similarity of organization will answer their purpose, because,\n  according even to their own theory, it may be the vehicle of\n  consciousness, and because consciousness, without doubt, carries\n  identity and individuality along with it through all changes of form\n  or of visible qualities. In the most general case, that, as we have\n  said, of the derivation of plants and animals from one another, the\n  latent organization is either itself similar to the old organization,\n  or has the power of communicating to new matter the old organic form.\n  But it is not restricted to this rule. There are other cases,\n  especially in the progress of insect life, in which the dormant\n  organization does not much resemble that which incloses it, and still\n  less suits with the situation in which the inclosing body is placed,\n  but suits with a different situation to which it is destined. In the\n  larva of the libellula, which lives constantly, and has still long to\n  live, under water, are descried the wings of a fly, which two years\n  afterwards is to mount into the air. Is there nothing in this analogy?\n  It serves at least to shew, that, even in the observable course of\n  nature, organizations are formed one beneath another; and, amongst a\n  thousand other instances, it shews completely, that the Deity can\n  mould and fashion the parts of material nature, so as to fulfil any\n  purpose whatever which he is pleased to appoint.\n\n  \u201cThey who refer the operations of mind to a substance totally and\n  essentially different from matter, as, most certainly, these\n  operations, though affected by material causes, hold very little\n  affinity to any properties of matter with which we are acquainted,\n  adopt, perhaps, a juster reasoning and a better philosophy; and by\n  these the considerations above suggested are not wanted, at least in\n  the same degree. But to such as find, which some persons do find, an\n  insuperable difficulty in shaking off an adherence to those analogies,\n  which the corporeal world is continually suggesting to their thoughts;\n  to such, I say, every consideration will be a relief, which manifests\n  the extent of that intelligent power which is acting in nature, the\n  fruitfulness of its resources, the variety, and aptness, and success\n  of its means; most especially every consideration, which tends to\n  shew, that, in the translation of a conscious existence, there is not,\n  even in their own way of regarding it, any thing greatly beyond, or\n  totally unlike, what takes place in such parts (probably small parts)\n  of the order of nature, as are accessible to our observation.\n\n  \u201cAgain; if there be those who think, that the contractedness and\n  debility of the human faculties in our present state, seem ill to\n  accord with the high destinies which the expectations of religion\n  point out to us, I would only ask them, whether any one, who saw a\n  child two hours after its birth, could suppose that it would ever come\n  to understand _fluxions_;[12] or who then shall say, what further\n  amplification of intellectual powers, what accession of knowledge,\n  what advance and improvement, the rational faculty, be its\n  constitution what it will, may not admit of, when placed amidst new\n  objects, and endowed with a sensorium, adapted, as it undoubtedly will\n  be, and as our present senses are, to the perception of those\n  substances, and of those properties of things, with which our concern\n  may lie.\n\n  \u201cUpon the whole; in every thing which respects this awful, but, as we\n  trust, glorious change, we have a wise and powerful Being, (the\n  author, in nature, of infinitely various expedients for infinitely\n  various ends,) upon whom to rely for the choice and appointment of\n  means, adequate to the execution of any plan which his goodness or his\n  justice may have formed, for the moral and accountable part of his\n  terrestrial creation. That great office rests with him: be it ours to\n  hope and prepare; under a firm and settled persuasion, that, living\n  and dying, we are his; that life is passed in his constant presence,\n  that death resigns us to his merciful disposal.\u201d\n\n  PALEY.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  See Search\u2019s Light of Nature, passim.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  The theory of a nervous fluid, or animal spirits, is generally\n  abandoned.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  See this doubtful doctrine discussed post Quest. 60.\n\n\n\n\n                              Quest. III.\n\n\n    QUEST. III. _What is the Word of God?_\n\n    ANSW. The holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word\n    of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.\n\n\nIn speaking to this answer, we shall consider the several names by which\nthe scripture is set forth with the import thereof, and more\nparticularly that by which it is most known; to wit, the Old and New\nTestament, and then speak of it as a rule of faith and obedience.\n\nI. There are several names given to the word of God, in Psalm cxix. one\nof which is found in almost every verse thereof.\n\nIt is sometimes called his law, statutes, precepts, commandments, or\nordinances,[15] to signify his authority and power to demand obedience\nof his creatures which he does therein, and shews us in what particular\ninstances, and how we are to yield obedience to it.\n\nIt is also called his judgments, implying that he is the great Judge of\nthe world, and that he will deal with men in a judicial way, according\nto their works, as agreeable or disagreeable to this law of his,\ncontained in his word; and, for this reason, it is also called his\nrighteousness, because all that he commands in his word is holy and\njust, and his service highly reasonable.\n\nIt is also called God\u2019s testimonies, as containing the witness,\nevidence, or record, that he has given to his own perfections, whereby\nhe has demonstrated them to the world. Thus we are said, 2 Cor. iii. 18.\n_To behold, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord._\n\nIt is also called his way, as containing a declaration of the glorious\nworks that he has done, both of nature and grace; the various methods of\nhis dealing with men, or the way that they should walk in, which leads\nto eternal life.\n\nMoreover, it is called, Rom. iii. 2. _The oracles of God_, to denote\nthat many things contained in it could not have been known by us till he\nwas pleased to reveal them therein. Agreeably hereto, the apostle speaks\nof the great things contained in the gospel, as being hid in God; hid\nfrom ages and generations past, but now made manifest to the saints,\nEph. iii. 9, Col. i. 26.\n\nAgain it is sometimes called the gospel, especially those parts of\nscripture which contain the glad tidings of salvation by Christ, or the\nmethod which God ordained for the taking away the guilt, and subduing\nthe power of sin; and particularly the apostle calls it, _The glorious\ngospel of the blessed God_; 1 Tim. i. 11. and _the gospel of our\nsalvation_. Eph. i. 13.\n\nAnd, in this answer, it is called the Old and New Testament; that part\nof it which was written before our Saviour\u2019s incarnation, which contains\na relation of God\u2019s dealings with his church, from the beginning of the\nworld to that time, or a prediction of what should be fulfilled in\nfollowing ages, is called the Old Testament. The other which contains an\naccount of God\u2019s dispensation of grace, from Christ\u2019s first to his\nsecond coming is called the New.\n\nA testament is the declared or written will of a person, in which some\nthings are given to those who are concerned or described therein. Thus\nthe scripture is God\u2019s written will or testament, containing an account\nof what he has freely given in his covenant of grace to fallen man; and\nthis is the principal subject matter of scripture, as a testament;\ntherefore it contains an account,\n\n1. Of many valuable legacies given to the heirs of salvation; the\nblessings of both worlds, all the privileges contained in those great\nand precious promises, with which the scripture so abounds. Thus it is\nsaid, _Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to\nglory_; Psal. lxiii. 24. and _the Lord will give grace and glory_, Psal.\nlxxxiv. 11.\n\n2. It describes the testator Christ, who gives eternal life to his\npeople, and confirms all the promises which are made in him; as they are\nsaid, 2 Cor. i. 20. _To be in him yea and amen, to the glory of God_;\nand more especially he ratified this testament by his death as the same\napostle observes, which is a known maxim of the civil law, that _where a\ntestament is, there must of necessity be the death of the testator_,[16]\nHeb. ix. 16, 17. upon which the force or validity thereof depends. And\nthe word of God gives us a large account how all the blessings, which\nGod bestowed upon his people, receive their validity from the death of\nChrist.\n\n3. It also discovers to us who are the heirs, or legatees, to whom these\nblessings are given, who are described therein, as repenting, believing,\nreturning sinners, who may lay claim to the blessings of the covenant of\ngrace.\n\n4. It has several seals annexed to it, _viz._ the sacraments under the\nOld and New Testament, of which we have a particular account in\nscripture.\n\nThis leads us to consider how the scripture is otherwise divided or\ndistinguished.\n\n(1.) As to the Old Testament, it is sometimes distinguished or divided\ninto _Moses and the prophets_, Luke xvi. 29. or _Moses, the prophets,\nand the psalms_, Luke xxiv. 44. And it may be considered also as\ncontaining historical and prophetic writings, and others that are more\nespecially doctrinal or poetical; and the prophets may be considered as\nto the time when they wrote, some before and others after the captivity.\nThey may also be distinguished as to the subject matter of them: some\ncontain a very clear and particular account of the person and kingdom of\nChrist, _e. g._ Isaiah who is, for this reason, by some, called the\nevangelical prophet. Others contain reproofs, and denounce and lament\napproaching judgments, as the prophet Jeremiah. Others encourage the\nbuilding of the temple, the setting up the worship of God, and the\nreformation of the people upon their return from captivity: thus\nZechariah and Haggai. As for the historical parts of scripture, these\neither contain an account of God\u2019s dealings with his people before the\ncaptivity; as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, &c. or after it, as Ezra\nand Nehemiah.\n\n(2.) The books of the New Testament maybe thus divided. Some of them are\nhistorical, _viz._ such as contain the life and death of our Saviour, as\nthe four gospels, or the ministry of the apostles, and the first\nplanting and spreading of the gospel, as the Acts of the Apostles.\nOthers are more especially doctrinal, and are wrote in the form of an\nepistle by the apostle Paul, and some other of the apostles.\n\nOne book is prophetical, as the Revelations, wherein is foretold the\ndifferent state and condition of the church, the persecutions it should\nmeet with from its Anti-christian enemies, its final victory over them,\nand its triumphs, as reigning with Christ in his kingdom.\n\nThis leads us to consider, when God first revealed his will to man in\nscripture, and how this revelation was gradually enlarged, and\ntransmitted down to the church in succeeding ages. There was no written\nword, from the beginning of the world, till Moses\u2019s time, which was\nbetween two and three thousand years; and it was almost a thousand years\nlonger before the canon of the Old Testament was completed by Malachi\nthe last prophet, and some hundred years after that before the canon of\nthe New Testament was given; so that God revealed his will, as the\napostle says, in the beginning of the epistle to the Hebrews, at _sundry\ntimes_, as well as in _divers manners_, and by divers inspired writers.\n\nNotwithstanding the church, before it had a written word, was not\ndestitute of a rule of faith and obedience, neither were they\nunacquainted with the way of salvation; for to suppose this, would be\ngreatly to detract from the glory of the divine government, and reflect\non God\u2019s goodness; therefore he took other ways to supply the want of a\nwritten word, and hereby shewed his sovereignty, in that he can make\nknown his will what way he pleases, and his wisdom and goodness, in\ngiving his written word at such a time when the necessities of men most\nrequired it. This will appear, if we consider,\n\n1. That when there was no written word, the Son of God frequently\ncondescended to appear himself, and converse with man, and so revealed\nhis mind and will to him.\n\n2. There was the ministry of angels subservient to this end, in which\nrespect the word was often spoken by angels, sent to instruct men in the\nmind and will of God.\n\n3. The church had among them all this while, more or less, the spirit of\nprophecy, whereby many were instructed in the mind of God; and though\nthey were not commanded to commit what they received by inspiration to\nwriting, yet they were hereby furnished to instruct others in the way of\nsalvation. Thus Enoch is said to have prophesied in his day; Jude ver.\n14, 15. and Noah is called, _a preacher of righteousness_, 2 Pet. ii. 5.\nHeb. xi. 7.\n\n4. Great part of this time the lives of men were very long, (_viz._)\neight or nine hundred years, and so the same persons might transmit the\nword of God by their own living testimony.\n\n5. Afterwards in the latter part of this interval of time, when there\nwas no written word, the world apostatised from God, and almost all\nflesh corrupted their way; not for want of a sufficient rule of\nobedience, but through the perverseness and depravity of their nature;\nand afterwards the world was almost wholly sunk into idolatry, and so\nwere judicially excluded from God\u2019s special care; and since Abraham\u2019s\nfamily was the only church that remained in the world, God continued to\ncommunicate to them the knowledge of his will in those extraordinary\nways, as he had done to the faithful in former ages.\n\n6. When man\u2019s life was shortened, and reduced to the same standard, as\nnow it is, of threescore and ten years, and the church was very\nnumerous, increased to a great nation, and God had promised that he\nwould increase them yet more, then they stood in greater need of a\nwritten word to prevent the inconveniences that might have arisen from\ntheir continuing any longer without one, and God thought fit, as a great\ninstance of favour to man, to command Moses to write his law, as a\nstanding rule of faith and obedience to his church.\n\nThis leads us to consider a very important question, _viz._ whether the\nchurch, under the Old Testament dispensation, understood this written\nword, or the spiritual meaning of those laws that are contained therein?\nSome, indeed, have thought that the state of the church, before Christ\ncame in the flesh, was attended with so much darkness, that they did not\nknow the way of salvation, though they had, in whole or in part, the\nscriptures of the Old Testament. The Papists generally assert, that they\ndid not; and therefore they fancy, that all who lived before Christ\u2019s\ntime, were shut up in a prison, where they remained till he went from\nthe cross to reveal himself to them, and so, as their leader, to conduct\nthem in triumph to heaven. And some Protestants think the state of all\nwho lived in those times, to have been attended with so much darkness,\nthat they knew but little of Christ and his gospel, though shadowed\nforth, or typified by the ceremonial law; which they found on suchlike\nplaces of scripture as that, where Moses is said to have _put a vail\nover his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to\nthe end of that which is abolished; and that this vail is done away in\nChrist_, 2 Cor. iii. 13, 14. and those scriptures that speak of the\nJewish dispensation, as _a night of darkness_, compared with that of the\ngospel, which is represented as _a perfect day_, or the _rising of the\nsun_, Isa. xxi. 11. Cant. ii. 17. Malachi iv. 2. And as these extend the\ndarkness of that dispensation farther than, as I humbly conceive, they\nought to do, so they speak more of the wrath, bondage, and terror that\nattend it, than they have ground to do, especially when they make it\nuniversal; since there are several reasons, which may induce us to\nbelieve that the church, at that time, understood a great deal more of\nthe gospel, shadowed forth in the ceremonial law, and had more communion\nwith God, and less wrath, terror, or bondage, than these suppose they\nhad; for which I would offer the following reasons,\n\n1. Some of the Old Testament saints have expressed a great degree of\nfaith in Christ, and love to him, whom they expected to come in our\nnature; and many of the prophets, in their inspired writings, have\ndiscovered that they were not strangers to the way of redemption and\nreconciliation to God by him, as the Lord our righteousness. A multitude\nof scriptures might be cited, that speak of Christ, and salvation by him\nin the Old Testament, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. Zech. xiii. 7. Psal. xxxiii. 1,\n2. compared with Rom. iv. 6. Thus Abraham is described, as _rejoicing to\nsee his day_, John viii. 56. and the prophet Isaiah is so very\nparticular and express in the account he gives of his person and\noffices, that I cannot see how any one can reasonably conclude him to\nhave been wholly a stranger to the gospel himself, Isa. xxii. 25. ch.\nlii. 13, 14, 15. Can any one think this, who reads his 53d chapter,\nwhere he treats of his life, death, sufferings, and offices, and of the\nway of salvation by him?\n\n_Object._ It is objected hereunto that the prophets who delivered these\nevangelical truths, understood but little of them themselves, because of\nthe darkness of the dispensation they were under. Thus it is said, 1\nPet. i. 10, 11, 12. that _the prophets_, indeed, _searched_ into the\nmeaning of their own predictions, but to no purpose; for _it was\nrevealed to them, that not unto themselves, but unto us, they\nministered_; that is, the account they gave of our Saviour was not\ndesigned to be understood by them, but us in this present\ngospel-dispensation.\n\n_Answ._ The answer that may be given to this objection is, that though\nthe prophets are represented as enquiring into the meaning of their own\nprophecies, yet it doth not follow from thence that they had but little\nor no understanding of them: all that can be gathered from it is, that\nthey studied them, as their own salvation was concerned therein; but we\nmust not suppose that they did this to no purpose, as what they were not\nable to understand; and when it is farther said in this scripture, that\n_not unto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the things that are\nnow reported_; the meaning is, not that they did not understand those\nthings, or had not much concern in them, but that the glory of the\ngospel state, that was foretold in their prophecies, was what we should\nbehold with our eyes, and not they themselves, in which sense they are\nsaid _not to minister to themselves, but to us_; so that this objection\nhath no force in it to overthrow the argument we are maintaining; we\ntherefore proceed to consider,\n\n2. That it is certain, that the whole ceremonial law had a spiritual\nmeaning annexed to it; for it is said, _That the law was a shadow of\ngood things to come_, Heb. x. 1. and that all those things _happened to\nthem for ensamples_, [or types] _and they are written for our\nadmonition_, 1 Cor. x. 11.\n\n3. It is unreasonable to suppose that the spiritual meaning of the\nceremonial law should not be known by those to whom it was principally\ngiven; or that the gospel, wrapt up therein, should not be seen through\nthis shadow till the dispensation was abolished, the ceremonial law\nabrogated, and the nation cast off to whom it was given.\n\n4. If the knowledge of the gospel, or faith in Christ, which is founded\nupon it, be necessary for our salvation, it was necessary for the\nsalvation of those who lived in former ages; for it was as much a truth\nthen as it is now, that there is salvation in no other; therefore the\nchurch of old were obliged to believe in him to come, as much as we are\nto believe in him as already come; but it is inconsistent with the\ndivine goodness to require this knowledge, and not to give them any\nexpedient to attain it; therefore we must either suppose this knowledge\nattainable by them, and consequently that he was revealed to them, or\nelse they must be excluded from a possibility of salvation, when, at the\nsame time, they were obliged to believe in Christ, which they could not\ndo, because they did not understand the meaning of that law, which was\nthe only means of revealing him to them; or if Christ was revealed in\nthe ceremonial law, and they had no way to understand it, it is all one\nas though he had not been revealed therein.\n\n5. They had sufficient helps for the understanding the spiritual meaning\nthereof, _viz._ not only some hints of explication, given in the Old\nTestament, but, besides these, there was,\n\n(1.) Extraordinary revelation and inspiration, with which the Jewish\nchurch more or less, was favoured, almost throughout all the ages\nthereof; and hereby it is more than probable that, together with the\ncanon of the Old Testament, they received the spiritual sense and\nmeaning of those things which were contained therein.\n\n(2.) There was one whole tribe, _viz._ that of Levi, that was almost\nwholly employed in studying and explaining the law of God; therefore it\nis said, _They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law_,\nDeut. xxxiii. 10. and that _the priest\u2019s lips should keep knowledge, and\nthey should seek the law at his mouth_; Mal. ii. 7. that is, the priests\nshould, by all proper methods, understand the meaning of the law, that\nthey might be able to teach the people, when coming to be instructed by\nthem.\n\n(3.) There were among them several schools of the prophets (in some ages\nat least of the Jewish church) in which some had extraordinary\nrevelations; and they that had them not, made the scriptures their\nstudy, that they might be able to instruct others; so that, from all\nthis, it appears that they had a great deal of knowledge of divine\ntruths, and the spiritual meaning of the Old Testament; though yet we\nwill not deny that the gospel dispensation hath a clearer light, and\nexcels in glory.[17]\n\nWe shall now proceed to consider, how far the Old Testament is a rule of\nfaith and obedience to us, though that dispensation be abolished; for we\nare not to reckon it an useless part of scripture, or that it does not\nat all concern us. Since,\n\n(1.) The greatest part of the doctrines contained therein are of\nperpetual obligation to the church, in all the dispensations or changes\nthereof.\n\n(2.) As for the ceremonial law, which is abolished, with some other\nforensick, or political laws, by which the Jews, in particular, were\ngoverned, these, indeed, are not so far a rule of obedience to us, as\nthat we should think ourselves obliged to observe them, as the Jews were\nof old: notwithstanding,\n\n(3.) Even these are of use to us, as herein we see what was then the\nrule of faith and obedience to the church, and how far it agrees as to\nthe substance thereof, or things signified thereby, with the present\ndispensation; so that it is of use to us, as herein we see the wisdom,\nsovereignty, and grace of God to his church in former ages, and how what\nwas then typified or prophesied, is fulfilled to us. Thus it is said,\nthat _whatsoever things were written afore-time, were written for our\nlearning, that we, through patience and comfort of the scriptures might\nhave hope_, Rom. xv. 4.\n\nThe scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain a revelation of the\nwhole mind and will of God, and therefore are very justly styled a\nperfect rule of faith and obedience. Nevertheless,\n\nWe do not hereby intend that they contain an account of every thing that\nGod hath done, or will do, in his works of providence and grace, from\nthe beginning to the end of time; for such a large knowledge of things\nis not necessary for us to attain. Thus it is said, John xx. 30. that\nChrist did many _other signs_, that are not written in the gospel; but\nthose things that are contained therein, are _written that we might\nbelieve_; therefore we have a sufficient account thereof to support our\nfaith; and that _there were many other things which Jesus did, which, if\nthey should be written every one, the world would not contain the books\nthat should be written_, John xxi. 25.[18]\n\nNor do we understand hereby, that God has given us an account of all his\nsecret counsels and purposes relating to the event of things, or the\nfinal estate of particular persons, abstracted from those marks on which\nour hope of salvation is founded, or their outward condition, or the\ngood or bad success that shall attend their undertakings in the world,\nor the time of their living therein: these, and many more events of the\nlike nature, are secrets which we are not to enquire into, God having\nnot thought fit to reveal them in his word, for wise ends best known to\nhimself, which shews his sovereignty, with respect to the matter of\nrevelation; _Secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those\nthings which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children_, Deut.\nxxix. 29. When Peter was over-curious in enquiring concerning the future\nestate or condition of John, our Saviour gives him this tacit reproof,\n_What is that to thee?_ John xxi. 21, 22.\n\nNor are we to suppose that the divine perfections, which are infinite,\nare fully and adequately revealed to man, since it is impossible that\nthey should, from the nature of the thing; for that which is in itself\nincomprehensible, cannot be so revealed that we should be able fully to\ncomprehend it, though that which is possible, or at least necessary, to\nbe known of God, is clearly revealed to us.\n\nAgain, we do not suppose that every doctrine, that is to be assented to\nas an article of faith, is revealed in express words in scripture, since\nmany truths are to be deduced from it by just and necessary\nconsequences, which thereby become a rule of faith.\n\nNor are we to suppose that every part of scripture fully and clearly\ndiscovers all those things which are contained in the whole of it, since\nthere was farther light given to the church, by degrees, in succeeding\nages, as it grew up, from its infant-state, to a state of perfect\nmanhood; therefore there is a clearer and fuller revelation of the\nglorious mysteries of the gospel, under the New Testament-dispensation,\nthan there was before it. The apostle uses the same metaphorical way of\nspeaking, when he compares the state of the church, under the ceremonial\nlaw, to that of an heir under age, or of children under the direction of\ntutors and governors, whose instruction and advances in knowledge are\nproportioned to their age; so God revealed his word at _sundry times_,\nas well as in _divers manners_, Gal. iv. 1, 3. Heb. i. 1.\n\nThe word of God, accompanied with those additional helps before\nmentioned, for the churches understanding the sense thereof, was always,\nindeed, sufficient to lead men into the knowledge of divine truth; but\nthe canon being compleated, it is so now in an eminent degree; and it is\nagreeable to the divine perfections that such a rule should be given;\nfor since salvation could not be attained, nor God glorified, without a\ndiscovery of those means, which are conducive thereto, it is not\nconsistent with his wisdom and goodness that we should be left at the\nutmost uncertainty as to this matter, and, at the same time, rendered\nincapable of the highest privileges which attend instituted worship. Can\nwe suppose that, when all other things necessary to salvation are\nadjusted, and many insuperable difficulties surmounted, and an\ninvitation given to come and partake of it, that God should lay such a\nbar in our way, that it should be impossible for us to attain it, as\nbeing without a sufficient rule?\n\nAnd since none but God can give us such an one, it is inconsistent with\nhis sovereignty to leave it to men, to prescribe what is acceptable in\nhis sight. They may, indeed, give laws, and thereby oblige their\nsubjects to obedience; but these must be such as are within their own\nsphere; their power does not extend itself to religious matters, so that\nour faith and duty to God should depend upon their will; for this would\nbe a bold presumption, and extending their authority and influence\nbeyond due bounds; therefore since a rule of faith is necessary, we must\nconclude that God has given us such an one; and it must certainly be\nworthy of himself, and therefore perfect, and every way sufficient to\nanswer the end thereof.\n\nThat it is so, farther appears from the event, or from the happy\nconsequences of our obedience to it; from that peace, joy, and holiness,\nwhich believers are made partakers of, while steadfastly adhering to\nthis rule: thus it is said, that _through comfort of the scriptures they\nhave hope_, Rom. xv. 4. and that hereby _the man of God is made wise to\nsalvation, and perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works_, 2\nTim. iii. 15, 17. The perfection of the law is demonstrated, by the\nPsalmist, by its effects, in that it _converts the soul, makes wise the\nsimple, rejoices the heart, enlightens the eyes_, Psal. xix. 7, 8.\n\nWe might farther argue, that the scripture is a perfect rule of faith,\nfrom those threatnings which are denounced against them, who pretend to\nadd to, or take from it; this was strictly forbidden, even when there\nwas but a part of scripture committed to writing. Thus says God; _Ye\nshall not add to the word which I command you; neither shall ye diminish\nought from it_, Deut. iv. 2. And the apostle denounces an anathema\nagainst any one who should pretend to preach any other gospel, than that\nwhich he had received from God, Gal. i. 8, 9. And, in the close of the\nscripture, our Saviour testifies, to every man, that _if any should add\nto these things, God would add to him the plagues written in this book.\nAnd if any should take away from this book, God would take away his part\nout of the book of life_, Rev. xxii. 18, 19.\n\nThus having considered the scripture as a rule of faith, we proceed to\nshew what are the properties which belong to it as such.\n\n1. A rule, when it is designed for general use, must have the sanction\nof public authority: thus human laws, by which a nation is to be\ngoverned, which are a rule to determine the goodness or badness of men\u2019s\nactions, and their desert of rewards or punishments accordingly, must be\nestablished by public authority. Even so the scripture is a rule of\nfaith, as it contains the divine laws, by which the actions of men are\nto be tried, together with the ground which some have to expect future\nblessedness, and others to fear punishments threatened to those who walk\nnot according to this rule.\n\n2. A rule by which we are to judge of the nature, truth, excellency,\nperfection, or imperfection of any thing, must be infallible, or else it\nis of no use; and, as such, nothing must be added to, or taken from it,\nfor then it would cease to be a perfect rule: thus it must be a certain\nand impartial standard, by which things are to be tried: Such a rule as\nthis is scripture, as was but now observed. And it is an impartial rule,\nto which, as a standard, all truth and goodness is to be reduced and\nmeasured by it; _To the law, and to the testimony; if they speak not\naccording to this word, it is because there is no light in them_, Isa.\nviii. 20.\n\n3. All appeals are to be made to a rule, and controversies to be tried\nand determined by it. Thus the scripture, as it is a rule of faith, is a\njudge of controversies; so that whatever different sentiments men have\nabout religion, all must be reduced to, and the warrantableness thereof\ntried hereby, and a stop put to growing errors by an appeal to this\nrule, rather than to coercive power, or the carnal weapons of violence\nand persecution.\n\nMoreover, the judgment we pass on ourselves, as being sincere or\nhypocrites, accepted or rejected of God, is to be formed by comparing\nour conduct with scripture, as the rule by which we are to try the\ngoodness or badness of our state, and of our actions.\n\n4. A rule must have nothing of a different nature set up in competition\nwith, or opposition to it; for that would be to render it useless, and\nunfit to be the standard of truth: thus scripture is the only rule of\nfaith, and therefore no human traditions are to be set up as standards\nof faith in competition with it, for that would be to suppose it not to\nbe a perfect rule. This the Papists do, and therefore may be charged, as\nthe Pharisees were of old by our Saviour, with _transgressing and making\nthe commandment of none effect by their tradition_, Mat. xv. 3, 6.\nconcerning whom he also says, that _in vain they worship him, teaching\nfor doctrines the commandments of men_, ver. 9. What is this but to\nreflect on the wisdom, and affront the authority and sovereignty of God,\nby casting this contempt on that rule of faith which he hath given?\n\nHaving considered scripture as a rule of faith and obedience, it is\nfarther observed, that it is the only rule thereof, in opposition to the\nPopish doctrine of human traditions, as pretended to be of equal\nauthority with it; by which means the law of God is made void at this\nday, as it was by the Jews in our Saviour\u2019s time, and the scripture\nsupposed to be an imperfect rule; the defect whereof they take this\nmethod to supply; and to give countenance thereto,\n\n1. They refer to those Scriptures, in which, it is said, our Saviour\n_did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not\nwritten_, John xx. 30. and his own words, wherein he tells them, that he\nhad _many things to say unto them, which they could not then bear_, John\nxvi. 12. as also to the words of the apostle Paul, Acts xx. 35. in which\nhe puts the church in mind of a saying of our Saviour, received by\ntradition, because not contained in any of the evangels, _viz._ _it is\nmore blessed to give than to receive_.\n\nTo which it may be replied,\n\n_Answ._ (1.) That though it is true there were many things done, and\nwords spoken by our Saviour, which are not recorded in Scripture, and\ntherefore we must be content not to know them, being satisfied with\nthis, that nothing is omitted therein which is necessary to salvation,\nyet to pretend to recover, or transmit them to us by tradition, is to\nassert and not to prove, what they impose on us as matters of faith.\n\n(2.) Those things which our Saviour had to say, which he did not then\nimpart to his disciples, because they were not able to bear them,\nrespected, as is more than probable, what he designed to discover to\nthem after his resurrection, during his forty days abode here on earth,\nor by his Spirit, after his ascension into heaven, concerning the change\nof the Sabbath, from the seventh, to the first day of the week, the\nabolition of the ceremonial law, the Spirituality of his kingdom, which\nthey were at that time less able to bear than they were afterwards, and\nother things relating to the success of their ministry, the gathering\nand governing of those churches, which should be planted by them; these\nseem to be intended by that expression, and not those doctrines which\nthe Papists transmit by oral traditions; such as the use of oil and\nspittle, together with water in baptism, and the sign of the cross\ntherein; the baptism of bells, the lighting up of candles in churches at\nnoon-day: nor that of purgatory, or praying for the dead, or giving\ndivine adoration to images or relics, which are altogether unscriptural,\nand such as he would not have, at any time, communicated unto them.\n\n(3.) Those words of our Saviour, _It is more blessed to give than to\nreceive_, though they are not contained in one distinct proposition, or\nin express words in the gospels, yet he therein exhorts his people _to\ngive to him that asketh_; and speaks of the blessing that attends this\nduty, _that they might be_, that is, approve themselves to be _the\nchildren of their Father_, Mat. v. 42. compared with 45. and exhorts\nthem to hospitality to the poor, and adds a blessing to it, Luke xiv.\n12, 13, 14. Or, suppose the apostle refers to a saying frequently used\nby our Saviour, which might then be remembered by some who had conversed\nwith him; this is no sufficient warrant for any one to advance doctrines\ncontrary to those our Saviour delivered, under a pretence of having\nreceived them by unwritten tradition.\n\n2. This doctrine is farther defended from the words of the apostle, in 1\nTim. vi. 20. where he advises Timothy to _keep that which was committed\nto his trust_, _viz._ those traditions which he was to remember and\ncommunicate to others: and also the advice which he gives to the church,\n_To hold the traditions which they had been taught, either by word or by\nhis epistle_, 2 Thess. ii. 15. the former respects, say they, unwritten\ntraditions, the latter is inspired writings.\n\n_Answ._ That which was committed to Timothy to keep, was either _the\nform of sound words_, or the gospel, which he was to _hold fast_, 2 Tim.\ni. 13. or the ministry which he had received of the Lord, or those gifts\nand graces which were communicated to him, to fit him for public\nservice. And as for those traditions which he speaks of in the other\nscripture, the meaning is only this: that they should remember not only\nthe doctrines they had received from him, which were contained in his\ninspired epistles, but those which were agreeable to scripture, that he\nhad imparted in the exercise of his public ministry; the former were to\nbe depended upon as an infallible rule of faith, the latter to be\nretained and improved as agreeable thereunto, and\n\n3. They farther add, that it was by this means that God instructed his\nchurch for above two thousand years before the scripture was committed\nto writing.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that God communicated his mind and\nwill to them, during that interval, in an extraordinary manner, as has\nbeen before observed, page 52, 53, which cannot be said of any of those\ntraditions which are pleaded for by them.\n\n4. It is farther argued, that the book of the law was formerly lost in\nJosiah\u2019s time; for it is said, that when it was found, and a part of it\nread to him, he rent his clothes, and was astonished, as though he had\nnever read it before, 2 Kings xxii. 8. to 11, yet he being a good man,\nwas well instructed in the doctrines of religion; therefore this must\nhave been by tradition.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered, that the book, which was then found,\nwas doubtless, an original manuscript of Scripture, either of all the\nbooks of Moses or Deuteronomy in particular, but it is not to be\nsupposed that he had never read it before; for a person may be affected\nat one time in reading that portion of scripture, which he has often\nread without its having the like effect upon him; and doubtless, there\nwere many copies of scripture transcribed, by which he was made\nacquainted with the doctrines of religion, without learning them from\nuncertain traditions.\n\n5. They farther allege, that some books of scripture are lost, and\ntherefore it is necessary that they should be supplied this way; the\ninstances they give of this are some books referred to in scripture,\n_viz._ _the book of the wars of the Lord_, Numb. xxi. 14. and another\ngoing under the name of Jasher, 2 Sam. i. 18. compared with Josh. x. 13.\nand another called _the book of the acts of Solomon_, 1 Kings xi. 41.\nand also his Songs and Proverbs, and the account he gives of _trees,\nplants, beasts, fowls, creeping things, and fishes_, 1 Kings, iv. 32,\n33. There are also other books said to be written by Samuel, Nathan, and\nGad, 1 Chron. xxix. 29. the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and _the\nvisions of Iddo the seer_, 2 Chron. ix. 29. and Jeremiah\u2019s lamentation\nfor Josiah, is said to be written _in the books of the Lamentations_, 2\nChron. xxxv. 25. whereas there is no mention of Josiah in the book of\nscripture, which goes under that name; therefore they suppose that there\nwas some other book so called which was written by that prophet, but is\nnow lost.\n\n_Answ._ 1. As to the argument in general, that some books of scripture\nare lost, suppose we should take it for granted that they are so, must\nthis loss be supplied by traditions, pretended to be divine, though\nwithout sufficient proof: however, I am not willing to make this\nconcession, though, indeed, some Protestant divines have done it, as\nthinking it equally supposable, that some books, written by divine\ninspiration, might be lost, as well as many words spoke by the same\ninspiration: but even these constantly maintain that whatever inspired\nwritings may have been lost, yet there is no doctrine necessary to the\nedification of the church, in what immediately relates to salvation, but\nwhat is contained in those writings, which are preserved, by the care\nand goodness of providence, to this day; but, without giving into this\nconcession, I would rather adhere to the more commonly received opinion,\nthat no book designed to be a part of the canon of scripture is lost,\nthough many uninspired writings have perished; and therefore as to those\nbooks but now mentioned, they refer to some books of scripture, in which\nwe have no mention of the inspired writers thereof, which, as is more\nthan probable, were wrote by some noted prophet that flourished in the\nchurch at that time, which their respective histories refer to;\ntherefore some suppose that the books of Nathan and Gad, or Iddo, refer\nto those of Kings or Chronicles, which are not lost. But since this is\nonly a probable conjecture, we pass it over, and add, that it is not\nunreasonable to suppose that the books said to be written by them, as\nalso those of Solomon, that are not contained in scripture, were not\nwritten by divine inspiration, which is not only a safe but sufficient\nanswer to the objection. As for Jeremiah\u2019s lamentation for Josiah, it is\nprobable that the book of scripture, which goes under that name, was\nwritten on the occasion of Josiah\u2019s death, in which, though he doth not\nmention the name of that good king, yet he laments the desolating\njudgments which were to follow soon after it.\n\nMoreover, the Papists pretend, that some part of the New Testament is\nlost; particularly the epistle from Laodicea, mentioned in Col. iv. 16.\nand one written to the Corinthians, _not to company with fornicators_, 1\nCor. v. 9. and another mentioned, 2 Cor. vii. 8. _by which he made them\nsorry_.\n\n_Answ._ 1. As to the epistle from Laodicea that was probably one of his\ninspired epistles, written by him when at Laodicea, and not directed, as\nis pretended, to the Laodiceans.\n\n2. As to that epistle, which he is supposed to have written to the\nCorinthians, it is not expressly said that it was another epistle he had\nwrote to them; but it is plainly intimated, ver. 12. that he refers to\nthe epistle, which he was then writing to them; a part of which related\nto that subject, as this chapter, in particular does,\n\n3. As to the letter, which he wrote to them, _which made them sorry_, it\nis not necessary to suppose that it was written by divine inspiration;\nfor as every thing he delivered by word of mouth, was not by the\nextraordinary _afflatus_ of the Holy Ghost, why may we not suppose that\nthere were several epistles written by him to the churches, some to\ncomfort, others to admonish, reprove, or make them sorry, besides those\nthat he was inspired to write?\n\nHaving considered the arguments brought to prove that some books of\nscripture are lost, we shall now prove, on the other hand, that we have\nthe canon thereof compleat and entire. Some think this is sufficiently\nevident from what our Saviour says, _Till heaven and earth pass away,\none jot, or tittle shall not pass from the law_, Mat. v. 18. and _it is\neasier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to\nfail_, Luke xvi. 17. If God will take care of every jot and tittle of\nscripture, will he not take care that no whole book, designed to be a\npart of the rule of faith, should be entirely lost? It is objected,\nindeed, to this, that our Saviour hereby intends principally the\ndoctrines or precepts contained in the law; but if the subject matter\nthereof shall not be lost, surely the scripture that contains it shall\nbe preserved entire.\n\nBut this will more evidently appear, if we consider that the books of\nthe Old Testament were compleat in our Saviour\u2019s time; for it is said,\n_That beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded to them in\nall the scriptures, the things concerning himself_, Luke xxiv. 27. and\nthis may also be proved from what the apostle says, _Whatsoever things\nwere written aforetime, were written for our learning_, Rom. xv. 4. now\nit is impossible that they should be written for our learning if they\nare lost.\n\nTo this it may be added, that the goodness of God, and the care of his\nprovidence, with respect to this church, farther evinces this truth; for\nif he gave them ground to conclude that _he would be with them always,\neven to the end of the world_, Matth. xxviii. 20. surely this argues,\nthat he would preserve the rule he had given them to walk by, from all\nthe injuries of time, so that it should not be lost to the end of the\nworld.\n\nAgain, the Jews were the keepers of the oracles of God, Rom. iii. 2. now\nthey are not reproved by our Saviour, or the apostle Paul, for any\nunfaithfulness in not preserving them entire; and certainly our Saviour,\nwhen he reproves them for making void the law by their traditions, and\nthreatens those that should add to or take from it, if he had found them\nfaulty, in not having faithfully preserved all the scriptures committed\nto them, he would have severely reproved them for this great breach of\ntrust.\n\n_Object._ It is objected against the scriptures being a perfect rule of\nfaith, that they are in several places corrupted, _viz._ that the Old\nTestament was so by the Jews, out of malice against our Saviour, and the\nChristian religion, that they might conceal, or pervert to another\nsense, some prophecies relating to the Messiah, and the gospel-state.\nAnd as for the New Testament, they pretend that it was corrupted by some\nheretics, in defence of their perverse doctrines.\n\n_Answ._ 1. As to the Old Testament, it is very improbable and\nunreasonable to suppose that it was corrupted by the Jews. For,\n\n(1.) Before our Saviour\u2019s time, no valuable end could be answered\nthereby; for then they expected the Messiah to come, according to what\nwas foretold by the prophets, and understood their predictions in a true\nsense.\n\n(2.) After he was come, and Christianity took place in the world, though\nmalice might have prompted them to it, yet they would not do it, because\nthey had always been trained up in this notion, that it was the vilest\ncrime to add to, take from, or alter it: so that one of their own\nwriters[19] says concerning them, that they would rather die an hundred\ndeaths, than suffer the law to be changed in any instance; yea, they\nhave such a veneration for the law, that if, by any accident, part of it\nshould fall to the ground, they would proclaim a fast as fearing lest,\nfor this, God would destroy the whole world, and reduce it to its first\nchaos: and can any one think, that, under any pretence whatever, they\nwould designedly corrupt the Old Testament? Yea, they were so far from\ndoing it, that they took the greatest care, even to superstition, to\nprevent its being corrupted, through inadvertency, and accordingly\nnumbered not only the books and sections, but even the words and\nletters, that not a single letter might be added to, or taken from it.\n\n(3.) If they had any inclination to do this, out of malice against\nChristianity, it would have been to no purpose, after our Saviour\u2019s\ntime; for it was then translated into Greek, and this translation was in\nthe hands of almost all Christians; so that the fallacy would soon have\nbeen detected. And if they had corrupted some copies of the Hebrew\nBible, they could not have corrupted or altered them all; therefore to\nattempt any thing of this kind, would have been to expose themselves to\nno purpose.\n\n(4.) It would not have been for their own advantage to pervert it; for,\nin altering the texts that make for Christianity, they would (especially\nif the fraud should have been detected) have weakened their own cause so\nfar, that the reputation of scripture being hereby lost, they could not\nhave made use of it to that advantage, to prove their own religion from\nit.\n\nBut, notwithstanding all this out-cry of the scriptures being perverted,\nthey pretend to give no proof hereof, except in two or three words,\nwhich do not much affect the cause of Christianity; whereas, if the Jews\nhad designed to pervert it, why did they not alter the fifty-third of\nIsaiah, and many other scriptures, which so plainly speak of the person\nand offices of the Messiah?\n\n2. As to the other part of the objection, that the New Testament hath\nbeen corrupted by heretics since our Saviour\u2019s time, whatever charge\nhath been brought against the Arians, and some others, of having out\nsome words, or verses, which tend to overthrow their scheme, they have\nnot been able, even when the empire was most favourable to their cause,\nto alter all the copies; so that their fallacy has been detected, and\nthe corruption amended.\n\nAs for those various readings that there are of the same text, these\nconsist principally in literal alterations, which do not much tend to\npervert the sense thereof. It was next to impossible for so many copies\nof scripture to be transcribed without some mistakes, since they who\nwere employed in this work were not under the infallible direction of\nthe Spirit of God, as the first penmen were; yet the providence of God\nhath not suffered them to make notorious mistakes; and whatever mistakes\nthere may be in one copy, they may be corrected by another; so that the\nscripture is not, for this reason, chargeable with the reproach cast\nupon it, as though it were not a perfect rule of faith.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  He who has created all things, with all their relations, and who is\n  the universal Sovereign, has a right to the allegiance of his rational\n  creatures, and they are under obligation to obey his laws, because it\n  is his will that they should do so. He has connected our _interest_\n  with our duty, as a motive to obedience, and because he is good; but\n  if we should substitute utility for his authority, and conform to his\n  laws, merely because they are advantageous, we rebel against our\n  Sovereign, and renounce his authority, that we may pursue our own\n  advantage. Virtue is amiable for its intrinsic rectitude. If we choose\n  to practice it merely because _beautiful_, we please ourselves; and\n  though the excellency of virtue is intended as a motive, and it is\n  well for the man who is charmed by it, yet, if this be the only\n  inducement, he has lost sight of the Divine authority, and his virtue\n  is no obedience to the laws of God. If the obligation of virtue be\n  founded solely on its utility, or beauty, we are at liberty to forego\n  our advantage, or pleasure without guilt, and remorse of conscience\n  will be unaccountable. It is also _fit and proper_, that we should\n  practice virtue, but this is no more to be substituted for the Divine\n  authority, than the other motives of advantage or pleasure. If it be\n  objected, that the fitness of moral good is eternal, and a rule even\n  to Deity, and so may be deemed a foundation of the obligation of human\n  virtue. It is conceded that the fitness of virtue is eternal, for God\n  is eternal, and has been always holy, and just; in the same manner\n  also the beauty of virtue is eternal; but to suppose these to have\n  existed anterior to thought and action, and to be independent of an\n  eternally and immutably holy God is to indulge the mind in\n  speculations, which, to say the least of them, are groundless. We may\n  as well assign a cause to eternal existence, as to eternal holiness.\n  When the Creator formed the Universe of intelligent creatures, he gave\n  them, with their existence, the various relations and circumstances\n  which sprang up with them: and their obligations with respect to him\n  and his works originated at the same time, and from the same source;\n  which could be no other than the Divine pleasure; and the positive\n  express appointments, which have been since super-added, rest upon the\n  same basis, the will of God.\n\n  That we might discern his will and conform to it, he has set before us\n  his own character, which in all things is good. He has given us\n  reason, or active intellectual powers capable of pursuing the truth,\n  and discovering his character, as a rule of our conduct. And because\n  reason is matured by slow degrees, and the advantages for its\n  improvement are unequal, he has given us a sense susceptible of the\n  impressions of good and evil, by which we can distinguish between\n  moral good and evil almost as easily, as by our natural senses we\n  discern the differences between light and darkness, sweetness and\n  bitterness; and thus has he rendered the judgment upon our own actions\n  almost always unavoidable. The light of nature has been confirmed by\n  express revelation; and because the law of nature identifies itself\n  with the written law of God, the obligation of both rests upon the\n  same foundation, the Sovereign will.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Where a covenant is, there should be the death of the devoted\n  _victim_.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  PROPHETS BEFORE THE CAPTIVITY.\n\n  _With the order and times of their Prophecies._\n\n   Years\n  before\n Christ.\n\n     812 Amaziah king of Judah,         Jonah sent with a message. 2\n         Jeroboam II. king of Israel    Kings xiii. 20. xiv. 25.\n\n     800 Uzziah king of Judah. Jeroboam Joel i. ii. iii.\n         II.\n\n     800 Jeroboam II. king of Israel.   Amos i.\u2014\u2014ix.\n         Uzziah king of Judah\n\n     800 Jeroboam II. Uzziah            Hosea i. ii. iii.\n\n     772 Menahem I.                     Hosea iv.\n\n     770 Menahem II.                    Jonah i. ii. iii. iv.\n\n     759 Uzziah 52. Pekah 1.            Isaiah vi. ii. iii. iv. v.\n\n     753 Jotham 5. Pekah 7.             Micah i. ii.\n\n     742 Ahaz 1. Pekah 18.              Isaiah vii.\n\n         In the same year               Isaiah viii. ix. x.\n\n         In the same year               Isaiah xvii.\n\n     740 Ahaz 3. Pekah 20.              Isaiah i.\n\n         In the same year               Isaiah xxviii.\n\n     739 Aphaz 4.                       Hosea v. vi.\n\n     726 Hezekiah 2.                    Isaiah xiv. ver. 28, &c.\n\n         In the same year               Isaiah xv. xvi.\n\n     725 Hezekiah 3. Hoshea 6.          Hosea vii.-xiv. Micah iii. iv.\n                                        v. vi. vii.\n\n     720 Hezekiah 7.                    Nahum i. ii. iii.\n\n     715 Hezekiah 13.                   Isaiah xxiii.-xxvii.\n\n     714 Hezekiah 14.                   Isaiah xxxviii. xxxix.\n\n     714 Hezekiah 14.                   Isaiah xxix. xxx.-xxxv.\n\n         In the same year               Isaiah xxii. ver. 1-15.\n\n         In the same year               Isaiah xxi.\n\n     713 Hezekiah 15.                   Isaiah xx.\n\n         In the same year               Isaiah xviii. xix.\n\n     710 Hezekiah 18.                   Isaiah x. ver. 5, &c. xi. xii.\n                                        xiii. xiv. ver. 28, &c.\n\n         In the same year               Isaiah xxxvi. xxxvii.\n\n         In the same year               Isaiah xl.-xliii. &c.\n\n     698 Manasseh 1.                    Isaiah xxii. ver. 15.\n\n     628 Josiah 13.                     Jeremiah i. ii.\n\n     623 Josiah 18.                     Jeremiah xi. ver. 1-18.\n                                        Jeremiah iii.-x. xii.-xxi.\n                                        Jeremiah xi. ver. 18, &c.\n\n     611 Josiah 31.                     Habbakkuk i. ii. iii.\n                                        Zephaniah i. ii. iii.\n\n     610 Jehoiakim 1.                   Jeremiah xii. ver. 1-24.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxvi.\n\n     606 Jehoiakim 4.                   Jeremiah xxv.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxv.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xlvi.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxvi. ver. 1-9.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xlv.\n\n         In the same year               Daniel i.\n\n     605 Jehoiakim 5.                   Jeremiah xxxvi. ver. 9, &c.\n\n     603 Jehoiakim 7.                   Daniel ii.\n\n     599 Zedekiah 1.                    Jeremiah xxii. ver. 24, &c.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxiii\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xiii. ver. 13, &c.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxiv.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xlix. ver. 34, &c.\n\n     598 Zedekiah 2.                    Jeremiah xxix.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxx. xxxi.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxvii.\n\n     596 Zedekiah 4.                    Jeremiah xxviii.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah l. li.\n\n     595 Zedekiah 5. Jehoiachin\u2019s capt. Ezekiel i.-vii.\n         5\n\n     594 Zedekiah 6. Jehoiachin\u2019s capt. Ezekiel viii.-xi.\n         6\n\n     593 Zedekiah 7. Jehoiachin\u2019s capt. Ezekiel xii.-xix.\n         7\n\n         In the same year, fifth month  Ezekiel xx.-xxiii.\n\n     591 Zedekiah 9. Jehoiachin\u2019s capt. Jeremiah xxi. xxxiv ver. 1-8.\n         9\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xlvii.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xlviii. xlix. ver.\n                                        1-34.\n\n         In the same year               Ezekiel xxiv. xxv.\n\n     590 Zedekiah 10. Jehoiachin\u2019s      Jeremiah xxxvii. ver. 1-11.\n         capt. 10\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxiv. ver. 8, &c.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxvii. ver. 11-16\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxii. xxiii.\n\n         In the same year               Ezekiel xxix. ver. 1-17. xxx.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxvii. ver. 17, &c.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxviii. ver. 1-14.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxix. ver. 15, &c.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxviii. ver. 14, &c.\n\n     589 Zedekiah 11. Jehoiachin\u2019s capt Ezekiel xxxvi. xxxvii.\n         11. first month                xxxviii.\n\n         In the same year, third month  Ezekiel xxxi.\n\n         In the same year, fourth month Jeremiah xxxix. ver. 1-11.\n                                        lii. ver. 1-30.\n\n         In the same year, fifth or     Jeremiah xxxix. ver. 11-15.\n         sixth month                    xl. ver.   1-7.\n\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xl. ver. 7. xli.\n                                        xlii. xliii. xliv. ver. 1-8.\n\n  PROPHETS AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, DURING THE CAPTIVITY.\n\n     588 Jehoiachin\u2019s captivity 12.     Ezekiel xxxiii.\n         tenth month\n\n         In the same year, twelfth      Ezekiel xxxii.\n         month\n\n         Between the 12 and 25          Ezekiel xxxiv. xxxvi. xxxvii.\n         captivity                      xxxviii. xxxix.\n\n         In the same year               Obadiah\n\n         In the same year               Ezekiel xxxv.\n\n         In this year Nebuchadnezzar    Daniel iii.\n         set up his golden image\n\n     574 Jehoiachin\u2019s captivity 25.     Ezekiel xl. xli. &c.\n\n     569 Jehoiachin\u2019s captivity 30.     Ezekiel xxxi. ver. 17, &c.\n\n         In the same year               Daniel iv.\n\n     562 Jehoiachin\u2019s captivity 37.     Jeremiah lii. ver. 31, &c.\n\n     555 Belshazzar 1.                  Daniel vii.\n\n     553 Belshazzar 3.                  Daniel viii.\n\n     539 Belshazzar 17.                 Daniel v.\n\n     538 Darius the Mede 1.             Daniel vi.\n\n         In the same year               Daniel ix.\n\n     536 Cyrus 1.                       Ezra i. ii.\n\n     535 Cyrus 2.                       Ezra iii.\n\n  PROPHETS AFTER THE CAPTIVITY UNDER THE SECOND TEMPLE.\n\n     535 Cyrus 2.                       Ezra iv.\n\n         In the third year of Cyrus,    Daniel x. xi. xii\n         and third after the captivity\n\n     520 Darius Hystaspis 2. sixth      Haggai i. ver. 1-12.\n         month\n\n         In the same year and month     Haggai i. ver. 12, &c. Ezra v.\n\n         In the same year, seventh      Haggai ii. ver. 1-10.\n         month\n\n         In the same year, eighth month Zechariah i. ver. 1-7.\n\n         In the same year, ninth month  Haggai ii. ver. 10, &c.\n\n         In the same year, eleventh     Zechariah i. ver. 7, &c.\n         month                          ii.-vi.\n\n     516 Darius 3.                      Ezra v. ver. 3, &c.\n\n     518 Darius 4.                      Ezra vi. ver. 1-15.\n\n         In the same year, ninth month  Zech. vii. viii.\n\n         Subsequent to the fourth year  Zechariah ix.-xiv.\n         of Darius Hystaspes\n\n     515 Darius 6.                      Ezra vi. ver. 15, &c.\n\n     462 Ahasuerus 3.                   Esther i.\n\n     461 Ahasuerus 4.                   Esther ii. ver. 1-16.\n\n     458 Ahasuerus 7.                   Ezra vii.-x.\n\n         In the same year               Esther ii. ver. 16-21.\n\n     457 Ahasuerus 8.                   Esther ii. ver. 21, &c.\n\n     453 Ahasuerus 12.                  Esther iii. iv. v. &c.\n\n     445 Ahasuerus 20.                  Nehemiah i.-iii. &c.\n\n     433 Ahasuerus 32.                  Nehemiah xiii. ver. 6.\n\n     429 Ahasuerus 36.                  Malachi i.-iv.\n\n     428 Ahasuerus 37.                  Nehemiah xiii. ver. 6, &c.\n\n     296 Ptolemy Soter 9.               The Canon of the Old Testament\n                                        completed, by adding two books\n                                        of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,\n                                        Esther, and Malachi; by Simon\n                                        the Just.\n\n  DR. TAYLOR.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 is the _unregenerate world_, John vii. 7. and \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, is to\n  _receive kindly_, 2 Cor. vii. 2.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  _Vid. Philo. Jud. de Vit. Mosis; & eund. citat. ab Euseb. in Pr\u00e6p.\n  Evang. l. viii. c. 6. & Joseph, contr. App. l. ii._\n\n\n\n\n                               Quest. IV.\n\n\n    QUEST. IV. _How doth it appear that the scriptures are the word of\n    God?_\n\n    _Answ._ The scriptures manifest themselves to be the word of God by\n    their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the\n    scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their\n    light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and\n    build up believers to salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing\n    witness by and with the scriptures in the heart of man, is alone\n    able fully to persuade it, that they are the word of God.\n\n\nBefore we proceed to consider the arguments here brought to prove the\nscriptures to be the word of God, some things may be premised.[20]\n\n1. When we speak of the scriptures as divine, we do not only mean that\nthey treat of God and divine things; to wit, his nature and works, as\nreferring principally to the subject matter thereof; for this may be\nsaid of many human uninspired writings, which, in proportion to the\nwisdom of their authors, tend to set forth the divine perfections. And\nwhen, as the consequence hereof, we assert that every thing contained\ntherein is infallibly true, we do not deny but that there are many\nthings, which we receive from human testimony, of which it would be\nscepticism to entertain the least doubt of the truth; notwithstanding,\nwhen we receive a truth from human testimony, we judge of the certainty\nthereof, by the credibility of the evidence, and, in proportion\nthereunto, there is a degree of certainty arising from it: but when we\nsuppose a truth to be divine, we have the highest degree of certainty\nequally applicable to every thing that is so, and that for this reason,\nbecause it is the word of him that cannot lie. Thus we consider the holy\nscriptures, as being of a divine original, or given by the inspiration\nof God, or as his revealed will, designed to bind the consciences of\nmen; and that the penmen were not the inventers of them, but only the\ninstruments made use of to convey these divine oracles to us, as the\napostle says, 2 Pet. i. 21. _Prophecy came not in old time by the will\nof man; but holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy\nGhost_: and the apostle Paul says, Gal. i. 11, 12. _I certify unto you,\nthat the gospel, which was preached of me, is not after man; neither\nreceived I it of man; neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of\nJesus Christ_: the former asserts this concerning scripture in general,\nand the latter concerning that part thereof which was transmitted to us\nby him: this is what we mean when we say the scripture is the word of\nGod.\n\n2. It is necessary for us to know and believe the scriptures to be the\nword of God, because they are to be received by us as a rule of faith\nand obedience, in whatever respects divine things, otherwise we are\ndestitute of a rule, and consequently our religion would be a matter of\nthe greatest uncertainty; and as this faith and obedience is divine, it\nis a branch of religious worship, and as such, contains an entire\nsubjection to God, a firm and unshaken assent to whatever he reveals as\ntrue, and a readiness to obey whatever he commands, as being influenced\nby his authority; which is inconsistent with any hesitation or doubt\nconcerning this matter. Moreover, it is only therein that we have an\naccount of the way in which sinners may have access to God; the terms of\ntheir finding acceptance in his sight, and all the promises of eternal\nblessedness, on which their hope is founded, are contained therein; if\ntherefore we are not certain that the scriptures are the word of God,\nour faith and hope are vain; it is herein that _life and immortality is\nbrought to light_, and, by _searching them, we think that we have\neternal life_.\n\n3. As divine revelation is necessary, so it is not impossible, contrary\nto reason or the divine perfections, for God to impart his mind and will\nto men in such a way as we call inspiration: these things must be made\nappear, otherwise it is a vain thing to attempt to give arguments to\nprove the scriptures to be the word of God; and, in order hereto, let it\nbe considered,\n\n(1.) That divine revelation is necessary; this appears because as\nreligion is necessary, so there are some things contained in it which\ncannot be known by the light of nature, to wit, all those divine laws\nand institutions, which are the result of God\u2019s expressed will; and\nthese could not be known by the light of nature, or in a way of\nreasoning derived from it, therefore they must be known by special\nrevelation. Positive laws, as opposed to those that are moral, depend\nupon a different foundation; the glory of God\u2019s sovereignty eminently\nappears in the one, as that of his holiness doth in the other: now his\nsovereign pleasure relating thereto could never have been known without\ndivine revelation, and then all that revenue of glory, which is brought\nto him thereby, would have been entirely lost, and there would have been\nno instituted worship in the world; and the gospel, which is called the\n_unsearchable riches of Christ_, Eph. iii. 8. must have been for ever a\nhidden thing, and the condition of those who bear the Christian name\nwould have been no better than that of the heathen, concerning whose\ndevotion, the apostle Paul, though speaking of the wisest and best of\nthem says, Acts xvii. 23. that they _ignorantly worshipped an unknown\nGod_: and elsewhere, 1 Cor. i. 24. that _the world by wisdom knew not\nGod_; and the reason is, because they were destitute of divine\nrevelation.\n\n(2.) It is not impossible, contrary to reason or the divine perfections,\nthat God should reveal his mind and will to man, which may be argued\nfrom hence; it contains no impossibility, for if it be possible for one\ncreature to impart his mind and will to another, then certainly God can\ndo this, for there is no excellency or perfection in the creature but\nwhat is eminently in him; and if it be not unworthy of the divine\nmajesty to be omnipresent, and uphold all things by the word of his\npower, it is not unbecoming his perfections to manifest himself to\nintelligent creatures, who, as such, are fit to receive the discoveries\nof his mind and will; and his endowing them with faculties capable of\nreceiving these manifestations, argues, that he designed that they\nshould be favoured with them; and therefore whatever displays there may\nbe of infinite condescension therein, yet it is not unbecoming his\nperfections so to do.\n\n(3.) As God cannot be at a loss for an expedient how to discover his\nmind and will to man, and is not confined to one certain way, so he may,\nif he pleases, make it known by inspiration; it is not impossible,\nneither is there any thing in the subjects that should hinder him from\nimpressing whatever ideas he designs to impart, on the minds of men.\nThis a finite spirit may do; and that there is such a thing as this,\nwill hardly be denied by any, but those who, with the Sadducees, deny\nthe nature and power of spirits: it hence follows, that God can much\nmore impress the souls of men, or immediately communicate his mind to\nthem in such a way, as we call inspiration; and to deny that there is\nsuch a thing as inspiration, is not only to deny the credibility of\nscripture history, as well as its divine authority, but it is to deny\nthat which the heathen, by the light of nature, have universally\nbelieved to be consonant to reason, and therefore they often represent\ntheir gods as conversing with men; and they appear, in many of their\nwritings, not to have the least doubt whether there has been such a\nthing as inspiration in the world.\n\nThese things being premised, we are now more particularly to consider\nthose arguments which are brought to prove the scriptures to be the word\nof God, or that they were given by divine inspiration: these are taken\neither from the internal evidence we have hereof, _viz._ the subject\nmatter of scripture, from the majesty of the style, the purity of the\ndoctrines, the harmony or consent of all its parts, and the scope or\ntendency of the whole to give all glory to God; or else external, taken\nfrom the testimony which God himself gave to it, at first by miracles,\nwhereby the mission of the prophets, and consequently what they were\nsent to deliver, was confirmed, and afterwards, in succeeding ages, by\nthe use which he hath made of it in convincing and converting sinners,\nand building up believers to salvation. These are the arguments\nmentioned in this answer, which will be distinctly considered, and some\nothers added, as a farther proof of this matter, to wit, those taken\nfrom the character of the inspired writers, particularly as they were\nholy men, and so they would not impose on the world, or pretend\nthemselves to have been inspired, if they were not; and also, as they\nwere plain and honest men, void of all craft and subtilty, and so could\nnot impose on the world; and, had they attempted to do so, they had a\ngreat many subtle and malicious enemies, who would soon have detected\nthe fallacy. To this we shall also add an argument taken from the\nsublimity of the doctrine, in which respect it is too great, and has too\nmuch wisdom in it for men to have invented; and others taken from the\nantiquity thereof, together with its wonderful preservation,\nnotwithstanding all the endeavours of its enemies to root it out of the\nworld; and then we shall consider how far the testimony of the church is\nto be regarded, not as though it contained the principal foundation of\nour faith, as the Papists suppose; but yet this may be, if duly\nconsidered, an additional evidence to those that have been before given;\nand then we shall speak something concerning the witness of the Spirit\nwith the scripture in the heart of man, which inclines him to be\npersuaded by, and rest in the other arguments brought to support this\ntruth: and if all these be taken together, they will, we hope, beget a\nfull conviction in the minds of men, that the scriptures are the word of\nGod; which leads us to consider the arguments in particular.\n\nI. From the majesty of the style in which it is written. This argument\ndoes not equally hold good with respect to all the parts of scripture;\nfor there is, in many places thereof, a great plainness of speech and\nfamiliarity of expression adapted to the meanest capacity, and sometimes\na bare relation of things, without that majesty of expression, which we\nfind in other places: thus in the historical books we do not observe\nsuch a loftiness of style, as there is in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, and some\nother of the prophets; so that there are arguments of another nature to\nprove them to be of divine authority. However, we may observe such\nexpressions interspersed throughout almost the whole scripture, which\nset forth the sovereignty and greatness of God; as when he is\nrepresented speaking immediately himself in a majestic way, tending not\nonly to bespeak attention, but to strike those that hear or read with a\nreverential fear of his divine perfections; thus, when he gives a\nsummons to the whole creation to give ear to his words, _Hear, O\nheavens; and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken_, Isa. i. 2.\nor, swears by himself, that _unto him every knee shall bow, and every\ntongue shall swear_, chap. xlv. 23. or when it is said, _Thus saith the\nLord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool_, chap.\nlxvi. 1. and elsewhere, _The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice; let\nthe multitude of the isles be glad thereof. Clouds and darkness are\nround about him; righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his\nthrone. A fire goeth before him; his lightnings enlightened the world.\nThe hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord; at the presence\nof the Lord of the whole earth_, Psal. xcvii. 1-5. And when he is\nrepresented as casting contempt on all the great men of this world, thus\nhe is said _to cut off the spirit of princes, and to be terrible to the\nkings of the earth_, Psal. lxxvi. 12. and to _charge_ even _his angels\nwith folly_, Job iv. 18. or when the prophet speaks of him, as one who\nhad _measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted the\nheavens with a span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a\nmeasure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a\nbalance_; and that _the nations of the earth are as a drop of the\nbucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance; yea, as\nnothing, less than nothing and vanity_, when compared with him, Isa. xl.\n12, 15, 17. It would be almost endless to refer to the many places of\nscripture, in which God speaks in such a style, as is inimitable by any\ncreature; of this we have several instances in the book of Job,\nespecially in those chapters where he is represented as answering Job\nout of the whirlwind, and speaking with such a loftiness of style, as,\nit may be, the like cannot be found in any human composure, Job, chap.\nxxxviii. to xli. where such expressions are used, which argue the style\nto be divine, great and magnificent; so that if it was not immediately\nfrom God, it would be the most bold presumption for any creature to\nspeak in such a way: therefore this argument, taken from the majestic\nstyle of scripture, is not without its proper weight; however, it may\nserve to prepare us to receive those other arguments, which, together\nwith this, evince its divine original.\n\nII. From the purity and holiness of its doctrines, and that either, if\nwe consider it absolutely, or compare it with all other writings,\nwhereby it will appear not only to have the preference to them, but to\nbe truly divine, and so is deservedly styled the _holy scripture_, Rom.\ni. 2. and the words thereof _pure as silver tried in a furnace, purified\nseven times_, Psal. xii. 6. and to speak of _right things, in which\nthere is nothing froward or perverse_, Prov. viii. 6, 7, 8. Thus every\none that duly weighs the subject matter thereof, may behold therein the\ndisplays of the glory of the holiness of God: here let us consider, that\nthe word of God appears to be divine from its purity and holiness,\n\n1. As considered absolutely, or in itself. For,\n\n(1.) It lays open the vile and detestable nature of sin, to render it\nabhorred by us. Thus the apostle says, Rom. vii. 7. _I had not known\nsin_; that is, I had not so fully understood the abominable nature\nthereof as I do, _but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the\nlaw had said, thou shalt not covet_; and hereupon he concludes, that\n_the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good_.\n\n(2.) It presents to our view the various instances of the divine\nvengeance, and shews us how the wrath of God is revealed against the\nunrighteousness of sinners to make them afraid of rebelling against him.\nThus it gives us an account how the angels hereby fell from and lost\ntheir first habitation, and are thrust down to hell, being _reserved in\nchains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day_, Jude 6. And\nalso how man hereby lost his primitive integrity and glory, and exposed\nhimself to the wrath and curse of God due to sin, and all the miseries\nof this life consequent thereon; and how it has destroyed flourishing\nnations, and rendered them desolate. Thus it gives us an account how the\nJews were first carried into Babylon for their idolatry, and other\nabominations, and afterwards cast off and made the sad monument of the\ndivine wrath, as at this day, for crucifying Christ, persecuting his\nfollowers, and opposing the Gospel. It also gives an account of the\ndistress and terror of conscience, which wilful and presumptuous sins\nhave exposed particular persons to; such as Cain, Judas and others; this\nis described in a very pathetic manner, when it is said of the wicked\nman, who has his portion of the good things of this life, that when he\ncomes to die, _Terrors take hold of him as waters, a tempest stealeth\nhim away in the night. The east wind carrieth him away, and he\ndeparteth, and as a storm hurleth him out of his place. For God shall\ncast upon him, and not spare; he would fain flee out of his hand_, Job\nxxvii. 20, 21, 22.\n\nMoreover, the purity of the Scripture farther appears, in that it warns\nsinners of that eternal ruin, which they expose themselves to in the\nother world; _Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from\nthe presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power_, 2 Thess. i.\n9. All these things discover the purity and holiness of the word of God.\n\n(3.) It never gives the least indulgence or dispensation to sin, nor in\nany of its doctrines, which are pure and holy, doth it lead to\nlicentiousness; it not only reproves sin in the lives and outward\nconversations of men, but also discovers its secret recesses in the\nheart, where its chief seat is; obviates and guards against its first\nmotions, tending thereby to regulate the secret thoughts of men, and the\nprinciple of all their actions, which it requires to be pure and holy.\nIn this the Scripture excels all other writings with respect to its\nholiness.\n\n(4.) All the blessings and benefits which it holds forth, or puts us in\nmind of, as the peculiar instances of divine favour and love to man, are\nurged and insisted on as motives to holiness; thus it is said, _The\ngoodness of God leadeth thee to repentance_, Rom. ii. 4. and when Moses\nhad been putting the Israelites in mind of God\u2019s increasing them, _as\nthe stars of heaven for multitude_, Deut. x. 22. compared with chap. xi.\n1. he adds, _therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep his\ncharge and statutes, his judgments and commandments alway_. And when the\nloving kindness of God has been abused by men, it severely reproves them\nfor their vile ingratitude; as when it is said, Deut. xxxii. 6. _Do ye\nthus requite the Lord, oh foolish people and unwise? Is not he thy\nFather that bought thee? Hath not he made thee, and established thee?_\n\n(5.) All the examples proposed to our imitation therein, are such as\nsavour of, and lead to, holiness; and when it recommends the actions or\nconversation of men, it is more especially for that holiness which is\ndiscovered therein: and, on the other hand, when it gives us the\ncharacter of wicked men, together with the dreadful consequences\nthereof, it is that we may avoid and be deterred from committing the\nsame sins that will be their ruin in the end.\n\n(6.) The rules laid down relating to civil affairs in the Old Testament\ndispensation, and the behaviour of one man towards another, have a vein\nof holiness running through them all. Thus the government of the Jewish\nstate, as described in the books of Moses, and elsewhere, discovers it\nto be an holy commonwealth; and they are often called an holy nation, as\ngoverned by those laws which God gave them; so the government of the\nchurch in the Gospel-dispensation, is a holy government: visible\nholiness is a term of church-communion, and apostacy and revolt from God\nexcludes from it.\n\n(7.) All the promises contained in Scripture, are, or will be certainly\nfulfilled, and the blessings it gives us ground to expect, conferred;\nand therefore it is a faithful word, and consequently pure and holy.\n\n2. If we compare the Scripture with other writings, which are of a human\ncomposure, it plainly excels in holiness. For,\n\n(1.) If we compare it with the writings of heathen moralists, such as\nPlato, Seneca, and others, though they contain a great many good\ndirections for the ordering the conversations of men agreeably to the\ndictates of nature and right reason, yet most of them allow of, or plead\nfor some sins, which the Scripture mentions with abhorrence, such as\nrevenging injuries, and self-murder; several other instances of moral\nimpurity, were not only practised by those who laid down the best rules\nto inforce moral virtue, but either countenanced, or, at least, not\nsufficiently fenced against, by what is contained in their writings; and\neven their strongest motives to virtue or the government of the\npassions, or a generous contempt of the world, are taken principally\nfrom the tendency which such a course of life will have to free us from\nthose things that tend to debase and afflict the mind, and fill it with\nuneasiness, when we consider ourselves as acting contrary to the\ndictates of nature, which we have as intelligent creatures; whereas, on\nthe other hand, the Scripture leads us to the practice of Christian\nvirtues from better motives, and considers us not barely as men, but\nChristians, under the highest obligations to the blessed Jesus, and\nconstrained hereunto by his condescending love expressed in all that he\nhas done and suffered for our redemption and salvation; and it puts us\nupon desiring and hoping for communion with God, through him, in the\nperformance of those evangelical duties, which the light of nature knows\nnothing of, and so discovers a solid foundation for our hope of\nforgiveness of sin, through his blood, together with peace of conscience\nand joy resulting from it; it also directs us to look for that life and\nimmortality, which is brought to light through the Gospel; in which\nrespects, it far exceeds the writing of the best heathen moralists, and\nso contains in it the visible marks and characters of its divine\noriginal.\n\n(2.) If we compare the scriptures with other writings among Christians,\nwhich pretend not to inspiration, we shall find in these writings a\ngreat number of impure and false doctrines, derogatory to the glory of\nGod, in many of the pretended expositions of Scripture. If therefore\nmen, who have the Scripture in their hands, propagate unholy doctrines,\nthey would do so much more were there no Scripture to guide them: thus\nthe doctrine that grace is not necessary to what is spiritually good:\nthe merit of good works, human satisfactions, penances, indulgences, and\ndispensations for sin, are all impure doctrines, which are directly\ncontrary to Scripture; and, as contraries illustrate each other, so\nhereby the holiness and purity of Scripture, which maintains the\ncontrary doctrines, will appear to those who impartially study it and\nunderstand the sense thereof.\n\n(3.) If we compare the Scriptures with the imposture of Mahomet, in the\nbook called the Alcoran, which the Turks make use of as a rule of faith,\nand prefer it to Scripture, and reckon it truly divine, that contains a\nsystem not only of fabulous, but corrupt and impure notions,\naccommodated to men\u2019s sensual inclinations. Thus it allows of polygamy,\nand many impurities in this world, and promises to its votaries a\nsensual paradise in the next, all which is contrary to Scripture; so\nthat composures merely human, whether they pretend to divine inspiration\nor not, discover themselves not to be the word of God, by their\nunholiness; as the Scripture manifests itself to be divine, by the\npurity of its doctrine; and indeed, it cannot be otherwise, considering\nthe corruption of man\u2019s nature, as well as the darkness and blindness of\nhis mind, which, if it pretends to frame a rule of faith, it will be\nlike himself, impure and unholy; but that which has such marks of\nholiness, as the Scripture has, appears to be inspired by a holy God.\n\nHaving considered the holiness of Scripture doctrines, we proceed to\nshew the weight of this argument, or how far it may be insisted on to\nprove its divine authority. It is to be confessed, that a book\u2019s\ncontaining holy things or rules for a holy life, doth not of itself\nprove its divine original; for then other books might be called the word\nof God besides the Scripture, which is so called, not only as containing\nsome rules that promote holiness, but as being the fountain of all true\nreligion; and its being adapted above any book of human composure, to\nanswer this end, affords an argument of some weight to prove it to be of\nGod. For,\n\n1. Man, who is prone to sin, naturally blinded and prejudiced against\ndivine truth and holiness, could never compose a book that is so\nconsonant to the divine perfections, and contains such a display of\nGod\u2019s glory, and is so adapted to make us holy.\n\n2. If we suppose that man could invent a collection of doctrines, that\ntended to promote holiness, could he invent doctrines so glorious, and\nso much adapted to this end, as these are? If he could, he that does\nthis must either be a good or a bad man: if we suppose the former, he\nwould never pretend the Scripture to be of divine authority, when it was\nhis own composure; and if the latter, it is contrary to his character,\nas such, to endeavour to promote holiness; for then Satan\u2019s kingdom must\nbe divided against itself: but of this, more in its proper place, when\nwe come to consider the character of the penmen of Scripture, to give a\nfurther proof of its divine authority.\n\n3. It is plain, that the world without Scripture could not arrive to\nholiness; for the apostle says, 1 Cor. i. 21. _That the world by wisdom\nknew not God_; and certainly where there is no saving knowledge of God,\nthere is no holiness; and the same apostle, Rom. i. 29, 30, 31. gives an\naccount of the great abominations that were committed by the heathen;\nbeing destitute of Scripture light, they were _filled with all\nunrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness,\nfull of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity_, &c.\n\nIf therefore the doctrines contained in Scriptures are not only pure and\nholy themselves, but tend to promote holiness in us, this is not without\nits proper weight to prove their divine original.\n\nIII. The scriptures farther manifest themselves to be the word of God\nfrom the consent or harmony of all the parts thereof.[22] This argument\nwill appear more strong and conclusive, if we compare them with other\nwritings, in which there is but little harmony. Thus, if we consult the\nwritings of most men uninspired, we shall find that their sentiments\ncontained therein often times very widely differ; and if, as historians,\nthey pretend to report matters of fact, their evidence, or report, does\nnot, in all respects, agree together, which shews that they are\nfallible; but the exact and harmonious agreement of scripture proves it\ndivine. That other writings of human composure agree not among\nthemselves, is very evident; and it is less to be wondered at if we\nconsider,\n\n(1.) That men are naturally blind and unacquainted with the things of\nGod; and therefore their writings will hardly be consistent with\nthemselves, much less with one another, as they are oftentimes\ninconsistent with the standard of truth, by which they are to be tried;\nnothing is more common than for men to betray their weakness, and cast a\nblemish on their composures, by contradicting themselves, especially if\nthey are long, and consist of various subjects.\n\n(2.) Men are much more liable to contradict one another when any scheme\nof doctrine is pretended to be laid down by different persons; for when\nthey attempt to represent matters of fact, they often do it in a very\ndifferent light: this may be more especially observed in those accounts\nthat are given of doctrines that are new, or not well known by the\nworld, or in historical accounts, not only of general occurrences, but\nof particular circumstances attending them, where trusting to their\nmemory and judgment, they often impose on themselves and others.\n\n(3.) This disagreement of human writings will more evidently appear,\nwhen their authors were men of no great natural wisdom, especially if\nthey lived in different ages, or places remote from one another, and so\ncould have no opportunity to consult one another, or compare their\nwritings together; we shall scarce ever find a perfect harmony or\nagreement in such writings; neither should we in scripture, were it not\nwritten by divine inspiration.\n\nThis will appear, if we consider that the penmen thereof were in\nthemselves as liable to mistake as other men; and had they been left to\nthemselves herein, they would have betrayed as much weakness, confusion,\nand self-contradiction, as any other writers have done; and it may be\nmore, inasmuch as many of them had not the advantage of a liberal\neducation, nor were conversant in human learning, but were taken from\nmean employments, and made use of by God in this work, that so we may\nherein see more of the divinity of the writings they were employed to\ntransmit to us: besides, they lived in different ages and places, and so\ncould not consult together what to impart, and yet we find, as we shall\nendeavour to prove, that they all agree together: therefore the harmony\nof their writings is an evident proof that they were inspired by the\nsame spirit, and consequently that they are the word of God.\n\nWe might here consider the historical parts of scripture, and the\naccount which one inspired writer gives of matters of facts as agreeing\nwith what is related by another; and also the harmony of all the\ndoctrines contained therein, as not only agreeing in the general scope\nand design thereof, but in the way and manner in which they are laid\ndown or explained: but we shall more particularly consider the harmony\nof scripture, as what is foretold in one part thereof, is related as\naccomplished in another. And,\n\n1. There are various predictions relating to the providential dealings\nof God with his people, which had their accomplishment in an age or two\nafter. Thus the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others, foretold the\ncaptivity and the number of years they should be detained in Babylon,\nand their deliverance by Cyrus, who is expressly mentioned by name.\nThese prophecies, and the accomplishment thereof are so obvious, that\nthere is no one who reads the Old Testament but will see an harmony\nbetween them; so that what in one place is represented as foretold, in\nanother place, is spoken of as accomplished in its proper time, Isa.\nxliv. 28. and Chap. xlv. 1, 4. compared with Ezra i. 2, 3.\n\nAnd the revolt and apostacy of Israel, their turning aside from God, to\nidolatry, which was the occasion of their desolation, was foretold by\nMoses, Deut. xxxi. 29. and by Joshua, Chap. xxiii. 15, 16. and Chap.\nxxiv. 19. And every one that reads the book of Judges, will see that\nthis was accomplished; for when Moses and Joshua were dead, and that\ngeneration who lived with them, they revolted to idolatry and were\npunished for the same in various instances, Judg. ii. 8, 10, 11, 14.\n\nAnd the prophecy of the great reformation which Josiah should make, and\nin particular, that he should _burn the bones_ of the idolatrous priests\n_on the altar at Bethel_, 1 Kings xiii. 2. was exactly accomplished\nabove three hundred years after, 2 Kings xxii. 15, 16.\n\n2. There are various predictions under the Old Testament relating to our\nSaviour, and the New Testament church, many of which have had their\naccomplishment, and others are daily accomplishing. It is said, Acts x.\n43. _To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name\nwhosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins_; and we\nshall find, that what is foretold concerning him in the Old Testament,\nis related as accomplished in the New; particularly,\n\n(1.) That he should come in the flesh, was foretold in the Old\nTestament, Hag. ii. 7. Mal. iii. 1. Isa. ix. 6. and is mentioned as\naccomplished in the New, John i. 14. Gal. iv. 4.\n\n(2.) That he should work miracles for the good of mankind, and to\nconfirm his mission, was foretold, Isa. xxxv. 5, 6. and accomplished,\nMatth. xi. 4, 5.\n\n(3.) That he should live in this world in a low and humbled state, was\nforetold, Isa. lii. 14. and chap. liii. 3. and the whole account of his\nlife in the gospels bears witness that those predictions were fully\naccomplished.\n\n(4.) That he should be cut off, and die a violent death, was typified by\nthe brazen serpent in the wilderness, _viz._ that he should be lifted up\nupon the cross, Numb. xxi. 9. compared with John iii. 14. and foretold\nin several other scriptures, Isa. liii. 7. and Dan. ix. 26. and this is\nlargely insisted on, as fulfilled in the New Testament.\n\n(5.) That after he had continued some time in a state of humiliation, he\nshould be exalted, was foretold, Isa. lii. 13. chap. liii. 11, 12. Psal.\nlxviii. 18. and fulfilled, Acts i. 9. Phil. ii. 9.\n\n(6.) That his glory should be proclaimed and published in the preaching\nof the gospel, was foretold, Isa. xi. 10. Psal. cx. 2. Isa. lx. 1, 2, 3.\nand fulfilled, 1 Tim. iii. 16. Mark xvi. 15. as appears from many\nscriptures.\n\n(7.) That he should be the spring and fountain of all blessedness to his\npeople, was foretold, Gen. xxii. 18. Psal. lxxii. 17. Isa. xlix. 8, 9.\nand fulfilled, 2 Cor. vi. 2. Acts iii. 26. In these, and many other\ninstances, we may observe such a beautiful consent of all the parts of\nscripture, as proves it to be the very word of God.\n\nBut since it will not be sufficient, to support the divine authority of\nscripture, to assert that there is such a harmony, as we have observed,\nunless we can prove that it doth not contradict itself in any instances;\ntherefore the next thing we are to consider, is the reproach cast upon\nit by those who would bring all divine revelation into contempt, as\nthough it contradicted itself in several instances, and contained\nvarious absurdities; which, were they able to make appear, would\nenervate the force of the argument we are maintaining, to prove the\nscripture to be the word of God from the consent of the parts thereof:\ntherefore we shall consider some of those contradictions, which many,\nwho pretend to criticise on the words of scripture, charge it with, as\nso many objections against the harmonious consent, and consequently the\ndivine authority thereof, together with the answers, which may be given\nto each of them.\n\n_Object._ 1. If we compare our Saviour\u2019s genealogy, as related in the\nfirst of Matthew and the third of Luke, they allege that there is a very\ngreat inconsistency between them, for one mentions different persons, as\nhis progenitors, from what the other does; as, for instance, in Matth.\ni. he is said to be the son of Joseph, and Joseph the son of Jacob, and\nhe the son of Matthan; but the other evangelist, _viz._ Luke, says that\nhe was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son\nof Matthat: and so we find the names of each genealogy very differing,\ntill we come to David; therefore they suppose both those genealogies\ncannot be true, inasmuch as the one contradicts the other.\n\n_Answ._ It evidently appears, that there is no contradiction between\nthese two genealogies, since Matthew gives an account of Joseph\u2019s\nancestors, and Luke of Mary\u2019s, and so, both together, prove that he was\nthe son of David, by his reputed father\u2019s, as well as his mother\u2019s side.\n\nAnd if it be replied, that Luke, as well as Matthew, gives an account of\nJoseph\u2019s genealogy, and therefore this answer is not sufficient: we may\nobserve, that it is said, Luke iii, 23, 24. that _Jesus was, as it is\nsupposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, &c._ the meaning\nis, he was, indeed, the supposed son of Joseph, but he really descended\nfrom Heli, the father of the virgin Mary; and nothing is more common in\nscripture than for grandsons to be called sons; and if we observe the\nmeaning of the Greek words, which we render, _which was the son, &c._ it\nmay better be rendered, who descended from Heli, and then there is not\nthe least absurdity in it, supposing Heli to be his grandfather; and\ntherefore there is no appearance of contradiction between these two\nscriptures.\n\n_Object._ 2. It is pretended, that there is a plain contradiction\nbetween these two places, 2 Sam. xxiv. 24. and 1 Chron. xxi. 25. in the\nformer whereof it is said, that David bought the threshing-floor of\nAraunah the Jebusite, to build an altar on, and the oxen for\nburnt-offerings, that the plague might be stayed, _for fifty shekels of\nsilver_; but in the other, _viz._ in Chronicles, it is said, that _he\ngave him for the place six hundred shekels of gold_; therefore they\npretend that one of these places must be wrong, inasmuch as they plainly\ncontradict one another.\n\n_Answ._ The answer that may be given to this objection, is, that David\npaid Araunah (who is otherwise called Ornan) for his threshing-floor,\nwhere he built an altar, and for the oxen, which he bought for\nsacrifice, fifty shekels of silver, as it is expressed in Samuel. But,\nbeside this threshing-floor, he bought the whole place, as it is said in\nChronicles, _i. e._ the whole tract of ground, or mountain, on which it\nstood, whereon he designed that the temple should be built; and\ntherefore he saith concerning it, 1 Chron. xxii. 1. _This is the house\nof the Lord God_, _i. e._ this place, or tract of land, which I have\nbought round about the threshing-floor, is the place where the house of\nGod shall stand; _and this is the altar of burnt-offering for Israel_,\nwhich was to be built in that particular place, where the\nthreshing-floor was: now, though he gave for the threshing-floor but\nfifty shekels of silver, (which probably was as much as it was worth)\nyet the whole place, containing ground enough for the temple, with all\nits courts, and the places leading to it, was worth a great deal more;\nor, if there were any houses in the place, these were also purchased to\nbe pulled down, to make room for the building of the temple; and, for\nall this, he gave six hundred shekels of gold, and we can hardly suppose\nit to be worth less; so that there is no real contradiction between\nthese two places,\n\n_Object._ 3. It is pretended, that there is a contradiction between 2\nSam. xxiv. 13. and 1 Chron. xxi. 12. in the former of which Gad came to\nDavid, being sent to reprove him for his numbering the people, and said,\n_Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?_ But, in\nChronicles, he speaks of but _three years of famine_.\n\n_Answ._ To reconcile this seeming contradiction,\n\n1. Some think, that in some ancient copies, it is not seven, but\nthree,[37] years of famine, in Samuel, as it is in Chronicles; the\nreason of this conjecture is, because the LXX, or Greek translation,\nhave it so; and they think that these translators would hardly have made\nso bold with scripture, as to put three for seven, if they had not found\nit so in the copies that they made use of, when they compiled this\ntranslation: but probably this answer will not give satisfaction to the\nobjectors; therefore,\n\n2. The best way to account for this seeming contradiction, is this: in\nChronicles, Gad bids him chuse if he would have three years of famine,\n_viz._ from that time; but in Samuel he saith, shall seven years of\nfamine come unto thee, that is, as though he should say there hath been\nthree years of famine already, for Saul _and his bloody house, because\nhe slew the Gibeonites_, 2 Sam. xxi. 1. Now, that famine ceased but the\nyear before, and the ground being so chaped and hard for want of rain\nthis year, which was the fourth, it was little better than a year of\nfamine. Now, said Gad, wilt thou have this famine continued three years\nmore (which, in all, makes up seven years) unto thee in the land? And,\nif we take it in this sense, there is no contradiction between these two\nscriptures, though one speaks of three years, and the other of seven.\n\n_Object._ 4. They pretend to find an inconsistency, or absurdity, little\nbetter than a contradiction, by comparing 1 Sam. xvi. 21, 22. and chap.\nxvii. 55. In the former it is said, _David came to Saul, and stood\nbefore him, and he loved him greatly; and he sent to Jesse_, with the\nintent that he might give him leave _to stand before him, inasmuch as he\nhad found favour in his sight_. Now, say they, how can this be\nconsistent with the other scripture; where Saul seeing David going forth\nagainst Goliath the Philistine, asked Abner, _Whose son is this youth?_\nAnd Abner replied, _He could not tell_; and, in the next verse, he is\nordered to _enquire who he was_. Now how could this be, when he had been\nhis armour-bearer, stood before him, and found favour in his sight; and\nhe had sent to Jesse, to desire that he might live with him?\n\n_Answ._ I can see no appearance of absurdity, or defect of harmony,\nbetween these two scriptures; for supposing Saul\u2019s memory had failed\nhim, and he had forgot that David had stood before him as a servant,\nshall the scripture, that gives an account of this, be reflected on, as\ncontaining an inconsistency? It is true, David had stood before Saul, as\nhis armour-bearer; yet he had, for some time, been sent home and\ndismissed from his service, during which time he kept his father\u2019s\nsheep; and probably he lived not long in Saul\u2019s family; therefore it is\nno wonder if Saul had now forgot him. There is no master of a family but\nmay forget what servants have formerly lived with him, and much more a\nking, who hardly knows the names of the greatest part of the servants\nthat are about him: besides, at this time, David appeared in the habit\nof a shepherd, and therefore Saul might well say, _whose son is this\nyouth?_ This sufficiently accounts for the difficulty, and vindicates\nthis scripture from the charge of inconsistency; though some account for\nit thus, by supposing that Saul knew David, (as having been his\narmour-bearer) but did not know his father, and therefore asks, _whose\nson is this?_ or who is he that hath so bold and daring a son, as this\nyouth appears to be? If these things be considered, there appears not\nthe least absurdity in this scripture.\n\n_Object._ 5. Another contradiction, which some charge the scripture\nwith, is, that when Israel, pursuant to the advice of Balaam, committed\nidolatry, and went a-whoring after the daughters of Moab, and God\nconsumed them for it by the plague, it is said, Numb. xxv. 9. _Those\nthat died in the plague were twenty-four thousand_; but the apostle\nPaul, referring to the same thing, says, 1 Cor. x. 8. _Neither let us\ncommit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three\nand twenty thousand._\n\n_Answ._ 1. The answer that may be given to this objection, that the\napostle Paul, when he says, _three and twenty thousand died_, or fell,\n_in one day_, speaks of those who died by the immediate hand of God, by\nthe pestilential distemper that was sent among them; but, besides these,\nthere were many more that died by the hand of public justice for this\nsin; for in that chapter in Numbers, verse 4 and 5. we read of the\n_heads of the people being hanged up before the Lord, and the judges\nbeing ordered to slay every man his men that were joined unto\nBaal-peor_. These died by the sword of justice, and it is no great\nimpropriety to say, that such died in a mediate way, by the plague, or\nsword of God; the sword is one of his plagues, as well as pestilential\ndiseases, and is frequently so styled in scripture: now we cannot\nsuppose that fewer died of this latter plague, if that be the import of\nthe word, than a thousand; so that Moses gives the number of all that\ndied, whether by God\u2019s immediate hand, or by the sword of the\nmagistrate, pursuant to his command: but if it be reckoned too great a\nstrain upon the sense of the word plague, to admit of this solution, let\nit be farther observed, that, in the 9th verse, where Moses gives the\nsum total of those that died, it is not said that they were such who\ndied _of_ the plague, but _in_ the plague; that is, those that died in\nor soon after the time that the plague raged among them, whose death was\noccasioned by this sin, were _four and twenty thousand_; so that these\ntwo places of scripture are so far from contradicting, that they rather\nillustrate one another.\n\n_Object._ 6. Another contradiction is pretended to be between Gal. i. 8.\nwhere the apostle says, _Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any\nother gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let\nhim be accursed_; 2 Cor. xi. 4. _If he that cometh, preacheth another\nJesus whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which\nye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye\nmight well bear with him._ In one place he speaks against those who\npreach another gospel; in the other he says, they may be borne with;\nwhich seems to be a contradiction.\n\n_Answ._ For the reconciling and accounting for the sense of these two\nscriptures, let us consider, that in the former of them the apostle\npronounces them that preached another gospel accursed, and therefore,\ndoubtless, they were not to be borne with, or allowed of; therefore it\nmust be enquired what he means when he says, in the other scripture,\nthat such may be well borne with; now this scripture will, without the\nleast strain or force upon the words, admit of one of these two senses.\n\n1. It may be considered as containing a sarcasm, by which the apostle\nreproves their being too much inclined to adhere to false teachers: if,\nsays he, these bring you tidings of a better Spirit, a better gospel,\nthen bear with them; but this they cannot do, therefore reject them; or,\n\n2. The words may be rendered, instead of _ye might well bear with him,\nye might well bear with me_, as is observed in the marginal reference;\nthe word _him_ being in an Italic character, as will be elsewhere\nobserved,[38] is not in the original, and therefore _me_ may as well be\nsupplied as _him_, and so the meaning is this; ye bear with false\npreachers, are very favourable to them, and seem a little cold to us the\napostles; so that I am afraid, as is observed in the foregoing verse,\nlest your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in\nChrist; you can bear with these false teachers, and will you not bear\nwith me? as he says, ver. 1. _Would to God you could bear with me a\nlittle in my folly, and indeed bear with me._ It is a sign religion is\nat a low ebb, when it is with some difficulty that professors are\npersuaded to bear with those that preach the pure gospel of Christ, who\nare too prone to turn aside to another gospel. Take the words in either\nof these senses, and they exactly harmonize with that text in Galatians,\nand not, as the objectors pretend, contradict it.\n\n_Object._ 7. Another charge of contradiction, which is brought against\nscripture, is, that our Saviour saith, Matth, x. 34. _Think not that I\nam come to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a\nsword_: this is contrary to Christ\u2019s general character, as a _prince of\npeace_, Isa. ix. 6. and to the advice he gives his disciples, not to use\nthe sword, because _such shall perish by it_, Mat. xxvi. 52. and what be\nsaith else, _My kingdom is not of this world_, John xviii. 36. and\ntherefore not to be propagated by might or power, by force or civil\npolicy, or those other carnal methods, by which the kingdoms of this\nworld are advanced and promoted.\n\n_Answ._ For the reconciling this seeming contradiction, let it be\nconsidered, that Christ did not come to put a sword into his followers\nhands, or to put them upon making war with the powers among whom they\ndwell, for the propagating the Christian religion; his gospel was to be\nadvanced by spiritual methods: in this sense, the design of his coming\nwas not to send a sword, but to bring spiritual peace to his people; but\nwhen he saith, I came to send a sword, it implies that his coming, his\nkingdom and gospel, should occasion persecution and war, by reason of\nthe corruption of men; this the gospel may do, and yet not put men upon\ndisturbing their neighbours, or making war with them; and this is not\ncontrary to Christ\u2019s general character of coming to be the author of\nspiritual peace to his people.\n\n_Object._ 8. Another contradiction is pretended to be between 1 Kings\nviii. 9. and Heb. ix. 4. in the former it is said, _There was nothing in\nthe ark but the two tables, which Moses put there_; in the latter, that\n_there was the golden pot, that had manna, Aaron\u2019s rod that budded, and\nthe tables of the covenant_.\n\n_Answ._ This seeming contradiction may easily be reconciled: for we\nsuppose it true that there was nothing in the ark but the two tables, as\nit is said in the former of these scriptures; therefore to explain the\nlatter agreeably to it, two senses may be given of it.\n\n1. It is not necessary to suppose, that the apostle means, in the ark\nwas the golden pot, &c. but in the holiest of all, which he mentions in\nthe foregoing verse; therefore the meaning is, as in the holiest of all,\nthere was the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant, so in it was\nthe golden pot and Aaron\u2019s rod: but because there may be an objection\nagainst this sense, from its being said in the words immediately\nfollowing, that over it were the cherubims of glory shadowing the\nmercy-seat, where it refers to the ark, and not to the tabernacle, or\nholiest of all; if therefore the cherubims were over the ark, then the\nother things must be supposed to be in it, which objection, indeed, is\nnot without its force, unless we suppose that the words[39] may be\nrendered _in the higher parts of it_, to wit, of _the holiest of all,\nwere the cherubims of glory above the mercy seat_, and accordingly the\nmeaning is this; that within this second vail was not only the ark, the\ngolden pot of manna, Aaron\u2019s rod, &c. but also the cherubims of glory,\nwhich were above them all: but since the grammatical construction, seems\nrather to favour the objection, there is another sense given of the\nwords, which sufficiently reconciles the seeming contradiction, _viz._\n\n2. When it is said,[40] that therein, or in it, to wit, the ark, was the\ngolden pot that had manna, and Aaron\u2019s rod that budded, the meaning is,\nthey were near it, or beside it, or some way or other fastened, or\nadjoining to it, in some inclosure, in the outside of the ark, whereas\nnothing was in it but the two tables; so that there is no real\ncontradiction between these two scriptures.\n\nMany more instances of the like nature might have been given, but,\ninstead thereof, we shall rather chuse to lay down some general rules\nfor the reconciling seeming contradictions in scripture, which may be\napplied by us in other cases, where we meet with the like difficulties.\nAs,\n\n1. When two scriptures seem to contradict each other, we sometimes find\nthat this arises from the inadvertency of some who have transcribed the\ncopies of scripture, putting one word for another; though it may be\nobserved,\n\n(1.) That this is not often found; for as great care has been taken in\ntranscribing the manuscripts of scripture, as in any manuscripts\nwhatever, if not greater.\n\n(2.) If there have been mistakes in transcribing, it is only in a few\ninstances, where there is a likeness between two words, so that one\nmight easily be mistaken for the other; and this ought not to prejudice\nany against the scripture, for it only argues, that though the inspired\npenmen were infallible, the scribes that took copies of scripture for\ncommon use were not so.\n\n(3.) When there is any such mistake, it may generally be rectified by\nsome other copy, that has the word as it really should be: it is so in\nour printed Bibles, in some editions of them we find mistakes, as to\nsome words, that may be rectified by others, which are more correct; and\nif so, why may not this be supposed to be in some written copies\nthereof, that were used before printing, which is but a late invention,\nwas known in the world, from which all our printed copies are taken?\n\n2. When the same action in scripture seems to be ascribed to different\npersons, or the same thing said to be done in different places, there is\nno contradiction, for the same person, or place, is sometimes called by\nvarious names: thus Moses\u2019s father-in-law, who met him in the\nwilderness, and advised him in the settling the government of the\npeople, is called, in one place, Jethro, Exod. xviii. 1. and in another\nHobab, Numb. x. 29. So the mountain, from which God gave the law to\nIsrael, is sometimes called mount Sinai, Exod. xix. 20. and at other\ntimes Horeb, Deut. i. 6.\n\n3. Chronological difficulties, or seeming contradictions, arising from a\ndiffering number of years, in which the same thing is said to be done,\nmay be reconciled, by computing them from the different epocha\u2019s, or\nbeginnings of computation: as it is said, Exod. xii. 40. _The sojourning\nof the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and\nthirty years_; but, when God foretels this sojourning, it is said, Gen.\nxv. 13. _Thy seed shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and\nshall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years_: now\nthe four hundred and thirty years takes its beginning of computation\nfrom Abraham\u2019s being called to leave his country, and sojourn in the\nland of promise, as in a strange land; this was four hundred and thirty\nyears before Israel went out of Egypt; but the four hundred years\nmentioned in Genesis, during which time his seed should sojourn, takes\nits beginning of computation from his having the promised seed, or from\nthe birth of Isaac, which was twenty-five years after his leaving his\ncountry; from that time to the children of Israel\u2019s going out of Egypt\nwas four hundred and five years; and the five years above four hundred\nare left out, as being an inconsiderable number, which is very agreeable\nto our common way of computing time, when a large even number is\nmentioned, to leave out a small one of four or five years, more or less,\nas in the instance here mentioned, especially when time is expressed by\ncenturies, as it is here; for it is said, in ver. 16. _in the fourth\ngeneration_, that is, after the fourth century of years, _they shall\ncome hither again_.\n\n4. When, by comparing the years of the reign of several of the kings of\nJudah and Israel, mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles, we\nfind that some are said, in one of them, to have reigned three or four\nyears longer than the account of the years of their reign, mentioned by\nthe other, the seeming contradiction may be reconciled, by considering\nhim as beginning to reign before his father\u2019s death, as Solomon did\nbefore David died; or from his being nominated as his father\u2019s\nsuccessor, and owned as such by the people, which was sometimes done to\nprevent disputes that might arise about the matter afterwards; and\nsometimes, when a king was engaged in foreign wars, in which he was\nobliged to be absent from his people, and the event hereof was\nuncertain, he appointed his son to reign in his absence, from which time\nhe had the title of a king, though his father was living: or when a king\nwas superannuated, or unfit to reign, as Uzziah was when smote with\nleprosy; or when he was weary of the fatigue and burden of government,\nhe would settle his son, as his viceroy, in his life-time, on which\naccount the son is sometimes said to reign with his father: thus many\naccount for that difficulty, in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9. where it is said,\n_Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign_; but in 2 Kings\nxxiv. 8. he is said to have been _eighteen years old when he began to\nreign_: the meaning is, that when he was eight years old, he was\nnominated as his father\u2019s successor; but when he was eighteen years old,\nhe began to reign alone, his father being then dead.\n\n5. Scriptures that seem to contradict one another may not treat of the\nsame, but different subjects, as to the general design thereof: thus,\nthat seeming contradiction between the apostles Paul and James is to be\naccounted for; the former says, Gal. ii. 16. _Knowing that a man is not\njustified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ_;\nbut the other says, Jam. ii. 24. _That by works a man is justified, and\nnot by faith only._ The apostle Paul speaks of a sinner\u2019s justification,\nor freedom from the condemning sentence of the law in the sight of God,\nwhich gives him a right to eternal life, in which respect he looks for\nit out of himself, and, by faith, depends alone on Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness; in this sense, works do not justify: whereas the apostle\nJames, when he asserts, that _a man is justified by works, and not by\nfaith only_, intends that our profession and sincerity therein is\njustified; that is evidenced, not by our having just notions of things,\nor an historical faith, such as the devils themselves have, but by those\nworks of holiness, which are the fruits of it; this is the only\njustification he treats of, and therefore doth not in the least\ncontradict the apostle Paul, who treats of another kind of\njustification, in which works are excluded.\n\n6. When two scriptures seem to contradict one another, they may\nsometimes be reconciled, by considering the same thing absolutely in one\nplace, and comparatively in the other: thus, in many scriptures, we are\ncommanded to extend that love to every one in their several relations,\nwhich is due; and yet our Saviour says, Luke xiv. 26. _If any man come\nto me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, and\nbrethren and sisters, he cannot be my disciple_: this is to be\nunderstood comparatively, that is, our love to the creature ought to\nbear no proportion to that which is due to God.\n\n7. Scriptures that seem to contradict one another, often speak of\ndifferent persons, or persons of different characters: thus it is said,\nLuke vi. 36. _Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful_; or,\n_Judge not, that ye be not judged_, Matt. vii. 2. This respects persons\nin a private capacity, and therefore doth not contradict those other\nscriptures that are applied to magistrates in the execution of public\njustice; to such it is said, Deut. xix. 21. _Thine eye shall not pity,\nbut life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,\nfoot for foot._\n\n8. Two contrary assertions may be both true in differing respects; thus\nour Saviour says in one place, _The poor ye have always with you, but me\nye have not always_, Matt. xxvi. 11. and in another, _Lo, I am with you\nalways, even to the end of the world_, chap. xxviii. 20. these are both\ntrue, one respecting Christ\u2019s bodily presence, as man, in which respect\nhe is not now with us; the other his spiritual and powerful influences,\nwhereby he is always present with his people as God.\n\n9. We must take notice of different times or dispensations, in which\nrespect those laws or ordinances, which were to be received and observed\nas a rule of faith and duty at one time, may not be so at another; thus\ncircumcision is recommended as a duty, and a privilege to the Jews\nbefore Christ\u2019s time, in which respect the apostle reckons it among the\nadvantages which they formerly had above all other nations, Rom. iii. 1,\n2. but when the gospel dispensation was erected, and the Jewish \u0153conomy\nabolished, it was so far from being an advantage, that the observance of\nit was deemed no less than a subversion of the gospel, as the apostle\nsays, Gal. v. 2. _If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you\nnothing_; and the same apostle gives a very diminutive character of\nthose institutes of the ceremonial law, which he calls, in his time,\n_weak and beggarly elements_, such as had a tendency to bring them again\n_into bondage_, and blames them for observing the Jewish festivals, such\nas days, months, times, and years; to wit, the new moons, feasts of\nweeks, or of years, such as the seventh year, or the jubilees, and tells\nthem, on this occasion, _I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed on you\nlabour in vain_, chap. iv. 9, 10, 11. so that what was a duty and a\nprivilege in one age of the church, and enjoined with the greatest\nstrictness, and severest punishments on those that neglected it, is\nforbid, as a sin in another age thereof, without the least shadow of\ncontradiction between those scriptures, which either enjoin or forbid\nit: thus, when our Saviour first sent his twelve disciples to preach the\ngospel, he commanded them, _Not to go in the way of the Gentiles_, Matt.\nx. 5. to wit, so long as he was here upon earth, or till they had\nfinished their ministry among the Jews, to whom the word was first to be\npreached; but afterwards, when the gospel was to be spread throughout\nthe world, he gave them a commission to _preach the gospel to all\nnations_, chap. xxviii. 19. which accordingly they did, as apprehending\nthere was no contradiction between the former prohibition and the\npresent command.[41]\n\nIV. The divine authority of scripture may be further proved from the\nscope and design of the whole, which is to give all glory to God.\n\nIt may be observed, concerning the scripture, that the advancing the\ndivine perfections, and debasing the creature, is the great end designed\nby God in giving it; and we find that whatever doctrine is laid down\ntherein, this end is still pursued. Now scripture-doctrines are designed\nto advance the glory of God, either directly or by consequence.\n\n1. As to the former of these, the scripture abounds with instances, in\nwhich God is adored or set forth, as the object of adoration, that is,\nas having all divine perfections, and as doing every thing becoming\nhimself as a God of glory: thus he is described herein, as the _Lord\nmost high and terrible, a great King over all the earth_, Psal. xlvii.\n2. and _glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders_, Exod.\nxv. 11. and as _the true God, the living God, and an everlasting King_,\nJer. x. 10. and as _the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and\nmercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments_,\nDan. ix. 4. and it is also said, _Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and\nthe power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty; for all that\nis in the heaven, and in the earth is thine: thine is the kingdom, O\nLord, and thou art exalted as Head over all_, 1 Chron. xxix. 11. These,\nand such-like adorable perfections, are not only occasionally ascribed\nto God in scripture, but every part thereof displays his glory in a\nmanner so illustrious, as gives ground to conclude, that the great\ndesign of it is to raise in us becoming apprehensions of him, and to put\nus upon adoring and worshipping him as God.\n\n2. It may, by a just consequence, be said to give all the glory to him,\nas it represents the emptiness, and even nothingness of all creatures,\nwhen compared with him, and hereby recommends him, as all in all: when\nit speaks of the best of creatures, as veiling their faces before him,\nas acknowledging themselves unworthy to behold his glory, and as\nderiving all their happiness from him; and when it speaks of man as a\nsinful guilty creature, expecting all from him, and depending upon him\nfor grace sufficient for him; and when it speaks of God, as the author\nand finisher of faith, in whom alone there is hope of obtaining mercy\nand forgiveness, grace here, and glory hereafter, and lays down this as\nthe sum of all religion; we must certainly conclude that its design is\nto give all glory to God.\n\nNow let us consider the force of this argument, or how the general scope\nand design of scripture, to give all glory to God, proves its divine\nauthority. Had it been the invention and contrivance of men, or if the\nwriters thereof had pretended they had received it by inspiration from\nGod, and it had not been so, then the great design thereof would have\nbeen to advance themselves; and they would certainly have laid down such\na scheme of religion therein, as is agreeable to the corrupt appetites\nand inclinations of men, or would tend to indulge and dispense with sin,\nand not such an one as sets forth the holiness of God, and his infinite\ndispleasure against it.\n\nAnd as for salvation, the penmen of scripture, had they not been\ninspired, would certainly have represented it as very easy to be\nattained, and not as a work of such difficulty as it really is; and they\nwould also have propagated such a religion, as supposes the creature not\ndependent on, or beholden to God for this salvation, and then the\nscripture would have detracted from his glory; but since, on the other\nhand, its general design is to give him the glory due to his name, this\nis a convincing evidence of its divine original.\n\nFrom the general design of scripture, as being to give all glory to God,\nwe may infer,\n\n(1.) That whenever we read the word of God, we ought to have this great\ndesign in view, and so not consider it barely as an historical narrative\nof things done, but should observe how the glory of the divine\nperfections is set forth, that hereby we may be induced to ascribe\ngreatness to God, and admire him for all the discoveries which he makes\nof himself therein.\n\n(2.) The scriptures\u2019 general design should be a rule to us in the whole\nof our conversation, wherein we ought to give all glory to God: whatever\nwe receive or expect from him, or whatever duty we engage in, let us act\nas those, that not only take the scripture for our rule, but its general\nscope and design for our example.\n\n(3.) Whatsoever doctrines are pretended to be deduced from, or to\ncontain the sense of scripture, which, notwithstanding, tend to\ndepreciate the divine perfections, these are to be rejected, as contrary\nto its general scope and design.\n\nV. Another argument may be taken from the character of the penmen of\nscripture; and here let them be supposed to be either good men, or bad:\nif good men, then they could not give themselves such a liberty to\nimpose upon the world, and pretend that they received that from God,\nwhich they did not; and if they were bad men, they neither could nor\nwould have laid down such doctrines, as centre in, lead the soul to God,\nand tend to promote self-denial, and advance his glory in all things;\nsince this is to suppose the worst of men to have the best ends, which\nwe can never do; for, as our Saviour says, Matt. vii. 16. _Do men gather\ngrapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?_ He is speaking of false\nprophets, who were to be known by their fruits; wicked men will have bad\ndesigns, or are like the corrupt tree, which bringeth forth evil fruit.\nBut, on the other hand, if persons deliver that which carries in it such\ninternal evidence of divine truth, and have such a noble design in view,\nas the securing the honour of God, and promoting his interest in the\nworld, these must certainly be approved of by him, and concluded to be\ngood men; and if so, then they would not impose a fallacy on the world,\nor say that the scripture was given by divine inspiration, when they\nknew it to be otherwise.\n\nIf the scriptures are not the word of God, then the penmen thereof have\nmiserably deceived, not a small number of credulous people, but the\nwhole Christian world, among whom we must allow that many were\njudicious, and such as would not easily suffer themselves to be imposed\non; to which we may add, that others to whom the gospel was preached,\nwere exasperated enemies to those that preached it, and particularly to\nthese inspired penmen of scripture, and greatly prejudiced against their\ndoctrine, and therefore would use all possible endeavours to detect the\nfallacy, if there had been any; so that it was morally impossible for\nthem to deceive the world in this instance, or make them believe that\nthe scriptures were the word of God, if there had not been the strongest\nevidence to convince them of it, which they could not withstand or\ngainsay.\n\nBut, that we may enter a little further into the character of the penmen\nof scripture, let it be observed,\n\n1. That they could not be charged by their enemies with immoral\npractices, or notorious crimes, which might weaken the credit of the\ntruths they delivered: they were, indeed, compassed about with like\ninfirmities with other men; for it is not to be supposed, that, because\nthey were inspired, therefore they were perfectly free from sin; since\nthat does not necessarily follow from their having this privilege\nconferred upon them; yet their enemies themselves could find no great\nblemishes in their character, which might justly prejudice them against\ntheir writings, or that might render them unfit to be employed in this\ngreat work of transmitting the mind of God to the world.\n\n2. They appear to be men of great integrity, not declining to discover\nand aggravate their own faults, as well as the sins of others. Thus\nMoses, though a man of great meekness, as to his general character,\ndiscovers his own failing, in repining, and being uneasy, because of the\nuntoward and turbulent spirit of the people, over whom he was appointed\na governor, when he represents himself as complaining to God; _Wherefore\nhast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour\nin thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?\nHave I conceived all this people? Have I begotten them, that thou\nshouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom? Whence should I have\nflesh to give unto all this people? I am not able to bear this people\nalone, because it is too heavy for me. And if thou deal thus with me,\nkill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight;\nand let me not see mine own wretchedness_, Numb. xi. 11-15. This was\ncertainly a very great blemish in the character of this excellent man;\nbut he does not attempt to conceal it; nor does he omit to mention his\nbackwardness to comply with the call of God, to deliver his brethren out\nof their bondage in Egypt, but tells us what poor trifling excuses he\nmade; as when he says, Exod. iv. 10, 13, 19. _O Lord, I am not\neloquent_; and when God answers him, by promising to supply this defect,\nhe obstinately persists in declining this service, and says, _O my Lord,\nsend, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send_; that is, by\nany one but myself; so that he who expressed such courage and resolution\nforty years before in defending the oppressed Israelites, and supposed\nthat his brethren would have understood that God, by his hand, would\ndeliver them, but they understood it not, Acts vii. 24, 25. when God\nreally called him to deliver them, he obstinately refused to obey; and,\nindeed, whatever excuses he might make, the main thing that lay at the\nbottom was fear, and therefore, as a further inducement to it, God tells\nhim, _The men were dead that sought his life_. All this he says\nconcerning himself; and elsewhere he tells us, Deut. xxxii. 51, 52.\ncompared with Numb. xx. 10, 11, 12. and Deut. iii. 25-27. that he did\nnot sanctify the name of God in the eyes of the people, but spake\nunadvisedly with his lips; and that, for this, God would not let him go\ninto the land of Canaan, though he earnestly desired it.\n\nAnd the prophet Jeremiah tells us, how he was ready to faint, and, in a\nmurmuring way, curses the day of his birth, Jer. xx. 7, 8, 14, 15, 16.\nand seems almost determined _not to make mention of God, nor speak any\nmore in his name_, because he had been put in the stocks by Pashur, and\nwas derided and mocked by others, who were, indeed, below his notice.\n\nAnd David discovered his own sin, though it was a very scandalous one,\nin the matter of Uriah, Psal. li. the title, compared with ver. 14. and\nprays, _Deliver me from blood guiltiness_; which is a confession of his\nbeing guilty of murder.\n\nThe apostles also discover their infirmities. Thus Paul discovers his\nfurious temper, in persecuting the church, before his conversion, and\nranks himself amongst the chief of sinners, 1 Tim. i. 13, 15. And how\nwilling is Matthew to let the world know, that, before his conversion,\nhe was a publican: thus he characterises himself, Matt. x. 3. and says,\nchap. ix. 9. that when Christ called him, he sat _at the receipt of\ncustom_, though the publicans were reckoned among the vilest of men for\nextortion, and other crimes, and were universally hated by the Jews.\n\nMoreover as the penmen of scripture expose their own crimes, so they do\nthose of their nearest and dearest friends and relatives, which carnal\npolicy would have inclined them to conceal. Thus Moses tells us how\nAaron his brother made the golden calf, and so was the encourager and\npromoter of the people\u2019s idolatry; that it was he that _bid them break\noff the golden ear-rings, which he received at their hand, whereof he\nmade a molten calf, and then built an altar before it_, Exod. xxxii.\n2-5. Though the Jewish historian[42] was so politic, as to conceal this\nthing, for the honour of his own nation; and therefore when he tells us,\nthat Moses went up into the mount to receive the law, he says nothing of\nthe scandalous crime, which the people were guilty of at the foot of the\nmountain at the same time.\n\nMoreover, as they do not conceal their sins, so they sometimes declare\nthe meanness of their extraction, which shewed that they did not design\nto have honour from men. Thus Amos tells us, Amos i. 1. _He was among\nthe herdmen of Tekoa_: and that he was not bred up in the schools of the\nprophets, which he intends, when he styles himself, _no prophet, neither\na prophet\u2019s son_, chap. vii. 14.\n\nAnd the evangelists occasionally tell the world how they were\nfisher-men, when called to be Christ\u2019s disciples, and so not bred up in\nthe schools of learning among the Jews.[43]\n\n3. They were very far from being crafty or designing men; neither did\nthey appear to be men that were able to manage an imposture of this\nnature, or frame a new scheme of religion, and, at the same time, make\nthe world believe that it was from God. For,\n\n(1.) None that read the scriptures can find any appearance of design in\nthe penmen thereof, to advance themselves or families. Moses, indeed,\nhad the burden of government, but he did not affect the pomp and\nsplendor of a king; neither did he make any provision for his family, so\nas to advance them to great honours in the world, which it was in his\npower to have done: the laws he gave, rendered those of his own tribe,\nto wit, that of Levi, incapable of, and not designed for kingly\ngovernment; and the highest honour of the priesthood, which was fixed in\nthat tribe, was conferred on his brother\u2019s children, not his own.\n\n(2.) The prophets were very few of them great men in the world, not\nadvanced to great places in the government; the esteem and reputation\nthey had among the people at any time, was only for their integrity, and\nthe honour conferred on them by God; and the apostles were plain men,\nwho drove on no design to gain riches and honours from those to whom\nthey preached the gospel; but, on the other hand, they expected nothing\nbut poverty, reproach, imprisonment, and, at last, to die a violent\ndeath: therefore, how can it be supposed that they were subtle designing\nmen, who had some worldly advantage in view? It is plain that they had\nno design but to do what God commanded, and to communicate what they had\nreceived from him, and shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God,\nwhatever it cost them. The apostle Paul was so far from endeavouring to\nenrich himself by preaching the gospel, that he tells the church, _I\nseek not your\u2019s, but you_, 2 Cor. xii. 14. and how he was fortified\nagainst the afflictions, which he foresaw would attend his ministry,\nwhen he says, Philip, iv. 11, 12. _I have learned in whatsoever state I\nam, therewith to be content. I know how to be abased, and I know how to\nabound, to be full, and to be hungry, to abound and to suffer want_: and\nhe was not only content to bear afflictions, but, when called to it, he\nprofesses himself to _take pleasure in reproach, in necessities, in\npersecutions, in distresses, for Christ\u2019s sake_, 2 Cor. xii. 10.\n\nHitherto we have proved, that the penmen of scripture were men of such a\ncharacter, that they would not designedly impose on mankind. But some\nwill say, might they not be imposed on themselves, and think they were\ndivinely inspired, when they were not?\n\nTo this it may be answered, that if they were deceived or imposed on\nthemselves, when they thought they received the scripture by divine\ninspiration, this must proceed from one of these two causes: either,\n\n1. They took what was the result of a heated fancy, a strong\nimagination, or raised affections for inspiration, as some of our modern\nenthusiasts have done, who have prefaced their warnings, as they call\nthem, with, _Thus saith the Lord_, &c. when the Lord did not speak by\nthem. And the deists have the same notion of the prophets and inspired\npenmen of scripture, and esteem their writings no farther than as they\ncontain the law of nature, or those doctrines that are self-evident, or\nmight have been invented by the reason of man; and as such they receive\nthem, without any regard to divine inspiration. Or,\n\n2. If the inspired penmen of scripture were otherwise imposed on, it\nmust be by a diabolic inspiration, of which, in other cases, the world\nhas had various instances, when Satan is said (to use the apostle\u2019s\nwords) to _transform himself into an angel of light_, 2 Cor. xi. 14. or\nhas been suffered to deceive his followers, not only by putting forth\nsigns and lying wonders, but impressing their minds with strong\ndelusions, whereby they have believed a lie, 2 Thess. ii. 9, 11. as\nsupposing it to proceed from divine inspiration; and, to give\ncountenance thereto, has produced such violent agitations, tremblings,\nor distortions in their bodies, as have seemed preternatural, not much\nunlike those with which the heathen oracles were delivered of old, which\nwere called by some, a divine fury; but this cannot, with any shadow of\nreason, be applied to the inspired writers, therefore they were not\nimposed on.\n\n1. They did not mistake their own fancies for divine revelation.\n\nTo suppose that they did so, is not only to conclude that all revealed\nreligion is a delusion; but that the church in all ages, and amongst\nthem the wisest and best of men, have been enthusiasts, and all their\nhope, founded on this revelation, has been no better than a vain dream.\nBut it is one thing to assert, and another thing to prove; and because\nthey who take this liberty to reproach the scriptures, pretend not to\nsupport their charge by argument, it might seem less necessary to make a\nreply: however, that our faith may be established, we shall briefly\nconsider this objection. Therefore,\n\n(1.) This charge is either brought against all that ever spake or wrote\nby divine inspiration, or only against some of them; if only some of\nthem have been thus deluded, we might demand particular instances of any\nof the inspired writers, who are liable to this charge, together with\nthe reasons thereof. If it be said that some of them were men of less\nwisdom, or had not those advantages to improve their natural abilities,\nas others have had; this will not be sufficient to support their cause,\nsince God can make use of what instruments he pleases, and endow them\nwith wisdom in an extraordinary way, to qualify them for the service he\ncalls them to, whereby the glory of his sovereignty more appears. If he\npleases to chuse the _foolish things of the world, to confound the wise,\nthat no flesh shall glory in his presence_, 1 Cor. i. 27, 29. shall he\nfor this be called to an account by vain man? And it is certain, that\nsome who have had this gift, have, as the consequence thereof, been\nendowed with such wisdom, as has tended to confound their most malicious\nenemies. But we will suppose that they, who bring this charge against\nthe inspired writers, will not pretend to single out any among them, but\naccuse them all in general of enthusiasm; and if this charge be grounded\non the vain pretensions of some to inspiration in this age, in which we\nhave no ground to expect this divine gift, will it follow, that, because\nsome are deluded, therefore divine revelation, supported by\nincontestable evidence, was a delusion? Or if it be said, that some of\nold, whom we conclude to have been inspired, were called enthusiasts, as\nJehu, and his fellow-soldiers concluded the prophet to be, who was sent\nto anoint him king, 2 Kings ix. 11. nothing can be inferred from thence,\nbut that there were, in all ages, some Deists, who have treated things\nsacred with reproach and ridicule.\n\n(2.) But if this charge be pretended to be supported by any thing that\nhas the least appearance of an argument, it will be alleged, in defence\nthereof, that it is impossible for a person certainly to know himself to\nbe inspired at any time; if that could be proved indeed, it would be\nsomething to the purpose: and inasmuch as we are obliged to assert the\ncontrary, it will be demanded, how it might be known that a person was\nunder inspiration, or what are the certain marks by which we may\nconclude that the inspired writers were not mistaken in this matter? I\nconfess, it is somewhat difficult to determine this question, especially\nsince inspiration has so long ceased in the world; but we shall\nendeavour to answer it, by laying down the following propositions.\n\n1. If some powerful and impressive influences of the Spirit of God on\nthe souls of men, in the more common and ordinary methods of divine\nprovidence and grace, have been not only experienced, but their truth\nand reality discerned by them, who have been favoured therewith, so that\nwithout pretending to inspiration, they had sufficient reason to\nconclude that they were divine; certainly when God was pleased to\nconverse with men in such a way, as that which we call inspiration, it\nwas not impossible for them to conclude that they were inspired; which\nis an argument taken from the less to the greater.\n\n2. There were some particular instances, in which it seemed absolutely\nnecessary, that they who received intimations from God in such a way,\nshould have infallible evidence that they were not mistaken, especially\nwhen some great duty was to be performed by them, pursuant to a divine\ncommand, in which it would be a dangerous thing for them to be deceived;\nas in the case of Abraham\u2019s offering up his son; and Jacob\u2019s going with\nhis family into Egypt, which was a forsaking the promised land, an\nexposing them to the loss of their religion, through the influence or\nexample of those with whom they went to sojourn; and it might be\nuncertain whether they should ever return or no; therefore he needed a\ndivine warrant, enquired of God with respect to this matter, and\ndoubtless had some way to be infallibly assured concerning the divine\nwill relating hereunto, Gen. xlvi. 2, 3, 4. Moreover, our Saviour\u2019s\ndisciples, leaving their families, going into the most remote parts of\nthe world to propagate the gospel, which they had received in this way,\nevinces the necessity of their knowing themselves to be under a divine\ninspiration: and if they had been deceived in this matter, would they\nnot have been reproved for it by him, whose intimations they are\nsupposed to have followed in the simplicity of their hearts?\n\n3. As to the way by which God might convince them, beyond all manner of\ndoubt, that he spake to them who were under divine inspiration, there\nare various ways, that might have been taken, and probably were. As,\n\n(1.) Sometimes extraordinary impressions were made on the soul of the\nprophet, arising from the immediate access of God to it: of this we have\nfrequent instances in scripture; as in that particular vision which\nDaniel saw, which occasioned his _comeliness to be turned into\ncorruption, and his having no strength_, Dan. x. 8. and the vision of\nour Saviour, which John saw, the effect whereof was his falling at his\nfeet as dead, Rev. i. 17. and many other instances of the like nature\nmight be referred to, which were, at least, antecedent to inspiration,\nand the result of the access of God to the soul, which occasioned such a\nchange in nature, as could not but be discerned after the person had a\nlittle recovered himself. But if it be said, that such an effect as this\nmight be produced by an infernal spirit, the answer I would give to that\nis, that supposing this possible, yet it must be proved that God would\nsuffer it, especially in such an instance, in which his own cause was so\nmuch concerned; and besides, it is not improbable that the soul of the\nprophet was sometimes brought into such a frame of spirit, as resembled\nthe heavenly state, as much as it is possible for any one to attain to\nin this world; such an intercourse as this made Jacob say, _This is no\nother but the house of God, and this the gate of heaven_. Gen. xxviii.\n17.\n\n(2.) As this converse with God contained in it something supernatural\nand very extraordinary in the effects thereof, so it is not improbable\nthat God might work miracles, of various kinds, to confirm the prophet\u2019s\nbelief as to this matter, though they are not particularly recorded in\nall the instances in which we read of inspiration; and this would be as\nfull an evidence as could be desired.\n\nIf it be objected, that it is not probable that miracles were always\nwrought to give this conviction: I would not be too peremptory in\npretending to determine this matter, it is sufficient to say they were\nsometimes wrought; but, however, there were, doubtless, some other\nconcurring circumstances, which put the thing out of all dispute; for\nnot to suppose this, is to reflect on the wisdom and goodness of God, as\nwell as to depreciate one of the greatest honours which he has been\npleased to confer upon men. Thus we have considered the unreasonableness\nof the charge brought against the inspired penmen of scripture, as\nthough they were imposed on, by mistaking their enthusiastic fancies for\ndivine revelation. We proceed to consider,\n\n2. That they were not imposed upon by the devil, as mistaking some\nimpressions made by him on their minds, for divine revelation: this is\nevident; for\n\n1. Divine inspiration was not only occasional, or conferred in some\nparticular instances, with a design to amuse the world, or confirm some\ndoctrines which were altogether new, impure, and subversive of the\ndivine glory in some ages thereof, when men were universally degenerate,\nand had cast off God and religion; but it was continued in the church\nfor many ages, when they evidently appeared to be the peculiar objects\nof the divine regard; and therefore,\n\n2. God would never have suffered the devil, in such circumstances of\ntime and things, to have deluded the world, and that in such a degree,\nas that he should be the author of that rule of faith, which he designed\nto make use of to propagate his interest therein; so that his people\nshould be beholden to their grand enemy for those doctrines which were\ntransmitted by inspiration.\n\n3. Satan would have acted against his own interest, should he have\ninspired men to propagate a religion, which has a direct tendency to\noverthrow his own kingdom; in which instance, as our Saviour observes,\n_His kingdom would be divided against itself_, Matth. xii. 25, 26. As it\nis contrary to the wisdom and holiness of God to suffer it, so Satan\ncould never have done it out of choice, and he has too much subtilty to\ndo it through mistake; therefore the inspired writers could not be\nimposed on by any infernal spirit.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that this could not be done by a good angel; for\nif such a one had pretended herein to have imitated, or as it were,\nusurped the throne of God, he would not have deserved the character of a\ngood angel; therefore it follows, that they could not have been inspired\nby any but God himself.\n\nHaving considered that the penmen of scripture have faithfully\ntransmitted to us what they received by divine inspiration, we must now\ntake notice of some things which are alleged by those who endeavour not\nonly to depreciate, but overthrow the divine authority of the sacred\nwritings, when they allege that they were only inspired, as to the\nsubstance or general idea of what they committed to writing, and were\nleft to express the things contained therein in their own words, which,\nas they suppose, hath occasioned some contradictions, which they pretend\nto be found therein, arising from the treachery of their memories, or\nthe unfitness of their style, to express what had been communicated to\nthem. This they found on the difference of style observed in the various\nbooks thereof; as some are written in an elegant and lofty style, others\nclouded with mystical and dark expressions; some are more plain, others\nare laid down in an argumentative way; all which differing ways of\nspeaking they suppose agreeable to the character of the inspired writers\nthereof: so that, though the matter contains in it something divine, the\nwords and phrases, in which it is delivered can hardly be reckoned so.\n\nAnd as for some books of scripture, especially those that are\nhistorical, they suppose that these might be written without\ninspiration, and that some of them were taken from the histories which\nwere then in being, or some occurrences which were observed in the days\nin which the writers lived, and were generally known and believed in\nthose times, to which they more immediately relate.\n\nAnd as for those books of scripture, which are more especially\ndoctrinal, they suppose that there are many mistakes in them, but that\nthese respect only doctrines of less importance; whereas the providence\nof God has prevented them from making any gross or notorious blunders,\nsubversive of natural religion; so that the scripture may be deemed\nsufficient to answer the general design thereof, in propagating religion\nin the world, though we are not obliged to conclude that it is\naltogether free from those imperfections that will necessarily attend\nsuch a kind of inspiration.\n\n_Answ._ If this account of scripture be true, it would hardly deserve to\nbe called the word of God; therefore, that we may vindicate it from this\naspersion, let it be considered,\n\n1. As to the different styles observed in the various books thereof, it\ndoes not follow from hence, that the penmen were left to deliver what\nthey received, in their own words; for certainly it was no difficult\nmatter for the Spirit of God to furnish the writers thereof with words,\nas well as matter, and to inspire them to write in a style agreeable to\nwhat they used in other cases, whereby they might better understand and\ncommunicate the sense thereof to those to whom it was first given; as if\na person should send a message by a child, it is an easy matter to put\nsuch words into his mouth as are agreeable to his common way of\nspeaking, without leaving the matter to him to express it in his own\nwords: thus the inspired writers might be furnished with words by the\nHoly Ghost, adapted to that style which they commonly used, without\nsupposing they were left to themselves to clothe the general ideas with\ntheir own words.[44]\n\n2. As to what is said concerning the historical parts of scripture, that\nit is not necessary for them to have been transmitted to us by divine\ninspiration, it may be replied, that these, as well as other parts\nthereof, _were written for our learning_, Rom. xv. 4. so that what is\nexcellent in the character of persons, is designed for our imitation;\ntheir blemishes and defects, to humble us under a sense of the universal\ncorruption of human nature; and the evil consequences thereof, to awaken\nour fears, and dehort us from exposing ourselves to the same judgments\nwhich were inflicted as the punishment of sin: and the account we have\nof the providential dealing of God with his church, in the various ages\nthereof, is of use to put us upon admiring and adoring the divine\nperfections, as much as the doctrinal parts of scripture; and therefore\nit is necessary that we have the greatest certainty that the inspired\nwriters have given us a true narration of things, and consequently that\nthe words, as well as the matter, are truly divine.\n\n3. When, that they may a little palliate the matter, they allow that the\ninspired writers, though left to the weakness of their memory, and the\nimpropriety of their style, were, notwithstanding, preserved, by the\ninterposure of divine providence, from committing mistakes in matters of\nthe highest importance; it may be replied, That it will be very\ndifficult for them to assign what doctrines are of greater, and what of\nless importance, in all the instances thereof, or wherein providence has\ninterposed, to prevent their running into mistakes, and when it has not;\nso that we are still in an uncertainty what doctrines are delivered to\nus, as they were received by inspiration, and what are misrepresented by\nthe penmen of scripture; and we shall be ready to conclude, that in\nevery section or paragraph thereof, some things may be true, and others\nfalse; some doctrines divine and others human, while we are left without\nany certain rule to distinguish one from the other, and accordingly we\ncannot be sure that any part of it is the word of God; so that such a\nrevelation as this would be of no real service to the church, and our\nfaith would be founded in the wisdom, or rather weakness of men, and our\nreligion, depending on it, could not be truly divine; so that this\nmethod of reasoning is, to use the word inspiration, but to destroy all\nthe valuable ends thereof.\n\nVI. Another argument, to prove the scriptures to be the word of God, may\nbe taken from their antiquity and wonderful preservation for so many\nages; this appears more remarkable, if we consider,\n\n1. That many other writings, of much later date, have been lost, and\nnothing more is known of them, but that there were once such books in\nthe world; and books might more easily be lost, when there were no other\nbut written copies of them, and these procured with much expense and\ndifficulty, and consequently their number proportionably small.\n\n2. That the scripture should be preserved, notwithstanding all the\nmalice of its avowed enemies, as prompted hereunto by Satan, whose\nkingdom is overthrown by it. Had it been in his power, he would\ncertainly have utterly abolished and destroyed it; but yet it has been\npreserved unto this day, which discovers a wonderful hand of providence;\nand would God so remarkably have taken care of a book, that pretends to\nadvance itself by bearing the character of a divinely inspired writing,\nif it had not been really so? Which leads us to the next argument,\ncontaining an advice, which is more convincing than any other; or, at\nleast, if this be added to those arguments which have been already\ngiven, I hope it will more abundantly appear that the scriptures are the\nword of God; since,\n\nVII. The divine authority thereof is attested by God himself; and if, in\nother cases, _we receive the witness of men_, surely, as the apostle\nobserves, _the witness of God is greater_, 1 John v. 9.\n\nNow the testimony of God to the authority of scripture is twofold;\n_First_, Extraordinary; _Secondly_, Ordinary; the extraordinary\ntestimony of God is that of miracles; the ordinary is taken from the use\nwhich he makes of it, in convincing and converting sinners, and building\nup in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.\n\n1. As to the former of these, God has attested the truth hereof by\nmiracles. A miracle is an extraordinary divine work, whereby something\nis produced, contrary to the common course and laws of nature: thus the\nmagicians confessed, that one of the miracles which Moses wrought was\nthe _finger of God_, Exod. viii. 19. Of these there are many undeniable\ninstances recorded in scripture, both in the Old and New Testament; and\nthese being above the power of a creature, and works peculiar to God,\nthey contain a divine testimony to the truth that is confirmed thereby,\nfor the confirmation whereof an appeal was made to them. Now when we say\nthat the divine authority of scripture was confirmed by miracles, we\nmean,\n\n(1.) That God has wrought miracles to testify his approbation of most of\nthe prophets and apostles, who were the inspired writers thereof,\nwhereby their mission was declared to be divine; and we cannot think\nthat God, who knows the hearts and secret designs of men, would employ\nor send any to perform so great and important a work, if he knew them to\nbe disposed to deceive and impose on the world; or that they would in\nany instance, call that his word which they did not receive from him.\nThe reason why men sometimes employ unfaithful servants about their work\nis, because they do not know them; they never do it out of choice; and\ntherefore we cannot suppose that God, who perfectly knows the hearts of\nmen, would do so; therefore, having not only employed the penmen of\nscripture as his servants, but confirmed their mission, and testified\nhis approbation of them, by miracles, this is a ground of conviction to\nus that they would not have pretended the scriptures to be the word of\nGod, if they were not so.\n\nNow that miracles have been wrought for this end, I think, needs no\nproof; for we are assured hereof, not barely by the report of those\nprophets, whose mission is supposed to have been confirmed thereby, but\nit was universally known and received in the church, in those times, in\nwhich they were wrought, and it is not pretended to be denied, by its\nmost inveterate enemies; the truth hereof, _viz._ that Moses, and\nseveral other of the prophets, and our Saviour, and his apostles,\nwrought miracles, can hardly be reckoned a matter in controversy; for it\nis a kind of scepticism to deny it: and it is certain, that herein they\nappealed to God for the confirmation of their mission; as Elijah is said\nexplicitly to have done, when he prays to this effect; _Lord God of\nAbraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art\nGod in Israel, and that I am thy servant; and that I have done all these\nthings at thy word_, 1 Kings xviii. 36. and we read, that God answered\nhim accordingly, _By the fire from heaven consuming the\nburnt-sacrifice_, &c. ver. 38.\n\n(2.) Such appeals to God, and answers from him, have attained their end,\nby giving conviction to those who were more immediately concerned; this\nis evident from what is said; in that the same prophet, having had his\nrequest granted him, when God wrought a miracle, in raising the dead\nchild to life, the woman of Zarephath confessed, that by this she knew\n_that he was a man of God, and that the word of the Lord, in his mouth,\nwas truth_, 1 Kings xvii. 21-24. And it is not denied by the Jews, the\nmost irreconcileable enemies to Christianity, that what is related in\nthe New Testament, concerning our Saviour\u2019s, and his apostles, working\nmiracles, was true in fact; but the only thing denied by them is, that\nthis was a divine testimony, or that they were wrought by the hand of\nGod; and therefore the common reproach which is cast on them is, that\nthey were wrought by magic art, as the Jews of old objected to our\nSaviour, _that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the\ndevils_, Matth. xii. 24. and his reply to them was unanswerable, when he\nsaid, that this objection would argue _Satan divided against himself_;\nintimating, that he would never take such a method as this to overthrow\nthe Christian religion, which he could not but know was more conducive\nto the establishment of it, than any other that could be used.\n\n_Object._ 1. But if it be objected, that though miracles were wrought to\nconfirm the mission of several of the prophets, yet none were wrought to\nconfirm the divine authority of the subject matter of the scriptures:\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be easily answered; that it is sufficient, if we\ncan prove that God has given his testimony, that he made choice of those\nprophets to declare his mind and will to the world; and that he has\naccordingly deemed them fit to be credited, and that they were not men\nliable to any suspicion of carrying on a design to deceive the world; so\nthat if God himself not only styles them holy men, as he does all the\ninspired writers in general, when he says, 2 Pet. i. 21. _Holy men of\nGod spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost_, but also wrought\nmiracles to prove that they were his servants and messengers, employed\nin this work; this is as convincing a testimony, as though every part of\nscripture wrote by them had been confirmed by a miracle. Besides, it is\nnot unreasonable to suppose, that the church lived in those ages, in\nwhich the various parts of scripture were written, had some\nextraordinary proofs of their divine authority; since, in many of them,\nmiracles were very common, and, at the same time that the penmen of\nscripture had the gift of inspiration, others had, what the apostle\ncalls, a _discerning of spirits_, 1 Cor. xii. 10. so that they were\nenabled, by this means, to know whether the prophet, that pretended to\ninspiration, was really inspired: this, to me seems very probably, the\nsense of the apostle, when he says, 1 Cor. xiv. 32. _The spirits of the\nprophets are subject to the prophets_, for he is discoursing before of\nprophets speaking by divine revelation, and others judging thereof: now\nif there was this extraordinary gift of discerning of spirits in the\nages, in which particular books of scripture were written, they who were\nfavoured herewith, had a convincing testimony of the inspiration of the\nprophets and apostles, from the same Spirit by whom they were inspired,\nby which means the divine authority of scripture was infallibly known to\nthem, and so imparted to others for their farther confirmation as to\nthis matter.\n\n_Object._ 2. We are not now to expect miracles to confirm our faith, as\nto the divine original of scripture; therefore how can we be said to\nhave a divine testimony.\n\n_Answ._ As miracles are now ceased, so such a method of confirming\ndivine revelation is not necessary in all succeeding ages: God did not\ndesign to make that dispensation too common, nor to continue the\nevidence it affords, when there was no necessity thereof. Thus when the\nscribes and Pharisees came to our Saviour, desiring to _see a sign_ from\nhim, Matt, xii. 38. he would not comply with their unreasonable demand;\nand the apostle Paul takes notice of humour prevailing among the Jews in\nhis time, who then _required a sign_, 1 Cor, i, 22. but, instead of\ncomplying with them herein, he refers them to the success of the gospel,\nwhich is _the power of God to salvation_, as the only testimony to the\ntruth thereof that was then needful; and our Saviour, in the parable,\nintimates, that the truth of divine revelation has been so well\nattested, that _they who believe not Moses and the prophets, would not\nbe persuaded, though one rose from the dead_, Luke xvi, 31. Therefore,\nsince we have such a convincing evidence hereof, it is an unreasonable\ndegree of obstinacy to refuse to believe the divine authority of\nscripture, merely because miracles are not now wrought; since, to demand\na farther proof of it, is no other than a tempting God, or disowning\nthat what he has done is sufficient for our conviction; and to say, that\nfor want of this evidence, our faith is not founded on a divine\ntestimony, is nothing to the purpose, unless it could be proved that it\nis not founded on such a testimony formerly given, the contrary to which\nis undeniably evident, since we have this truth confirmed by the\nconfession of the church in all the ages thereof, and therefore we have\nas much ground to believe this matter, as though miracles were wrought\nevery day for its confirmation. This will farther appear, if we consider\nthe abundant ground we have to conclude that God has formerly given such\na testimony to his word; which leads us to enquire how far the testimony\nof the church, in all the ages thereof, is to be regarded.\n\nThe church has given its suffrage, throughout all the ages thereof, to\nthe divine original of scripture, how much soever it has perverted the\nsense of it. That this argument may be set in a true light, let us\nconsider what the Papists say to this matter, when they appeal to the\nchurch, to establish the divine authority of scripture; and wherein we\ndiffer from them; and how far its testimony is to be regarded, as a\nmeans for our farther conviction. We are far from asserting, with them,\nthat the church\u2019s testimony alone is to be regarded, without the\ninternal evidence of the divine authority of scripture, as though that\nwere the principal, if not the only foundation on which our faith is\nbuilt. If, indeed, they could prove the infallibility of the church, we\nshould more readily conclude the infallibility of its testimony; but all\ntheir attempts of this nature are vain and trifling.\n\nMoreover, we do not mean altogether the same thing by the church as they\ndo, when they intend by it a council convened together, to decree and\nestablish matters of faith, by him whom they pretend to be the visible\nhead thereof; and so a majority of votes of a body of men, every one of\nwhom are liable to error, must determine, and, according to them, give a\ndivine sanction to our faith. Nor do we think that those, whom they call\nthe fathers of the church, are to be any farther regarded, than as they\nprove what they assert, since there is scarce any error or absurdity,\nbut what some or other of them have given into. We also distinguish\nbetween the churches testimony, that the scripture was given by divine\ninspiration, and the sense they give of many of its doctrines; as to the\nlatter of these, it has given us ground enough to conclude, that its\njudgment is not much to be depended upon; however, we find that, in all\nages, it has given sufficient testimony to this truth, that the\nscriptures are the word of God, and that they have been proved to be so,\nby the seal which God has set thereunto, to wit, by the miracles that\nhave been wrought to confirm it. If therefore God has had a church in\nthe world, or a remnant whom he has preserved faithful; and if their\nfaith, and all their religion, and hope of salvation, has been founded,\nwithout the least exception, on this truth, that the scriptures are the\nword of God, we cannot altogether set aside this argument. But there is\nyet another, which we lay more stress on, namely, the use which God has\nmade of it, which is the second thing to be considered, _viz._\n\n2. His ordinary method of attesting this truth; it appears therefore, as\nis farther observed in this answer, that the scriptures are the word of\nGod, from their light and power to convince and convert sinners, and to\ncomfort and build up believers to salvation. Here let us consider,\n\n1. That the work of conviction and conversion is, and has been at all\ntimes, experienced by those who have had any right or claim to\nsalvation; of which there have not only been various instances, in all\nages, but the very being of the church, which supposes and depends\nthereon, is an undeniable proof of it.\n\n2. As this work is truly divine, so the scriptures have been the\nprincipal, if not the only direct means, by which it has been brought\nabout; so that we have never had any other rule, or standard of faith,\nor revealed religion; nor has the work of grace been ever begun, or\ncarried on, in the souls of any, without it; from whence it evidently\nappears, that God makes use of it to propagate and advance his interest\nin the world, and has given his church ground to expect his presence\nwith it, in all his ordinances, in which they are obliged to pay a due\nregard to scripture; and, in so doing, they have found that their\nexpectation has not been in vain, since God has, by this means,\nmanifested himself to them, and made them partakers of spiritual\nprivileges, which have been the beginning of their salvation.\n\n3. It cannot be supposed that God would make this use of his word, and\nthereby put such an honour upon it, had it been an imposture, or borne\nthe specious pretence of being instamped with his authority, if it had\nnot been so; for that would be to give countenance to a lie, which is\ncontrary to the holiness of his nature.\n\nThus we have considered the several arguments, whereby the scripture\nappears to be the word of God; but since multitudes are not convinced\nhereby, we have, in the close of this answer, an account of the means\nwhereby Christians come to a full persuasion as to this matter, and that\nis the testimony of the Spirit in the heart of man, which is the next\nthing to be considered. By this we do not understand that extraordinary\nimpression which some of old have been favoured with, who are said to\nhave been moved by the Holy Ghost, or to have had an extraordinary\nunction from the Holy One, whereby they were led into the knowledge of\ndivine truths, in a way of supernatural illumination. This we pretend\nnot to, since extraordinary gifts are ceased; yet it does not follow\nfrom hence, that the Spirit does not now influence the minds of\nbelievers in an ordinary way, whereby they are led into, and their faith\nconfirmed in all necessary truths, and this in particular, that the\nscriptures are the word of God; for we may observe, that no privilege\nreferring to salvation, was ever taken away, but some other, subservient\nto the same end, has been substituted in the room thereof; especially,\nunless a notorious forfeiture has been made of it, and the church, by\napostacy, has excluded itself from an interest in the divine regard; but\nthis cannot be said of the gospel-church in all the ages thereof, since\nextraordinary gifts have ceased; therefore we must conclude, that being\ndestitute of that way, by which this truth was once confirmed, believers\nhave, instead of it, an inward conviction wrought by the Spirit of God,\nagreeable to his present method of acting; otherwise this present\ngospel-dispensation is, in a very material circumstance, much inferior\nto that in which God discovered his mind and will to man in an\nextraordinary way.\n\nBut that we may explain what we mean by this inward testimony of the\nSpirit in the hearts of men, whereby they are fully persuaded that the\nscriptures are the word of God, let it be considered,\n\n(1.) That it is something more than barely a power, or faculty of\nreasoning, to prove the scriptures to be divine, since that is common to\nall; but this is a special privilege, given to those who are hereby\nfully persuaded of this truth. Moreover, there may be a power of\nreasoning, and yet we may be mistaken in the exercise thereof; and\ntherefore this is not sufficient, fully to persuade us that they are the\nword of God, and consequently something more than this is intended in\nthis answer.\n\n(2.) It is something short of inspiration; therefore, though the\nscripture was known to be the word of God, by the Spirit of inspiration,\nso long as that dispensation continued in the church, yet that privilege\nbeing now ceased, the internal testimony of the Spirit contains a lower\ndegree of illumination, which has nothing miraculous attending it, and\ntherefore falls short of inspiration.\n\n(3.) It is not an enthusiastic impulse, or strong impression upon our\nminds, whereby we conclude a thing to be true, because we think it is\nso; this we by no means allow of, since our own fancies are not the\nstandard of truth, how strong soever our ideas of things may be;\ntherefore,\n\n(4.) This inward testimony of the Spirit contains in it a satisfying and\nestablishing persuasion, that the scriptures are the word of God, not\naltogether destitute of other evidences, or convincing arguments: and\nthat which is more especially convincing to weak Christians, is taken\nfrom the use which God makes of the scripture, in beginning and carrying\non the work of grace in their souls, who are thus convinced; and this\nfirm persuasion we find sometimes so deeply rooted in their hearts, that\nthey would sooner die ten thousand deaths than part with scripture, or\nentertain the least slight thought of it, as though it were not divine;\nand certainly there is a special hand of God in this persuasion, which\nwe can call no other than the inward testimony of the Spirit, whereby\nthey are established in this important truth.[45]\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  \u201cSince God has been pleased to leave us the Records of the _Jewish_\n  Religion, which was of old the true religion, and affords no small\n  testimony to the Christian religion, it is not foreign to our purpose,\n  to see upon what foundation the credibility of these is built. That\n  these books are theirs, to whom they are ascribed, appears in the same\n  manner as we have proved of our books. And they, whose names they\n  bear, were either Prophets, or men worthy to be credited; such as\n  _Esdras_, who is supposed to have collected them into one volume, at\n  that time, when the Prophets _Haggai_, _Malachi_, and _Zacharias_,\n  were yet alive. I will not here repeat what was said before, in\n  commendation of _Moses_. And not only that first part, delivered by\n  _Moses_, as we have shewn in the first book, but the latter history is\n  confirmed by many _Pagans_. [21]Thus the _Ph\u0153nician_ annals mention\n  the names of _David_ and _Solomon_, and the league they made with the\n  _Tyrians_. And _Berosus_, as well as the _Hebrew_ books, mention\n  _Nabuchadonosor_, and other _Chald\u00e6ans_. _Vaphres_, the king of\n  _Egypt_ in _Jeremiah_ is the same with _Apries_ in _Herodotus_. And\n  the _Greek_ books are filled with _Cyrus_ and his successors down to\n  _Darius_; and _Josephus_ in his book against _Appion_, quotes many\n  other things relating to the _Jewish_ nation: To which may be added,\n  that we above took out of _Strabo_ and _Trogus_. But there is no\n  reason for us Christians to doubt of the credibility of these books,\n  because there are testimonies in our books, out of almost every one of\n  them, the same as they are found in the _Hebrew_. Nor did Christ when\n  he blamed many things in the teachers of the law, and in the\n  _Pharisees_ of his time, ever accuse them of falsifying the books of\n  _Moses_ and the Prophets, or of using supposititious or altered books.\n  And it can never be proved or made credible, that after Christ\u2019s time,\n  the scripture should be corrupted in any thing of moment; if we do but\n  consider how far and wide the _Jewish_ nation, who every where kept\n  those books, was dispersed over the whole world. For first, the ten\n  tribes were carried into _Media_ by the _Assyrians_, and afterwards\n  the other two. And many of these fixed themselves in foreign\n  countries, after they had a permission from _Cyrus_ to return: the\n  _Macedonians_ invited them into _Alexandria_ with great advantages;\n  the cruelty of _Antiochus_, the civil war of the _Asmon\u00e6i_, and the\n  foreign wars of _Pompey_ and _Sossius_, scattered a great many; the\n  country of _Cyrene_ was filled with _Jews_; the cities of _Asia_,\n  _Macedonia_, _Lycaonia_, and the Isles of _Cyprus_, and _Crete_, and\n  others, were full of them; and that there was a vast number of them in\n  Rome, we learn from _Horace_, _Juvenal_, and _Martial_. It is\n  impossible that such distant bodies of men should be imposed upon by\n  any art whatsoever, or that they should agree in a falsity. We may add\n  further that almost three hundred years before Christ, by the care of\n  the _Egyptian_ kings, the Hebrew books were translated into Greek by\n  those who are called the _Seventy_; that the Greeks might have them in\n  another language, but the sense the same in the main; upon which\n  account they were the less liable to be altered: And the same books\n  were translated into _Chaldee_, and into the _Jerusalem_ language;\n  that is, half _Syriac_; partly a little before, and partly a little\n  after Christ\u2019s time. After which followed other _Greek_ versions, that\n  of _Aquila_, _Symmachus_, and _Theodotion_; which _Origen_, and others\n  after him, compared with the seventy Interpreters, and found no\n  difference in the history; or in any weighty matters. _Philo_\n  flourished in _Caligula\u2019s_ time, and Josephus lived till\n  _Vespasian\u2019s_. Each of them quote out of the _Hebrew_ books the same\n  things that we find at this day. By this time the Christian religion\n  began to be more and more spread, and many of its professors were\n  _Hebrews_: Many had studied the _Hebrew_ learning, who could very\n  easily have perceived and discovered it, if the _Jews_ had received\n  any thing that was false, in any remarkable subject, I mean, by\n  comparing it with more ancient books. But they not only do this, but\n  they bring very many testimonies out of the Old Testament, plainly in\n  that sense in which they are received amongst the _Hebrews_, which\n  _Hebrews_ may be convicted of any crime, sooner than (I will not say\n  of falsity, but) of negligence, in relation to these books; because\n  they used to transcribe and compare them so very scrupulously, that\n  they could tell how often every letter came over. We may add, in the\n  first place, an argument, and that no mean one, why the _Jews_ did not\n  alter the scripture designedly; because the Christians prove, and as\n  they think very strongly, that their Master Jesus was that very\n  Messiah who was of old promised to the forefathers of the _Jews_; and\n  this from those very books, which were read by the _Jews_. Which the\n  _Jews_ would have taken the greatest care should never have been,\n  after there arose a controversy between them and the Christians; if it\n  had ever been in their power to have altered what they would.\u201d\n\n  GROTIUS.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  (_Thus the_ Phoenician _Annals_, &c.) See what _Josephus_ cites out of\n  them, Book VIII. Chap. 2. of his Ancient History; where he adds, \u201cthat\n  if any one would see the Copies of those Epistles which _Solomon_ and\n  _Hirom_ wrote to each other, they may be procured of the public\n  Keepers of the Records at _Tyrus_.\u201d (We must be cautions how we\n  believe this; however, see what I have said upon 1 _Kings_ v. 3.)\n  There is a remarkable place concerning _David_, quoted by _Josephus_,\n  Book VII. Ch. 6. of his Ancient History, out of the IVth of\n  _Damascenus\u2019s_ History.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  \u201cThe enquiries of learned men, and, above all of the excellent\n  Lardner, who never overstates a point of evidence, and whose fidelity\n  in citing his authorities has in no one instance been impeached, have\n  established, concerning these writings, the following propositions:\n\n  \u201cI. That in the age immediately posterior to that in which St. Paul\n  lived, his letters were publicly read and acknowledged.\n\n  \u201cSome of them are quoted or alluded to by almost every Christian\n  writer that followed, by Clement of Rome, by Hermas, by Ignatius, by\n  Polycarp, disciples or cotemporaries of the apostles; by Justin\n  Martyr, by the churches of Gaul, by Iren\u00e6us, by Athenagoras, by\n  Theophilus, by Clement of Alexandria, by Hermias, by Tertullian, who\n  occupied the succeeding age. Now when we find a book quoted or\n  referred to by an ancient author, we are entitled to conclude, that it\n  was read and received in the age and country in which that author\n  lived. And this conclusion does not, in any degree, rest upon the\n  judgment or character of the author making such reference. Proceeding\n  by this rule, we have, concerning the First Epistle to the Corinthians\n  in particular, within forty years after the epistle was written,\n  evidence, not only of its being extant at Corinth, but of its being\n  known and read at Rome. Clement, bishop of that city, writing to the\n  church of Corinth, uses these words: \u2018Take into your hands the Epistle\n  of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he at first write unto you\n  in the beginning of the gospel? Verily he did by the Spirit admonish\n  you concerning himself and Cephas, and Apollos, because that even then\n  you did form parties[23].\u2019 This was written at a time when probably\n  some must have been living at Corinth, who remembered St. Paul\u2019s\n  ministry there and the receipt of the epistle. The testimony is still\n  more valuable, as it shows that the epistles were preserved in the\n  churches to which they were sent, and that they were spread and\n  propagated from them to the rest of the Christian community. Agreeably\n  to which natural mode and order of their publication, Tertullian, a\n  century afterwards, for proof of the integrity and genuineness of the\n  apostolic writings, bids \u2018any one, who is willing to exercise his\n  curiosity profitably in the business of their salvation, to visit the\n  apostolical churches, in which their very authentic letters are\n  recited, ips\u00e6 authentic\u00e6 liter\u00e6 eorum recitantur.\u2019 Then he goes on:\n  \u2018Is Achaia near you? You have Corinth. If you are not far from\n  Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you can go to\n  Asia, you have Ephesus; but if you are near to Italy, you have\n  Rome[24].\u2019 I adduce this passage to show, that the distinct churches\n  or Christian societies, to which St. Paul\u2019s Epistles were sent,\n  subsisted for some ages afterwards; that his several epistles were all\n  along respectively read in those churches; that Christians at large\n  received them from those churches, and appealed to those churches for\n  their originality and authenticity.\n\n  \u201cArguing in like manner from citations and allusions, we have, within\n  the space of a hundred and fifty years from the time that the first of\n  St. Paul\u2019s Epistles was written, proofs of almost all of them being\n  read, in Palestine, Syria, the countries of Asia Minor, in Egypt, in\n  that part of Africa which used the Latin tongue, in Greece, Italy, and\n  Gaul[25]. I do not mean simply to assert, that, within the space of a\n  hundred and fifty years, St. Paul\u2019s Epistles were read in those\n  countries, for I believe that they were read and circulated from the\n  beginning; but that proofs of their being so read occur within that\n  period. And when it is considered how few of the primitive Christians\n  wrote, and of what was written how much is lost, we are to account it\n  extraordinary, or rather as a sure proof of the extensiveness of the\n  reputation of these writings, and of the general respect in which they\n  were held, that so many testimonies, and of such antiquity, are still\n  extant. \u2018In the remaining works of Iren\u00e6us, Clement of Alexandria, and\n  Tertullian, there are perhaps more and larger quotations of the small\n  volume of the New Testament, than of all the works of Cicero, in the\n  writings of all characters for several ages[26].\u2019 We must add, that\n  the Epistles of Paul come in for their full share of this observation;\n  and that all the thirteen epistles, except that to Philemon, which is\n  not quoted by Iren\u00e6us or Clement, and which probably escaped notice\n  merely by its brevity, are severally cited, and expressly recognized\n  as St. Paul\u2019s by each of these Christian writers. The Ebionites, an\n  early, though inconsiderable Christian sect, rejected St. Paul and his\n  epistles[27]; that is, they rejected these epistles, not because they\n  were not, but because they were St. Paul\u2019s; and because, adhering to\n  the obligation of the Jewish law, they chose to dispute his doctrine\n  and authority. Their suffrage as to the genuineness of the epistles\n  does not contradict that of other Christians. Marcion, an heretical\n  writer in the former part of the second century, is said by Tertullian\n  to have rejected three of the epistles which we now receive, _viz._\n  the two Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus. It appears to me\n  not improbable, that Marcion might make some such distinction as this,\n  that no apostolic epistle was to be admitted which was not read or\n  attested by the church to which it was sent; for it is remarkable\n  that, together with these epistles to private persons, he rejected\n  also the catholic epistles. Now the catholic epistles and the epistles\n  to private persons agree in the circumstance of wanting this\n  particular species of attestation. Marcion, it seems, acknowledged the\n  Epistle to Philemon, and is upbraided for his inconsistency in doing\n  so by Tertullian[28], who asks \u2018why, when he received a letter written\n  to a single person, he should refuse two to Timothy and one to Titus\n  composed upon the affairs of the church?\u2019 This passage so far favours\n  our account of Marcion\u2019s objection, as it shows that the objection was\n  supposed by Tertullian to have been founded in something, which\n  belonged to the nature of a private letter.\n\n  \u201cNothing of the works of Marcion remains. Probably he was, after all,\n  a rash, arbitrary, licentious critic (if he deserved indeed the name\n  of critic,) and who offered no reason for his determination. What St.\n  Jerome says of him intimates this, and is beside founded in good\n  sense: speaking of him and Basilides, \u2018If they had assigned any\n  reasons,\u2019 says he, \u2018why they did not reckon these epistles,\u2019 _viz._\n  the first and second to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus, \u2018to be the\n  apostle\u2019s, we would have endeavoured to have answered them, and\n  perhaps might have satisfied the reader: but when they take upon them,\n  by their own authority, to pronounce one epistle to be Paul\u2019s, and\n  another not, they can only be replied to in the same manner[29].\u2019 Let\n  it be remembered, however, that Marcion received ten of these\n  epistles. His authority therefore, even if his credit had been better\n  than it is, forms a very small exception to the uniformity of the\n  evidence. Of Basilides we know still less than we do of Marcion. The\n  same observation however belongs to him, _viz._ that his objection, as\n  far as appears from this passage of St. Jerome, was confined to the\n  three private epistles. Yet is this the only opinion which can be said\n  to disturb the consent of the two first centuries of the Christian\n  \u00e6ra; for as to Tatian, who is reported by Jerome alone to have\n  rejected some of St. Paul\u2019s Epistles, the extravagant or rather\n  delirious notions into which he fell, take away all weight and credit\n  from his judgment. If, indeed, Jerome\u2019s account of this circumstance\n  be correct; for it appears from much older writers than Jerome, that\n  Tatian owned and used many of these epistles[30].\n\n  \u201cII. They, who in those ages disputed about so many other points,\n  agreed in acknowledging the Scriptures now before us. Contending sects\n  appealed to them in their controversies with equal and unreserved\n  submission. When they were urged by one side, however they might be\n  interpreted or misinterpreted by the other, their authority was not\n  questioned. \u2018Reliqui omnes,\u2019 says Iren\u00e6us, speaking of Marcion, \u2018falso\n  scienti\u00e6 nomine inflati, scripturas quidem confitentur,\n  interpretationes vero convertunt[31].\u2019\n\n  \u201cIII. When the genuineness of some other writings which were in\n  circulation, and even of a few which are now received into the canon,\n  was contested, these were never called into dispute. Whatever was the\n  objection, or whether, in truth, there ever was any real objection to\n  the authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third\n  of John, the Epistle of James, or that of Jude, or to the book of the\n  Revelations of St. John, the doubts that appear to have been\n  entertained concerning them, exceedingly strengthen the force of the\n  testimony as to those writings, about which there was no doubt;\n  because it shows, that the matter was a subject, amongst the early\n  Christians, of examination and discussion; and that, where there was\n  any room to doubt, they did doubt.\n\n  \u201cWhat Eusebius hath left upon the subject is directly to the purpose\n  of this observation. Eusebius, it is well known, divided the\n  ecclesiastical writings which were extant in his time into three\n  classes; the \u2018\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, uncontradicted,\u2019 as he calls them in one\n  chapter; or \u2018scriptures universally acknowledged,\u2019 as he calls them in\n  another; the \u2018controverted, yet well known and approved by many;\u2019 and\n  \u2018the spurious.\u2019 What were the shades of difference in the books of the\n  second, or in those of the third class; or what it was precisely that\n  he meant by the term _spurious_, it is not necessary in this place to\n  enquire. It is sufficient for us to find, that the thirteen epistles\n  of St. Paul are placed by him in the first class without any sort of\n  hesitation or doubt.\n\n  \u201cIt is further also to be collected from the chapter in which this\n  distinction is laid down, that the method made use of by Eusebius, and\n  by the Christians of his time, _viz._ the close of the third century,\n  in judging concerning the sacred authority of any books, was to\n  enquire after and consider the testimony of those who lived near the\n  age of the apostles[32].\n\n  \u201cIV. That no ancient writing, which is attested as these epistles are,\n  hath had its authenticity disproved, or is in fact questioned. The\n  controversies which have been moved concerning suspected writings, as\n  the epistles, for instance, of Phalaris, or the eighteen epistles of\n  Cicero, begin by showing that this attestation is wanting. That being\n  proved, the question is thrown back upon internal marks of\n  spuriousness or authenticity; and in these the dispute is occupied. In\n  which disputes it is to be observed, that the contested writings are\n  commonly attacked by arguments drawn from some opposition which they\n  betray to \u2018authentic history,\u2019 to \u2018true epistles,\u2019 to \u2018the real\n  sentiments or circumstances of the author whom they personate[33];\u2019\n  which authentic history, which true epistles, which real sentiments\n  themselves, are no other than ancient documents, whose early existence\n  and reception can be proved, in the manner in which the writings\n  before us are traced up to the age of their reputed author, or to ages\n  near to his. A modern who sits down to compose the history of some\n  ancient period, has no stronger evidence to appeal to for the most\n  confident assertion, or the most undisputed fact, that he delivers,\n  than writings, whose genuineness is proved by the same medium through\n  which we evince the authenticity of ours. Nor, whilst he can have\n  recourse to such authorities as these, does he apprehend any\n  uncertainty in his accounts, from the suspicion of spuriousness or\n  imposture in his materials.\n\n  \u201cV. It cannot be shown that any forgeries, properly so called[34],\n  that is, writings published under the name of the person who did not\n  compose them, made their appearance in the first century of the\n  Christian \u00e6ra, in which century these epistles undoubtedly existed. I\n  shall set down under this proposition the guarded words of Lardner\n  himself: \u2018There are no quotations of any books of them (spurious and\n  apocryphal books) in the apostolical fathers, by whom I mean Barnabas,\n  Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, whose writings reach\n  from the year of our Lord 70 to the year 108. _I say this confidently,\n  because I think it has been proved._\u2019 Lardner, vol. xii. p. 158.\n\n  \u201cNor when they did appear were they much used by the primitive\n  Christians. \u2018Iren\u00e6us quotes not any of these books. He mentions some\n  of them, but he never quotes them. The same may be said of Tertullian:\n  he has mentioned a book called \u201cActs of Paul and Thecla:\u201d but it is\n  only to condemn it. Clement of Alexandria and Origen have mentioned\n  and quoted several such books, but never as authority, and sometimes\n  with express marks of dislike. Eusebius quotes no such books in any of\n  his works. He has mentioned them indeed, but how? Not by way of\n  approbation, but to show that they were of little or no value; and\n  that they never were received by the sounder part of Christians.\u2019 Now,\n  if with this, which is advanced after the most minute and diligent\n  examination, we compare what the same cautious writer had before said\n  of our received scriptures, \u2018that in the works of three only of the\n  above-mentioned fathers, there are more and larger quotations of the\n  small volume of the New Testament, than of all the works of Cicero in\n  the writers of all characters for several ages;\u2019 and if, with the\n  marks of obscurity or condemnation, which accompanied the mention of\n  the several apocryphal Christian writings, when they happened to be\n  mentioned at all, we contrast what Dr. Lardner\u2019s work completely and\n  in detail makes out concerning the writings which we defend, and what,\n  having so made out, he thought himself authorized in his conclusion to\n  assert, that these books were not only received from the beginning,\n  but received with the greatest respect; have been publicly and\n  solemnly read in the assemblies of Christians throughout the world, in\n  every age from that time to this; early translated into the languages\n  of divers countries and people; commentaries writ to explain and\n  illustrate them; quoted by way of proof in all arguments of a\n  religious nature; recommended to the perusal of unbelievers, as\n  containing the authentic account of the Christian doctrine; when we\n  attend, I say, to this representation, we perceive in it, not only\n  full proof of the early notoriety of these books, but a clear and\n  sensible line of discrimination, which separates these from the\n  pretensions of any others.\n\n  \u201cThe Epistles of St. Paul stand particularly free of any doubt or\n  confusion that might arise from this source. Until the conclusion of\n  the fourth century, no intimation appears of any attempt whatever\n  being made to counterfeit these writings; and then it appears only of\n  a single and obscure instance. Jerome, who flourished in the year 392,\n  has this expression: \u2018Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses; sed ab omnibus\n  exploditur;\u2019 there is also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is\n  rejected by every body[35]. Theodoret, who wrote in the year 423,\n  speaks of this epistle in the same terms[36]. Beside these, I know not\n  whether any ancient writer mentions it. It was certainly unnoticed\n  during the three first centuries of the Church; and when it came\n  afterwards to be mentioned, it was mentioned only to show, that,\n  though such a writing did exist, it obtained no credit. It is probable\n  that the forgery to which Jerome alludes, is the epistle which we now\n  have under that title. If so, as hath been already observed, it is\n  nothing more than a collection of sentences from the genuine Epistles;\n  and was perhaps, at first, rather the exercise of some idle pen, than\n  any serious attempt to impose a forgery upon the public. Of an Epistle\n  to the Corinthians under St. Paul\u2019s name, which was brought into\n  Europe in the present century, antiquity is entirely silent. It was\n  unheard of for sixteen centuries; and at this day, though it be\n  extant, and was first found in the Armenian language, it is not, by\n  the Christians of that country, received into their scriptures. I\n  hope, after this, that there is no reader who will think there is any\n  competition of credit, or of external proof, between these and the\n  received Epistles: or rather, who will not acknowledge the evidence of\n  authenticity to be confirmed by the want of success which attended\n  imposture.\n\n  \u201cWhen we take into our hands the letters which the suffrage and\n  consent of antiquity hath thus transmitted to us, the first thing that\n  strikes our attention is the air of reality and business, as well as\n  of seriousness and conviction, which pervades the whole. Let the\n  sceptic read them. If he be not sensible of these qualities in them,\n  the argument can have no weight with him. If he be; if he perceive in\n  almost every page the language of a mind actuated by real occasions,\n  and operating upon real circumstances, I would wish it to be observed,\n  that the proof which arises from this perception is not to be deemed\n  occult or imaginary, because it is incapable of being drawn out in\n  words, or of being conveyed to the apprehension of the reader in any\n  other way, than by sending him to the books themselves.\u201d\u2014\u2014\n\n  \u201cIf it be true that we are in possession of the very letters which St.\n  Paul wrote, let us consider what confirmation they afford to the\n  Christian history. In my opinion they substantiate the whole\n  transaction. The great object of modern research is to come at the\n  epistolary correspondence of the times. Amidst the obscurities, the\n  silence, or the contradictions of history, if a letter can be found,\n  we regard it as the discovery of a land mark; as that by which we can\n  correct, adjust, or supply the imperfections and uncertainties of\n  other accounts. One cause of the superior credit which is attributed\n  to letters is this, that the facts which they disclose generally come\n  out _incidentally_, and therefore without design to mislead the public\n  by false or exaggerated accounts. This reason may be applied to St.\n  Paul\u2019s Epistles with as much justice as to any letters whatever.\n  Nothing could be further from the intention of the writer than to\n  record any part of his history. That his history was _in fact_ made\n  public by these letters, and has by the same means been transmitted to\n  future ages, is a secondary and unthought-of effect. The sincerity\n  therefore of the apostle\u2019s declarations cannot reasonably be disputed;\n  at least we are sure that it was not vitiated by any desire of setting\n  himself off to the public at large. But these letters form a part of\n  the muniments of Christianity, as much to be valued for their\n  contents, as for their originality. A more inestimable treasure the\n  care of antiquity could not have sent down to us. Beside the proof\n  they afford of the general reality of St. Paul\u2019s history, of the\n  knowledge which the author of the Acts of the Apostles had obtained of\n  that history, and the consequent probability that he was, what he\n  professes himself to have been, a companion of the apostle\u2019s; beside\n  the support they lend to these important inferences, they meet\n  specifically some of the principal objections upon which the\n  adversaries of Christianity have thought proper to rely. In particular\n  they show,\n\n  \u201cI. That Christianity was not a story set on foot amidst the\n  confusions which attended and immediately preceded the destruction of\n  Jerusalem; when many extravagant reports were circulated, when men\u2019s\n  minds were broken by terror and distress, when amidst the tumults that\n  surrounded them enquiry was impracticable. These letters show\n  incontestably that the religion had fixed and established itself\n  before this state of things took place.\n\n  \u201cII. Whereas it hath been insinuated, that our gospels may have been\n  made up of reports and stories, which were current at the time, we may\n  observe that, with respect to the Epistles, this is impossible. A man\n  cannot write the history of his own life from reports; nor, what is\n  the same thing, be led by reports to refer to passages and\n  transactions in which he states himself to have been immediately\n  present and active. I do not allow that this insinuation is applied to\n  the historical part of the New Testament with any colour of justice or\n  probability; but I say, that to the Epistles it is not applicable at\n  all.\n\n  \u201cIII. These letters prove that the converts to Christianity were not\n  drawn from the barbarous, the mean, or the ignorant set of men, which\n  the representations of infidelity would sometimes make them. We learn\n  from letters the character not only of the writer, but, in some\n  measure, of the persons to whom they are written. To suppose that\n  these letters were addressed to a rude tribe, incapable of thought or\n  reflection, is just as reasonable as to suppose Locke\u2019s Essay on the\n  Human Understanding to have been written for the instruction of\n  savages. Whatever may be thought of these letters in other respects,\n  either of diction or argument, they are certainly removed as far as\n  possible from the habits and comprehension of a barbarous people.\n\n  \u201cIV. St. Paul\u2019s history, I mean so much of it as may be collected from\n  his letters, is so _implicated_ with that of the other apostles, and\n  with the substance indeed of the Christian history itself, that I\n  apprehend it will be found impossible to admit St. Paul\u2019s story (I do\n  not speak of the miraculous part of it) to be true, and yet to reject\n  the rest as fabulous. For instance, can any one believe that there was\n  such a man as Paul, a preacher of Christianity in the age which we\n  assign to him, and _not_ believe that there were also at the same\n  time, such men as Peter and James, and other apostles, who had been\n  companions of Christ during his life, and who after his death\n  published and avowed the same things concerning him which Paul taught?\n  Judea, and especially Jerusalem, was the scene of Christ\u2019s ministry.\n  The witnesses of his miracles lived there. St. Paul, by his own\n  account, as well as that of his historian, appears to have frequently\n  visited that city; to have carried on a communication with the church\n  there; to have associated with the rulers and elders of that church,\n  who were some of them apostles; to have acted, as occasions offered,\n  in correspondence, and sometimes in conjunction with them. Can it,\n  after this, be doubted, but that the religion and the general facts\n  relating to it, which St. Paul appears by his letters to have\n  delivered to the several churches which he established at a distance,\n  were at the same time taught and published at Jerusalem itself, the\n  place where the business was transacted; and taught and published by\n  those who had attended the founder of the institution in his\n  miraculous, or pretendedly miraculous, ministry?\n\n  \u201cIt is observable, for so it appears both in the Epistles and from the\n  Acts of the Apostles, that Jerusalem, and the society of believers in\n  that city, long continued the centre from which the missionaries of\n  the religion issued with which all other churches maintained a\n  correspondence and connexion, to which they referred their doubts, and\n  to whose relief, in times of public distress, they remitted their\n  charitable assistance. This observation I think material, because it\n  proves that this was not the case of giving our accounts in one\n  country of what is transacted in another, without affording the\n  hearers an opportunity of knowing whether the things related were\n  credited by any, or even published, in the place where they are\n  reported to have passed.\n\n  \u201cV. St. Paul\u2019s letters furnish evidence (and what better evidence than\n  a man\u2019s own letters can be desired?) of the soundness and sobriety of\n  his judgment. His caution in distinguishing between the occasional\n  suggestions of inspiration, and the ordinary exercise of his natural\n  understanding, is without example in the history of enthusiasm. His\n  morality is every where calm, pure, and rational: adapted to the\n  condition, the activity, and the business of social life, and of its\n  various relations; free from the over-scrupulousness and austerities\n  of superstition, and from, what was more perhaps to be apprehended,\n  the abstractions of quietism, and the soarings and extravagancies of\n  fanaticism. His judgment concerning a hesitating conscience; his\n  opinion of the moral indifferency of many actions, yet of the prudence\n  and even the duty of compliance, where non-compliance would produce\n  evil effects upon the minds of the persons who observed it, is as\n  correct and just as the most liberal and enlightened moralist could\n  form at this day. The accuracy of modern ethics has found nothing to\n  amend in these determinations.\u201d\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n  \u201cBroad, obvious, and explicit agreements prove little; because it may\n  be suggested, that the insertion of such is the ordinary expedient of\n  every forgery; and though they may occur, and probably will occur, in\n  genuine writings, yet it cannot be proved that they are peculiar to\n  these. Thus what St. Paul declares in chap. xi. of 1 Cor. concerning\n  the institution of the eucharist, \u2018For I have received of the Lord\n  that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same\n  night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given\n  thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is\n  broken for you; this do in remembrance of me,\u2019 though it be in close\n  and verbal conformity with the account of the same transaction\n  preserved by St. Luke, is yet a conformity of which no use can be made\n  in our argument; for if it should be objected that this was a mere\n  recital from the Gospel, borrowed by the author of the epistle, for\n  the purpose of setting off his composition by an appearance of\n  agreement with the received account of the Lord\u2019s supper, I should not\n  know how to repel the insinuation. In like manner, the description\n  which St. Paul gives of himself in his epistle to the Philippians\n  (iii. 5.)\u2014\u2018Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the\n  tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a\n  Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the\n  righteousness which is in the law, blameless\u2019\u2014is made up of\n  particulars so plainly delivered concerning him, in the Acts of the\n  Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, and the Epistle to the Galatians,\n  that I cannot deny but that it would be easy for an impostor, who was\n  fabricating a letter in the name of St. Paul, to collect these\n  articles into one view. This, therefore, is a conformity which we do\n  not adduce. But when I read, in the Acts of the Apostles, that \u2018when\n  Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, behold a certain disciple was there,\n  named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman _which was a Jewess_;\u2019 and\n  when, in an epistle addressed to Timothy, I find him reminded of his\n  \u2018having known the Holy Scriptures _from a child_,\u2019 which implies that\n  he must, on one side or both, have been brought up by Jewish parents:\n  I conceive that I remark a coincidence which shews, by its very\n  _obliquity_, that scheme was not employed in its formation.\u201d\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n  \u201cAn assertion in the Epistle to the Colossians, _viz._ that \u2018Onesimus\n  was one of them,\u2019 is verified by the Epistle to Philemon; and is\n  verified, not by any mention of Colosse, any the most distant\n  intimation concerning the place of Philemon\u2019s abode, but singly by\n  stating Onesimus to be Philemon\u2019s servant, and by joining in the\n  salutation Philemon with Archippus, for this Archippus, when we go\n  back to the Epistle to the Colossians, appears to have been an\n  inhabitant of that city, and, as it should seem, to have held an\n  office of authority in that church. The case stands thus. Take the\n  Epistle to the Colossians alone, and no circumstance is discoverable\n  which makes out the assertion, that Onesimus was \u2018one of them.\u2019 Take\n  the Epistle to Philemon alone, and nothing at all appears concerning\n  the place to which Philemon or his servant Onesimus belonged. For any\n  thing that is said in the epistle, Philemon might have been a\n  Thessalonian, a Philippian, or an Ephesian, as well as a Colossian.\n  Put the two epistles together and the matter is clear. The reader\n  perceives a _junction_ of circumstances, which ascertains the\n  conclusion at once. Now, all that is necessary to be added in this\n  place is, that this correspondency evinces the genuineness of one\n  epistle, as well as of the other. It is like comparing the two parts\n  of a cloven tally. Coincidence proves the authenticity of both.\u201d\n\n  PALEY.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  See Lardner, vol. xii. p. 22.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Lardner, vol. ii. p. 598.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  See Lardner\u2019s Recapitulation, vol. xii, p. 53.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  See Lardner\u2019s Recapitulation, vol. xii. p. 53.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  Lardner, vol. ii. p. 808.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 455.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 458.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Lardner, vol. i. p. 313.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  Iren. advers. Haer. quoted by Lardner, vol. xv. p. 425.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  Lardner, vol. viii. p. 106.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  See the tracts written in the controversy between Tunstal and\n  Middleton upon certain suspected epistles ascribed to Cicero.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  I believe that there is a great deal of truth in Dr. Lardner\u2019s\n  observations, that comparatively few of those books, which we call\n  apocryphal, were strictly and originally forgeries. See Lardner, vol.\n  xii. p. 167.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  Lardner, vol. x. p. 103.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Lardner, vol. xi. p. 88.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  \u05dc\u05da \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd are wanting only in 85 and 112 of Kennicott.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  _See Ques._ 154.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  \u1ffe\u03a5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  [\u1f10\u03bd \u1f21] \u03b5\u03bd _oftentimes signifies_, Cum, ad, prope, juxta, _as well as\n  in_.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  \u201cThe most ancient tradition among all nations, is exactly agreeable to\n  the relation of _Moses_. For his description of the original of the\n  world is almost the very same as in the ancient _Ph\u0153nician_ histories,\n  which are translated by _Philo Biblius_ from _Sanchoniathon\u2019s_\n  Collection; and a good part of it is to be found among the _Indians_\n  and _Egyptians_; whence it is that in _Linus_, _Hesiod_, and many\n  other _Greek_ writers, mention is made of a _Chaos_, (signified by\n  some under the name of an Egg) and of the framing of animals, and also\n  of man\u2019s formation after the divine image, and the dominion given him\n  over all living creatures; which are to be seen in many writers,\n  particularly in _Ovid_, who transcribed them from the _Greek_. That\n  all things were made by the Word of God, is asserted by _Epicharmus_,\n  and the _Platonists_; and before them, by the most ancient writer (I\n  do not mean of those Hymns which go under his name, but) of those\n  Verses which were of old called _Orpheus\u2019s_; not because _Orpheus_\n  composed them, but because they contained his doctrines. And\n  _Empedocles_ acknowledged, that the sun was not the original light,\n  but the receptacle of light, (the storehouse and vehicle of fire, as\n  the ancient Christians express it.) _Aratus_, and _Catullus_, thought\n  the divine residence was above the starry orb; in which _Homer_ says,\n  there is a continual light. _Thales_ taught from the ancient schools,\n  that God was the oldest of beings, because not begotten; that the\n  world was most beautiful, because the workmanship of God; that\n  darkness was before light, which latter we find in _Orpheus\u2019s_ Verses,\n  and _Hesiod_, whence it was, that the nations, who were most tenacious\n  of ancient customs, reckoned the time by nights. _Anaxagoras_\n  affirmed, that all things were regulated by the supreme mind:\n  _Aratus_, that the stars were made by God; _Virgil_, from the\n  _Greeks_, that Life was infused into things by the Spirit of God;\n  _Hesiod_, _Homer_, and _Callimachus_, that man was formed of clay;\n  lastly, _Maximus Tyrius_ asserts, that it was a constant tradition\n  received by all nations, that there was one supreme God, the cause of\n  all things. And we learn from _Josephus_, _Philo_, _Tibullus_,\n  _Clemens Alexandrinus_, and _Lucian_, (for I need not mention the\n  _Hebrews_) that the memory of the seven days\u2019 work was preserved, not\n  only among the _Greeks_ and _Italians_, by honouring the seventh day;\n  but also amongst the _Celt\u00e6_ and _Indians_, who all measured the time\n  by weeks; as we learn from _Philostratus_, _Dion Cassius_, and _Justin\n  Martyr_, and also the most ancient names of the day. The _Egyptians_\n  tell us, that at first men led their lives in great simplicity, their\n  bodies being naked, whence arose the poet\u2019s fiction of the Golden Age,\n  famous among the _Indians_, as _Strabo_ remarks, _Maimonides_ takes\n  notice, that the history of _Adam_, of _Eve_, of the tree, and of the\n  serpent, was extant among the idolatrous _Indians_ in his time: and\n  there are many witnesses in our age, who testify that the same is\n  still to be found amongst the _heathen_ dwelling in _Peru_, and the\n  _Philippine_ islands, people belonging to the same _India_; the name\n  of _Adam_ amongst the _Brachmans_; and that it was reckoned six\n  thousand years since the creation of the world, by those of _Siam_.\n  _Berosus_ in his history of _Chaldea_, _Manethos_ in his of _Egypt_,\n  _Hierom_ in his of _Ph\u0153nicia_, _Hist\u00e6us_, _Hecat\u00e6us_, _Hillanicus_ in\n  theirs of _Greece_, and _Hesiod_ among the Poets; all assert that the\n  lives of those who descended from the first men, were almost a\n  thousand years in length; which is the less incredible, because the\n  historians of many nations (particularly _Pausanias_ and\n  _Philostratus_ amongst the _Greeks_, and _Pliny_ amongst the _Romans_)\n  relate, that men\u2019s bodies, upon opening their sepulchres, were found\n  to be much larger in old time. And _Catullus_, after many of the\n  _Greeks_, relates, that divine visions were made to men before their\n  great and manifold crimes did, as it were, hinder God, and those\n  Spirits that attend him, from holding any correspondence with men. We\n  almost every where, in the _Greek_ and _Latin_ historians, meet with\n  the savage life of the Giants, mentioned by _Moses_. And it is very\n  remarkable concerning the deluge, that the memory of almost all\n  nations ends in the history of it, even those nations which were\n  unknown till our forefathers discovered them: so that _Varro_ calls\n  all _that_ the unknown time. And all those things which we read in the\n  poets, wrapped up in fables (a Liberty they allow themselves) are\n  delivered by the ancient writers according to truth and reality; that\n  is, agreeable to _Moses_; as you may see in _Berosus\u2019s_ History of\n  _Chaldea_, _Abydenus\u2019s_ of _Assyria_, who mentions the dove that was\n  sent out of the ark; and in _Plutarch_ from the _Greeks_; and in\n  _Lucian_, who says, that in _Hierapolis_ of _Syria_, there was\n  remaining a most ancient history of the ark, and of the preserving a\n  few not only of mankind, but also of other living creatures. The same\n  history was extant also in _Molo_ and in _Nicolaus Damascenus_; which\n  latter names the ark, which we also find in the history of _Deucalion_\n  in _Apollodorus_; and many _Spaniards_ affirm, that in several parts\n  of _America_, as _Cuba_, _Mechoacana_, _Nicaraga_, is preserved the\n  memory of the deluge, the saving alive of animals, especially the\n  raven and dove; and the deluge itself in that part called _Golden\n  Castile_. That remark of _Pliny\u2019s_, that _Joppa_ was built before the\n  Flood, discovers what part of the earth men inhabited before the\n  Flood. The place where the ark rested after the deluge on the\n  _Gordy\u00e6an_ mountains, is evident from the constant tradition of the\n  _Armenians_ from all past ages, down to this very day. _Japhet_, the\n  father of the _Europeans_, and from him _Jon_, or, as they formerly\n  pronounced it, _Javon_ of the _Greeks_, and _Hammon_ of the\n  _Africans_, are names to be seen in _Moses_, and _Josephus_ and others\n  observe the like footsteps in the names of other places and nations.\n  And which of the poets is it, in which we do not find mention made of\n  the attempt to climb the heavens? _Diodoris Siculus_, _Strabo_,\n  _Tacitus_, _Pliny_, _Solinus_, speak of the burning of _Sodom_.\n  _Herodotus_, _Diodorus_, _Strabo_, _Philo Biblius_, testify the\n  ancient custom of Circumcision, which is confirmed by those nations\n  descended from _Abraham_, not only _Hebrews_, but also _Idum\u00e6ans_,\n  _Ismaelites_, and others. The history of _Abraham_, _Isaac_, _Jacob_,\n  and _Joseph_, agreeable with _Moses_, was extant of old in _Philo\n  Biblius_ out of _Sanchoniathon_, in _Berosus_, _Hecat\u00e6us_,\n  _Damascenus_, _Artapanus_, _Eupolemus_, _Demetrius_, and partly in the\n  ancient writers of the Orphic Verses; and something of it is still\n  extant in _Justin_, out of _Trogus Pompeius_. By almost all which, is\n  related also the history of _Moses_, and his principal acts. The\n  Orphic Verses expressly mention his being taken out of the water, and\n  the two tables that were given him by God. To these we may add\n  _Polemon_; and several things about his coming out of _Egypt_, from\n  the _Egyptian_ writers, _Menetho_, _Lysimachus_, _Ch\u00e6remon_. Neither\n  can any prudent man think it at all credible, that _Moses_, who had so\n  many enemies, not only of the _Egyptians_, but also of many other\n  nations, as the _Idum\u00e6ans_, _Arabians_, and _Ph\u0153nicians_, would\n  venture to relate any thing concerning the creation of the world, or\n  the original of things, which could be confuted by more ancient\n  writings, or was contradictory to the ancient and received opinions:\n  or that he would relate any thing of matters in his own time, that\n  could be confuted by the testimony of many persons then alive,\n  _Diodorus Siculus_, _Strabo_, and _Pliny_, _Tacitus_, and after them\n  _Dionysius Longinus_ (concerning loftiness of Speech) make mention of\n  _Moses_. Besides the _Talmudists_, _Pliny_ and _Apuleius_, speak of\n  _Jamnes_ and _Mambres_, who resisted _Moses_ in _Egypt_. Some things\n  there are in other writings, and many things amongst the\n  _Pythagoreans_, about the Law and Rites given by _Moses_, _Strabo_ and\n  _Justin_, out of _Trogus_, remarkably testify concerning the religion\n  and righteousness of the ancient _Jews_; so that there seems to be no\n  need of mentioning what is found, or has formerly been found of\n  _Joshua_ and others, agreeable to the _Hebrew_ books; seeing, that\n  whoever gives credit to _Moses_ (which it is a shame for any one to\n  refuse) cannot but believe those famous miracles done by the hand of\n  God; which is the principal thing here aimed at. Now that the miracles\n  of late date, such as those of _Elija_, _Elisha_, and others, should\n  not be counterfeit, there is this further argument; that in those\n  times _Jud\u00e6a_ was become more known, and because of the difference of\n  religion was hated by the neighbours, who could very easily confute\n  the first rise of a lie. The history of _Jonah\u2019s_ being three days in\n  the whale\u2019s belly is in _Lycophron_ and _\u00c6neus Gazeus_, only under the\n  name of _Herculus_; to advance whose fame, every thing that was great\n  and noble used to be related of him, as _Tacitus_ observes. Certainly\n  nothing but the manifest evidence of the history could compel _Julian_\n  (who was as great an enemy to the _Jews_ as to the Christians) to\n  confess that there were some men inspired by the divine Spirit amongst\n  the _Jews_, and that fire descended from heaven, and consumed the\n  sacrifices of _Moses_ and _Elias_. And here it is worthy of\n  observation, that there was not only very severe punishments\n  threatened amongst the _Hebrews_, to any who should falsely assume the\n  gift of prophecy, but very many kings, who by that means might have\n  procured great authority to themselves, and many learned men, such as\n  _Esdras_ and others, dared not to assume this honour to themselves;\n  nay, some ages before Christ\u2019s time, nobody dared to do it. Much less\n  could so many thousand people be imposed upon, in avouching a constant\n  and public miracle, I mean that of the oracle, which shined on the\n  High Priest\u2019s breast, which is so firmly believed by all the _Jews_,\n  to have remained till the destruction of the first temple, that their\n  ancestors must of necessity be well assured of the truth of it.\u201d\n\n  GROTIUS.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  Vid. Joseph Antiq.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  Reason will affirm that every effect speaks a cause; then we ask how\n  it should happen that a dozen illiterate fishermen and mechanicks of\n  Galilee, after the wisdom of the philosophers had left the world in\n  darkness, should have introduced so much light of knowledge, that our\n  children and servants are wiser than the ancient philosophers? Let no\n  one say, that they only began, what the wisdom of after ages have\n  carried on towards perfection. The writings of the apostles are the\n  same to this day; as is proved by the earliest versions, quotations,\n  and manuscripts. So perfect was the system of morals they left, that\n  no error has been detected in it, and all attempts to build upon or\n  add to it, have only exposed the ignorance of the individuals who have\n  essayed to do so.\n\n  How has it happened that whilst learned men have ever been at discord\n  about the nature, and true foundation of the obligation of virtue,\n  these despised fishermen, have shown the true foundation and nature of\n  duty, and have erred in no particular? Is it not strange that whilst\n  the wisdom of the philosophers made their purest virtue but a more\n  refined pride, these poor men laid the ax to the root of that pride,\n  and taught the world that even their virtues brought them under\n  additional obligations to Divine grace? Is it not remarkable that the\n  system taught by these unlearned men should so perfectly coincide with\n  what is discovered in the works of God, that whilst it aims to\n  eradicate sin, it represents it as in every instance eventually\n  productive of the glory of that God, who brings good out of the evil,\n  and light out of the darkness?\n\n  How is it to be accounted for, that when the most learned rabbies\n  perverted the law, and knew not its meaning, that a few crude and\n  uninstructed fishermen should remove their false constructions of that\n  law, explain the types, shadows, promises and prophecies, show how the\n  truth and justice of God might be clear in the pardon of sin, and set\n  the labouring conscience at rest? How came the fishermen of Galilee to\n  discover to the wise and learned what they had never conjectured, and\n  truths, which only attentive minds at the present time can acquiesce\n  in, that all things are certain, because foreknown, and foreknown\n  because Divine knowledge must be infinite and eternal, and yet that\n  rational creatures may be capable of choosing and refusing, though\n  they must be wholly dependent? Is it not passing strange that the\n  wisdom of Philosophers, the learning of Rabbies, the power of Kings\n  and Emperors, the influence of thousands of priests, the prejudices of\n  the world, and the malice of the wicked should be overcome by twelve\n  poor fishermen? How is it to be accounted for that these twelve poor\n  illiterate men should have effected such surprising changes, that\n  modern infidels are ashamed of the evidence of their ancient\n  predecessors, and are obliged to borrow from the fishermen of Galilee\n  a portion of the knowledge they have introduced, without which the\n  opposers of the Gospel must fall into contempt? Is any man so\n  credulous as to imagine men of no better education and opportunities,\n  possessed of themselves all this knowledge? when or where has the\n  natural world produced such a ph\u00e6nomenon? they declared that it was\n  not of themselves, but, that such feeble instruments were chosen, that\n  the power might appear to be what it really was, from God. This\n  testimony they confirmed by miracles, and sealed with their blood.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  Vide Dodd. Expos. 3 vol. app.\u2014Dick on Insp.\u2014Parry\u2019s Enq.\u2014Hawker, &c.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  This description of the Spirit\u2019s witness resembles sensible assurance;\n  that there may be such an immediate suggestion, or impression is\n  possible; but the Spirit\u2019s witness is the image of God, and is of\n  adoption.\u2014Vide Edwards\u2019s works, vol. 4. p. 161.\n\n\n\n\n                               Quest. V.\n\n\n    QUEST. V. _What do the scriptures principally teach?_\n\n    ANSW. The scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe\n    concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.[46]\n\n\nHaving, in the foregoing answer, proved the scriptures to be the word of\nGod, there is in this a general account of the contents thereof; there\nare many great doctrines contained therein, all which may be reduced to\ntwo heads, to wit, what we are to believe, and what we are to do. All\nreligion is contained in these two things, and so we may apply the words\nof the apostle to this case, _Now of the things which we have spoken\nthis is the sum_, Heb. viii. 1. and accordingly, as this Catechism is\ndeduced from scripture, it contains two parts, _viz._ what we are to\nbelieve, and in what instances we are to yield obedience to the law of\nGod. And that the scriptures principally teach these two things, appears\nfrom the apostle\u2019s advice to Timothy, _Hold fast the form of sound\nwords, which thou hast heard of me in faith and love_, 2 Tim. i. 13.\n\nFrom the scriptures\u2019 principally teaching us matters of faith and\npractice, we infer, that _faith without works is dead_; or that he is\nnot a true Christian who yields an assent to divine revelation, without\na practical subjection to God, in all ways of holy obedience, as the\napostle observes, and gives a challenge, to this effect, to those who\nseparate faith from works; _Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I\nwill shew thee my faith by my works_, James ii. 17, 18. and, on the\nother hand, works without faith are unacceptable. A blind obedience, or\nignorant performance of some of the external parts of religion, without\nthe knowledge of divine truth, is no better than what the apostle calls\n_bodily exercise which profiteth little_, 1 Tim. iv. 18. therefore we\nought to examine ourselves, whether our faith be founded on, or truly\ndeduced from scripture? and whether it be a practical faith, or, as the\napostle says, such as _worketh by love_? Gal. v. 6. whether we grow in\nknowledge, as well as in zeal and diligence, in performing many duties\nof religion, if we would approve ourselves sincere Christians?\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  What we are to believe reaches to Qu. 91. the rest is of practice.\n\n\n\n\n                               Quest. VI.\n\n\n    QUEST. VI. _What do the scriptures make known of God?_\n\n    ANSW. The scriptures make known what God is, the persons in the\n    Godhead, the decrees, and the execution of his decrees.\n\nIt is an amazing instance of condescension, and an inexpressible favour\nwhich God bestows on man, that he should manifest himself to him, and\nthat not only in such a way as he does to all mankind, by the light of\nnature, which discovers that he is; but that he should, in so glorious a\nway, declare what he is, as he does in his word: this is a\ndistinguishing privilege, as the Psalmist observes, when speaking of\nGod\u2019s _shewing his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto\nIsrael_, Psal. cxlvii. he mentions it, as an instance of discriminating\ngrace, in that he _has not dealt so with any other nation_. This raised\nthe admiration of one of Christ\u2019s disciples, when he said, _Lord how is\nit that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not unto the world_! John\nxiv. 22. And it is still more wonderful, that he should discover to man\nwhat he does, or rather what he has decreed or purposed to do, and so\nshould impart his secrets to him; how familiarly does God herein deal\nwith man! Thus he says concerning the holy patriarch of old, _Shall I\nhide from Abraham the thing which I do?_ Gen. xvi. 17. However, it is\none thing to know the secret purposes of God, and another thing to know\nthe various properties thereof; the former of these, however known of\nold, by extraordinary intimation, are now known to us only by the\nexecution of them; the latter is what we may attain to the knowledge of,\nby studying the scriptures.\n\nNow as the scriptures make known, _First_, What God is; _Secondly_, The\npersons in the Godhead; _Thirdly_, His decrees; And _Fourthly_, The\nexecution thereof; so we are directed hereby in the method to be\nobserved in treating of the great doctrines of our religion; and\naccordingly the first part of this Catechism,[47] which treats of\ndoctrinal subjects, contains an enlargement on these four general heads;\nthe first whereof we proceed to consider.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  That is unto the 91st Quest.\n\n\n\n\n                              Quest. VII.\n\n\n    QUEST. VII. _What is God?_\n\n    ANSW. God is a Spirit, in and of himself, infinite in being, glory,\n    blessedness, and perfection, all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable,\n    incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things,\n    most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful, and gracious,\n    long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.\n\nBefore we proceed to consider the divine perfections, as contained in\nthis answer, let it be premised,\n\n1. That it is impossible for any one to give a perfect description of\nGod, since he is incomprehensible, therefore no words can fully express,\nor set forth, his perfections; when the wisest men on earth speak of\nhim, they soon betray their own weakness, or discover, as Elihu says,\nthat they _cannot order their speech by reason of darkness_, Job\nxxxviii. 19. or, _that they are but of yesterday, and know_,\ncomparatively, _nothing_, chap. viii. 9. We are but like children,\ntalking of matters above them, which their tender age can take in but\nlittle of, when we speak of the infinite perfections of the divine\nnature; _This knowledge is too wonderful for us; it is high, we cannot\nattain to it_, Psal. cxxxix. 6. _How little a portion is heard of him?_\nJob. xxvi. 14.\n\n2. Though God cannot be perfectly described; yet there is something of\nhim that we may know, and ought to make the matter of our study and\ndiligent enquiries. When his glory is set forth in scripture, we are not\nto look upon the expressions there made use of, as words without any\nmanner of ideas affixed to them; for it is one thing to have adequate\nideas of an infinitely perfect being, and another thing to have no ideas\nat all of him; neither are our ideas of God to be reckoned, for this\nreason, altogether false, though they are imperfect; for it is one thing\nto think of him in an unbecoming way, not agreeable to his perfections,\nor to attribute the weakness and imperfection to him which do not belong\nto his nature, and another thing to think of him, with the highest and\nbest conceptions we are able to entertain of his infinite perfections,\nwhile, at the same time, we have a due sense of our own weakness, and\nthe shallowness of our capacities. When we thus order our thoughts\nconcerning the great God, though we are far from comprehending his\ninfinite perfections, yet our conceptions are not to be concluded\nerroneous, when directed by his word; which leads us to consider how we\nmay conceive aright of the divine perfections, that we may not think or\nspeak of God, that which is not right, though at best we know but little\nof his glory; and in order thereunto,\n\n(1.) We must first take an estimate of finite perfections, which we have\nsome ideas of, though not perfect ones in all respects; such as power,\nwisdom, goodness, faithfulness, &c.\n\n(2.) Then we must conceive that these are eminently, though not formally\nin God; that is, there is no perfection in the creature, but we must\nascribe the same to God, though not in the same way; or thus, whatever\nperfection is in the creature, the same is in God, and infinitely more;\nor it is in God, but not in such a finite, limited, or imperfect way, as\nit is in the creature; _He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He\nthat formed the eye, shall not he see? He that teacheth man knowledge,\nshall he not know?_ Psal. xciv. 9, 10. Therefore,\n\n(3.) When the same words are used that import a perfection in God, and\nin the creature, _viz._ wisdom, power, &c. we must not suppose that\nthese words import the same thing in their different application; for\nwhen they are applied to the creature, though we call them perfections,\nyet they are, at best, but finite, and have many imperfections attending\nthem, all which we must separate or abstract in our thoughts, when the\nsame words are used to set forth any divine perfection: thus knowledge\nis a perfection of the human nature, and the same word is used to denote\na divine perfection; yet we must consider, at the same time, that _the\nLord seeth not as man seeth_, 1 Sam. xvi. 7. The same may be said of all\nhis other perfections; he worketh not as man worketh; whatever\nperfections are ascribed to the creature, they are to be considered as\nagreeable to the subject in which they are; so when the same words are\nused to set forth any of the divine perfections, they are to be\nunderstood in a way becoming a God of infinite perfection.\n\nThis has given occasion to divines to distinguish the perfections of\nGod, into those that are communicable, and incommunicable.\n\n1. The communicable perfections of God are such, whereof we find some\nfaint resemblance in intelligent creatures, though, at the same time,\nthere is an infinite disproportion; as when we speak of God as holy,\nwise, just, powerful, or faithful, we find something like these\nperfections in the creature, though we are not to suppose them, in all\nrespects, the same as they are in God; they are in him, in his own, that\nis, an infinite way; they are in us, in our own, that is, a finite and\nlimited way.\n\n2. The incommunicable perfections of God are such, of which there is not\nthe least shadow, or similitude in creatures, but they rather represent\nhim as opposed to them. Thus when we speak of him as infinite,\nincomprehensible, unchangeable, without beginning, independent, &c.\nthese perfections contain in them an account of the vast distance that\nthere is between God and the creature, or how infinitely he exceeds all\nother beings, and is opposed to every thing that argues imperfection in\nthem.\n\nFrom this general account we have given of the divine perfections, we\nmay infer,\n\n1. That there is nothing common between God and the creature; that is,\nthere is nothing which belongs to the divine nature that can be\nattributed to the creature; and nothing proper to the creature is to be\napplied to God: yet there are some rays of the divine glory, which may\nbe beheld as shining forth, or displayed in the creature, especially in\nthe intelligent part of the creation, angels and men, who are, for that\nreason, represented as made after the divine image.\n\n2. Let us never think or speak of the divine perfections but with the\nhighest reverence, lest we take his name in vain, or debase him in our\nthoughts; _Shall not his excellency make you afraid, and his dread fall\nupon you?_ Job xiii. 11. And whenever we compare God with the creatures,\n_viz._ angels and men, that bear somewhat of his image, let us, at the\nsame time, abstract in our thoughts, all their imperfections, whether\nnatural or moral, from him, and consider the infinite disproportion that\nthere is between him and them. We now come to consider the perfections\nof the divine nature, in the order in which they are laid down in this\nanswer.\n\nI. God is a Spirit; that is, an immaterial substance, without body or\nbodily parts; this he is said to be in John iv. 24. But if it be\nenquired what we mean by a Spirit, let it be premised, that we cannot\nfully understand what our own spirits, or souls are; we know less of the\nnature of angels, a higher kind of spirits, and least of all of the\nspirituality of the divine nature; however, our ideas first begin at\nwhat is finite, in considering the nature and properties of spirits; and\nfrom thence we are led to conceive of God as infinitely more perfect\nthan any finite spirit. Here we shall consider the word spirit, as\napplied more especially to angels, and the souls of men; and let it be\nobserved,\n\n1. That a spirit is the most perfect and excellent being; the soul is\nmore excellent than the body, or indeed than any thing that is purely\nmaterial; so angels are the most perfect and glorious part of the\ncreation, as they are spiritual beings, in some things excelling the\nsouls of men.\n\n2. A spirit is, in its own nature, immortal; it has nothing in its frame\nand constitution that tends to corruption, as there is in material\nthings, which consist of various parts, that may be dissolved or\nseparated, and their form altered, which is what we call corruption; but\nthis belongs not to spirits, which are liable to no change in their\nnature, but by the immediate hand of God, who can, if he pleases, reduce\nthem again to their first nothing.\n\n3. A spirit is capable of understanding, and willing, and putting forth\nactions agreeable thereunto, which no other being can do: thus, though\nthe sun is a glorious and useful being; yet, because it is material, it\nis not capable of thought, or any moral action, such as angels, and the\nsouls of men, can put forth.\n\nNow these conceptions of the nature and properties of finite spirits,\nlead us to conceive of God as a spirit. And,\n\n(1.) As spirits excel all other creatures, we must conclude God to be\nthe most excellent and perfect of all beings, and also that he is\n_incorruptible_, _immortal_, and _invisible_, as he is said to be in\nscripture, Rom. i. 23. and 1 Tim. i. 17.\n\nMoreover, it follows from hence, that he has an understanding and will,\nand so we may conceive of him as the Creator and governor of all things;\nthis he could not be, if he were not an intelligent and sovereign being,\nand particularly a spirit.[48]\n\n(2.) The difference between other spiritual substances and God, is, that\nall their excellency is only comparative, _viz._ as they excel the best\nof all material beings in their nature and properties; but God, as a\nspirit, is infinitely more excellent, not only than all material beings,\nbut than all created spirits. Their perfections are derived from him,\nand therefore he is called, _The Father of spirits_, Heb. xii. 9. and\n_the God of the spirits of all flesh_, Numb. xvi. 22. and his\nperfections are underived: other spirits are, as we have observed, in\ntheir own nature, immortal, yet God can reduce them to nothing; but God\nis independently immortal, and therefore it is said of him, that _he\nonly hath immortality_, 1 Tim. vi. 16.\n\nFinite spirits, indeed, have understanding and will, but these powers\nare contained within certain limits whereas God is an infinite spirit,\nand therefore it can be said of none but him, that _his understanding is\ninfinite_, Psal. cxlvii. 5.\n\nFrom God\u2019s being a spirit, we may infer,\n\n1. That he is the most suitable good to the nature of our souls, which\nare spirits; he can communicate himself, and apply those things to them,\nwhich tend to make them happy, as the God and Father of spirits.\n\n2. He is to be worshipped in a spiritual manner, John iv. 24. that is,\nwith our whole souls, and in a way becoming his spiritual nature;\ntherefore,\n\n3. We are to frame no similitude or resemblance of him in our thoughts,\nas though he were a corporeal or material being; neither are we to make\nany pictures of him. This God forbids Israel to do, Deut. iv. 12, 15,\n16. and tells them, that they had not the least pretence for so doing,\ninasmuch as they _saw no similitude of him, when he spake to them in\nHoreb_; and to make an image of him would be to corrupt themselves.\n\nII. God is said to be in, and of, himself, not as though he gave being\nto, or was the cause of himself, for that implies a contradiction;\ntherefore divines generally say, that God is in, and of himself, not\npositively, but negatively, that is, his being and perfections are\nunderived, and not communicated to him, as all finite perfections are,\nby him, to the creature; therefore he is self-existent, or independent,\nwhich is one of the highest glories of the divine nature, by which he is\ndistinguished from all creatures, who live, move, and have their being\nin and from him.\n\nThis attribute of independency belongs to all his perfections; thus his\nwisdom, power, goodness, holiness, &c. are all independent. And,\n\n1. With respect to his knowledge or wisdom, he doth not receive ideas\nfrom any object out of himself, as all intelligent creatures do, and, in\nthat respect, are said to depend on the object; so that if there were\nnot such objects, they could not have the knowledge or idea of them in\ntheir minds; therefore the object known must first exist, before we can\napprehend what it is. But this must not be said of God\u2019s knowledge, for\nthat would be to suppose the things that he knows antecedent to his\nknowing them. The independency of his knowledge is elegantly described\nin scripture; _Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or, being his\ncounsellor, has taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who\ninstructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him\nknowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?_ Isa. xl. 13, 14.\n\n2. He is independent in power, therefore as he receives strength from no\none, so he doth not act dependently on the will of the creature; _Who\nhath enjoined him his way_; Job xxxvi. 23. and accordingly, as he\nreceived the power of acting from no one, so none can hinder, turn\naside, or controul his power, or put a stop to his methods of acting.\n\n3. He is independent as to his holiness, hating sin necessarily, and not\nbarely depending on some reasons out of himself, which induce him\nthereunto; for it is essential to the divine nature to be infinitely\nopposite to all sin, and therefore to be independently holy.\n\n4. He is independent as to his bounty and goodness, and so he\ncommunicates blessings not by constraint, but according to his sovereign\nwill. Thus he gave being to the world, and all things therein, which was\nthe first instance of bounty and goodness, and a very great one it was,\nnot by constraint, but by his free will, _for his pleasure they are and\nwere created_. In like manner, whatever instances of mercy he extends to\nmiserable creatures, he still acts independently, in the display\nthereof; nothing out of himself moves or lays a constraint upon him, but\nhe shews mercy because it is his pleasure so to do.\n\nBut, to evince the truth of this doctrine, that God is independent as to\nhis being, and all his perfections, let it be farther considered,\n\n(1.) That all things depend on his power, which brought them into, and\npreserves them in being; therefore they exist by his will, as their\ncreator and preserver, and consequently are not necessary, but dependent\nbeings. If therefore all things depend on God, it is the greatest\nabsurdity to say that God depends on any thing, for this would be to\nsuppose the cause and the effect to be mutually dependent on, and\nderived from each other, which infers a contradiction.\n\n(2.) If God be infinitely above the highest creatures, he cannot depend\non any of them; for dependence argues inferiority. Now that God is above\nall things is certain: this is represented in a very beautiful manner by\nthe prophet, when he says, Isa. xl. 15, 17. _Behold the nations are as\nthe drop of the bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the\nbalance; all nations before him are as nothing, and they are counted to\nhim less than nothing and vanity_; therefore he cannot be said to be\ninferior to them, and, by consequence, to depend on them.\n\n(3.) If God depends on any creature, he does not exist necessarily: and\nif so, then he might not have been; for the same will, by which he is\nsupposed to exist, might have determined that he should not have\nexisted. If therefore God be not independent, he might not have been,\nand, according to the same method of reasoning, he might cease to be;\nfor the same will, that gave being to him, might take it away at\npleasure, which is altogether inconsistent with the idea of a God.\n\nFrom God\u2019s being independent, or in and of himself, we infer,\n\n1. That we ought to conclude that the creature cannot lay any obligation\non him, or do any thing that may tend to make him more happy than he is\nin himself; the apostle gives a challenge to this effect, _Who hath\nfirst given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again_, Rom.\nxi. 35. and Eliphaz says to Job, Job xxii. 2, 3. _Can a man be\nprofitable to God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself? Is\nit any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain\nto him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?_\n\n2. If independency be a divine perfection, then let it not, in any\ninstance, or by any consequence, be attributed to the creature; let us\nconclude, that all our springs are in him, and that all we enjoy and\nhope for is from him, who is the author and finisher of our faith, and\nthe fountain of all our blessedness.\n\nIII. God is infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection. To be\ninfinite, is to be without all bounds or limits, either actual or\npossible: now that God is so, is evident, from his being independent and\nuncreated; and because his will fixes the bounds of all the\nexcellencies, perfections, and powers of the creature. If therefore he\ndoth not exist by the will of another, he is infinite in being, and\nconsequently in all perfection: thus it is said, Psal. cxlvii. 5. _his\nunderstanding is infinite_, which will farther appear, when we consider\nhim as omniscient; his will determines what shall come to pass, with an\ninfinite sovereignty, that cannot be controuled, or rendered\nineffectual; his power is infinite, and therefore all things are equally\npossible, and easy to it, nor can it be resisted by any contrary force\nor power; and he is infinite in blessedness, as being self-sufficient,\nor not standing in need of any thing to make him more happy than he was\nin himself, from all eternity. The Psalmist is supposed by many, to\nspeak in the person of Christ, when he says, Psal. xvi. 2. _My goodness\nextendeth not to thee_, q. d. \u201cHow much soever thy relative glory may be\nillustrated, by what I have engaged to perform in the covenant of\nredemption, yet this can make no addition to thine essential glory.\u201d And\nif so, then certainly nothing can be done by us which may in the least\ncontribute thereunto.\n\nIV. God is all-sufficient, by which we understand that he hath enough in\nhimself to satisfy the most enlarged desires of his creatures, and to\nmake them completely blessed. As his self-sufficiency is that whereby he\nhas enough in himself to denominate him completely blessed, as a God of\ninfinite perfection; so his all-sufficiency is that, whereby he is able\nto communicate as much blessedness to his creatures, as he is pleased to\nmake them capable of receiving; and therefore he is able not only to\n_supply all their wants_, _but to do exceedingly above all that they ask\nor think_, Phil. iv. 19. and Eph. iii. 20. This he can do, either in an\nimmediate way; or, if he thinks fit to make use of creatures as\ninstruments, to fulfil his pleasure, and communicate what he designs to\nimpart to us, he is never at a loss; for as they are the work of his\nhands, so he has a right to use them at his will; upon which account,\nthey are said, all of them to be his servants, Psal. cxix. 91.\n\nThis doctrine of God\u2019s all-sufficiency should be improved by us,\n\n1. To induce us to seek happiness in him alone: creatures are no more\nthan the stream, but he is the fountain; we may, in a mediate way,\nreceive some small drops from them, but he is the ocean of all\nblessedness.\n\n2. Let us take heed that we do not reflect on, or in effect, deny this\nperfection; which we may be said to do in various instances. As,\n\n(1.) When we are discontented with our present condition, and desire\nmore than God has allotted for us. This seems to have been the sin of\nthe angels, who left their first habitation through pride, seeking more\nthan God designed they should have; and this was the sin by which our\nfirst parents fell, desiring a greater degree of knowledge than what\nthey thought themselves possessed of: thus they fancied, that by eating\nthe forbidden fruit, they should be _as gods, knowing good and evil_,\nGen. iii. 5.\n\n(2.) We practically deny the all-sufficiency of God, when we seek\nblessings of what kind soever they are, in an indirect way, as though\nGod were not able to bestow them upon us in his own way, or in the use\nof lawful means: thus Rebecca and Jacob did, when they contrived a lie\nto obtain the blessing, chap. xxvii. as though there had not been an\nall-sufficiency in providence to bring it about, without their having\nrecourse to those methods that were in themselves sinful.\n\n(3.) When we use unlawful means to escape imminent dangers. Thus David\ndid _when he feigned himself mad_, supposing, without ground, that he\nshould have been slain by Achish, king of Gath; and that there was no\nother way to escape but this, 1 Sam. xxi. 13. and Abraham and Isaac,\nGen. chapters xx. and xxvi. when they denied their wives, concluding\nthis to have been an expedient to save their lives, as though God were\nnot able to save them in a better and more honourable way.\n\n(4.) When we distrust his providence, though we have had large\nexperience of its appearing for us in various instances: thus David did,\nwhen he said, in his heart, _I shall one day perish by the hand of\nSaul_, 1 Sam. xxvii. 1. and the Israelites, when they said, _Can God\nfurnish a table in the wilderness?_ Psal. lxxviii. 19. though he had\nprovided for them in an extraordinary way ever since they had been\nthere: yea, Moses himself was faulty in this matter, when he said,\n_Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? I am not able\nto bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me_, Numb.\nxi. 13, 14. and Asa, when he tempted Benhadad to break his league with\nBaasha, who made war against him; as though God were not able to deliver\nhim without this indirect practice, though he had in an eminent manner,\nappeared for him, in giving him a signal victory over Zerah the\nEthiopian, when he came against him with an army of a million of men, 2\nChron. xvi. 3. compared with chap. xiv. 9, 13. and likewise Joshua, when\nIsrael had suffered a small defeat, occasioned by Achan\u2019s sin, when they\nfled before the men of Ai, though there were but thirty-six of them\nslain; yet, on that occasion, he is ready to wish that God had not\nbrought them over Jordan, and meditates nothing but ruin and destruction\nfrom the Amorites, forgetting God\u2019s former deliverances, and distrusting\nhis faithfulness, and care of his people, and, as it were, calling in\nquestion his all-sufficiency, as though he were not able to accomplish\nthe promises he had made to them, Josh. vii. 7, 8, 9.\n\n(5.) When we doubt of the truth, or certain accomplishment of his\npromises, and so are ready to say, _Hath God forgotten to be gracious?\nDoth his truth fail for ever?_ This we are apt to do, when there are\ngreat difficulties in the way of the accomplishment thereof: thus Sarah,\nwhen it was told her that she should have a child, in her old age,\nlaughed, through unbelief, Gen. xviii. 12. and God intimates, that this\nwas an affront to his all-sufficiency, when he says, _Is any thing too\nhard for the Lord?_ ver. 14. and Gideon, though he was told that God was\nwith him, and had an express command to go in his might, with a promise\nthat he should deliver Israel from the Midianites, yet he says, _O Lord\nwherewith shall I save them? for my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am\nthe least in my father\u2019s house_, Judg. vi. 15. God tells him again, _I\nwill be with thee, and smite the Midianites_, ver. 16. yet, afterwards,\nhe desires that he would give him a sign in the wet and dry fleece. What\nis this but questioning his all-sufficiency?\n\n(6.) When we decline great services, though called to them by God, under\npretence of our unfitness for them: thus when the prophet Jeremiah was\ncalled to deliver the Lord\u2019s message to the rebellious house of Israel,\nhe desires to be excused, and says, _Behold I cannot speak, for I am a\nchild_; whereas the main discouragement was the difficulty of the work,\nand the hazards he was like to run; but God encourages him to it, by\nputting him in mind of his all-sufficiency, when he tells him, that _he\nwould be with him, and deliver him_, Jer. i. 6. compared with ver. 8.\n\nThis divine perfection affords matter of support and encouragement to\nbelievers, under the greatest straits and difficulties they are exposed\nto in this world; and we have many instances in scripture of those who\nhave had recourse to it in the like cases. Thus, when David was in the\ngreatest straits that ever he met with, upon the Amalekites\u2019 spoiling of\nZiklag, and carrying away the women captives, the people talked of\nstoning him, and all things seemed to make against him; yet it is said,\nthat _he encouraged himself in the Lord his God_, 1 Sam. xxx. 6. so\nMordecai was confident that the _enlargement and deliverance of the Jews\nshould come some other way_, if not by Esther\u2019s intercession for them,\nwhen she was afraid to go in to the king, Esth. iv. 14. and this\nconfidence he could never have obtained, considering the present posture\nof their affairs, without a due regard to God\u2019s all-sufficiency.\nMoreover, it was this divine perfection that encouraged Abraham to obey\nthe difficult command of offering his son: as the apostle observes, he\ndid this as knowing _that God was able to raise him from the dead_, Heb.\nxi. 19. and when believers are under the greatest distress, from the\nassaults of their spiritual enemies, they have a warrant from God, as\nthe apostle had, to encourage themselves, that they shall come off\nvictorious, because _his grace is sufficient for them_, 2 Cor. xii. 8,\n9.\n\nV. God is eternal: this respects his duration, to wit, as he was without\nbeginning, as well as shall be without end; or as his duration is\nunchangeable, or without succession, the same from everlasting to\neverlasting: thus the Psalmist says, _Before the mountains were brought\nforth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world; even from\neverlasting to everlasting thou art God_, Psal. xc. 2.\n\n1. That God is from everlasting, appears,\n\n(1.) From his being a necessary, self-existent being, or, as was before\nobserved, in and of himself, therefore he must be from everlasting; for\nwhatever is not produced is from eternity. Now that God did not derive\nhis being from any one, is evident, because he gave being to all things,\nwhich is implied in their being creatures; therefore nothing gave being\nto him, and consequently he was from eternity.\n\n(2.) If he is an infinitely perfect being, as has been observed before,\nthen his duration is infinitely perfect, and consequently it is\nboundless, that is to say, eternal: it is an imperfection, in all\ncreated beings, that they began to exist, and therefore they are said,\nin a comparative sense, to be but of yesterday; we must therefore, when\nwe conceive of God, separate this imperfection from him, and so conclude\nthat he was from all eternity.\n\n(3.) If he created all things in the beginning, then he was before the\nbeginning of time, that is, from eternity: thus it is said, _In the\nbeginning God created the heaven and the earth_, Gen. i. 1. this is very\nevident, for time is a successive duration, taking its rise from a\ncertain point, or moment, which we call the beginning: now that\nduration, which was before this, must be from eternity, unless we\nsuppose time before time began, or, which is all one, that there was a\nsuccessive duration before successive duration began, which is a\ncontradiction. Therefore, if God fixed that beginning to all things, as\ntheir Creator, and particularly to time, which is the measure of the\nduration of all created beings, then it is evident that he was before\ntime, and consequently from eternity.\n\n(4.) This also appears from scripture; as when it is said, _The eternal\nGod is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms_, Deut.\nxxxiii. 27. and when we read of his _eternal power and Godhead_, Rom. i.\n20. and elsewhere, _Art not thou from everlasting O Lord, my God?_ Hab.\ni. 12. _Thy throne is established of old; thou art from everlasting_,\nPsal. xciii. 2. so his attributes and perfections are said to have been\nfrom everlasting, _The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to\neverlasting_, Psal. ciii. 17.\n\nAnd this may be argued from many scripture-consequences: thus, there was\nan election of persons to holiness and happiness, _before the foundation\nof the world_, Eph. i. 4. and Christ, in particular, was fore-ordained\nto be our Mediator, before the foundation of the world, 1 Pet. i. 20.\nand _set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth\nwas_, Prov. viii. 23. From hence it follows, that there was a sovereign\nwill that fore-ordained it, and therefore God, whose decree or purpose\nit was, existed before the foundation of the world, that is, from\neverlasting.\n\nMoreover, there were grants of grace given in Christ, or put into his\nhand, from all eternity: thus we read of _eternal life, which God\npromised before the world began_, Tit. i. 2. and of our being _saved,\naccording to his purpose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus, before the\nworld began_, 2 Tim. i. 9. It hence follows, that there was an eternal\ngiver, and consequently that God was from everlasting.\n\n2. God shall be to everlasting; thus it is said, _The Lord shall endure\nforever_, Psal. ix. 7. and that he _liveth for ever and ever_, Rev. iv.\n9, 10. and that his _years shall have no end_, Psal. cii. 27. and _the\nLord shall reign for ever_, Psal. cxlvi. 10. therefore he must endure\nfor ever. Again, it is said, that _the Lord keepeth covenant and mercy\nwith them that love him_, to a thousand generations, Deut. vii. 9. and\n_he will ever be mindful of his covenant_, Psal. cxi. 5. that is, will\nfulfil what he has promised therein: if his truth shall not fail for\never, then he, who will accomplish what he has spoken, must endure to\neverlasting.\n\nBut this may be farther evinced from the perfections of his nature.\n\n(1.) From his necessary existence, which not only argues, as has been\nbefore observed, that he could not begin to be, but equally proves, that\nhe cannot cease to be, or that he shall be to everlasting.\n\n(2.) He is void of all composition, and therefore must be to\neverlasting; none but compounded beings, _viz._ such as have parts, are\nsubject to dissolution, which arises from, the contrariety of these\nparts, and their tendency to destroy one another, which occasions the\ndissolution of the whole; but God having no parts, as he is the most\nsimple uncompounded being, there can be nothing in him that tends to\ndissolution, therefore he can never have an end from any necessity of\nnature. And,\n\n(3.) He must be to eternity, because there is no one superior to him, at\nwhose will he exists, that can deprive him of his being and glory.\n\n(4.) He cannot will his own destruction, or non-existence, for that is\ncontrary to the universal nature of things; since no being can desire to\nbe less perfect than it is, much less can any one will or desire his own\nannihilation; especially no one, who is possessed of blessedness, can\nwill the loss thereof, for that is incongruous with the nature of it, as\nbeing a desirable good, therefore God cannot will the loss of his own\nblessedness; and since his blessedness is inseparably connected with his\nbeing, he cannot cease to be, from an act of his own will: if therefore\nhe cannot cease to be, from any necessity of nature, or from the will of\nanother, or from an act of his own will, he must be to eternity.\n\nMoreover, the eternity of God may be proved from his other perfections,\nsince one of the divine perfections infers the other. As,\n\n1. From his immutability; he is unchangeable in his being, therefore he\nis so in all his perfections, and consequently must be always the same,\nfrom everlasting to everlasting, and not proceed from a state of\nnon-existence to that of being, which he would have done, had he not\nbeen from everlasting, nor decline from a state of being to that of\nnon-existence, which he would be supposed to do, were he not to\neverlasting: either of these is the greatest change that can be\nsupposed, and therefore inconsistent with the divine immutability.\n\n2. He is the first cause, and the ultimate end of all things, therefore\nhe must be from eternity, and remain the fountain of all blessedness to\neternity.\n\n3. He could not be almighty, or infinite in power, if he were not\neternal; for that being, which did not always exist, once could not act,\nto wit, when it did not exist; or he that may cease to be, may, for the\nsame reason, be disabled from acting; both which are inconsistent with\nAlmighty power.\n\n4. If he were not eternal, he could not, by way of eminency be called\n_the living God_, as he is, Jer. x. 10. or said _to have life in\nhimself_, John v. 26. for both these expressions imply his necessary\nexistence, and that argues his eternity.\n\n3. God\u2019s eternal duration is without succession, as well as without\nbeginning and end, that it is so, appears,\n\n(1.) Because, as was hinted but now, it is unchangeable, since all\nsuccessive duration infers a change. Thus the duration of creatures,\nwhich is successive, is not the same one moment as it will be the next;\nevery moment adds something to it; now this cannot be said of God\u2019s\nduration. Besides, successive duration implies a being, what we were\nnot, in all respects before, and a ceasing to be what we were, and so it\nis a kind of continual passing from not being to being, which is\ninconsistent with the divine perfections, and, in particular, with his\nunchangeable duration. The Psalmist, speaking of God\u2019s eternal duration,\nexpresses it by the immutability thereof, _Thou art the same, and thy\nyears shall have no end_, Psal. cii. 27.; and the apostle, speaking\nconcerning this matter, says, He is _the same yesterday, to day, and\nforever_, Heb. xiii. 8.\n\n(2.) Successive duration is applicable to time; and the duration of all\ncreatures is measured, and therefore cannot be termed infinite; it is\nmeasured by its successive parts: thus a day, a year, an age, a million\nof ages, are measured by the number of moments, of which they consist;\nbut God\u2019s duration is unmeasured, that is, infinite, therefore it is\nwithout succession, or without those parts of which time consists.[49]\n\n4. Eternity is an attribute peculiar to God, and therefore we call it an\nincommunicable perfection. There are, indeed, other things that shall\nendure to everlasting, as angels, and the souls of men; as also those\nheavenly bodies that shall remain after the creature is delivered from\nthe bondage of corruption, to which it is now subject: the heavenly\nplaces, designed for the seat of the blessed, as well as their happy\ninhabitants, shall be everlasting; but yet the everlasting duration of\nthese things infinitely differs from the eternity of God; for as all\nfinite things began to be, and their duration is successive, so their\neverlasting existence depends entirely on the power and will of God, and\ntherefore cannot be called necessary, or independent, as his eternal\nexistence is.\n\n_Object._ Since the various parts of time, as days, years, &c. and the\nvarious changes, or flux of time; such as past, present, and to come,\nare sometimes attributed to God; this seems inconsistent with the\naccount that has been given of his eternity.\n\n_Answ._ It is true, we often find such expressions used in scripture:\nthus he is called, the ancient of days, Dan. vii. 9. and his eternity is\nexpressed, by _his years having no end_, Psal. cii. 27. and it is said,\n_He was, is, and is to come_, Rev. i. 4. and chap. iv. 8. But, for the\nunderstanding of such-like expressions, we must consider, that herein\nGod is pleased to speak according to our weak capacity, who cannot\ncomprehend the manner of his infinite duration; we cannot conceive of\nany duration but that which is successive; therefore God speaks to us,\nas he does in many other instances, in condescension to our capacities;\nbut yet we may observe, that though he thus condescends to speak\nconcerning himself, yet there is oftentimes something added, which\ndistinguishes his duration from that of creatures; as when it is said,\n_Behold God is great, and we know him not; neither can the number of his\nyears be searched out_, Job xxxvi. 26. so that though we read of the\nyears of his duration, yet they are such as are unsearchable, or\nincomprehensible years, infinitely different from years, as applied to\ncreated beings; and it is said, _A thousand years in thy sight, are but\nas yesterday, when it is past_, Psal. xc. 4. _One day is with the Lord\nas a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day_, 2 Pet. iii. 8.\nand, by the same method of reasoning, it may be said, one moment is with\nthe Lord as a thousand millions of ages, or a thousand millions of ages\nas one moment; such is his duration, and therefore not properly\nsuccessive, like that of creatures.\n\n2. When any thing past, present, or to come, is attributed to God, it\neither signifies that he is so, as to his works, which are finite, and\nmeasured by successive duration; or else it signifies, that he, whose\nduration is not measured by succession, notwithstanding, exists\nunchangeably, through all the various ages of time. As he is omnipresent\nwith all the parts of matter, yet has no parts himself, so he exists in\nall the successive ages of time, but without that succession, which is\npeculiar to time and creatures.\n\nSeveral things may be inferred, of a practical nature, from the eternity\nof God. As,\n\n1. Since God\u2019s duration is eternal, that is, without succession, so that\nthere is no such thing as past, or to come, with him; or if ten thousand\nmillions of ages are but like a moment to him; then it follows, that\nthose sins which we have committed long ago, and perhaps are forgotten\nby us, are present to his view; he knows what we have done against him\never since we had a being in this world, as much as though we were at\npresent committing them.\n\n2. If God was from eternity, then how contemptible is all created glory,\nwhen compared with his; look but a few ages backward, and it was\nnothing: this should humble the pride of the creature, who is but of\nyesterday, and whose duration is nothing, and less than nothing, if\ncompared with God\u2019s.\n\n3. The eternity of God, as being to everlasting, affords matter of\nterror to his enemies, and comfort to his people, and, as such, should\nbe improved for the preventing of sin.\n\n(1.) It affords matter of terror to his enemies. For,\n\n_1st._ He ever lives to see his threatenings executed, and to pour forth\nthe vials of his fury on them: thus the prophet speaking of God, _as the\neverlasting King_, adds, that _at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and\nthe nations shall not be able to abide his indignation_, Jer. x. 10.\nTherefore the eternity of God argues the eternity of the punishment of\nsin, since this great Judge, who is a consuming fire to impenitent\nsinners, will live for ever to see his threatenings executed upon them.\nThis appears, if we consider,\n\n_2dly_, That since he is eternal in his being, he must be so in his\npower, holiness, justice, and all his other perfections, which are\nterrible to his enemies: thus the Psalmist says, _Who knoweth the power\nof thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath_, Psal. xc.\n11. and the apostle says, _It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands\nof the living God_, Heb. x. 31.\n\n(2.) It affords matter of comfort to believers, as opposed to the\nfluctuating and uncertain state of all creature-enjoyments; it is an\nencouragement to them in the loss of friends and relations, or under all\nthe other losses or disappointments they meet with as to their outward\nestate in this world. These are, at best, but short-lived comforts, but\nGod is the _eternal portion_ and happiness of his people, Psal. lxxiii.\n26. and, from his eternity, they may certainly conclude, that the\nhappiness of the heavenly state will be eternal, for it consists in the\nenjoyment of him, who is so; which is a very delightful thought to all\nwho are enabled by faith to lay claim to it.\n\nVI. God is immutable: thus it is said, that _with him is no\nvariableness, neither shadow of turning_, James i. 17. This is sometimes\nset forth in a metaphorical way, in which respect he is compared to _a\nrock_, Deut. xxxii. 4. which remains immoveable, when the whole ocean,\nthat surrounds it, is continually in a fluctuating state; even so,\nthough all creatures are subject to change, God alone is unchangeable in\nhis being, and all his perfections.\n\nHere we shall consider,\n\n1. How immutability is a perfection; and how it is a divine perfection\npeculiar to God.\n\n(1.) It must be allowed that immutability cannot be said to be an\nexcellency or perfection, unless it be applied to, or spoken of what is\ngood; an immutable state of sin, or misery, is far from being an\nexcellency, when it is applied to fallen angels, or wicked men: but\nunchangeable holiness and happiness, as applied to holy angels, or\nsaints in heaven, is a perfection conferred upon them; and when we speak\nof God\u2019s immutability, we suppose him infinitely blessed, which is\nincluded in the notion of a God; and so we farther say, that he is\nunchangeable in all those perfections in which it consists.\n\n(2.) Immutability belongs, in the most proper sense, to God alone; so\nthat _as he only_ is said _to have immortality_, 1 Tim. vi. 16. that is,\nsuch as is underived and independent, he alone is unchangeable; other\nthings are rendered immutable by an act of his will and power, but\nimmutability is an essential perfection of the divine nature; creatures\nare dependently immutable, God is independently so.\n\n(3.) The most perfect creatures, such as angels and glorified saints,\nare capable of new additions to their blessedness; new objects may be\npresented as occasions of praise, which tend perpetually to increase\ntheir happiness: the angels know more than they did before Christ\u2019s\nincarnation; for they are said to know _by the church_, that is, by the\ndealings of God with his church, _the manifold wisdom of God_, Eph. iii.\n10. and to _desire to look into_ the account the gospel gives of the\n_sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow_, 1 Pet. i. 11,\n12. and they shall have farther additions to their blessedness, when all\nthe elect are joined to their assembly in the great day; so that the\nhappiness of the best creatures is communicated in various degrees; but\nGod\u2019s perfections and blessedness can have no additions made to them,\ntherefore he is immutable in a sense as no creature is.\n\n2. We shall now prove that God is immutable in his being and all his\nperfections.\n\n(1.) That he is immutable in his being; this belongs to him as God, and,\nconsequently to him alone. All other beings once were not; there has\nbeen, if I may so express it, a change from a state of non-existence, to\nthat of being; and the same power that brought them into being, could\nreduce them again to their first nothing. To be dependent, is to be\nsubject to change at the will of another; this is applicable to all\nfinite things; for it is said, _As a vesture thou shalt change them, and\nthey shall be changed_: but God being opposed to them as independent, is\nsaid to be _the same_, Psal. cii. 26, 27.\n\n_1st_, He did not change from a state of non-existence to being,\ninasmuch as he was from everlasting, and therefore necessarily existent;\nand consequently he cannot change from a state of being to that of\nnon-existence, or cease to be; and because his perfections are essential\nto him, and underived, in the same sense as his being is, therefore\nthere can be no change therein.\n\n_2dly_. He cannot change from a state of greater to a state of less\nperfection, or be subject to the least diminution of his divine\nperfections. To suppose this possible, is to suppose he may cease to be\ninfinitely perfect; that is, to be God: nor can he change from a state\nof less perfection to a state of greater; for that is to suppose him not\nto be infinitely perfect before this change, or that there are degrees\nof infinite perfection. Nor,\n\n_3dly_, Can he pass from that state, in which he is, to another of equal\nperfection; for, as such a change implies an equal proportion of loss\nand gain, so it would argue a plurality of infinite beings; or since he,\nwho was God before this change, was distinct from what he arrives to\nafter it, this would be contrary to the unity of the divine essence.\n\nMoreover, this may be farther proved from hence, that if there be any\nchange in God, this must arise either from himself, or some other: it\ncannot be from himself, inasmuch as he exists necessarily, and not as\nthe result of his own will: therefore he cannot will any alteration, or\nchange in himself; this is also contrary to the nature of infinite\nblessedness, which cannot desire the least diminution, as it cannot\napprehend any necessity thereof: and then he cannot be changed by any\nother: for he that changes any other, must be greater than him whom he\nchanges; nor can he be subject to the will of another, who is superior\nto him; since there is none equal, much less superior, to God: therefore\nthere is no being that can add to, or take from, his perfections; which\nleads us,\n\n(2.) To consider the immutability of God\u2019s perfections. And,\n\n_First_, Of his knowledge; he seeth not as man seeth; this is obvious.\nFor,\n\n_1st_, His knowledge is independent upon the objects known; therefore\nwhatever changes there are in them, there is none in him. Things known,\nare considered either as past, present, or to come; and these are not\nknown by us in the same way; for concerning things past, it must be\nsaid, that we shall know them hereafter; whereas God, with one view,\ncomprehends all things, past and future, as though they were present.\n\n_2dly_, If God\u2019s knowledge were not unchangeable, he might be said to\nhave different thoughts, or apprehensions of things at one time, from\nwhat he has at another, which would argue a defect of wisdom. And indeed\na change of sentiments implies ignorance, or weakness of understanding;\nfor to make advances in knowledge, supposes a degree of ignorance; and\nto decline therein, is to be reduced to a state of ignorance: now it is\ncertain, that both these are inconsistent with the infinite perfection\nof the divine mind; nor can any such defect be applied to him, who is\ncalled, _The only wise God_, 1 Tim. i. 17.\n\n_3dly_, If it were possible for God\u2019s knowledge to be changed, this\nwould infer a change of his will, since having changed his sentiments,\nhe must be supposed to alter his resolutions and purposes; but his will\nis unchangeable, therefore his understanding or knowledge is so; which\nleads us to prove,\n\n_Secondly_, That God is unchangeable in his will: thus it is said of\nhim, _He is of one mind, and who can turn him?_ Job xxiii. 13. This is\nagreeable to his infinite perfection, and therefore he does not purpose\nto do a thing at one time, and determine not to do it at another; though\nit is true, the revelation of his will may be changed, whereby that may\nbe rendered a duty at one time, which was not at another: thus the\nordinances of the ceremonial law were prescribed, from Moses\u2019s time to\nChrist; but after that were abolished, and ceased to be ordinances; so\nthat there may be a change in the things willed, or in external\nrevelation of God\u2019s will, and in our duty founded thereon, when there\nis, at the same time, no change in his purpose; for he determines all\nchanges in the external dispensation of his providence and grace,\nwithout the least shadow of change in his own will: this may farther\nappear, if we consider,\n\n_1st_, That if the will of God were not unchangeable, he could not be\nthe object of trust; for how could we depend on his promises, were it\npossible for him to change his purpose? Neither would his threatenings\nbe so much regarded, if there were any ground to expect, from the\nmutability of his nature, that he would not execute them; and by this\nmeans, all religion would be banished out of the world.\n\n_2dly_, This would render the condition of the best men, in some\nrespects, very uncomfortable; for they might be one day the object of\nhis love, and the next, of his hatred, and those blessings which\naccompany salvation might be bestowed at one time, and taken away at\nanother, which is directly contrary to scripture, which asserts, that\n_the gifts and calling of God are without repentance_, Rom. xi. 29.\n\n_3dly_, None of those things that occasion a change in the purposes of\nmen, can be applied to God; and therefore there is nothing in him, that\nin the least degree can lead him to change his will, or determination,\nwith respect to the event of things. For,\n\n_1st_, Men change their purpose, from a natural fickleness and\ninconstancy, as there is mutability in their very nature; but God being\nunchangeable in his nature, he must be so in his purpose or will.\n\n_2dly_, Men change their purposes in promising, and not fulfilling their\npromise, or, as we say, in being worse than their word, oftentimes from\nthe viciousness and depravity of their nature; but God is infinitely\nholy, and therefore, in this respect, cannot change.\n\n_3dly_, Men change their mind or purposes, for want of power, to bring\nabout what they designed; this has hindered many well concerted projects\nfrom taking effect in some, and many threatenings from being executed in\nothers; but God\u2019s will cannot be frustrated for want of power, to do\nwhat he designed, inasmuch as he is Almighty.\n\n_4thly_, Men change their minds many times, for want of foresight;\nsomething unexpected occurs that renders it expedient for them to alter\ntheir purpose, which argues a defect of wisdom: but God is infinitely\nwise; therefore nothing unforeseen can intervene to induce him to change\nhis purpose.\n\n_5thly_, Men are sometimes obliged to change their purpose by the\ninfluence, threatenings, or other methods, used by some superior; but\nthere is none equal, much less superior, to God; and consequently none\ncan lay any obligation on him to change his purpose.\n\nVII. God is incomprehensible: this implies that his perfections cannot\nbe fully known by any creature; thus it is said, _Canst thou by\nsearching, find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto\nperfection?_ Job xi. 7.\n\nWhen we consider God as incomprehensible, we do not only mean that man\nin this imperfect state, cannot fully comprehend his glory; for it is\nbut very little, comparatively, that we can comprehend of finite things,\nand we know much less of that which is infinite; but when we say that\nGod is incomprehensible, we mean that the best of creatures, in the most\nperfect state, cannot fully conceive of, or describe his glory; and the\nreason is, because they are finite, and his perfections are infinite;\nand there is no proportion between an infinite God, and a finite mind:\nthe water of the ocean might as well be contained in the hollow of the\nhand, or the dust of the earth weighed in a balance, as that the best of\ncreatures should have a perfect and adequate idea of the divine\nperfections. In this case, we generally distinguish between\napprehending, and comprehending; the former denotes our having some\nimperfect, or inadequate ideas of what surpasses our understanding; the\nlatter, our knowing every thing that is contained in it, which is called\nour having an adequate idea thereof: now we apprehend something of the\ndivine perfections, in proportion to the limits of our capacities, and\nour present state; but we cannot, nor ever shall, be able to comprehend\nthe divine glory, since God is incomprehensible to every one but\nhimself. Again, we farther distinguish between our having a full\nconviction that God hath those infinite perfections, which no creature\ncan comprehend, and our being able fully to describe them: thus we\nfirmly believe that God exists throughout all the changes of time, and\nyet that his duration is not measured thereby, or that he fills all\nplaces without being co-extended with matter; we apprehend, as having an\nundeniable demonstration thereof, that he does so, though we cannot\ncomprehend how he does it.\n\nVIII. God is omnipresent: this is elegantly set forth by the Psalmist,\n_Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy\npresence? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in\nhell, behold, thou art there; if I take the wings of the morning, and\ndwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead\nme, and thy right-hand shall hold me_, Psal. cxxxix. 7-10. This\nperfection of the Godhead doth not consist merely, as some suppose, in\nhis knowing what is done in heaven and earth, which is only a\nmetaphorical sense of omnipresence; as when Elisha tells Gehazi, _Went\nnot my heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to\nmeet thee?_ 2 Kings v. 6. Or, as the apostle says to the church at\nCorinth, that though he was _absent in body_, yet he was _present_ with\nthem _in spirit_, 1 Cor. v. 3. or, as we say, that our souls are with\nour friends in distant places, as often as we think of them: nor doth it\nconsist in God\u2019s being omnipresent by his authority, as a king is said,\nby a figurative way of speaking, to be present in all parts of his\ndominions, where persons are deputed to act under him, or by his\nauthority: but we must take it in a proper sense, as he fills all places\nwith his presence, Jer. xxiii. 24. so that he is not confined to, or\nexcluded from any place; and this he does, not by parts, as the world or\nthe universe is said to be omnipresent, for that is only agreeable to\nthings corporeal, and compounded of parts, and therefore by no means\napplicable to the divine omnipresence. This is a doctrine which it is\nimpossible for us to comprehend, yet we are bound to believe it, because\nthe contrary hereunto is inconsistent with infinite perfection; and it\nis sometimes called his essential presence,[50] to distinguish it from\nhis influential presence, whereby he is said to be where he acts in the\nmethod of his providence, which is either common or special; by the\nformer of these he upholds and governs all things; by the latter he\nexerts his power in a way of grace, which is called his special presence\nwith his people: and as his omnipresence, or immensity, is necessary,\nand not the result of his will, so his influential presence is\narbitrary, and an instance of infinite condescension, in which respect\nhe is said to be, or not to be, in particular places; to come to, or\ndepart from his people; sometimes to dwell in heaven, as he displays his\nglory there agreeably to the heavenly state; at other times to dwell\nwith his church on earth, when he communicates to them those blessings\nwhich they stand in need of; which leads us to consider the next divine\nperfection mentioned in this answer.\n\nIX. God is almighty, Rev. i. 18. ch. iv. 8. this will evidently appear,\nin that if he be infinite in all his other perfections, he must be so in\npower: thus if he be omniscient, he knows what is possible or expedient\nto be done; and, if he be an infinite sovereign, he wills whatever shall\ncome to pass: now this knowledge would be insignificant, and his will\ninefficacious, were he not infinite in power, or almighty. Again, this\nmight be argued from his justice, either in rewarding or punishing; for\nif he were not infinite in power, he could do neither of these, at least\nso far as to render him the object of that desire, or fear, which is\nagreeable to the nature of these perfections; neither could infinite\nfaithfulness accomplish all the promises which he hath made, so as to\nexcite that trust and dependence, which is a part of religious worship;\nnor could he say, without limitation, as he does, _I have spoken it_, _I\nwill also bring it to pass_; _I have purposed it_, _I will also do it_,\nIsa. xlvi. 11.\n\nBut since power is visible in, and demonstrated by its effects, and\ninfinite power, by those effects which cannot be produced by a creature,\nwe may observe the almighty power of God in all his works, both of\nnature and grace: thus his eternal power is understood, as the apostle\nsays, _By the things that are made_, Rom. i. 20. not that there was an\neternal production of things, but the exerting this power in time proves\nit to be infinite and truly divine; for no creature can produce the\nsmallest particle of matter out of nothing, much less furnish the\nvarious species of creatures with those endowments, in which they excel\none another, and set forth their Creator\u2019s glory. And the glory of his\npower is no less visible in the works of providence, whereby he upholds\nall things, disposes of them according to his pleasure, and brings about\nevents, which only he who has an almighty arm can effect. These things\nmight have been enlarged on, as evident proofs of this divine\nperfection; but since the works of creation and providence will be\nparticularly considered in their proper place,[51] we shall proceed to\nconsider the power of God, as appearing in his works of grace;\nparticularly,\n\n1. In some things subservient to our redemption, as in the formation of\nthe human nature of Christ, which is ascribed to the _power of the\nHighest_, Luke i. 35. and in preserving it from being crushed, overcome,\nand trampled on, by all the united powers of hell, and earth: it is\nsaid, _the arm of God strengthened him, so that the enemy should not\nexact upon him, nor the son of wickedness afflict him_, Psal. lxxxix,\n21, 22. It was the power of God that bore him up under all the terrible\nviews he had of sufferings and death, which had many ingredients in it,\nthat rendered it, beyond expression, formidable, and would have sunk a\nmere creature, unassisted thereby, into destruction. It was by the\ndivine power, which he calls _the finger of God_, Luke ix. 20. that he\ncast out devils, and wrought many other miracles, to confirm his\nmission: so, when he _rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child_,\nit is said, _they were all amazed at the mighty power of God_, chap. ix.\n42, 43. and it was hereby that _he was raised from the dead_, which the\napostle calls the _exceeding greatness of the power of God_, Eph. i. 19.\nand accordingly he was _declared to be the Son of God, with power, by\nthis extraordinary event_, Rom. i. 4. Moreover, the power of God will be\nglorified, in the highest degree, in his second coming, when, as he\nsays, he will appear in _the clouds of heaven, with power and great\nglory_. Matt. xxiv. 30.\n\n2. The power of God eminently appears in the propagation and success of\nthe gospel.\n\n(1.) In the propagation thereof; that a doctrine, so contrary to the\ncorrupt inclinations of mankind, which had so little to recommend it,\nbut what was divine, should be spread throughout the greatest part of\nthe known world, by a small number of men, raised up and spirited to\nthat end; and, in order thereunto, acted above themselves, and furnished\nwith extraordinary qualifications, such as the gift of tongues, and a\npower to work miracles, is a convincing proof, that the power by which\nall this was done, is infinite. It was hereby that they were not only\ninspired with wisdom, by which they silenced and confounded their\nmalicious enemies, but persuaded others to believe what they were sent\nto impart to them. It was hereby that they were inflamed with zeal, in\nproportion to the greatness of the occasion, fortified with courage to\ndespise the threats, and patiently to bear the persecuting rage of those\nwho pursued them unto bonds and death. It was hereby that they were\nenabled to finish their course with joy, and seal the doctrines they\ndelivered with their blood. And the power of God was herein the more\nremarkable, inasmuch as they were not men of the greatest natural\nsagacity, or resolution; and they always confessed whatever there was\nextraordinary in the course of their ministry, was from the hand of God.\n\n(2.) The power of God appears in the success of the gospel, the report\nwhereof would never have been believed, had not _the arm of the Lord\nbeen revealed_, Isa. liii. 1. The great multitude that was converted to\nChristianity in one age, is an eminent instance hereof: and the rather,\nbecause the profession they made was contrary to their secular\ninterests, and exposed them to the same persecution, though in a less\ndegree, which the apostles themselves met with; notwithstanding which,\nthey willingly parted with their worldly substance, when the necessity\nof affairs required it, and were content to have all things common, that\nso the work might proceed with more success.\n\nIt was the power of God that touched their hearts; so that this internal\ninfluence contributed more to the work of grace, than all the rhetorick\nof man could have done. It was this that carried them through all the\nopposition of cruel mocking, bonds, and imprisonment, and at the same\ntime compensated all their losses and sufferings, by those extraordinary\njoys and supports which they had, both in life and death.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that the daily success of the gospel, in all the\ninstances of converting grace, is an evident effect and proof of the\ndivine power, as will farther appear, when, under a following head, we\nconsider effectual calling, as being the work of God\u2019s almighty power\nand grace.[52]\n\n_Object._ It will be objected, that there are some things which God\ncannot do, and therefore he is not almighty.\n\n_Answ._ It is true, there are some things that God cannot do; but the\nreason is, either because it would be contrary to his divine perfections\nto do them, or they are not the objects of power; therefore it is not an\nimperfection in him that he cannot do them, but rather a branch of his\nglory. As,\n\n1. There are some things which he cannot do, not because he has not\npower to do them, had he pleased; but the only reason is, because he has\nwilled or determined not to do them. Thus if we should say, that he\ncannot make more worlds, it is not for want of infinite power, but\nbecause we suppose he has determined not to make them; he cannot save\nthe reprobate, or fallen angels, not through a defect of power, but\nbecause he has willed not to do it. In this the power of God is\ndistinguished from that of the creature; for we never say that a person\ncannot do a thing, merely because he will not, but because he wants\npower, if he would:[53] but this is by no means to be said of God in any\ninstance. Therefore we must distinguish between his absolute and\nordinate power; by the former he could do many things, which by the\nlatter he will not; and consequently, to say he cannot do those things,\nwhich he has determined not to do, does not in the least overthrow this\nattribute of almighty power.\n\n2. He cannot do that which is contrary to the nature of things, where\nthere is an impossibility in the things themselves to be done: thus he\ncannot make a creature to be independent, for that is contrary to the\nidea of a creature; nor can he make a creature equal to himself, for\nthen it would not be a creature; it is also impossible that he should\nmake a creature to be, and not to be, at the same time; or render that\nnot done, which is done, since that is contrary to the nature and truth\nof things; to which we may add, that he cannot make a creature the\nobject of religious worship; or, by his power, advance him to such a\ndignity, as shall warrant any one\u2019s ascribing divine perfections to him.\n\n3. He cannot deny himself, _It is impossible for God to lie_, Heb. vi.\n18. and it is equally impossible for him to act contrary to any of his\nperfections; for which reason he cannot do anything that argues\nweakness: as, for instance, he cannot repent, or change his mind, or\neternal purpose; nor can he do any thing that would argue him, not to be\na holy God: now, though it may be truly said that God can do none of\nthese things, this is no defect in him, but rather a glory, since they\nare not the objects of power, but would argue weakness and imperfection\nin him, should he do them.\n\nWe shall now consider, what practical improvement we ought to make of\nthis divine attribute.\n\n(1.) The almighty power of God affords great support and relief to\nbelievers, when they are assaulted, and afraid of being overcome, by\ntheir spiritual enemies: thus when they wrestle, as the apostle says,\nnot only _against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against\npowers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against\nspiritual wickedness in high places_, Eph. vi. 12. and when they\nconsider what numbers have been overcome and ruined by them, and are\ndiscouraged very much, under a sense of their own weakness or inability\nto maintain their ground against them; let them consider that God is\nable to bruise Satan under their feet, and to make them more than\nconquerors, and to cause all grace to abound in them, and to work in\nthem that which is pleasing in his sight.\n\n(2.) The consideration of God\u2019s almighty power gives us the greatest\nground to conclude, that whatever difficulties seem to lie in the way of\nthe accomplishment of his promises, relating to our future blessedness,\nshall be removed or surmounted; so that those things which seem\nimpossible, if we look no farther than second causes, or the little\nappearance there is, at present, of their being brought about, are not\nonly possible, but very easy for the power of God to effect.\n\nThus, with respect to what concerns the case of those who are sinking\ninto despair, under a sense of the guilt or power of sin, by reason\nwhereof they are ready to conclude that this burden is so great, that no\nfinite power can remove it; let such consider, that to God all things\nare possible; he can, by his powerful word, raise the most dejected\nspirits, and turn the shadow of death into a bright morning of peace and\njoy.\n\nMoreover, if we consider the declining state of religion in the world,\nthe apostacy of some professors, the degeneracy of others, and what\nreason the best of them have to say, that it is not with them as in\ntimes past; or when we consider what little hope there is, from the\npresent view we have of things, that the work of God will be revived in\nhis church; yea, if the state thereof were, in all appearance, as\nhopeless as it was when God, in a vision, represented it to the prophet\nEzekiel, when he shewed him the valley full of dry bones, and asked him,\n_Can these bones live?_ Ezek. xxxvii. 3. or if the question be put, can\nthe despised, declining, sinking, and dying interest of Christ be\nrevived? or how can those prophecies, that relate to the church\u2019s future\nhappiness and glory, ever have their accomplishment in this world, when\nall things seem to make against it? this difficulty will be removed, and\nour hope encouraged, when we consider the power of God, to which nothing\nis difficult, much less insuperable.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that the power of God will remove all the\ndifficulties that lie in our way, with respect to the resurrection of\nthe dead: this is a doctrine which seems contrary to the course of\nnature; and, if we look no farther than the power of the creature, we\nshould be inclined to say, How can this be? But when we consider the\nalmighty power of God, that will sufficiently remove all objections that\ncan be brought against it: thus, when our Saviour proves this doctrine,\nhe opposes the absurd notions which some had relating thereunto, by\nsaying, _Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God_,\nMatth. xxii. 19.\n\n(3.) Let us have a due regard to this attribute, and take encouragement\nfrom it, when we are engaging in holy duties, and are sensible of our\ninability to perform them in a right manner, and have too much reason to\ncomplain of an unbecoming frame of spirit therein, of the hardness and\nimpenitency of our hearts, the obstinacy and perverseness of our wills,\nthe earthliness and carnality of our affections, and that all the\nendeavours we can use to bring ourselves into a better frame, have not\ntheir desired success; let us encourage ourselves with this\nconsideration, that God can make us _willing in the day of his power_,\nPsal. cx. 3. and _do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or\nthink_, Eph. iii. 20.\n\n(4.) Let us take heed that we do not abuse, or practically deny, or cast\ncontempt on this divine perfection, by presuming that we may obtain\nspiritual blessings, without dependence on him for them, or expecting\ndivine influences, while we continue in the neglect of his instituted\nmeans of grace: it is true, God can work without means, but he has not\ngiven us ground to expect that he will do so; therefore when we seek\nhelp from him, it must be in his own way.\n\nAgain, let us take heed that we do not abuse this divine perfection, by\na distrust of God, or by dependence on an arm of flesh; let us not, on\nthe one hand, limit the Holy One of Israel, by saying, Can God do this\nor that for me, either with respect to spiritual or temporal concerns?\nnor, on the other hand, rest in any thing short of him, as though\nomnipotency were not an attribute peculiar to himself. As he is able to\ndo great things for us that we looked not for; so he is much displeased\nwhen we expect these blessings from any one short of himself; _Who art\nthou, that thou shouldst be afraid of a man, that shall die, and\nforgettest the Lord thy Maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens,\nand laid the foundation of the earth_? Isa. li. 12.\n\nX. God knows all things: it has been before considered, that his being a\nSpirit, implies his having an understanding, as a spirit is an\nintelligent being; therefore his being an infinite Spirit, must argue\nthat _his understanding is infinite_, Psal. cxlvii. 5.\n\nThis may be farther proved,\n\n1. From his having given being to all things at first, and continually\nupholding them; he must necessarily know his own workmanship, the\neffects of his power; and this is yet more evident, if we consider the\ncreation of all things, as a work of infinite wisdom, which is plainly\ndiscernible therein, as well as almighty power; therefore he must know\nall things, for wisdom supposes knowledge. Moreover, his being the\nproprietor of all things, results from his having created them, and\ncertainly he must know his own.\n\n2. This farther appears, from his governing all things, or his ordering\nthe subserviency thereof, to answer some valuable ends, and that all\nshould redound to his glory; therefore both the ends and means must be\nknown by him. And as for the governing of intelligent creatures, this\nsupposes knowledge: as the Judge of all, he must be able to discern the\ncause, or else he cannot determine it, and perfectly to know the rules\nof justice, or else he cannot exercise it in the government of the\nworld.\n\n3. If God knows himself, he must know all other things, for he that\nknows the greatest object, must know things of a lesser nature; besides,\nif he knows himself, he knows what he can do, will do, or has done,\nwhich is as much as to say that he knows all things. And that God knows\nhimself, must be granted for if it be the privilege of an intelligent\ncreature to know himself, though this knowledge in him be but imperfect,\nsurely God must know himself; and because his knowledge cannot have any\ndefect, which would be inconsistent with infinite perfection, therefore\nhe must have a perfect, that is to say, an infinite knowledge of\nhimself, and consequently of all other things.\n\nThis knowledge of God, which has the creature for its object, is\ndistinguished, in scripture, into his comprehending, seeing, or having a\nperfect intuition of all things, and his approving of things, or it is\neither intuitive or approbative; the former of these is what we\nprincipally understand by this attribute; as when it is said, _Known\nunto God are all his works, from the beginning of the world_, Acts xv.\n18. and, _thou knowest my down-sitting and up-rising, and art acquainted\nwith all my ways; for there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord,\nthou knowest it altogether_, Psal. cxxxix. 2, 3, 4. and, _the Lord\nsearcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the\nthoughts_, 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. And as for the other sense of God\u2019s\nknowledge, to wit, of approbation, which is less properly called\nknowledge, because it is rather seated in the will than in the\nunderstanding; of this we read in several scriptures; as when God tells\nMoses, _I know thee by name_, Exod. xxxiii. 12. which is explained by\nthe following words, _And thou hast found grace in my sight_; so when\nour Saviour says, concerning his enemies, _I will profess unto you I\nnever knew you_, Matth. vii. 23. it is not meant of a knowledge of\nintuition, but approbation. In the former sense, he knows all things,\nbad as well as good, that which he hates and will punish, as well as\nwhat he delights in; in the latter, he only knows that which is good, or\nagreeable to his will.\n\nMoreover, God is said to know what he can do, and what he has done, or\nwill do.\n\n(1.) God knows what he can do, even many things that he will not do; for\nas his power is unlimited, so that he can do infinitely more than he\nwill, so he knows more than he will do. This is very obvious; for we\nourselves, as free agents, can do more than we will, and, as\nintelligent, we know in many instances, what we can do, though we will\nnever do them: much more must this be said of the great God, who\n_calleth things that be not as though they were_, Rom. iv. 17. so David\nenquires of God, _Will Saul come down? and will the men of Keilah\ndeliver me up into has hand?_ And God answers him, _He will come down,\nand the men of Keilah will deliver thee up_, 1 Sam. xxiii. 12. which\nimplies, that God knew what they would have done, had not his providence\nprevented it. In this respect, things known by him are said to be\npossible, by reason of his power, whereas the future existence thereof\ndepends on his will.\n\n(2.) God knows whatever he has done, does, or will do, _viz._ things\npast, present, or to come. That he knows all things present, has been\nproved, from the dependence of things on his providence; and his\nknowledge being inseparably connected with his power: and that he knows\nall things that are past, is no less evident, for they were once\npresent, and consequently known by him; and to suppose that he does not\nknow them, is to charge him with forgetfulness, or to suppose that his\nknowledge at present is less perfect than it was, which is inconsistent\nwith infinite perfection. Moreover, if God did not know all things past,\nhe could not be the Judge of the world; and particularly, he could\nneither reward nor punish; both which acts respect only things that are\npast; therefore such things are perfectly known by him. Thus, when Job\nconsidered his present afflictions, as the punishment of past sins, he\nsays, Job xiv. 17. _My transgression is sealed up in a bag; thou sewest\nup mine iniquity_; which metaphorical way of speaking, implies his\nremembering it: so when God threatens to punish his adversaries for\ntheir iniquity, he speaks of it, as remembered by him, _laid up in\nstore_ with him, and _sealed up among his treasures_, Deut. xxxii. 34,\n35. So, on the other hand, when he designed to reward, or encourage, the\nreligious duties, performed by his people, who feared his name, it is\nsaid, _a book of remembrance was written before him, for them_, Mal.\niii. 16.\n\nBut that which we shall principally consider, is, God\u2019s knowing all\nthings future, _viz._ not only such as are the effects of necessary\ncauses, where the effect is known in or by the cause, but such as are\ncontingent, with respect to us; which is the most difficult of all\nknowledge whatsoever, and argues it to be truly divine.\n\nBy future contingences, we understand things that are accidental, or, as\nwe commonly say, happen by chance, without any fore-thought, or design\nof men. Now that many things happen so, with respect to us, and\ntherefore we cannot certainly foreknow them, is very obvious; but even\nthese are foreknown by God[54] For,\n\n1. Things that happen without our design, or fore-thought, and therefore\nare not certainly foreknown by us, are the objects of his providence,\nand therefore known unto him from the beginning: thus _the fall of a\nsparrow to the ground_ is a casual thing, yet our Saviour says, that\nthis is not without his providence, Matth. x. 29. Therefore,\n\n2. That which is casual, or accidental to us, is not so to him; so that\nthough we cannot have a certain or determinate foreknowledge thereof, it\ndoes not follow that he has not; since,\n\n3. He has foretold many such future events, as appears by the following\ninstances.\n\n(1.) Ahab\u2019s death by an arrow, shot at random, may be reckoned a\ncontingent event; yet this was foretold before he went into the battle,\n1 Kings xxii. 17, 18, 34. and accomplished accordingly.\n\n(2.) That Israel should be afflicted and oppressed in Egypt, and\nafterwards should be delivered, was foretold four hundred years before\nit came to pass, Gen. xv. 13, 14. And when Moses was sent to deliver\nthem out of the Egyptian bondage, God tells him, before-hand, how\nobstinate Pharaoh would be, and with how much difficulty he would be\nbrought to let them go, Exod. iii. 19, 20.\n\n(3.) Joseph\u2019s advancement in Egypt was a contingent and very unlikely\nevent, yet it was made known several years before, by his prophetic\ndream, Gen. xxxvii. 5, &c. and afterwards, that which tended more\nimmediately to it, was his foretelling what happened to the chief butler\nand baker, and the seven years of plenty and famine in Egypt, signified\nby Pharaoh\u2019s dream; all which were contingent events, and were foretold\nby divine inspiration, and therefore foreknown by God.\n\n(4.) Hazael\u2019s coming to the crown of Syria, and the cruelty that he\nwould exercise, was foretold to him, when he thought he could never be\nsuch a monster of a man, as he afterwards appeared to be, 2 Kings viii.\n12, 13.\n\n(5.) Judas\u2019s betraying our Lord was foretold by him, John vi. 70, 71.\nthough, at that time, he seemed as little disposed to commit so vile a\ncrime as any of his disciples.\n\nThus having considered God\u2019s knowledge, with respect to the object,\neither as past, or future, we shall conclude this head, by observing\nsome properties, whereby it appears to be superior to all finite\nknowledge, and truly divine, _viz._\n\n1. It is perfect, intimate, and distinct, and not superficial, or\nconfused, or only respecting things in general, as ours often is: thus\nit is said concerning him, that _he bringeth out his host by number, and\ncalleth them all by names_, Isa. xl. 26. which denotes his exquisite\nknowledge of all things, as well as propriety in, and using them at his\npleasure. And since all creatures _live and move_, or act, _in him_,\nActs xvii. 28. or by his powerful influence, it follows from hence, that\nhis knowledge is as distinct and particular, as the actions themselves,\nyea, the most indifferent actions, that are hardly taken notice of by\nourselves, such as our _down-sitting and up-rising_, Psal. cxxxix. 2.\nand every transient thought that is no sooner formed in our minds, but\nforgotten by us, is known by him afar off, at the greatest distance of\ntime, when it is irrecoverably lost with respect to us. That God knows\nall things thus distinctly, is evident not only from their dependence\nupon him; but it is said, that when he had brought his whole work of\ncreation to perfection, _He saw every thing that he had made, and behold\nit was very good_, that is, agreeable to his eternal design, or, if we\nmay so express it, to the idea, or plat-form, laid in his own mind; and\nthis he pronounced concerning every individual thing, which is as much\nthe object of his omniscience, as the effect of his power: what can be\nmore expressive of the perfection and distinctness of his knowledge than\nthis? Therefore the apostle might well say, that _there is not any\ncreature that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked,\nand opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do_, Heb. iv. 13.\n\n2. He knows every thing, even future contingencies, with a certain and\ninfallible knowledge, without the least hesitation, or possibility of\nmistake; and therefore, as opinion, or conjecture, is opposed to\ncertainty, it is not in the least applicable to him. In this his\nknowledge differs from that of the best of creatures, who can only guess\nat some things that may happen, according to the probable fore-views\nthey have thereof.\n\n3. As to the manner of his knowing all things, it is not in a discursive\nway, agreeable to our common method of reasoning, by inferring one thing\nfrom another, or by comparing things together, and observing their\nconnexion, dependence, and various powers and manner of acting, and\nthereby discerning what will follow; for such a knowledge as this is\nacquired, and presupposes a degree of ignorance: conclusions can hardly\nbe said to be known, till the premises, from whence they are deduced, be\nduly weighed; but this is inconsistent with the knowledge of God, who\nsees all things in himself; things possible in his own power, and things\nfuture in his will, without inferring, abstracting, or deducing\nconclusions from premises, which to do is unbecoming him, who is perfect\nin knowledge.\n\n4. He knows all things at once, not successively, as we do; for if\nsuccessive duration be an imperfection, (as was before observed, when we\nconsidered the eternity of God) his knowing all things after this\nmanner, is equally so; and, indeed, this would argue an increase of the\ndivine knowledge, or a making advances in wisdom, by experience, and\ndaily observation of things, which, though applicable to all intelligent\ncreatures, can, by no means, be said of him, whose _understanding is\ninfinite_, Psal. cxlvii. 5.\n\nWe shall now consider what improvement we ought to make of God\u2019s\nomniscience, as to what respects our conduct in this world.\n\n_First_, Let us take heed that we do not practically deny this\nattribute.\n\n1. By acting as though we thought that we could hide ourselves from the\nall-seeing eye of God; let us not say, to use the words of Eliphaz, _How\ndoth God know? Can he judge through the dark cloud? Thick clouds are a\ncovering to him, that he seeth not, and he walketh in the circuit of\nheaven_, Job xxii. 13, 14. How vain a supposition is this! _since there\nis no darkness, or shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may\nhide themselves_, chap. xxxiv. 22. Hypocrisy is, as it were, an attempt\nto hide ourselves from God, an acting as though we thought that we could\ndeceive or impose on him, which is called, in scripture, _a lying to\nhim_, Psal. lxxviii. 36. or, _a compassing him about with lies and\ndeceit_, Hos. xi. 12. This all are chargeable with, who rest in a form\nof godliness, as though God saw only the outward actions, but not the\nheart.\n\n2. By being more afraid of man than God, and venturing to commit the\nvilest abominations, without considering his all-seeing eye, which we\nwould be afraid and ashamed to do, were we under the eye of man, as the\napostle saith, _It is a shame even to speak of those things which are\ndone of them in secret_, Eph. v. 12. Thus God says, concerning an\napostatizing people of old, speaking to the prophet Ezekiel, _Son of\nman, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the\ndark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The Lord\nseeth us not, the Lord hath forsaken the earth_, Ezek. viii. 12.\n\n_Secondly_, The consideration of God\u2019s omniscience should be improved,\nto humble us under a sense of sin, but especially of secret sins, which\nare all known to him: thus it is said, _Thou hast set our iniquities\nbefore thee; our secret sins in the light of thy countenance_, Psal. xc.\n8. and _his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings_,\nJob xxxiv. 21. There are many things which we know concerning ourselves,\nthat no creature is privy to, which occasions self-conviction, and might\nfill us with shame and confusion of face. But this falls infinitely\nshort of God\u2019s omniscience; _for if our heart condemn us, God is greater\nthan our heart, and knoweth all things_, 1 John iii. 20. And this should\nmake sinners tremble at the thoughts of a future judgment; for if sins\nbe not pardoned, he is able to bring them to remembrance, and, as he\nthreatens he will do, _set them in order before their eyes_, Psal. l.\n21.\n\n_Thirdly_, The due consideration of this divine perfection, will, on the\nother hand, tend very much to the comfort of believers: he seeth their\nsecret wants, the breathings of their souls after him, and as our\nSaviour saith, _Their Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward them\nopenly_, Matt. vi. 4. With what pleasure may they appeal to God, as the\nsearcher of hearts, concerning their sincerity, when it is called in\nquestion by men. And when they are afraid of contracting guilt and\ndefilement, by secret faults, which they earnestly desire, with the\nPsalmist, to be cleansed from, Psal. xix. 12. it is some relief to them\nto consider that God knows them, and therefore is able to give them\nrepentance for them; so that they may pray with David; _Search me, O\nGod, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there\nbe any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting_, Psal.\ncxxxix. 23, 24. Moreover, it is a quieting thought, to all who are\naffected with the church\u2019s troubles, and the deep laid designs of its\nenemies against it, to consider that God knows them, and therefore can\neasily defeat, and turn them into foolishness.\n\n_Fourthly_, The due consideration of God\u2019s omniscience will be of great\nuse to all Christians, to promote a right frame of spirit in holy\nduties; it will make them careful how they behave themselves as being in\nhis sight; and tend to fill them with a holy reverence, as those that\nare under his immediate inspection, that they may approve themselves to\nhim.\n\nXI. God is most wise, or infinite in wisdom; or, as the apostle\nexpresses it, he is _the only wise God_, Rom. xvi. 27. This perfection\nconsidered as absolute, underived, and truly divine, belongs only to\nhim; so that the angels themselves, the most excellent order of created\nbeings, are said to be destitute of it, or _charged with folly_, Job iv.\n18. For our understanding what this divine perfection is, let us\nconsider; that wisdom contains in it more than knowledge, for there may\nbe a great degree of knowledge, where there is but little wisdom, though\nthere can be no wisdom without knowledge: knowledge is, as it were, the\neye of the soul, whereby it apprehends, or sees, things in a true light,\nand so it is opposed to ignorance, or not knowing things; but wisdom is\nthat whereby the soul is directed in the skilful management of things,\nor in ordering them for the best; and this is opposed, not so much to\nignorance, or error of judgment, as to folly, or error in conduct, which\nis a defect of wisdom; and it consists more especially in designing the\nbest and most valuable end in what we are about to do, in using the most\nproper means to effect it, and in observing the fittest season to act,\nand every circumstance attending it, that is most expedient and\nconducive thereunto; also in foreseeing and guarding against every\noccurrence that may frustrate our design, or give us an occasion to\nblame ourselves for doing what we have done, or repent of it, or to wish\nwe had taken other measures. Now, that we may from hence take an\nestimate of the wisdom of God, it appears,\n\n1. In the reference, or tendency of all things to his own glory, which\nis the highest and most excellent end that can be proposed; as he is the\nhighest and best of beings, and his glory, to which all things are\nreferred, is infinitely excellent.\n\nHere let us consider,\n\n(1.) That God is, by reason of his infinite perfection, naturally and\nnecessarily the object of adoration.\n\n(2.) He cannot be adored, unless his glory be set forth and\ndemonstrated, or made visible.\n\n(3.) There must be an intelligent creature to behold his glory, and\nadore his perfections, that are thus demonstrated and displayed.\n\n(4.) Every thing that he does is fit and designed to lead this creature\ninto the knowledge of his glory; and that it is so ordered, is an\neminent instance of divine wisdom. We need not travel far to know this,\nfor wherever we look, we may behold how excellent his name is in all the\nearth: and because some are so stupid, that they cannot, or will not, in\na way of reasoning, infer his divine perfections from things that are\nwithout us, therefore he has instamped the knowledge thereof on the\nsouls and consciences of men; so that, at sometimes, they are obliged,\nwhether they will or no, to acknowledge them. There is something which\n_may be known of God, that is said to be manifest in, and shewn to_ all;\nso that _the Gentiles who have not the law_, that is, the written word\nof God, _do, by nature the things_, that is, some things, _contained\ntherein_, and so are _a law unto themselves_, and _shew the work of the\nlaw written in their hearts_, Rom. i. 19. chap. ii. 14, 15. And, besides\nthis, he has led us farther into the knowledge of his divine perfections\nby his word, which he is said to have magnified above all his name,\nPsal. cxxxvii. 2. therefore having thus adapted his works and word, to\nset forth his glory, he discovers himself to be infinite in wisdom.[55]\n\n2. The wisdom of God appears, in that whatever he does, is in the\nfittest season, and all the circumstances thereof tend to set forth his\nown honour, and argue his foresight to be infinitely perfect; so that he\ncan see no reason to wish it had been otherwise ordered, or to repent\nthereof. _For all his ways are judgment_, Deut. xxxii. 4. _to every\nthing there is a season and a time, to every purpose under the heaven;\nand he hath made every thing beautiful in his time_, Eccl. iii. 1, 11.\n\nFor the farther illustrating of this, since wisdom is known by its\neffects, we shall observe some of the traces, or footsteps thereof in\nhis works. And,\n\n(1.) In the work of creation. As it requires infinite power to produce\nsomething out of nothing; so the wisdom of God appears in that excellent\norder, beauty, and harmony, that we observe in all the parts of the\ncreation; and in the subserviency of one thing to another, and the\ntendency thereof to promote the moral government of God in the world,\nand the good of man, for whose sake this lower world was formed, that so\nit might be a convenient habitation for him, and a glorious object, in\nwhich he might contemplate, and thereby be led to advance the divine\nperfections, which shine forth therein, as in a glass; so that we have\nthe highest reason to say, _Lord, how manifold are thy works; in wisdom\nhast thou made them all_, Psal. civ. 24. _He hath made the earth by his\npower; he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched\nout the heavens by his discretion_, Jer. x. 12. But since this argument\nhath been insisted on, with great ingenuity, and strength of reason by\nothers,[56] we shall add no more on that subject, but proceed to\nconsider,\n\n(2.) The wisdom of God, as appearing in the works of providence, in\nbringing about unexpected events for the good of mankind, and that, by\nmeans that seem to have no tendency thereto, but rather the contrary;\nthis will appear in the following instances. As,\n\n_1st_, Jacob\u2019s flying from his father\u2019s house, was wisely ordered, as a\nmeans not only for his escaping the fury of his brother, and the trial\nof his faith, and to humble him for the sinful method he took to obtain\nthe blessing; but also for the building up his family, and encreasing\nhis substance in the world, under a very unjust father-in-law and\nmaster, such as Laban was.\n\n_2dly_, Joseph\u2019s being sold into Egypt, was ordered, as a means of his\npreserving not only that land, but his father\u2019s house, from perishing by\nfamine; his imprisonment was the occasion of his advancement. And all\nthis led the way to the accomplishment of what God had foretold relating\nto his people\u2019s dwelling in Egypt, and their wonderful deliverance from\nthe bondage they were to endure therein.\n\n_3dly_, The wisdom of God was seen in the manner of Israel\u2019s deliverance\nout of Egypt, in that he first laid them under the greatest\ndiscouragements, by suffering the Egyptians to increase their tasks and\nburdens; hardening Pharaoh\u2019s heart, that he might try his people\u2019s\nfaith, and make their deliverance appear more remarkable; and then\nplaguing the Egyptians, that he might punish their pride, injustice, and\ncruelty; and, at last, giving them up to such an infatuation, as\neffectually procured their final overthrow, and his people\u2019s safety.\n\n_4thly_, In leading Israel forty years in the wilderness, before he\nbrought them into the promised land, that he might give them statutes\nand ordinances, and that they might experience various instances of his\npresence among them, by judgments and mercies, and so be prepared for\nall the privileges he designed for them, as his peculiar people, in the\nland of Canaan.\n\n_5thly_, We have a very wonderful instance of the wisdom of providence\nin the book of Esther; when Haman, the enemy of the Jews, had obtained a\ndecree for their destruction, and Mordecai was first to be sacrificed to\nhis pride and revenge, providence turned whatever he intended against\nhim, upon himself. There was something very remarkable in all the\ncircumstances that led to it, by which the church\u2019s deliverance and\nadvancement was brought about; when, to an eye of reason, it seemed\nalmost impossible,\n\n(3.) The wisdom of God appears yet more eminently, in the work of our\nredemption; this is that which _the angels desire to look into_, and\ncannot behold without the greatest admiration; for herein God\u2019s manifold\nwisdom is displayed, 1 Pet. i. 12. Eph. iii. 10. This solves the\ndifficulty, contained in a former dispensation of providence, respecting\nGod\u2019s suffering sin to enter into the world, which he could have\nprevented, and probably would have done, had he not designed to\nover-rule it, for the bringing about the work of our redemption by\nChrist; so that what we lost in our first head, should be recovered with\ngreat advantage in our second, the Lord from heaven.\n\nBut though this matter was determined in the eternal covenant, between\nthe Father and the Son, and the necessity of man seemed to require that\nChrist should be immediately incarnate, as soon as man fell, yet it was\ndeferred till many ages after; and herein the wisdom of God eminently\nappeared. For,\n\n_1st_, God hereby tried the faith and patience of his church, and put\nthem upon waiting for, and depending on him, who was to come; so that\nthough they had not received this promised blessing, yet they _saw it\nafar off_; _were persuaded of, and embraced it_, and, with _Abraham,\nrejoiced to see his day_, though at a great distance, Heb. xi. 13. John\nviii. 56. and hereby they glorified the faithfulness of God, and\ndepended on his word, that the work of redemption should be brought\nabout, as certainly, as though it had been actually accomplished.\n\n_2dly_, Our Saviour, in the mean time took occasion to display his own\nglory, as the Lord, and Governor of his church, even before his\nincarnation, to whom he often appeared in a human form, assumed for that\npurpose, as a prelibation thereof; so that they had the greatest reason,\nfrom hence, to expect his coming in our nature.\n\n_3rdly_, The time of Christ\u2019s coming in the flesh, was such as appeared\nmost seasonable; when the state of the church was very low, religion\nalmost lost among them, and the darkness they were under, exceeding\ngreat; which made it very necessary that the Messiah should come: when\niniquity almost universally prevailed among them, then _the deliverer\nmust come out of Sion, and turn away ungodliness from Jacob_, Rom. xi.\n26. and when the darkness of the night was greatest, it was the most\nproper time for _the Sun of Righteousness to arise with healing in his\nwings_, Mal. iv. 2. compared with Matt. iv. 16.\n\n(4.) The wisdom of God farther appears in the various methods he has\ntaken in the government of his church, before and since the coming of\nChrist. For,\n\n_1st_, God at first, as has been before observed,[57] left his church\nwithout a written word, till Moses\u2019s time, that he might take occasion\nto converse with them more immediately, as an instance of infinite\ncondescension; and to shew them, that though they had no such method of\nknowing his revealed will as we have, yet that he could communicate his\nmind to them another way; and, when the necessity of affairs required\nit, then his wisdom was seen in taking this method to propagate religion\nin the world.\n\n_2dly_, When God designed to govern his church by those rules, which he\nhath laid down in scripture, he revealed the great doctrines contained\ntherein, in a gradual way; so that the dispensation of his providence\ntowards them, was like the light of the morning, increasing to a perfect\nday: he first instructed them by various types and shadows, leading them\ninto the knowledge of the gospel, which was afterwards to be more\nclearly revealed: he taught them, as they were able to bear it, like\nchildren growing in knowledge, till they arrive to a perfect manhood: he\nfirst gave them grounds to expect the blessings which he would bestow in\nafter-ages, by the manifold predictions thereof; and afterwards\nglorified his faithfulness in their accomplishment.\n\n_3dly_, He sometimes governed them in a more immediate way, and\nconfirmed their faith, as was then necessary, by miracles; and also\nraised up prophets, as occasion served, whom he furnished, in an\nextraordinary way, for the service to which he called them, to lead his\nchurch into the knowledge of those truths, on which their faith was\nbuilt.\n\nAnd, to this we may add, that he gave them various other helps for their\nfaith, by those common and ordinary means of grace, which they were\nfavoured with, and which the gospel church now enjoys, and has ground to\nconclude that they will be continued until Christ\u2019s second coming. Here\nwe might take occasion to consider how the wisdom of God appears in\nfurnishing his church with a gospel-ministry, and how the management\nthereof is adapted to the necessities of his people; in employing such\nabout this work, who are duly qualified for it, assisting them in the\ndischarge thereof, and succeeding their humble endeavours; and all this\nin such a way, as that the praise shall redound to himself, who builds\nhis house, and bears the glory; but this we may have occasion to insist\non in a following part of this work.[58]\n\n(5.) The wisdom of God appears in the method he takes to preserve,\npropagate, and build up his church in the world. Therefore,\n\n_1st_, As his kingdom is not of this world, but of a spiritual, nature,\nso he hath ordered that it shall not be promoted by those methods of\nviolence, or carnal policy, by which the secular interests of men are\noft-times advanced. He has no where appointed that wars should be\nproclaimed to propagate the faith, or that persons should be forced to\nembrace it against their wills, or be listed under Christ\u2019s banner, by\nbribery, or a prospect of worldly advantage; therefore all the success\nthe gospel has had, which is worthy to be called success, has been such\nas is agreeable to the spirituality of Christ\u2019s kingdom; thus his house\nis to be built, _not by might, nor by power, but by his Spirit_, Zech.\niv. 6.\n\n_2dly_, That the church should flourish under persecution, and those\nmethods which its enemies take to ruin it, should be over-ruled, to its\ngreater advantage; and that hereby shame and disappointment should\nattend every weapon that is formed against Sion, as being without\nsuccess; and that the church should appear more eminently to be the care\nof God, when it meets with the most injurious treatment from men, is a\nplain proof of the glory of this attribute: and, on the other hand, that\nits flourishing state, as to outward, things, should not be always\nattended with the like marks or evidences of the divine favour, in what\nmore immediately respects salvation, is an instance of the divine\nwisdom, as God hereby puts his people on setting the highest value on\nthose things that are most excellent; and not to reckon themselves most\nhappy in the enjoyment of the good things of this life, when they are\ndestitute of his special presence with them.\n\n_3dly_, The preserving the rising generation from the vile abominations\nthat there are in the world, especially the seed of believers, and\ncalling many of them by his grace, that so there may be a constant\nreserve of those, who may be added to his church, as others, who have\nserved their generation, are called out of it, which is a necessary\nexpedient for the preserving his interest in the world: in this the\nwisdom of God is eminently glorified, as well as his other perfections.\n\nFrom what has been said concerning the wisdom of God, we may infer,\n\n1. That none can be said to meditate aright on the works of God, such as\ncreation, providence, or redemption, who do not behold and admire his\nmanifold wisdom displayed therein, as well as his other perfections. As\nwe conclude him a very unskilful observer of a curious picture or\nstatue, who only takes notice of its dimensions in general, or the\nmatter of which it is composed, without considering the symmetry and\nproportion of all the parts thereof, and those other excellencies, by\nwhich the artist has signalized his skill; so it is below a Christian to\nbe able only to say, that there are such works done in the world, or to\nhave a general idea of its being governed by providence, without having\nhis thoughts suitably affected with the harmonious subserviency of\nthings, and the design of all to set forth the glory of him, who is a\nGod of infinite wisdom.\n\n2. If we cannot understand the meaning of some particular dispensations\nof providence, so as to admire the wisdom of God therein, let us compare\nall the parts of providence together, and one will illustrate and add a\nbeauty to another, as our Saviour says to Peter, _What I do thou knowest\nnot now, but thou shalt know hereafter_, John xiii. 7. therefore let us\ncompare the various dark dispensations, which the church of God is under\nat one time, with the glory that shall be put upon it at another.\n\n3. From the displays of the wisdom of God in all his works, let us learn\nhumility, under a sense of our own folly: thus the Psalmist takes\noccasion to express his low thoughts of mankind in general, and says,\n_What is man, that thou art mindful of him?_ when he had been meditating\non the glory of some other parts of his creation, which he calls, _The\nwork of his fingers_, Psal. viii. 3, 4. that is, creatures, in which his\nwisdom is displayed in a very eminent degree. But, besides this, we may\ntake occasion to have a humble sense of our own folly; that is, our\ndefect of wisdom; since it is but a little of God that is known by us,\nand the wonderful effects of divine wisdom are known but in part by us,\nwho dwell in houses of clay.\n\n4. Let us subject our understandings to God, and have a high veneration\nfor his word, in which his wisdom is displayed, which he has ordained,\nas the means whereby we may be made wise unto salvation; and whatever\nincomprehensible mysteries we find contained therein, let us not reject\nor despise them because we cannot comprehend them.\n\n5. Since God is infinite in wisdom, let us seek wisdom of him, according\nto the apostle\u2019s advice, _If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask it of\nGod, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall\nbe given him_, James i. 5.\n\nXII. God is most holy, or infinite in holiness, which is essential to\nhim: thus he is often styled, _The Holy One of Israel_, Isa. i. 4. and\nthis attribute is thrice repeated by the seraphim, who, with the utmost\nreverence and adoration, _cried, one unto another, Holy, holy, holy, is\nthe Lord of hosts_, chap. vi. 3. And he is said to be holy, exclusively\nof all others, as this is a divine perfection, and as he is infinitely\nand independently so, _O Lord, thou only art holy_, Rev. xv. 4. and the\nreason of this is assigned, to wit, because he is the only God; holiness\nis his very nature and essence; _There is none holy as the Lord, for\nthere is none besides him_, 1 Sam. ii. 2. In considering this divine\nperfection, we shall enquire,\n\n1. What we are to understand by it. Holiness is that whereby he is\ninfinitely opposite to every thing that tends to reflect dishonour, or\nreproach, on his divine perfections; and especially as he is infinitely\nopposite in his nature, will, and works, to all moral impurity; as his\npower is opposed to all natural weakness, his wisdom to the least defect\nof understanding or folly, so his holiness is opposed to all moral\nblemishes, or imperfections, which we call sin; so that it is not so\nmuch one single perfection, as the harmony of all his perfections, as\nthey are opposed to sin; and therefore it is called, _The beauty of the\nLord_, Psal. xxvii. 4. and when the Psalmist prays that the church may\nbe made and dealt with as an holy people, he says, _Let the beauty of\nthe Lord our God be upon us_, Psal. xc. 17. It is that which, if we may\nso express it, adds a lustre to all his other perfections; so that if he\nwere not glorious in holiness, whatever else might be said of him, would\ntend rather to his dishonour than his glory, and the beauty of his\nperfections would be so sullied that they could not be called divine: as\nholiness is the brightest part of the image of God in man, without which\nnothing could be mentioned concerning him, but what turns to his\nreproach, his wisdom would deserve no better a name than that of\nsubtilty, his power destructive and injurious, his zeal furious madness;\nso if we separate holiness from the divine nature, all other\nexcellencies would be inglorious, because impure.\n\n2. We proceed to consider the holiness of God, as glorified or\ndemonstrated in various instances.\n\n(1.) In his works. This perfection was as eminently displayed in the\nwork of creation, especially that of angels and men, as his power,\nwisdom, and goodness; for he made them with a perfect rectitude of\nnature, without the least spot or propensity to sin, and with a power to\nretain it; so that there was no natural necessity laid on them to sin,\nwhich might infer God to be the author of it: and furthermore, as a\nmoral expedient to prevent it, as well as to assert his own sovereignty,\nhe gave them a law, which was holy, as well as just and good, and warned\nthem of those dreadful consequences that would ensue on the violation\nthereof; as it would render them unholy, deprive them of his image, and\nconsequently separate them from him, and render them the objects of his\nabhorrence; and, to this we may add, that his end in making all other\nthings was, that his intelligent creatures might actively glorify him,\nand be induced to holiness.\n\n(2.) This divine perfection appears likewise in the government of the\nworld, and of the church, in all the dispensations of his providence,\neither in a way of judgment, or of mercy; therefore he shews his\ndispleasure against nothing but sin, which is the only thing that\nrenders creatures the objects of punishment, and all the blessings he\nbestows are a motive to holiness. As for his people, whom he hath the\ngreatest regard to, they are described, as _called to be saints_, 1 Cor.\ni. 2. and it is said of the church of Israel, that it was _holiness unto\nthe Lord_, Jer. ii. 3. and all his ordinances are holy, and to be\nengaged in with such a frame of spirit, as is agreeable thereunto: thus\nhe says, _I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me_, Lev. x. 3.\nand _holiness becometh his house for ever_, Psal. xciii. 5. In like\nmanner, we are to take an estimate of the success thereof, when, through\nthe divine blessing accompanying them, they tend to promote internal\nholiness in those who are engaged therein, whereby they are\ndistinguished from the rest of the world, and _sanctified by his truth_,\nJohn xvii. 17.\n\n_Object._ It may be objected by some, that God\u2019s suffering sin to enter\ninto the world, which he might have prevented, was a reflection cast on\nhis holiness.\n\n_Answ._ It must be allowed, that God might have prevented the first\nentrance of sin into the world, by his immediate interposure, and so\nhave kept man upright, as well as made him so; yet let it be considered,\nthat he was not obliged to do this; and therefore might, without any\nreflection on his holiness, leave an innocent creature to the conduct of\nhis own free-will, which might be tempted, but not forced, to sin,\nespecially since he designed to over-rule the event hereof, for the\nsetting forth the glory of all his perfections, and, in an eminent\ndegree, that of his holiness; but this will more particularly be\nconsidered under some following answers.[59]\n\nFrom what has been said concerning the holiness of God, let us take\noccasion to behold and admire the beauty and glory thereof, in all the\ndivine dispensations, as he can neither do, nor enjoin any thing but\nwhat sets forth his infinite purity; therefore,\n\n1. As he cannot be the author of sin, so we must take heed that we do\nnot advance any doctrines from whence this consequence may be inferred;\nthis ought to be the standard by which they are to be tried, as we shall\ntake occasion to observe in several instances, and think ourselves as\nmuch concerned to advance the glory of this perfection, as of any other:\nnotwithstanding it is one thing for persons to militate against what\nappears to be a truth, by alleging this popular objection, that it is\ncontrary to the holiness of God, and another thing to support the\ncharge; this will be particularly considered, when such-like objections,\nbrought against the doctrine of predestination, and several other\ndoctrines, are answered in their proper place.\n\n2. It is an excellency, beauty, and glory, in the Christian religion,\nwhich should make us more in love with it, that it leads to holiness,\nwhich was the image of God in man. All other religions have indulged,\nled to, or dispensed with many impurities, as may be observed in those\nof the Mahometans and Pagans; and the different religions, professed by\nthem who are called Christians, are to be judged more or less valuable,\nand accordingly to be embraced or rejected, as they tend more or less to\npromote holiness. And here I cannot but observe, that it is a singular\nexcellency of the Protestant religion above the Popish, that all its\ndoctrines and precepts have a tendency thereunto; whereas the other\nadmits of, dispenses with, and gives countenance to manifold impurities;\nas will appear, if we consider some of the doctrines held by them, which\nlead to licentiousness. As,\n\n(1.) That some sins are, in their own nature, so small, that they do not\ndeserve eternal punishment, and therefore that satisfaction is to be\nmade for them, by undergoing some penances enjoined them by the priest;\nupon which condition, he gives them absolution, and so discharges them\nfrom any farther concern about them; which is certainly subversive of\nholiness, as well as contrary to scripture, which says, _The wages of\nsin is death_, Rom. vi. 23. the word of God knows no distinction between\nmortal and venial sins, especially in the sense which they give thereof.\n\n(2.) The doctrine of indulgences and dispensations to sin, given forth\nat a certain rate. This was a great matter of offence to those who took\noccasion, for it, among other reasons, to separate from them in the\nbeginning of the reformation, whereby they gave glory to the holiness of\nGod, in expressing a just indignation against such vile practices. It is\ntrue the Papists allege, in defence thereof, that it is done in\ncompassion to those, whose natural temper leads them, with impetuous\nviolence, to those sins, which they dispense with; and that this is, in\nsome respects, necessary, in as much as the temptations of some, arising\nfrom their condition in the world, are greater than what others are\nliable to. But none of these things will exempt a person from the guilt\nof sin, much less warrant the practice of those, who hereby encourage\nthem to commit it.\n\n(3.) Another doctrine maintained by them is, that the law of God, as\nconformed to human laws, respects only outward, or overt-acts, as they\nare generally called, and not the heart, or principle, from whence they\nproceed; and therefore that concupiscence, or the corruption of nature,\nwhich is the impure fountain, from whence all sins proceed, comes not\nunder the cognisance of the divine law, nor exposes us to any degree of\npunishment; and that either because they suppose it unavoidable, or else\nbecause every sin is an act, and not a habit, the off-spring, or effect\nof lust, which, when (as they pervert the words of the apostle) _it has\nconceived, brings forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth\nforth death_, James i. 15. whereas the spring of defiled actions is, in\nreality, more corrupt and abominable than the actions themselves, how\nmuch soever actual sins may be supposed to be more scandalous and\npernicious to the world, as they are more visible; if the fruit be\ncorrupt, the tree that brings forth must be much more so; and though\nthis is not so discernible by others, yet it is abhorred and punished by\na jealous God, who searches the heart and the reins; therefore this\ndoctrine is contrary to his holiness.\n\n(4.) The merit of good works, and our justification thereby, is a\nreflection on this divine perfection; as it makes way for boasting, and\nis inconsistent with that humility, which is the main ingredient in\nholiness; and casts the highest reflection on Christ\u2019s satisfaction,\nwhich is the greatest expedient for the setting forth the holiness of\nGod, as it argues it not to have been absolutely necessary, and\nsubstitutes our imperfect works in the room thereof.\n\n(5.) Another doctrine, which is contrary to the holiness of God, is that\nof purgatory, and prayers for the dead, which they are as tenacious of,\nas Demetrius, and his fellow-craftsmen, were of the image of Diana, at\nEphesus, the destruction whereof would endanger their craft, Acts xix.\n25, 27. so, if this doctrine should be disregarded, it would bring no\nsmall detriment to them. But that which renders it most abominable, is,\nthat it extenuates the demerit of sin, and supposes it possible for\nothers to do that for them by their prayers, which they neglected to do\nwhilst they were alive, who, from this presumptuous supposition, did not\nsee an absolute necessity of holiness to salvation. These, and many\nother doctrines, which might have been mentioned, cast the highest\nreflection on the holiness of God, and not only evince the justice and\nnecessity of the reformation, but oblige, us to maintain the contrary\ndoctrines.\n\nIf it be objected, by way of reprisal, that there are many doctrines,\nwhich we maintain, that lead to licentiousness, I hope we shall be able\nto exculpate ourselves; but this we reserve for its proper place, that\nwe may avoid the repetition of things, which we shall be obliged to\ninsist on elsewhere.\n\n3. Let us not practically deny, or cast contempt on this divine\nperfection; which we may be said to do.\n\n(1.) When we live without God in the world, as though we were under no\nobligation to holiness. The purity of the divine nature is proposed in\nscripture, not only as a motive, but, so far as conformity to it is\npossible, as an exemplar of holiness: and therefore we are exhorted to\nbe holy, not only _because he is holy_, but _as he is holy_, 1 Pet. i.\n15, 16. or so far as the image of God in man consists therein; therefore\nthey who live without God in the world, being _alienated from his life_,\n_viz._ _his holiness, and giving themselves over unto lasciviousness, to\nwork all uncleanness with greediness_, regard not the holiness of his\nnature or law. These sin presumptuously, and accordingly, are said to\n_reproach the Lord_, Numb. xv. 30. as though he was a God that had\npleasure in wickedness; or if they conclude him to be infinitely\noffended with it, they regard not the consequence of being the objects\nof his displeasure, and fiery indignation.\n\n(2.) Men reflect on the holiness of God when they complain of religion,\nas though it were too strict and severe a thing; a yoke that sits very\nuneasy upon them, which they resolve to keep at the greatest distance\nfrom, especially unless they may have some abatements made, or\nindulgence given, to live in the commission of some beloved lusts. These\ncannot bear a faithful reprover: thus Ahab hated Micaiah, _because he\ndid not prophesy good concerning him, but evil_; and the people did not\nlike to hear of the holiness of God; therefore they desire that the\nprophets would _cause the Holy One of Israel to cease before them_, Isa.\nxxx. 11. and to this we may add,\n\n(3.) They do, in effect, deny or despise this attribute, who entertain\nan enmity or prejudice against holiness in others, whose conversation is\nnot only blameless, but exemplary; such make use of the word saint, as a\nterm of reproach, as though holiness were not only a worthless thing,\nbut a blemish or disparagement to the nature of man, a stain on his\ncharacter, and to be avoided by all who have any regard to their\nreputation, or, at least as though religion were no other than\nhypocrisy, and much more so, when it shines brightest in the\nconversation of those who esteem it their greatest ornament. What is\nthis, but to spurn at the holiness of God, by endeavouring to bring that\ninto contempt, which is his image and delight?\n\nXIII. God is most just. This attribute differs but little from that of\nholiness, though sometimes they are thus distinguished; as holiness is\nthe contrariety, or opposition of his nature to sin, justice is an\neternal and visible display thereof; and, in particular, when God is\nsaid to be just, he is considered as the governor of the world; and\ntherefore when he appears in the glory of his justice, he bears the\ncharacter of a judge; accordingly it is said concerning him, _Shall not\nthe Judge of all the earth do right?_ Gen. xviii. 25. and he is said,\n_without respect of persons, to judge according to every man\u2019s work_, 1\nPet. i. 17. Now the justice of God is sometimes taken for his\nfaithfulness, which is a doing justice to his word; but this will be\nmore particularly considered, when we speak of him as abundant in truth.\nBut, according to the most common and known sense of the word, it is\ntaken either for his disposing, or his distributive justice; the former\nis that whereby his holiness shines forth in all the dispensations of\nhis providence, as all his ways are equal, of what kind soever they be;\nthe latter, to wit, his distributive justice, consists either in\nrewarding or punishing, and so is styled either remunerative or\nvindictive; in these two respects, we shall more particularly consider\nthis attribute.\n\n1. The justice of God, as giving rewards to his creatures; this he may\nbe said to do, without supposing the persons, who are the subjects\nthereof, to have done any thing by which they have merited them: we\noften find, in scripture, that the heavenly glory is set forth as a\nreward, Mat. x. 41, 42. and 1 Cor. iii. 14. and it is called, _a crown\nof righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give at\nthat day_, 2 Tim. iv. 8. to wit, when he appears, in the glory of his\njustice, to judge the world in righteousness; and it is also said, that\nit is _a righteous thing with God to recompense to his people who are\ntroubled, rest, when the Lord shall be revealed from heaven_, 2 Thess.\ni. 6. 7. But, for the understanding such like expressions, I humbly\nconceive, that they import the necessary and inseparable connexion that\nthere is between grace wrought in us, and glory conferred upon us: it is\ncalled, indeed, a reward, or a crown of righteousness, to encourage us\nto duty; but, without supposing that, what we do has any thing\nmeritorious in it. If we ourselves are less than the least of all God\u2019s\nmercies, then the best actions put forth by us must be so, for the\naction cannot have more honour ascribed to it than the agent; or if, as\nour Saviour says, when _we have done all, we must say, we are\nunprofitable servants_, Luke xvii. 10. and that sincerely, and not in a\nway of compliment, as some Popish writers understand it, consistently\nwith their doctrine of the merit of good works, we must conclude that it\nis a reward not of debt, but of grace; and therefore the word is taken\nin a less proper sense. It is not a bestowing a blessing purchased by\nus, but for us; Christ is the purchaser, we are the receivers; it is\nstrictly and properly the reward of his merit, but, in its application,\nthe gift of his grace.\n\n2. There is his vindictive justice, whereby he punishes sin, as an\ninjury offered to his divine perfections, an affront to his sovereignty,\na reflection on his holiness, and a violation of his law, for which he\ndemands satisfaction, and inflicts punishment, proportioned to the\nnature of the crime, which he continues to do, till satisfaction be\ngiven: this is called, _his visiting iniquity_, Deut. v. 9. or _visiting\nfor it_, Jer. v. 9. and it is also called, his _setting his face\nagainst_ a person, and _cutting him off from amongst his people_, Lev.\nxvii. 10. and when he does this, his wrath is compared to flames of\nfire; it is called, _The fire of his jealousy_, Zeph. i. 18. and they,\nwho are the objects hereof, are said to _fall into the hands of the\nliving God_, who is a _consuming fire_, Heb. x. 31. compared with chap.\nxii. 29.\n\nBut that we may farther consider how God glorifies this perfection, and\nthereby shews his infinite hatred of sin, we may observe,\n\n(1.) An eminent instance thereof in his inflicting that punishment that\nwas due to our sins, on the person of Christ our Surety. It was, indeed,\nthe highest act of condescending grace that he was willing to be charged\nwith, or to have the iniquity of his people laid upon him; but it was\nthe greatest display of vindictive justice, that he was accordingly\npunished for it, as _he is said to be made sin for us, who knew no sin_,\n2 Cor. v. 21. and accordingly God gives a commission to the sword of his\njustice, to awake and exert itself, in an uncommon manner, against him,\n_the man his fellow_, Zech. xiii. 7. In this instance, satisfaction is\nnot only demanded, but fully given, in which it differs from all the\nother displays of vindictive justice; but of this, more will be\nconsidered under some following answers.[60]\n\n(2.) The vindictive justice of God punishes sin in the persons of\nfinally impenitent sinners in hell, where a demand of satisfaction is\nperpetually made, but can never be given, which is the reason of the\neternity of the punishment inflicted, which is called, _everlasting\ndestruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his\npower_, 2 Thes. i. 9. this we shall also have occasion to insist on more\nlargely, under a following an answer.[61]\n\nIn these two instances, punishment is taken in a strict and proper\nsense: but there is, indeed, another sense, in which many evils are\ninflicted for sins committed, which, though frequently called\npunishments, yet the word is taken in a less proper sense, to wit, when\nbelievers, who are justified upon the account of the satisfaction which\nChrist has given for their sins, are said to be punished for them; as\nwhen it is said, _Thou, our God, hast punished us less than our\niniquities deserve_, Ezra ix. 13. and _if his children forsake my law,\nand keep not my commandments, then will I visit their transgression with\nthe rod, and their iniquity with stripes; nevertheless, my loving\nkindness will I not utterly take from him_, Psal. lxxxix. 30-31. and the\nprophet, speaking of some, for whom God would execute judgment, and be\nfavourable to them in the end, so that they should behold his\nrighteousness; yet he represents them, as _bearing the indignation of\nthe Lord, because they had sinned against him_, Micah vii. 9. And, as\nthese evils are exceedingly afflictive, being oftentimes attended with a\nsad apprehension and fear of the wrath of God; so they are called\npunishments, because sin is the cause of them: yet they differ from\npunishment in its most proper sense, as but now mentioned, in that,\nthough justice inflicts evils on them for sin, yet it doth not herein\ndemand satisfaction, for that is supposed to have been given, inasmuch\nas they are considered as justified; and, to speak with reverence, it is\nnot agreeable to the nature of justice to demand satisfaction twice.\nNevertheless, it is one thing for God really to demand it, and another\nthing for believers to apprehend or conclude that such a demand is made;\nthis they may often do, as questioning whether they are believers, or in\na justified state: however, God\u2019s design, in these afflictive\ndispensations, is to humble them greatly, and shew them the demerit of\nsin, whatever he determines shall be the consequence thereof.\n\nMoreover, the persons, who are the subjects of this punishment, are\nconsidered not as enemies, but as children, and therefore the objects of\nhis love, at the same time that his hand is heavy upon them; for which\nreason some have called them castigatory punishments, agreeably to what\nthe apostle saith, _Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth_; and that herein\n_he dealeth with them as with sons_, Heb. xii. 6, 7.\n\nFrom what has been said, concerning the justice of God in rewarding or\npunishing, we may infer,\n\n1. Since the heavenly blessedness is called a reward, to denote its\nconnexion with grace and duty, let no one presumptuously expect one\nwithout the other: the crown is not to be put upon the head of any one,\nbut him that runs the Christian race; and it is a certain truth, that\n_without holiness no man shall see the Lord_, chap. xii. 14.\n\nAnd, on the other hand, as this is a reward of grace, founded on\nChrist\u2019s purchase, let us take heed that we do not ascribe that to our\nperformances, which is wholly founded on Christ\u2019s merit. Let every thing\nthat may be reckoned a spur to diligence, in the idea of a reward, be\napprehended and improved by us, to quicken and excite us to duty; but\nwhatever there is of praise and glory therein, let that be ascribed to\nChrist; so that when we consider the heavenly blessedness in this view,\nlet us say, as the angels, together with that blessed company who are\njoined with them, are represented, speaking, _Worthy is the Lamb that\nwas slain, to receive power, riches, wisdom, and strength, and honour,\nand glory, and blessing_, Rev. v. 12. It is the price that he paid which\ngives it the character of a reward and therefore the glory of it is to\nbe ascribed to him.\n\n2. From what has been said concerning the vindictive justice of God\ninflicting punishments on his enemies, let us learn the evil and heinous\nnature of sin, and so take warning thereby, that we may not expose\nourselves to the same or like judgments. How deplorable is the condition\nof those, who have contracted a debt for which they can never satisfy!\nwho are said, _to drink of the wrath of the Almighty, which is poured\nout, without mixture, into the cup of his indignation_, Job xxi. 20.\ncompared with Rev. xiv. 10. This should induce us to fly from the wrath\nto come, and to make a right improvement of the price of redemption\nwhich was given by Christ, to deliver his people from it.\n\n3. Believers, who are delivered from the vindictive justice of God, have\nthe highest reason for thankfulness; and it is a very great\nencouragement to them, under all the afflictive evils, which they\nendure, that the most bitter ingredients are taken out of them. It is\ntrue, they are not in themselves _joyous, but grievous; nevertheless,\nafterwards they yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness to them, who\nare exercised thereby_, Heb. xii. 11. and let us not presume without\nground, but give diligence, that we may conclude that these are the\ndispensations of a reconciled Father, who _corrects with judgment not in\nanger, lest he should bring us to nothing_, Jer. x. 24. It will afford\ngreat matter of comfort, if we can say, that he is, at the same time, _a\njust God, and a Saviour_, Isa. xlv. 21. and, as one observes, though he\npunishes for sin, yet it is not with the punishment of sin.\n\nXIV. God is most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in\ngoodness, all which perfections are mentioned together in Exod. xxxiv.\n7. and we shall first consider his goodness, which, in some respects,\nincludes the other, though in others it is distinguished from them, as\nwill be more particularly observed. This being one of his communicable\nperfections, we may conceive of it, by comparing it with that goodness\nwhich is in the creature, while we separate from it all the\nimperfections thereof, by which means we may arrive to some idea of it.\n\nTherefore persons are denominated good, as having all those perfections\nthat belong to their nature, which is the most large and extensive sense\nof goodness; or else it is taken in a moral sense, and so it consists in\nthe rectitude of their nature, as we call a holy man a good man; or\nlastly, it is taken for one who is beneficent, or communicatively good,\nand so it is the same with benignity. Now to apply this to the goodness\nof God, it either includes in it all his perfections, or his holiness in\nparticular, or else his being disposed to impart or communicate those\nblessings to his creatures, that they stand in need of, in which sense\nwe are here to understand it as distinguished from his other\nperfections.\n\nThis goodness of God supposes that he has, in himself, an infinite and\ninexhaustible treasure of all blessedness, enough to fill all things,\nand to make his creatures completely happy. This he had from all\neternity, before there was any object in which it might be displayed, or\nany act of power put forth to produce one. It is this the Psalmist\nintends, when he says, Psal. cxix. 68. _Thou art good_, and when he\nadds, _thou doest good_; as the former implies his being good in\nhimself, the latter denotes his being so to his creatures.\n\nBefore we treat of this perfection in particular, we shall observe the\ndifference that there is between goodness, mercy, grace, and patience,\nwhich, though they all are included in the divine benignity, and imply\nin them the communication of some favours that tend to the creatures\nadvantage, as well as the glory of God, yet they may be distinguished\nwith respect to the objects thereof: thus goodness considers its object,\nas indigent and destitute of all things, and so it communicates those\nblessings that it stands in need of. Mercy considers its object as\nmiserable, therefore, though an innocent creature be the object of the\ndivine bounty and goodness, it is only a fallen, miserable, and undone\ncreature, that is an object of compassion. And grace is mercy displayed\nfreely, therefore its object is considered not only as miserable, but\nunworthy; however, though the sinner\u2019s misery, and worthiness of pity,\nmay be distinguished, these two ideas cannot be separated, inasmuch as\nthat which renders him miserable, denominates him at the same time\nguilty, since misery is inseparably connected with guilt, and no one is\nmiserable as a creature, but as a sinner; therefore we are considered as\nunworthy of mercy, and so the objects of divine grace, which is mercy\nextended freely, to those who have rendered themselves unworthy of it.\nAnd patience, or long-suffering, is the suspending deserved fury, or the\ncontinuing to bestow undeserved favours, a lengthening out of our\ntranquillity; these attributes are to be considered in particular. And,\n\n1. Of the goodness of God. As God was infinite in power from all\neternity, before there was any display thereof, or act of omnipotency\nput forth; he was eternally good, before there was any communication of\nhis bounty, or any creature, to which it might be imparted; so that the\nfirst display of this perfection was in giving being to all things,\nwhich were the objects of his bounty and goodness, as well as the\neffects of his power; and all the excellencies, or advantages, which one\ncreature hath above another, are as so many streams flowing from this\nfountain, _He giveth to all, life and breath, and all things_, Acts\nxvii. 25.[62]\n\n2. The mercy of God, which considers its object as miserable, is\nillustrated by all those distressing circumstances, that render sinners\nthe objects of compassion. Are all, by nature, bond-slaves to sin and\nSatan? It is mercy that sets them free, _delivers them, who, through\nfear of death, were all their life-time subject to bondage_, Heb. ii.\n15. Are we all, by nature, dead in sin, unable to do what is spiritually\ngood, alienated from the life of God? Was our condition miserable, as\nbeing without God in the world, and without hope: like the poor infant,\nmentioned by the prophet, _cast out in the open field, to the loathing\nof our persons, whom no eye pitied?_ it was mercy that _said to us,\nlive_, Ezek. xvi. 4, 5, 6. accordingly God is said _to have remembered\nus in our low estate, for his mercy endureth for ever_, Psal. cxxxvi.\n23.\n\nThe mercy of God is either common or special; common mercy gives all the\noutward conveniencies of this life, which are bestowed without\ndistinction; as _he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and\nsendeth rain on the just and on the unjust_, Matth. v. 45. so it is\nsaid, _his tender mercies are over all his works_, Psal. cxlv. 9. but\nhis special mercy is that which he bestows on, or has reserved for the\nheirs of salvation, which he communicates to them in a covenant way, in\nand through a Mediator; so the apostle speaks of _God, as the Father of\nour Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all\ncomfort_, 2 Cor. i. 3.\n\n3. As God is said to be merciful, or to extend compassion to the\nmiserable, so he doth this freely, and accordingly is said to be\ngracious; and as grace is free, so it is sovereign, and bestowed in a\ndiscriminating way; that is given to one which he denies to another, and\nonly because it is his pleasure: thus says one of Christ\u2019s disciples,\n_Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto\nthe world?_ John xiv. 22. And our Saviour himself glorifies God for the\ndisplay of his grace, in such a way, when he says, _I thank thee, O\nFather, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things\nfrom the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes_; and\nconsiders this as the result of his sovereign will, when he adds, _even\nso Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight_, Matth. xi. 25, 26. Now\nthe discriminating grace of God appears in several instances; as,\n\n(1.) In that he should extend salvation to men, rather than to fallen\nangels; so our Saviour _took not on him the nature of angels, but the\nseed of Abraham_, because he designed to save the one, and to reserve\nthe other, _in chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great\nday_, Heb. ii. 16. compared with Jude ver. 6. And among men, only some\nare made partakers of this invaluable blessing, which all were equally\nunworthy of; and their number is comparatively very small, therefore\nthey are called a _little flock_, and _the gate_, through which they\nenter, _is strait_, and _the way narrow that leads to life, and few\nthere be that find it_, Luke xii. 32. compared with Matth. vii. 13, 14.\nAnd there are many who make a considerable figure in the world, for\nriches, honours, great natural abilities, bestowed by common providence,\nthat are destitute of special grace, while others, who are poor, and\ndespised in the world, are called, and saved; the apostle observed it to\nbe so in his day, when he says, _not many mighty, not many noble, are\ncalled; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound\nthe wise, and the weak things of the world to confound the things that\nare mighty, and base things of the world, and things which are despised\nhath God chosen, yea, things that are not, to bring to nought things\nthat are_, 1 Cor. i. 26, 27, 28.\n\n(2.) In several things relating to the internal means, whereby he fits\nand disposes men for salvation: thus the work of conversion is an\neminent instance of discriminating grace, for herein he breaks through,\nand overcomes, that reluctancy and opposition, which corrupt nature\nmakes against it; subdues the enmity and rebellion that was in the heart\nof man, works a powerful change in the will, whereby he subjects it to\nhimself, which work is contrary to the natural biass and inclination\nthereof; and that which renders this grace more illustrious, is, that\nmany of those who are thus converted, were, before this, notorious\nsinners; some have been _blasphemers, persecutors, and injurious_, as\nthe apostle says concerning himself before his conversion, and concludes\nhimself to have been _the chief of sinners_; and tells us, how he _shut\nup many of the saints in prison_, and, when they were put to death, _he\ngave his voice against them; punished them often in every synagogue, and\ncompelled them to blaspheme, and, being exceedingly against them,\npersecuted them unto strange cities_, 1 Tim. i. 13, 15. compared with\nActs xxvi. 10, 11. But you will say, he was, in other respects, a moral\nman; therefore he gives an instance elsewhere of some who were far\notherwise, whom he puts in mind of their having been _fornicators,\nidolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind,\nthieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners; such_, says he,\n_were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are\njustified_. Moreover, the change wrought in the soul is unasked for, and\nso it may truly be said, God is found of them that sought him not; and\nundesired; for though unregenerate sinners desire to be delivered from\nmisery, they are far from desiring to be delivered from sin, or to have\nrepentance, faith, and holiness: if they pray for these blessings, it is\nin such a manner, that the Spirit of God hardly calls it prayer; for the\nSpirit of grace, and of supplications, by which alone we are enabled to\npray in a right manner, is what accompanies or flows from conversion; if\ntherefore God bestows this privilege on persons so unworthy of it, and\nso averse to it, it must certainly be an instance of sovereign and\ndiscriminating grace.\n\n(3.) This will farther appear, if we consider how much they, who are the\nobjects thereof, differ from what they were; or if we compare their\npresent, with their former state. Once they were blind and ignorant of\nthe ways of God, and going astray in crooked paths; the apostle speaks\nof this in the abstract, _Ye were sometimes darkness_, Eph. v. 8. and\nthat _the god of this world, had blinded the minds of some, lest the\nlight of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them_, 2 Cor.\niv. 4. but now they are made _light in the Lord_, and brought into the\nway of truth and peace. Their hearts were once impenitent, unrelenting,\nand inclined to sin, without remorse, or self-reflection; nothing could\nmake an impression on them, as being _past feeling, and giving\nthemselves over to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with\ngreediness_, Eph. iv. 19. but now they are penitent, humble, relenting,\nand broken under a sense of sin, afraid of every thing that may be an\noccasion thereof, willing to be reproved for it, and desirous to be set\nat a greater distance from it. Once they were destitute of hope, or\nsolid peace of conscience; but now they have hope and joy in believing,\nand are delivered from that bondage, which they were, before this,\nexposed to; such a happy turn is given to the frame of their spirits:\nand as to the external and relative change which is made in their state,\nthere is no condemnation to them, as justified persons; and therefore\nthey who, before this, were in the utmost distress, expecting nothing\nbut hell and destruction, are enabled to lift up their heads with joy,\nexperiencing the blessed fruits and effects of this grace in their own\nsouls.\n\n(4.) The discriminating grace of God farther appears, in that he bestows\nthese saving blessings on his people, at such seasons, when they appear\nmost suitable, and adapted to their condition; as he is a very present\nhelp in a time of trouble, when their straits and difficulties are\ngreatest, then is his time to send relief; when sinners sometimes have\nwearied themselves in the greatness of their way, while seeking rest and\nhappiness in other things below himself, and have met with nothing but\ndisappointment therein; when they are brought to the utmost extremity,\nthen he appears in their behalf. And so with respect to believers, when\ntheir comforts are at the lowest ebb, their hope almost degenerated into\ndespair, their temptations most prevalent and afflicting, and they ready\nto sink under the weight that lies on their spirits, when, as the\nPsalmist says, their _hearts are overwhelmed within them; then he leads\nthem to the rock that is higher than they_, Psal. lxi. 2. when they are\neven _desolate and afflicted, and the troubles of their hearts are\nenlarged, then he brings them out of their distresses_, Psal. xxv. 16,\n17.\n\nThus the grace of God eminently appears, in what he bestows on his\npeople; but if we look forward, and consider what he has prepared for\nthem, or the hope that is laid up in heaven, then we may behold the most\namazing displays of grace, in which they who shall be the happy objects\nthereof, will be a wonder to themselves, and will see more of the glory\nof it than can be now expressed in words; as the Psalmist says, in a way\nof admiration, _Oh, how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up\nfor them that fear thee; which thou hast wrought for them that trust in\nthee before the sons of men!_ Psal. xxx. 19.\n\n_Object._ 1. If it be objected, that the afflictions, which God\u2019s people\nare exposed to in this life, are inconsistent with the glory of his\ngrace and mercy.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that afflictive providences are so\nfar from being inconsistent with the glory of these perfections, that\nthey tend to illustrate them the more. For since sin has rendered\nafflictions needful, as an expedient, to humble us for it, and also to\nprevent it for the future, so God designs our advantage thereby; and\nhowever grievous they are, yet since they are so over-ruled by him, as\nthe apostle says, that they _yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness\nunto them, who are exercised thereby_, Heb. xii. 11. they are far from\nbeing inconsistent with the mercy and grace of God.\n\nAnd this will farther appear, if we consider that these outward\nafflictions are often attended with inward supports, and spiritual\ncomforts; so that, as the apostle says concerning himself, _as the\nsufferings of Christ abound in them, their consolations abound by him_,\n2 Cor. i. 5. or _as the outward man perishes, the inward man is renewed\nday by day_, chap. iv. 16. it was nothing but this could make him say,\n_I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in\npersecutions, in distresses for Christ\u2019s sake, for when I am weak, then\nam I strong_, chap. xii. 10.\n\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected, that the doctrine of free grace\nleads men to licentiousness; and therefore that what we have said\nconcerning it, is either not true and warrantable, or, at least, should\nnot be much insisted on, for fear this consequence should ensue.\n\n_Answ._ The grace of God doth not lead to licentiousness, though it be\noften abused, and presumptuous sinners take occasion from thence to go\non, as they apprehend, securely therein, because God is merciful and\ngracious, and ready to forgive, which vile and disingenuous temper the\napostle observed in some that lived in his days, and expresses himself\nwith the greatest abhorrence thereof, _Shall we continue in sin, that\ngrace may abound? God forbid_, Rom. vi. 1, 2. But does it follow, that\nbecause it is abused by some, as an occasion of licentiousness, through\nthe corruption of their natures, that therefore it leads to it? The\ngreatest blessings may be the occasion of the greatest evils; but yet\nthey do not lead to them. That which leads to licentiousness, must have\nsome motive or inducement in it, which will warrant an ingenuous mind,\nacting according to the rules of equity and justice, to take those\nliberties; but this nothing can do, much less the grace of God. His\ngreat clemency, indeed, may sometimes give occasion to those who hate\nhim, and have ingratitude and rebellion rooted in their nature, to take\nup arms against him; and an act of grace may be abused, so as to make\nthe worst of criminals more bold in their wickedness, who presume that\nthey may commit it with impunity: but this is not the natural tendency,\nor genuine effect thereof; nor will it be thus abused by any, but those\nwho are abandoned to every thing that is vile and ungrateful. As the law\nof God prohibits all sin, and his holiness is opposite to it, so his\ngrace affords the strongest motive to holiness; it is therefore the\nneglect or contempt of this grace, and a corrupt disposition to act\ncontrary to the design thereof, that leads to licentiousness. Grace and\nduty are inseparably connected, so that where God bestows the one, he\nexpects the other; yea, duty, which is our act, is God\u2019s gift, as the\npower to perform it is from him: thus when he promises to give his\npeople _a new heart, and put his Spirit within them, and cause them to\nwalk in his statutes_, he tells them, that they should _remember their\nevil ways and doings, and loathe themselves in their own sight for their\niniquities_; which is not only a prediction, respecting the event, but a\npromise of what he would incline them to do; and when he adds, that _for\nthis he would be enquired of by them_, Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27, 31, 37. or\nthat they should seek them by fervent prayer, he secures to them, by\npromise, a disposition and grace to perform this great duty, which is\ninseparably connected with expected blessings. God himself therefore\nwill take care that, however others abuse his grace, it shall not lead\nthose who are in a distinguishing way, the objects thereof, to\nlicentiousness.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that it is a disparagement to this divine\nperfection to say, that, because some take occasion from it to continue\nin sin, therefore its glory is to be, as it were, concealed, and not\npublished to the world. As some of old did not care to hear of the\nholiness of God, and therefore, if the prophets would render their\ndoctrine acceptable to them, they must not insist on that perfection,\nbut _cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before them_, Isa. xxx.\n11. so there are many who are as little desirous to hear of the free and\ndiscriminating grace of God, which contains the very sum and substance\nof the gospel, lest it should be abused, whereas the glory thereof\ncannot be enough admired; and therefore it ought often to be\nrecommended, as what leads to holiness, and lies at the very root of all\nreligion.\n\nAnd that it may be so improved, let it be farther considered, that it is\nthe greatest inducement to humility, as well as one of the greatest\nornaments and evidences of a true Christian. This appears from the\nnature of the thing, for grace supposes its object unworthy, as has been\nbut now observed; and it argues him a debtor to God for all that he\nenjoys or expects, which, if it be duly considered, will make him appear\nvile and worthless in his own eyes, and excite in him a degree of\nthankfulness in proportion to the ground he has to claim an interest\ntherein, and the extensiveness of the blessed fruits and effects\nthereof.\n\n4. We proceed to speak of God as long-suffering, or as he is styled by\nthe apostle, _The God of patience_, Rom. xv. 5. sometimes this attribute\nis set forth in a metaphorical way, and called a _restraining his\nwrath_, Psal. lxxvi. 10. and a _refraining himself_, and _holding his\npeace_, or _keeping silence_, Isa. xlii. 14. and Psal. l. 21. and, while\nhe does this, he is represented, speaking after the manner of men, as\none that is _weary with forbearing_, Isa. i. 13. chap. vii. 13. Mal. ii.\n17. and he is said to be pressed, under a provoking people, _as a cart\nis pressed that is full of sheaves_, Amos ii. 13. By all which\nexpressions, this perfection is set forth in a familiar style, according\nto our common way of speaking: but that we may briefly explain the\nnature thereof, let us consider, in general; that it is a branch of his\ngoodness and mercy, manifested in suspending the exercise of his\nvindictive justice, and in his not punishing in such a degree as sin\ndeserves. But that we may consider this more particularly, we shall\nobserve something concerning the objects thereof, and the various\ninstances in which it is displayed; how it is glorified; and how the\nglory thereof is consistent with that of vindictive justice; and lastly,\nhow it is to be improved by us.\n\n(1.) Concerning the objects of God\u2019s patience. Since it is the deferring\nof deserved wrath, it follows from hence, that an innocent creature\ncannot be the object of it, inasmuch as vindictive justice makes no\ndemand upon him; nor has it any reserves of punishment laid up in store\nfor him; such an one is, indeed the object of goodness, but not of\nforbearance; for punishment cannot be said to be deferred where it is\nnot due: and, on the other hand, they cannot be said to be the objects\nthereof, in whom the vindictive justice of God is displayed to the\nutmost, when all the vials of his wrath are poured forth. Whether the\ndevils are, in some sense, the objects of God\u2019s forbearance, as having\nground to expect a greater degree of punishment after the final\njudgment, is disputed by some, who contend about the sense of the word\n_forbearance_; they are said, indeed, _to be reserved in chains, under\ndarkness, unto the judgment of the great day_, Jude, ver. 6. that is,\nthough their state be hopeless, and their misery great, beyond\nexpression, yet there is a greater degree of punishment, which they\nbring upon themselves, by all the hostilities they commit against God in\nthis world: this farther appears, from what they are represented, as\nsaying to our Saviour, _Art thou come to torment us before the time?_\nMatth. viii. 29.[63] By which it is sufficiently evident that their\nmisery shall be greater than now it is. However, this less degree of\npunishment, inflicted on them, is never called in scripture, an instance\nof God\u2019s patience, or long-suffering, towards them; therefore we must\nconclude that they are not, properly speaking, the objects of the glory\nof this attribute. Patience then is only extended to sinful men, while\nin this world: for it is called, in scripture, _The riches of his\ngoodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering_, Rom. ii. 4. and it is\nsaid to _lead_ those, who are the objects of it, _to repentance_;\ntherefore there must be, together with the exercise of this perfection,\na day or season of grace granted, which is called, in scripture, with a\npeculiar emphasis, the sinner\u2019s _day, or the time of his visitation_, in\nwhich it ought to be his highest concern _to know the things of his\npeace_, Luke xix. 42, 44. and the gospel that is preached, in this\nseason of God\u2019s forbearance, is called, _The word of his patience_, Rev.\niii. 10. so that there is something more in this attribute than barely a\ndeferring of punishment. Accordingly God is said, to _wait that he may\nbe gracious_, Isa. xxx. 18. and the effects and consequences thereof are\nvarious, (as may be said of all the other means of grace) so that\nsinners, who neglect to improve it, have not only thereby a reprieve\nfrom deserved punishment, but all those advantages of common grace,\nwhich attend it: but, with respect to believers, it may be said, as the\napostle expresses it, _The long-suffering of our Lord is salvation_, 2\nPet. iii. 15. It is evidently so to them, and therefore God doth not\nspare them, that he may take a more fit opportunity to punish them; but\nhe waits till the set time to favour them is come, that he may extend\nsalvation to them; and, in this respect more especially, the exercise of\nthis perfection is founded in the death of Christ. And inasmuch as the\nelect, who are purchased thereby, were, by the divine appointment, to\nlive throughout all the ages of time, and to have the saving effects of\nhis redemption applied to them, one after another, it was necessary that\nthe patience of God should be so long continued, which is therefore\nglorified more immediately with respect to them, as the result thereof;\nand, in subserviency thereunto, it is extended to all the world.\n\n(2.) The patience of God has been displayed in various instances.\n\n_1st_, It was owing hereto that God did not immediately destroy our\nfirst parents as soon as they fell; he might then, without the least\nimpeachment of his justice, have banished them for ever from his\npresence, and left their whole posterity destitute of the means of\ngrace, and have punished them all in proportion to the guilt contracted;\ntherefore that the world is continued to this day, is a very great\ninstance of God\u2019s long-suffering.\n\n_2dly_, When mankind was universally degenerate, and all flesh had\ncorrupted their way, before the flood, and God determined to destroy\nthem, yet he would not do this, till his patience had spared them, after\nhe had given an intimation of this desolating judgment, an hundred and\ntwenty years before it came, Gen. vi. 2, 3. and Noah was, during this\ntime, a preacher of righteousness, while the long-suffering of God is\nsaid to have waited on them, 2 Pet. ii. 5. compared with 1 Pet. iii. 20.\n\n_3dly_, The Gentiles, who not only worshipped and served the creature\nmore than the Creator, but committed other vile abominations, contrary\nto the dictates of nature, and thereby filled up the measure of their\niniquity, are, notwithstanding, said to be the objects of God\u2019s\npatience, though in a lower sense, than that in which believers are said\nto be so; accordingly the apostle observes, _that in times past, God\nsuffered all nations to walk in their own ways_, that is, God did not\ndraw forth his sword out of its sheath, by which metaphor the prophet\nsets forth the patience of God; he did not stir up all his wrath, _but\ngave them rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts\nwith food and gladness_, Acts xiv. 16, 17. Ezek. xxi. 3.\n\n_4thly_, The church of the Jews, before the coming of Christ, had long\nexperience of the forbearance of God. It is said, that _he suffered\ntheir manners forty years in the wilderness_, Acts xiii. 18. and\nafterwards, when they often revolted to idolatry, following the customs\nof the nations round about them, yet he did not utterly destroy them,\nbut, in their distress, raised them up deliverers; and when their\niniquity was grown to such a height that none but a God of infinite\npatience, could have borne with them, he, notwithstanding, spared them\nmany years before he suffered them to be carried away captive into\nBabylon; and afterwards, when their rebellion against him was arrived to\nthe highest pitch, when they had crucified the Lord of glory, yet he\nspared them some time, till the gospel was first preached to them, and\nthey had rejected it, and thereby _judged themselves unworthy of eternal\nlife_, Acts xiii. 46.\n\n_5thly_, After this, the patience of God was extended to those who\nendeavoured to pervert the gospel of Christ, namely, to false teachers\nand backsliding churches, to whom he gave _space to repent, but repented\nnot_, Rev. ii. 21. And to this we may add, that he has not yet poured\nforth the vials of his wrath on the Antichristian powers, though he has\nthreatened, that _their plagues shall come in one day_, chap. xviii. 1.\n\n(3.) We are next to consider the method which God takes in glorifying\nthis attribute. We have already observed that, with respect to\nbelievers, the patience of God is glorified in subserviency to their\nsalvation; but, with respect to others, by whom it is abused, the\npatience of God discovers itself,\n\n_1st_, In giving them warning of his judgments before he sends them. _He\nspeaketh once, yea twice, but man perceiveth it not_, that he may\n_withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man_, Job xxxiii.\n14, 17. and, indeed, all the prophets were sent to the church of the\nJews, not only to instruct them, but to warn them of approaching\njudgments, and they were faithful in the delivery of their message. In\nwhat moving terms doth the prophet Jeremiah lament the miseries, which\nwere ready to befal them! And with what zeal doth he endeavour, in the\nwhole course of his ministry, to bring them to repentance, that so the\nstorm might blow over, or, if not, that their ruin might not come upon\nthem altogether unexpected!\n\n_2dly_, When the divine warnings are not regarded, but wrath must be\npoured forth on an obstinate and impenitent people, this is done by\ndegrees. God first sends lesser judgments before greater, or inflicts\nhis plagues, as he did upon Egypt, one after another, not all at once;\nand so he did upon Israel of old, as the prophet Joel observes, _first\nthe palmer-worm, then the locust; after that, the canker-worm, and then\nthe caterpillar, devoured the fruits of the earth, one after another_,\nJoel i. 4. So the prophet Amos observes, that God first sent a famine\namong them, which he calls _cleanness of teeth in all their cities_, and\nafterwards _some of them were overthrown, as God overthrew Sodom and\nGomorrah_, Amos iv. 8, 18. Some think, that the gradual approach of\ndivine judgments is intended by what the prophet Hosea says, when the\njudgments of God are compared to the light that goeth forth, Hos. vi. 5.\nwhich implies more than is generally understood by it, as though the\njudgments of God should be rendered visible, as the light of the sun is;\nwhereas the prophet seems hereby to intimate, that the judgments of God\nshould proceed, like the light of the morning, that still increases unto\na perfect day. And it is more than probable that this is intended by the\nsame prophet, when he represents God as speaking concerning Ephraim,\nthat he would be to them as a moth, which doth not consume the garment\nall at once, as when it is cast into the fire, but frets it by degrees,\nor like rottenness, which is of a spreading nature, chap. v. 12. Thus\nthe judgments of God are poured forth by degrees, that, at the same\ntime, there may be comparatively, at least, a display of divine\npatience.\n\n_3dly_, When God sends his judgments abroad in the world, he often\nmoderates them; none are proportionate to the demerit of sin; as it is\nsaid of him, that being full of compassion, he forgave the iniquity of a\nvery rebellious people, that is, he did not punish them as their\niniquity deserved, and therefore he destroyed them not, and did not stir\nup all his wrath, Psal. lxxviii. 38. so the prophet Isaiah says\nconcerning Israel, that God _hath not smitten him, as he had smote those\nthat smote him; nor is he slain according to the slaughter of them that\nare slain by him; but that he would debate with them in measure, who\nstayeth his rough wind in the day of his east wind_, Isa. xxvii. 7, 8.\n\n_4thly_, When God cannot, in honour, defer his judgments any longer, he\npours them forth, as it were, with reluctancy; as a judge, when he\npasseth sentence on a criminal, doth it with a kind of regret, not\ninsulting, but rather pitying his misery, which is unavoidable, because\nthe course of justice must not be stopped. Thus the prophet says, that\n_God doth not afflict willingly_, that is, with delight or pleasure,\n_nor grieve the children of men_, Lam. iii. 35. that is, he doth not\npunish them, because he delights to see them miserable; but to secure\nthe rights of his own justice in the government of the world: so when\nIsrael had been guilty of vile ingratitude and rebellion against him,\nand he threatens to turn his hand upon them, and destroy them, he\nexpresseth himself in such terms, speaking after the manner of men, as\nimply a kind of uneasiness, when he says, _Ah! I will ease me of mine\nadversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies_, Isa. i. 24. and before God\ngave up Israel into the hands of the Assyrians, he seems, again speaking\nafter the manner of men, to have an hesitation or debate in his own\nmind, whether he should do this or no, when he says, _How shall I give\nthee up, Ephraim? How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall I make\nthee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned\nwithin me, my repentings are kindled together_, Hos. xi. 8. and when our\nSaviour could not prevail upon Jerusalem to repent of their sins, and\nembrace his doctrine, when he was obliged to pass a sentence upon them,\nand to tell them, that the things of their peace were hid from their\neyes, and that _their enemies should cast a trench about the city, and\nshould lay it even with the ground_, he could not speak of it without\ntears; _when he beheld the city, he wept over it_, Luke xix. 41, &c.\n\n(4.) The next thing to be considered, concerning the patience of God,\nis, that the glory of it is consistent with that of his vindictive\njustice; or how he may be said to defer the punishment of sin, and yet\nappear to be a sin-hating God.\n\nIt is certain that the glory of one divine perfection cannot interfere\nwith that of another; as justice and mercy meet together in the work of\nredemption, so justice and patience do not oppose each other, in any of\nthe divine dispensations. It is true, their demands seem to be various;\njustice requires that the stroke should be immediately given; but\npatience insists on a delay hereof, inasmuch as without this it does not\nappear to be a divine perfection; if therefore patience be a divine\nattribute, and its glory as necessary to be displayed, as that of any of\nhis other perfections, it must be glorified in this world, and that by\ndelaying the present exercise of vindictive justice in the highest\ndegree, or it cannot be glorified at all: justice will be glorified,\nthroughout all the ages of eternity, in those who are the objects\nthereof; but patience can then have no glory, since (as has been\nobserved) the greatest degree, either of happiness or misery, is\ninconsistent with the exercise thereof; therefore this being a\nperfection, which redounds so much to the divine honour, we must not\nsuppose that there is no expedient for its being glorified, or that the\nglory of vindictive justice is inconsistent with it.\n\nNow this harmony of these two perfections must be a little considered.\nJustice, it is true, obliges God to punish sin, yet it does not oblige\nhim to do it immediately; but the time, as well as the way, is to be\nresolved into his sovereign will. In order to make this appear, let us\nconsider, that the design of vindictive justice, in all the punishment\nit inflicts, is either to secure the glory of the holiness of God; or to\nassert his rights, as the governor of the world; now if the deferring of\npunishment doth not interfere with either of these, then the glory of\nGod\u2019s patience is not inconsistent with that of his vindictive justice.\nBut more particularly,\n\n_First_, The glory of his holiness is, notwithstanding this,\nsufficiently secured; for though he delays to punish sin, in the highest\ndegree, yet, at the same time, he appears to hate it, by the\nthreatenings which he hath denounced against sinners, which shall\ncertainly have their accomplishment, if he says, that _he is angry with\nthe wicked every day_, and that _his soul hateth them_, is there any\nreason to suppose the contrary? or if he has threatened that _he will\nrain upon them snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest_,\nwhich shall be the _portion of their cup_, and that because, as _the\nrighteous Lord, he loveth righteousness_, Psal. vii. 11. and xi. 6, 7.\nis not this a sufficient security, for the glory of his holiness, to\nfence against any thing that might be alleged to detract from it? If\nthreatened judgments be not sufficient, for the present, to evince the\nglory of this divine perfection; then it will follow, on the other hand,\nthat the promises he has made of blessings not yet bestowed, are to be\nas little regarded for the encouraging our hope, and securing the glory\nof his other perfections; and then his holiness would be as much\nblemished in delaying to reward, as it can be supposed to be in delaying\nto punish.\n\nIf therefore the truth of God, which will certainly accomplish his\nthreatenings, be a present security for the glory of his holiness, it is\nnot absolutely necessary that vindictive justice should be immediately\nexercised in the destruction of sinners, and so exclude the exercise of\nGod\u2019s forbearance and long-suffering.\n\nAnd to this it may be added, that there are many terrible displays of\nGod\u2019s vindictive justice in his present dealing with sinners; as it is\nsaid, _The Lord is known by the judgments which he executes_, as well as\nby those he designs to pour forth on his enemies; the wicked are now\n_snared in the work of their own hands_, but in the end they shall be\n_turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God_, Psal. ix. 16,\n17. If vindictive justice takes occasion to inflict many temporal and\nspiritual judgments upon sinners in this world, then the glory of God\u2019s\nholiness is illustrated at the same time that his patience is prolonged.\nThis may be observed in God\u2019s dealing with his murmuring and rebellious\npeople in the wilderness which gave him occasion to take notice of the\nabuse of his patience, and to say, Numb. xiv. 11, 18-21. _How long will\nthis people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for\nall the signs which I have shewed among them?_ Upon this, justice is\nready to strike the fatal blow; _I will_, says God, _smite them with the\npestilence, and disinherit them_; which gives Moses occasion to\nintercede for them, and plead the glory of God\u2019s patience, _The Lord is\nlong-suffering, and of great mercy; Pardon_, says he, _I beseech thee,\nthe iniquity of this people, as thou hast forgiven them from Egypt, even\nuntil now_; by which he means, as I humbly conceive, spare thy people,\nas thou hast often done, when, by reason of their provocations, thou\nmightest justly have destroyed them; and God answers him in the\nfollowing words, _I have pardoned, according to thy word_; but he adds,\n_As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the\nLord_, that is, with the report of the glory of his vindictive justice,\nwhich should be spread far and near; and then he threatens them that\nthey should not see the land of Canaan, _viz._ those who murmured\nagainst him; so that vindictive justice had its demands fulfilled in one\nrespect, while patience was glorified in the other; on which occasion\nthe Psalmist says, Psal. xcix. 8. _Thou answeredst them, O Lord_,\nnamely, Moses\u2019s prayer for them, but now mentioned, _Thou wast a God\nthat forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions._\n\n_Secondly_, Consider the vindictive justice of God, as tending to secure\nhis rights, as the governor of the world, and being ready to take\nvengeance for sin, which attempts to control his sovereign authority,\nand disturb the order of his government: now the stroke of justice may\nbe suspended for a time, that it may make way for the exercise of\npatience, provided there be no just occasion given hereby for men to\ntrample on the sovereignty of God, despise his authority, or rebel\nagainst him, without fear: but these consequences will not necessarily\nresult from his extending forbearance to sinners; for we do not find\nthat the delaying to inflict punishment among men is any prejudice to\ntheir government, therefore why should we suppose that the divine\ngovernment should suffer any injury thereby; when a prince, for some\nreasons of state, puts off the trial of a malefactor for a time, to the\nend that the indictment may be more fully proved, and the equity of his\nproceedings more evidently appear, this is always reckoned a greater\nexcellency in his administration, than if he should proceed too hastily\ntherein; and we never find that it tends to embolden the criminal to\nthat degree as impunity would do; for he is punished, in part, by the\nloss of his liberty, and if he be convicted, then he loses the privilege\nof an innocent subject; his life is forfeited, and he is in daily\nexpectation of having it taken away. If such a method as this tends to\nsecure the rights of a government, when a prince thinks fit to allow a\nreprieve to some for a time; may not God stop the immediate proceedings\nof vindictive justice for a time, without the least infringement made,\neither on his holiness, or his rectoral justice? Which leads us to\nconsider,\n\n(5.) How the patience of God is to be improved by us; and,\n\n_1st_, Since it is a divine perfection, and there is a revenue of glory\ndue to God for the display thereof, this should put us upon the exercise\nof those graces, which it engages us to. Some of the divine attributes\ntend to excite our fear, but this should draw forth our admiration and\npraise: and we have more reason to adore and admire the divine\nforbearance, when we consider,\n\n_First_, How justly he might destroy us. The best man on earth may say,\nwith the Psalmist, _If thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O lord, who\nshall stand?_ Psal. cxxx. 3. He need not watch for occasions, or\ndiligently search out some of the inadvertencies of life, to find matter\nfor our conviction and condemnation, since the multitude and heinous\naggravation of our sins, proclaim our desert of punishment, which might\nprovoke, and immediately draw down, his vengeance upon us; and that\nwhich farther enhances our guilt is, that we provoke him, though laid\nunder the highest obligations to the contrary.\n\n_Secondly_, How easily might he bring ruin and destruction upon us? He\ndoes not forbear to punish us for want of power, as earthly kings often\ndo; or because the exercise of justice may be apprehended, as a means to\nweaken their government, or occasion some rebellions, which they could\nnot easily put a stop to. Thus David says concerning himself, that he\nwas _weak, though anointed king_, and that _the sons of Zeruiah were too\nhard for him_, on the occasion of Joab\u2019s having forfeited his life, when\nthe necessity of affairs required the suspending his punishment, 2 Sam.\niii. 39. but this cannot be said of God, who is represented as _slow to\nanger, and great in power_, Nah. i. 3. that is, he does not punish,\nthough he easily could: it would be no difficulty for him immediately to\ndestroy an ungodly world, any more than it is for us to crush a moth or\na worm, or break a leaf: finite power can make no resistance against\nthat which is infinite: what are briars and thorns before the consuming\nfire?\n\n_2dly_, Let us take heed that we do not abuse this divine perfection; it\nis a crime to abuse the mercy of God in the smallest instances thereof,\nbut much more to slight and contemn the riches of his forbearance, or\nmercy, extended to so great a length, as it has been to most of us; and\nthis is done,\n\n1. By those who infer, from his forbearing to pour forth his fury on\nsinners, that he neglects the government of the world; or take occasion\nfrom thence to deny a providence, and because his threatenings are not\nexecuted at present, therefore they do, as it were, defy him to do his\nworst against them; this some are represented as doing, with an uncommon\ndegree of presumption, and that with a scoff; for they are termed\n_scoffers, walking after their own lusts; saying, Where is the promise\nof his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as\nthey were from the beginning of the creation_, 2 Pet. iii. 3, 4.\n\n2. By those who take occasion from hence to sin presumptuously; and\nbecause he not only delays to punish, but, at the same time, expresses\nhis willingness to receive returning sinners, at what time soever they\ntruly repent, take occasion to persist in their rebellion, concluding\nthat it is time enough to submit to him; which is not only to abuse,\nbut, as it were, to wear out his patience, and provoke his indignation,\nlike them, of whom it is said, that _because sentence against an evil\nwork is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is\nfully set in them to do evil_, Eccl. viii. 11. But you will say, these\nare uncommon degrees of wickedness, which only the vilest part of\nmankind are chargeable with; therefore let us add,\n\n3. That a bare neglect to improve our present season, and day of grace,\nor to embrace the great salvation offered in the gospel, is an abuse of\nGod\u2019s patience; and this will certainly affect the greatest number of\nthose who are favoured with the gospel dispensation; and, indeed, who\nare there that improve it as they ought? and therefore all are said more\nor less, to abuse the patience of God, which affords matter of great\nhumiliation in his sight.\n\nNow that we may be duly sensible of this sin, together with the\nconsequences thereof, let us consider; that this argues the highest\ningratitude, and that more especially, in a professing people; therefore\nthe apostle, reproving the Jews for this sin, puts a very great emphasis\non every word, when he says, _Or despisest thou the riches of his\ngoodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering?_ Rom. ii. 4. Let us also\nconsider, that the consequence thereof is very destructive, inasmuch as\nthis is the only opportunity that will be afforded to seek after those\nthings that relate to our eternal welfare. What stress does the apostle\nlay on the word _now_, which is twice repeated, as well as the word\n_behold_, which is a note of attention, implying, that he had something\nremarkable to communicate, when he says, _Behold, now is the accepted\ntime; behold, now is the day of salvation_, 2 Cor. vi. 2. And to this we\nmay add, which is a very awakening consideration, that the abuse of\nGod\u2019s patience will expose finally impenitent sinners to a greater\ndegree of his vengeance. Thus when the forbearance of God had been\nextended to Israel for many years, from his bringing them up out of the\nland of Egypt; and this had been attended all that time with the means\nof grace, and many warnings of approaching judgments, he tells them;\n_You only have I known, of all the families of the earth, therefore will\nI punish you_, that is, my wrath shall fall more heavily upon you, _for\nall your iniquities_, Amos iii. 2. and when God is represented, as\ncoming to reckon with Babylon, the cup of his wrath must be _filled\ndouble; how much she hath glorified herself_, saith God, _and lived\ndeliciously, so much sorrow and torment give her; for she saith in her\nheart, I sit as a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow_, Rev.\nxviii. 6, 7.\n\n_3dly_, Let us, on the other hand, improve God\u2019s patience, by duly\nconsidering the great end and design thereof, and what encouragement it\naffords to universal holiness: it is a great relief to those who are at\nthe very brink of despair; for if they cannot say that it has hitherto\nled them to repentance, as apprehending themselves to be yet in a state\nof unregeneracy, let us consider, that, notwithstanding this, a door of\nhope is still opened, the golden sceptre held forth, and the invitation\ngiven to come to Christ; therefore let this excite us to a diligent\nattendance on the means of grace, for though forbearance is not to be\nmistaken, as it is by many, for forgiveness, yet we are encouraged to\nwait and hope for it, in all God\u2019s holy institutions, according to the\ntenor of the gospel.\n\nAnd they who are not only spared, but pardoned, to whom grace has not\nonly been offered, but savingly applied, may be encouraged to hope for\nfarther displays thereof, as well as to improve what they have received,\nwith the greatest diligence and thankfulness.\n\n_4thly_, Let us consider the great obligation we are laid under, by the\npatience of God, to a constant exercise of the grace of patience, in our\nbehaviour towards God and man.\n\n1. In our behaviour towards God; we are hereby laid under the highest\nengagements to submit to his disposing will, and, in whatever state we\nare, therewith to be content, without murmuring, or repining, when under\nafflictive providences, _Shall we receive good at his hand, and shall we\nnot receive evil?_ Job ii. 10. Has he exercised so long forbearance\ntowards us, not only before we were converted, when our life was a\nconstant course of rebellion, against him; but he has since, not only\npassed by, but forgiven innumerable offences? And shall we think it\nstrange when he testifies his displeasure against us in any instances?\nShall we be froward and uneasy, because he does not immediately give us\nwhat we desire, or deliver us from those evils we groan under?\n\n2. Let us exercise patience, in our behaviour towards men. Shall we give\nway to, or express, unbecoming resentment against those whom we converse\nwith, for injuries done us, which are often rather imaginary than real?\nOr if they are very great, as well as undeserved, let not our passions\nexceed their due bounds; especially let us not meditate revenge, but\nconsider how many injuries the great God has passed over in us, and how\nlong his patience has been extended towards us.\n\nXV. God is abundant in truth. That we may understand what is meant by\nthis perfection, we may observe the difference between his being called\na true God, and a God of truth; though they seem to import the same\nthing, and are not always distinguished in scripture: thus he that\nreceiveth Christ\u2019s testimony, is said to _set to his seal that God is\ntrue_, that is, in accomplishing what he has promised, respecting the\nsalvation of his people, or that he is a God of truth; and elsewhere it\nis said, _Let God be true, but every man a liar_, that is, a God of\ntruth: yet they are, for the most part, distinguished; so that when he\nis called the true God, or the only true God, it does not denote one\ndistinct perfection of the divine nature, but the Godhead, in which\nrespect it includes all his divine perfections, and is opposed to all\nothers, who are called gods, but are not so by nature: but this will be\nmore particularly considered in the next answer.\n\nBut when, on the other hand, we speak of him, as the God of truth, we\nintend hereby that he is true to his word, or a God that cannot lie,\nwhose faithfulness is unblemished, because he is a God of infinite\nholiness; and therefore whatever he has spoken, he will certainly bring\nit to pass. This respects either his threatenings, or his promises: as,\nto the former of these, it is said, that _the judgments of God_, that\nis, the sentence he has passed against sinners, is _according to truth_,\nRom. ii. 2. and the display of his vindictive justice is called, his\n_accomplishing his fury_, Ezek. vi. 12. This renders him the object of\nfear, and it is, as it were, a wall of fire round about his law, to\nsecure the glory thereof from the insults of his enemies.\n\nThere is also his faithfulness to his promises, in which respect he is\nsaid to be the _faithful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy with them\nthat love him, and keep his commandments, unto a thousand generations_,\nDeut. vii. 9. This is that which encourages his people to hope and trust\nin him, and to expect that blessedness, which none of his perfections\nwould give them a sufficient ground to lay claim to, were it not\npromised, and this promise secured by his infinite faithfulness.\nAlmighty power is able to make us, happy, and mercy and goodness can\ncommunicate every thing that may contribute thereunto; but it does not\nfrom hence follow that they will, since God is under no natural\nobligation to glorify these perfections: but when he is pleased to give\nforth a promise relating hereunto, and the accomplishment thereof\nascertained to us by his infinite faithfulness; this renders these\nblessings not only possible, but certain, and so affords, to the heirs\nof salvation, strong consolation. It is this that renders things future\nas certain as though they were present, and so lays a foundation for our\nrejoicing in hope of eternal life, whatever difficulties may seem to lie\nin the way of it.\n\nHere we may take occasion to consider the blessings which are secured by\nthe faithfulness of God, of which some respect mankind in general, and\nthe blessings of common providence, _viz._ that the world should be\npreserved, and all flesh not perish out of it, from the deluge to\nChrist\u2019s second coming; and that, during this time, the regular course\nof nature should not be altered, but _that seed-time and harvest, cold\nand heat, summer and winter, day and night, should not cease_, Gen. ix.\n11. compared with chap. viii. 22.\n\nThere are also promises made to the church in general, that it should\nhave a being in the world, notwithstanding all the shocks of\npersecution, which it is exposed to; and, together with these, God has\ngiven the greatest security, that the ordinances of divine worship\nshould be continued, and that, _in all places where he records his name,\nhe will come to his people and bless them_, Exod. xx. 24. And to this we\nmay add, that he has promised to increase and build up his church; and\nthat to Shiloh, the great Redeemer, should the _gathering of the people\nbe_, and that he would _multiply them, that they should not be few_, and\nalso, _glorify them, that they should not be small_, Gen. xlix. 10.\ncompared with Jer. xxx. 19. and that the glory should be of an\nincreasing nature, especially that which it should arrive to in the\nlatter ages of time, immediately before its exchanging this militant for\na triumphant state in heaven.\n\nMoreover, there are many great and precious promises made to particular\nbelievers, which every one of them have a right to lay claim to, and are\noftentimes enabled so to do, by faith, which depends entirely on this\nperfection: and these promises are such as respect the increase of\ngrace; that they shall _go from strength to strength_, or that _they who\nwait on the Lord shall renew their strength_, Psal. lxxxiv. 7. and Isa.\nxl. 31. and that they shall be recovered, after great backslidings,\nPsal. xxxvii. 14. Psal. lxxxix. 30-33. and be enabled to persevere in\nthat grace, which is begun in them, till it is crowned with compleat\nvictory, 2 Cor. xii. 9. Rom. xvi. 20. Job xvii. 9. 1 Cor. xv. 57. and\nalso that they shall be made partakers of that inward peace and joy,\nwhich accompanies or flows from the truth of grace, Isa. xi. 1. chap.\nlvii. 19. chap. xxxii. 17. and that all this shall be attended with\nperfect blessedness in heaven at last, Psal. lxxiii. 24. 2 Tim. iv. 8.\nThe scripture abounds with promises of the like nature, which are suited\nto every condition, and afford relief to God\u2019s people, under all the\ndifficulties they meet with in the world; the accomplishment whereof is\nmade sure to them by this divine perfection.\n\n_Object._ 1. It is objected against this divine attribute; that God has\nnot, in some instances, fulfilled his threatenings, which has tended to\nembolden some in a course of obstinacy and rebellion against him;\nparticularly that the first threatening was not executed as soon as man\nfell; for though God told our first parents, that in the very _day they\nshould eat of the forbidden fruit, they should surely die_: yet Adam\nlived after this, nine hundred and thirty years, Gen. ii. 17. compared\nwith chap. v. 5.\n\nIt is also objected, that God threatened to destroy Nineveh, within\nforty days after Jonah was sent to publish this message to them, Jonah\niii. 4. nevertheless they continued in a flourishing state many years\nafter.\n\n_Answ._ 1. As to what respects the first threatening, that death should\nimmediately ensue upon sin\u2019s being committed, we shall have occasion to\nspeak to this in its proper place,[64] and therefore all that need be\nreplied to it at present is, that the threatening was in some respect,\nexecuted the day, yea, the moment in which our first parents sinned: If\nwe take it in a legal sense, they were immediately brought into a state\nof condemnation, which, in a forensic sense, is often called death; they\nwere immediately separated from God, the fountain of blessedness, and\nplunged into all those depths of misery, which were the consequence of\ntheir fall; or if we take death, the punishment threatened, for that\nwhich is, indeed, one ingredient in it, to wit, the separation of soul\nand body; or for the greatest degree of punishment, consisting in\neverlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of\nhis power; then it is sufficient to say, that man\u2019s being liable\nhereunto was the principal thing intended in the threatening. Certainly\nGod did not hereby design to tie up his own hands, so as to render it\nimpossible for him to remit the offence, or to recover the fallen\ncreature out of this deplorable state; and therefore if you take death\nfor that which is natural, which was not inflicted till nine hundred and\nthirty years after, then we may say, that his being exposed to, or\nbrought under an unavoidable necessity of dying the very day that he\nsinned, might be called his dying from that time; and the scripture will\nwarrant our using the word in that sense, since the apostle, speaking to\nthose who were, by sin, liable to death, says, _The body is dead,\nbecause of sin_, Rom. viii. 10. that is, it is exposed to death, as the\nconsequence thereof, though it was not actually dead; and if we take\ndeath for a liability to eternal death, then the threatening must be\nsupposed to contain a tacit condition, which implies, that man was to\nexpect nothing but eternal death, unless some expedient were found out,\nwhich the miserable creature then knew nothing of, to recover him out of\nthat state into which he was fallen.\n\n2. As to what concerns the sparing of Nineveh; we have sufficient ground\nto conclude that there was a condition annexed to this threatening, and\nso the meaning is; that they should be destroyed in forty days, if they\ndid not repent: this condition was designed to be made known to them,\notherwise Jonah\u2019s preaching would have been to no purpose, and the\nwarning given would have answered no valuable end; and it is plain, that\nthe Ninevites understood it in this sense, otherwise there would have\nbeen no room for repentance; so that God connected the condition with\nthe threatening: and as, on the one hand, he designed to give them\nrepentance, so that the event was not dubious and undetermined by him,\nas depending on their conduct, abstracted from his providence; so, on\nthe other hand, there was no reflection cast on his truth, because this\nprovisionary expedient, for their deliverance, was as much known by them\nas the threatening itself.\n\n_Object._ 2. It is objected that several promises have not had their\naccomplishment. Thus there are several promises of spiritual blessings,\nwhich many believers do not experience the accomplishment of in this\nlife; which has given occasion to some to say, with the Psalmist, _Doth\nhis promise fail for evermore?_ Psal. lxxvii. 8.\n\n_Answ._ It is true, that all the promises of God are not literally\nfulfilled in this world to every particular believer; the promise of\nincrease of grace is not actually fulfilled, while God suffers his\npeople to backslide from him, and the work of grace is rather declining\nthan sensibly advancing; neither are the promises, respecting the\nassurance and joy of faith, fulfilled unto one that is sinking into the\ndepths of despair; nor those that respect the presence of God in\nordinances, to such as are destitute of the influences of his grace\ntherein; nor are the promises of victory over temptation fulfilled, to\nthose who are not only assaulted, but frequently overcome by Satan, when\nit is as much as they can do to stand their ground against him; and\nthere are many other instances of the like nature: notwithstanding, the\ntruth of God may be vindicated, if we consider,\n\n1. That there is no promise made, whereof there are not some instances\nof their accomplishment in kind; this therefore is a sufficient\nconviction to the world, that there are such blessings bestowed as God\nhas promised.\n\n2. Those who are denied these blessings, may possibly be mistaken when\nthey conclude themselves to be believers; and then it is no wonder that\nthey are destitute of them, for God has promised to give joy and peace\nonly in a way of believing; or first to give the truth of grace, and\nthen the comfortable fruits and effects thereof. But we will suppose\nthat they are not mistaken, but have experienced the grace of God in\ntruth; yet their graces are so defective, that they know but little of\ntheir own imperfections, if they do not take occasion from thence, to\njustify God, who with-holdeth those blessings from them, and to adore,\nrather than call in question, the equity of his proceeding therein. And\nif remunerative justice be not laid under obligations to bestow these\nblessings by any thing performed by us, then certainly the faithfulness\nof God is not to be impeached, because he is pleased to deny them.\n\n3. In denying these blessings, he oftentimes takes occasion to advance\nhis own glory some other way, by trying the faith and patience of his\npeople, correcting them for their miscarriages, humbling them by his\ndealings with them, and over-ruling all for their good in the end; which\nis an equivalent for those joys and comforts which they are deprived of.\nAnd, indeed, God has never promised these blessings to any, but with\nthis reserve, that if he thinks it necessary, for his own glory, and\ntheir good, to bring about their salvation some other way, he will do\nit, without the least occasion given hereby to detract from the glory of\nhis faithfulness.\n\n4. All these promises, which have not had their accomplishment in kind,\nin this world, shall be accomplished in the next, with the greatest\nadvantage; so that then they will have no reason to complain of the\nleast unfaithfulness in the divine administration. If rivers of\npleasures at God\u2019s right hand for ever, will not compensate for the want\nof some comforts, while we are in this world, or silence all objections\nagainst his present dealings with men, nothing can do it; or if the full\naccomplishment of all the promises hereafter, will not secure the glory\nof this perfection, it is a sign that men are disposed to contend with\nthe Almighty, who deny it; therefore to such we may justly apply God\u2019s\nown words to Job, _He that reproveth God, let him answer it_; or, as he\nfarther says, _Wilt thou disannul my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me,\nthat thou mayest be righteous?_ Job xl. 2. compared with ver. 8.\n\nWe shall now consider how the faithfulness of God ought to be improved\nby us. And,\n\n(1.) The consideration thereof may be a preservative against presumption\non the one hand, or despair on the other. Let no one harden himself in\nhis iniquity; or think that because the threatnings are not yet fully\naccomplished, therefore they never shall; it is one thing for God to\ndelay to execute them, and another thing to resolve not to do it. We may\nvainly conclude, that the bitterness of death is past, because _our\nhouses are safe from fear, neither is the rod of God upon them_; but let\nit be considered, that _the wicked are reserved for the day of\ndestruction; they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath_, Job xxi.\n9. compared with ver. 30. the zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.\nHis threatenings lay him under an obligation to punish finally\nimpenitent sinners, because he is a God of truth; therefore let none\nharden themselves against him, or expect impunity in a course of open\nrebellion against him. And, on the other hand, let not believers give\nway to despair of obtaining mercy, or conclude, that, because God is\nwithdrawn, and hides his face from them, therefore he will never return;\nor, because his promises are not immediately fulfilled, therefore they\nnever shall, since his faithfulness is their great security; _he will\never be mindful of his covenant_, Psal. cxi. 5.\n\n(2.) Let us compare the providences of God with his word, and see how\nevery thing tends to set forth his faithfulness. We are very stupid, if\nwe take notice of the great things that are doing in the world; and we\nbehold them to little purpose, if we do not observe how this divine\nperfection is glorified therein. The world continues to this day,\nbecause God has several things yet to do in it, in pursuance of his\npromises; the whole number of the elect are to be gathered, and brought\nin to Christ; their graces must be tried, and their faith built up in\nthe same way, as it has been in former ages; therefore the church is\npreserved, and _the gates of hell have not prevailed against it_,\naccording to his word, Matth. xvi. 18. and as it was of old, so we now\nobserve that the various changes which are made in civil affairs, are\nall rendered subservient to its welfare; _the earth helps the woman_,\nRev. xii. 16. not so much from its own design, as by the appointment of\nprovidence; and why does God order it so, but that his promises might be\nfulfilled? And that the same ordinances should be continued, and that\nbelievers should have the same experience of the efficacy and success\nthereof, as the consequence of his presence with them, which he has\ngiven them ground to expect _unto the end of the world_, Matth. xxviii.\n20. are blessings in which his faithfulness is eminently glorified.\n\n(3.) This divine perfection is a sure foundation for our faith. As his\ntruth, with respect to what he has revealed, is an infallible ground for\nour faith of assent, so his faithfulness, in fulfilling his promises,\naffords the highest encouragement for our trust and dependence on him:\nthus we are said to _commit the keeping of our souls to him in\nwell-doing, as unto a faithful Creator_, 1 Pet. iv. 19. and, when we lay\nthe whole stress of our salvation upon him, we have no reason to\nentertain any doubt about the issue thereof. Moreover, are we exposed to\nevils in this world? we may conclude, that as _he has delivered, and\ndoes deliver_, so we have reason to _trust in him, that he will deliver\nus_, 2 Cor. i. 10. and is there much to be done for us, to make us meet\nfor heaven? we may be _confident of this very thing, that he that has\nbegun a good work in us, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ_,\nPhil. i. 6.\n\n(4.) The faithfulness of God should be improved by us, as a remedy\nagainst that uneasiness and anxiety of mind, which we often have about\nthe event of things, especially when they seem to run counter to our\nexpectation. Thus when there is but a very melancholy prospect before\nus, as to what concerns the glory of God in the world, and the\nflourishing state of his church in it, upon which we are ready to say\nwith Joshua, _Lord, what wilt thou do unto thy great name?_ Josh. vii.\n9. or when we have many sad thoughts of heart about the rising\ngeneration, and are in doubt whether they will adhere to, or abandon,\nthe interest of Christ; when we are ready to fear whether there will be\na reserve of faithful men, who will stand up for his gospel, and fill\nthe places of those who are called off the stage, after having served\ntheir generation by the will of God; or when we are too much oppressed\nwith carking cares about our outward condition in the world, when, like\nChrist\u2019s disciples, we are immoderately thoughtful _what we shall eat,\nwhat we shall drink, or wherewithal we shall be clothed_, Matth. vi. 31.\nor how we shall be able to conflict with the difficulties that lie\nbefore us: our great relief against all this solicitude is to be derived\nfrom the faithfulness of God; for since godliness has the promise\nannexed to it, of _the life that now is_, as well as of _that which is\nto come_, 1 Tim. iv. 18. this promise shall have its accomplishment, so\nfar as shall most redound to God\u2019s glory, and our real advantage.\n\n(5.) The consideration of the faithfulness of God should be improved, to\nhumble, and fill us with shame and confusion of face, when we consider\nhow treacherously we have dealt with him, how unsteadfast we have been\nin his covenant, how often we have broke our own promises and\nresolutions that we would walk more closely with him, how frequently we\nhave backslidden from him, contrary to all the engagements which we have\nbeen laid under. Have we found any unfaithfulness in him? Has he, in the\nleast instance, been worse than his word? as God says, when he reproves\nhis people, _What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are\ngone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain?_\nJer. ii. 5.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  His ideas are not the effects, but causes of things. Vide post p. 124,\n  125.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  There is not succession in His ideas, but he exists in every point of\n  time.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  Effects spring from _power_, not _laws_, and prove a _virtual_, or\n  influential, revelation, an _essential_ ubiquity.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  Quest. xv. and xviii.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  Quest. lxvii.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  Vide Edwards on Free-will, part I. sect. IV.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  The Divine knowledge is as undeniable as the Divine existence, and as\n  certain as human knowledge. \u201cHe that formed the eye doth he not see?\n  He that planted the ear doth he not hear? He that teacheth man\n  knowledge doth he not know?\u201d But though human knowledge proves the\n  Divine, as the effect does its cause, it by no means follows, that\n  they are similar. Our knowledge principally consists of the images of\n  things in the mind, or springs from them; but if the Divine knowledge\n  were such, it would result that things were prior to his knowledge,\n  and so that he is not the Creator of them; all things must therefore\n  be the representations of his ideas, as an edifice represents the plan\n  of the skilful architect. On this account our knowledge is\n  superficial, extending only to the external appearances of things; but\n  their intimate natures are known to him, who made them conformed to\n  his original ideas. Our knowledge is circumscribed, extending only to\n  the things which are the objects of our senses, or which have been\n  described to us; but the universe, with all its parts, the greatest\n  and the smallest things, are all known to him, who called them into\n  existence, and moulded them according to his own plan. Our knowledge\n  embraces only the things which are, or have been; with respect to the\n  future, we can know nothing, except as he, upon whom it depends, shall\n  reveal it to us; or as we may draw inferences from his course of\n  action in former instances. But the Creator knows not only the past\n  and the present, but the future. He knows the future, because it\n  wholly depends on him; and nothing can take place without him,\n  otherwise it is independent of God, but this is incompatible with his\n  supremacy. If he know not the future, his knowledge is imperfect; if\n  he is to know hereafter what he does not now know, he is increasing in\n  knowledge, this would argue imperfection; if his knowledge be\n  imperfect, he is imperfect; and if he be imperfect, he is not God.\u2014But\n  all things to come are to be what he designs they shall be; there\n  accompanies his knowledge of the future, also a purpose, that the\n  thing designed shall be effectuated; and his wisdom and power being\n  infinite guarantee the accomplishment of his purposes.\n\n  To be the subjects of foreknowledge, such as has been mentioned,\n  implies the absolute certainty of the things, or occurrences, thus\n  foreknown. A failure in their production, would not less prove\n  imperfection, than a defect of the foreknowledge of them. Contingency\n  belongs not to the things in futurity, but to the defective knowledge\n  of imperfect beings, and is always proportional to our ignorance.\n\n  That the future is categorically certain with God, appears by the\n  invariable succession of effects to their causes in the natural world;\n  miracles themselves may not be exceptions; but would always, it is\n  probable, flow from the same causes, which are occult from us. The\n  voluntary actions of moral agents, how uncertain soever to themselves,\n  are also not exceptions from the Divine knowledge and purposes; \u201cHe\n  doth his will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the\n  earth\u201d; \u201cThe wrath of man praises him, and the remainder he doth\n  restrain.\u201d Every prophecy, which has been fulfilled, so far as it was\n  accomplished by the voluntary actions of men, proves the certainty of\n  the divine foreknowledge, the absolute certainty of the then future\n  event, and that the will of man is among the various means, which God\n  is pleased to make use of to accomplish his purposes.\n\n  If there be such certainty in God\u2019s foreknowledge, and in the events\n  themselves in the Kingdom of Providence, we may reasonably expect his\n  conduct will be similar in the Kingdom of Grace; and the more\n  especially if man\u2019s salvation from first to last springs from, and is\n  carried on, and accomplished by him.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  As knowledge is a faculty of which wisdom is the due exercise, the\n  proofs of divine wisdom are so many evidences of the knowledge of God.\n  Wisdom consists in the choice of the best ends, and the selection of\n  means most suitable to attain them. The testimonies of the wisdom of\n  God must therefore be as numerous and various, as the works of his\n  creation. The mutual relations and subserviency of one thing to\n  another; as the heat of the sun, to produce rain; both, to produce\n  vegetation; and all, to sustain life; ensation, digestion, muscular\n  motion, the circulation of the fluids, and, still more, intelligence,\n  and above all, the moral faculty, or power of distinguishing good and\n  evil, are unequivocal proofs of the wisdom, and consequently of the\n  knowledge, of God.\u2014_He that formed the eye, doth he not see: he that\n  planted the ear, &c._\n\n  Mortal artificers are deemed to understand their own work, though\n  ignorant of the formation of the materials and instruments they use:\n  but the Creator uses no mean or material which he has not formed. He\n  therefore knows, from the globe to the particle of dust or fluid, and\n  from the largest living creature to the smallest insect. He has\n  knowledge equally of the other worlds of this system, and every\n  system; of all things in heaven, earth, and hell.\n\n  Our knowledge is conversant about his works; he knows all things which\n  are known to us, and those things which have not come to our\n  knowledge.\n\n  He formed and sustains the human mind, and knows the thoughts: this is\n  necessary to him as our Judge. He knows equally all spiritual\n  creatures, and sustains his holy spirits in holiness.\n\n  Our knowledge springs from things; but things spring from his\n  purposes: they are, because he knows them; otherwise they existed\n  before his knowledge, and so independently of him.\n\n  We know but the external appearances, he the intimate nature of\n  things. We inquire into the properties of things by our senses, by\n  comparing them, by analizing, &c: but nothing possesses a property\n  which he did not purpose and give; otherwise his hands have wrought\n  more than he intended. We look up through effects unto their causes:\n  he looks down through intermediate causes, and sees them all to be\n  effects from him.\n\n  We are furnished with memories to bring up ideas, being only able to\n  contemplate a part at a time; but his comprehension embraces all\n  things.\n\n  He never changes; his purposes of the future embrace eternity: all\n  things that are really future are certain, because his purposes cannot\n  fail of accomplishment. But all future things to us are contingent,\n  except as he has revealed their certainty. That the future is known to\n  him, also appears by the accomplishment of every prophecy.\n\n  But man\u2019s sin receives hereby no apology. He gives the brutal creation\n  the capacity of deriving pleasure from gratification of sense, and\n  provides for such appetites. He offers to man, pleasures which are\n  intellectual: he has tendered him the means, and requires man to seek\n  his spiritual happiness in God. When he refuses and withholds his\n  return of service from God, man is alone to blame. And the more\n  numerous and powerful the motives which he resists, the guilt is the\n  greater. The divine foreknowledge of this is no excuse for man. When\n  the Lord overpowers man\u2019s evil with good, the glory of man\u2019s salvation\n  belongs to God.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  _See Ray\u2019s Wisdom of God in the Works of Creation, and Derham\u2019s\n  Physico-Theology._ See also Fenelon, Newenlyle, Paley, and Adams\u2019s\n  Philosophy.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  See Page 46.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  See Quest. clvi. and clvii.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  _Quest. xvi. xvii. xxi. and xxx._\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  _The Quest. xliv. and lxxi._\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  _Quest. xxix. and lxxix._\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  All the good which we behold in Creation, Providence, and redemption,\n  flows from goodness in God, and are the proofs of this attribute. If\n  all the evil, which we discover, springs from the liberty given to\n  creatures to conform, or not, to the revealed will; or if all moral\n  evil be productive of good, _the remainder being restrained_; then the\n  evil, which exists, is no exception to the proofs of Divine goodness.\n  What Deity now is, he always was; he has not derived his goodness; he\n  is not a compounded being; his goodness therefore belongs to his\n  essence. His goodness has been distinguished into _immanent_ and\n  _communicative_. The latter discovers to us the former, but his\n  communicative goodness, though flowing in ten thousand streams, and\n  incalculable, is less than his immanent, which is an eternal fountain\n  of excellency.\n\n  Infinite knowledge discerns things as they are, and a perfect being\n  will esteem that to be best, which is so; God therefore discerns, and\n  esteems his own immanent goodness as infinitely exceeding all the\n  good, which appears in his works, for the excellency in these is but\n  an imperfect representation of himself. The happiness of Deity must\n  consist consequently in his own self-complacency; _he made all things\n  for his pleasure, or glory_, but they are only so far pleasing, as\n  they reflect his own picture to himself. Yet when we suppose Deity to\n  be the subject of motives, we are ever in danger of erring.\n\n  Divine communicative goodness has been termed _benevolence_ when in\n  intention, _beneficence_ when carried into effect. This is nearly the\n  same as _moral rectitude_, because the government of the Universe\n  must, that it may produce the good of the whole, be administered in\n  righteousness. The correct administration of justice in rewarding\n  every good, if there be merit in a creature, and punishing every evil\n  is no less an effect of benevolence, than the conferring of benefits,\n  which are purely gratuitous. In like manner the punishment of\n  offenders in civil society has for its object general utility, whether\n  we imagine the power which judges and inflicts, to spring from the\n  social compact, or to have been ordained of God.\n\n  The cutting off of flagrant offenders, as by the deluge, the\n  destruction of Sodom, &c. has been obviously designed to prevent the\n  spreading contagion of sin. But there is a time appointed, unto which\n  all things are tending, and unto which men generally refer the wrongs\n  they sustain, in which perfect justice shall be administered. Some\n  attributes of Deity seem to be ground of terror, and others of love;\n  but God is one; he is subject to no perturbation of mind; his wrath\n  and indignation are but other terms for his steady and unchangeable\n  goodness, bearing down the evil, which sinful creatures oppose to his\n  purposes of general advantage. Those acts of justice which are\n  accounted by the guilty to be unnecessary severity, are deemed, by\n  glorified saints and angels, the effects of that goodness, which they\n  make the subject of their Hallelujahs. Thus the highest proof of God\u2019s\n  goodness consisted in his not sparing his own Son, nor abating any\n  thing from the demands of his law. After this all hopes that Divine\n  goodness shall favour the finally impenitent must be utterly vain.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  \u201cMark iii. 11, v. 7; Luke viii. 28; and Mat. viii. 29. These\n  extraordinary personages in the New Testament, are not called\n  _devils_, \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, in the original; that word never occurring in the\n  Christian scriptures, but in the singular number, and as applied to\n  one Being alone. They are called _d\u00e6mons_, \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 or \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1. Yet\n  they are plainly devils in fact; being called Unclean Spirits, though\n  sometimes only Spirits (Mark ix. 20; and Luke x. 20;) and showing\n  themselves to be devils, by their whole history. In Mat. xii. 24 and\n  26 particularly, the Pharisees say \u2018our Saviour casts out devils,\n  (d\u00e6mons) by Beelzebub the prince of the devils (d\u00e6mons);\u2019 and our\n  Saviour replies, that then \u2018Satan casts out Satan.\u2019 See also Luke x.\n  17-18; where the apostles rejoicing declare, \u2018even the devils (d\u00e6mons)\n  are subject unto us;\u2019 and our Saviour says unto them, \u2018I beheld Satan\n  as lightning fall from heaven.\u2019 So very false in itself, and directly\n  contradicted by the very words of our Saviour, is that hypothesis of\n  Dr. Campbell\u2019s in his new translation of the Gospels; which asserts\n  these possessions of the New Testament to be nowhere attributed to the\n  devil, and which avers the dominion or authority of the devil to be\n  nowhere ascribed to the d\u00e6mons! Beelzebub is expressly called the\n  _prince_ of the d\u00e6mons, the d\u00e6mons are expressly denominated _Satan_\n  with him, and these are only inferior devils subordinate to the great\n  one. And though the word _d\u00e6mons_ (as Dr. Campbell urges) might\n  critically be more exact in a translation; yet the word _devils_\n  better accords, with the usages of our language and the course of our\n  ideas. Exactness therefore has been properly sacrificed to utility.\u201d\n\n  WHITAKER.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  _See Quest. xx._\n\n\n\n\n                              Quest. VIII.\n\n\n    QUEST. VIII. _Are there more Gods than one?_\n\n    ANSW. There is but one only, the living and true God.\n\n\nI. In this answer, God is described as the living and true God. As life\nis the greatest excellency belonging to the nature of any finite being,\nupon which account some have concluded that the lowest degree thereof\nrenders a creature more excellent in itself, than the most glorious\ncreatures that are without it; and inasmuch as intelligent creatures\nhave a superior excellency to all others, because that which gives life\nto them, or the principle by which they act as such, is most excellent;\nso the life of God is that whereby he infinitely excels all finite\nbeings; therefore, when he is called the living God, this is not one\nsingle perfection of the divine nature, but it is expressive of all his\ndivine perfections. Thus when God represents himself, in scripture, as\ngiving his people the highest assurance of any thing which he designs to\ndo, he useth the form of an oath, and sweareth by his life, _As I live_;\nor, _as truly as I live_, Isa. xlix. 18. and Numb. xiv. 21. which\nimports the same thing, as when he says, _I have sworn by myself_, Gen.\nxxii. 16. so that when he is called the living God, his glory is set\nforth, as a God of infinite perfection: but this has been considered\nunder the last answer.\n\nTherefore we may farther observe, that when God is styled the living\nGod, it connotes the display of all his perfections, as life is a\nprinciple of action; and hereby he is distinguished from lifeless idols,\nwho were reputed gods by their stupid and profane worshippers. Thus the\napostle lays down both the terms of opposition, when he speaks to some,\nas having _turned from idols_, or false gods, _to serve the living and\ntrue God_, 1 Thess. i. 9. Here we might consider the origin and progress\nof idolatry, as men were inclined to _worship the creature more than the\nCreator_, Rom. i. 25. or _to do service to them, who, by nature, are no\ngods_, Gal. iv. 8. and shew how some seemed to have been destitute of\ncommon sense, as they were of true religion, when they not only\nworshipped God by idols, of their own making, but prayed to them, and\nsaid, _Deliver us, for ye are our gods_; this the prophet takes notice\nof, Isa. xliv. 17. and exposes their unaccountable stupidity, by\nobserving to them that these gods were first growing among the trees of\nthe forest, then cut down with their own hands, and fashioned into their\ndesigned form, and part thereof cast into the fire, as destined for\ncommon uses. These were lifeless gods, without a metaphor, and their\nsenseless worshippers but one remove from them, as the Psalmist says,\n_They that make them are like unto them, and so is every one that\ntrusteth in them_, Psal. cxv. 8. But this we shall have occasion to\ninsist on in a following part of this work[65], and therefore shall pass\nit over at present, and consider,\n\nII. The unity of the Godhead. Scripture is very express in asserting\nthis: thus it is said, _The Lord our God is one Lord_, Deut. vi. 4. and,\n_I, even I, am he; and there is no God with me_, chap. xxxii. 39. and,\n_The Lord he is God; there is none else besides him_, chap. iv. 35. and\nelsewhere, _Thou art God alone_, Psal. lxxxvi. 10. And this is a truth,\nnot barely founded on a few places of scripture that expressly assert\nit, but it may be deduced from every part thereof; yea, it is instamped\non the very nature of man, and may be as plainly proved, from the light\nof nature, as that there is a God; and every one of the divine\nperfections, which were particularly considered under the last answer,\nwill supply us with arguments to confirm our faith therein: but that\nthis may farther appear, let it be considered,\n\n1. That the idea of a God implies that he is the first cause of all\nthings, in which respect he is opposed to the creature; it follows,\ntherefore, that he was from all eternity. Now there can be no more than\none being, who is without beginning, and who gave being to all other\nthings, which appears from the very nature of the thing; for if there\nare more Gods, then they must derive their being from him, and then they\nare a part of his creation, and consequently not gods, for God and the\ncreature are infinitely opposed to each other: and since there is but\none independent being, who is in and of himself, and derives his\nperfections from no other, therefore there can be but one God.\n\n2. There is but one being, who is the ultimate end of all things, which\nnecessarily follows from his being their Creator; for he that produced\nthem out of nothing must be supposed to have designed some valuable end\nhereby, which, ultimately considered, cannot be any thing short of\nhimself, for that is inconsistent with the wisdom and sovereignty that\nis contained in the idea of a Creator; therefore he is said to have\n_made all things for himself_, Prov. xvi. 4. and consequently the glory\nthat results from thence is unalienable, and so cannot be ascribed to\nany other God; therefore to suppose that there are other gods, is to\nascribe a divine nature to them, divested of that glory which is\nessential to it. And to this we may add, that if God be the ultimate end\nof all things, he is to be glorified as such, and all worship is to\nterminate in him; and we must proclaim him to be our chief good, and\nonly portion and happiness, which is plainly inconsistent with a\nplurality of gods. Besides, he that is the object of adoration must be\nworshipped, and _loved with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind_,\nLuke x. 27. our affections must not be divided between him and any\nother. Therefore since man is under a natural obligation to give supreme\nworship to him, it follows that there is no other God that has a right\nto it, and therefore that he is the only true God.\n\n3. Infinite perfection being implied in the idea of a God, as has been\nproved under the last answer, it is certain that it cannot belong to\nmore than one; for as it implies that this perfection is boundless, so\nit denotes that he sets bounds to the perfections of all others;\ntherefore, if there are more Gods than one, their perfections must be\nlimited, and consequently that which is not infinite is not God. And as\ninfinite perfection implies in it all perfection, so it cannot be\ndivided among many, for then no being, that has only a part thereof,\ncould be said to be thus perfect; therefore, since there is but one that\nis so, it follows that there is no other God besides him.\n\n4. Since omnipotency is a divine attribute, there can be but one\nalmighty being, and therefore but one God; which will farther appear, if\nwe consider, that if there were more Gods than one, all of them must be\nsaid to be able to do all things, and then the same individual power,\nthat is exerted by one, must be exerted by another, than which nothing\nis more absurd. And it will also follow, that he, who cannot do that\nwhich is said to be done by another, is not almighty, or able to do all\nthings, and consequently that he is not God.\n\n5. There is but one being, who has an absolute sovereign will, who,\nthough he can controul all others, is himself subject to no controul;\nwho has a natural right to give laws to all who are his subjects, but is\nsubject to none himself; for absolute dominion and subjection are as\nopposite as light and darkness. Two persons may as well be said to give\nbeing to each other, as to have a right to give laws to each other.\nMoreover, if there were more Gods than one, then there would be a\nconfusion in the government of the world; for whatever one decrees,\nanother may reverse; or whatever is done by one, the contrary might be\ndone by the other, for that is the consequence from a sovereignty of\nwill. And as there might be opposite things commanded, or forbidden,\npursuant to the different wills of a plurality of gods, so the same\nthing, with respect to those who are under an obligation to yield\nobedience, would be both a sin and a duty, and the same persons would be\nboth condemned and justified for the same action.\n\n6. There is but one being, who is, as God is often said to be, the best\nand the greatest; therefore, if there were more Gods than one, either\none must be supposed to be more excellent than another, or both equally\nexcellent. If we suppose the former of these, then he, who is not the\nmost excellent, is not God; and if the latter, that their excellencies\nare equal, then infinite perfection would be divided, which is contrary\nto the idea thereof, as was before hinted; as well as to what is\nexpressly said by God, _To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal?\nsaith the Holy One_, Isa. xl. 25. From these, and several other\narguments to the same purpose, which might have been taken from every\none of the divine attributes, and from all essential and relative glory\nwhich belongs to him, the unity of the divine essence appears, even to a\ndemonstration. And indeed to assert that there are more Gods than one\nis, in effect, to say that there is no God; so the apostle deems it,\nwhen he tells the church at Ephesus, that, before their conversion, when\nthey worshipped other gods, _they were without God in the world_, which\nimplies as much as that they were atheists therein, as the words \u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9 may, with equal propriety, be rendered.[66]\n\nHaving considered the unity of the Godhead, not only as evinced from\nscripture, but as it may be demonstrated by the light of nature, it will\nbe necessary that we obviate an objection that may be brought against\nthis latter method of proving it, _viz._\n\n_Object._ If the unity of the Godhead might be known by the dictates of\nnature, or demonstrated by other arguments, besides those which are\nmatter of pure revelation, how comes it to pass that the heathen owned,\nand worshipped, a plurality of gods? and as it was not one particular\nsect among them that did so, but this abominable practice universally\nobtained, where revealed religion was not known, therefore, though this\nbe an undoubted truth, yet it is not founded in the light of nature.\n\n_Answ._ That they did so is beyond dispute, especially after idolatry\nhad continued a few ages in the world, and so had extinguished those\nprinciples of revealed religion, which mankind, before this, were\nfavoured with; yet it must be considered, that though the ignorant and\nunthinking multitude, among them, believed every thing to be a God,\nwhich the custom of the countries where they lived had induced them to\npay divine adoration to, yet the wiser sort of them, however guilty of\nidolatry, by paying a lower kind of worship to them, have,\nnotwithstanding, maintained the unity of the Godhead, or that there is\none God superior to them all, whom they often call the father of gods\nand men; to whom probably the Athenians erected that altar, as the\napostle Paul observes, with this inscription, To THE UNKNOWN GOD;\nbecause he says, in the words immediately following, _Whom therefore ye\nignorantly worship, him declare I unto you_, Acts xvii. 23.\n\nThis appears from what they assert to the same purpose, whereby they\nplainly discover their belief of but one supreme God, who has all the\nincommunicable perfections of the divine nature, however, in other\ninstances, their conduct seemed to run counter to their method of\nreasoning: thus it appears, by their writings, that many of them assert\nthat there is a God, who is the first cause, or beginning, of all\nthings; and that he was from eternity, or in the beginning, and that\ntime took its rise from him; that he is the living God, the fountain of\nlife, and the best of all beings[67]: Also, that this God is\nself-sufficient, and therefore it is absurd to suppose that he stands in\nneed of, or can receive advantage from, any one[68]; and that he is the\nchief good, or contains in himself whatever is good, and that by him all\nthings consist; and that no one hath enough in himself to secure his own\nsafety and happiness, which is to be derived from him[69].\n\nAnd there are others also, who plainly assert the unity of God in as\nstrong terms, as though they had learned it from divine revelation,\ncalling him, the beginning, the end, and author of all things; who was\nbefore, and is above all things, the Lord of all, the fountain of life,\nlight, and all good, yea, goodness itself; the most excellent being; and\nmany other expressions to the like purpose. I could multiply quotations\nfor the proof of this, from Proclus, Porphyry, Iamblicus, Plotinus,\nPlutarch, Epictetus, and several others; but this has been already done\nby other hands[70]; by which it appears, that though they mention other\ngods, they suppose them to be little more than titular or honorary gods;\nor at least persons, who were the peculiar favourites of God, and\nadmitted to the participation of divine honours, as well as employed in\nsome part of the government of the world. They frequently speak of them\nas having derived their being from God, whom they call the cause of\ncauses, the God of gods. Some of them speak of God in the singular\nnumber, throughout the greatest part of their writings, and only make\nmention of the gods occasionally, especially when they treat of those\nworks that become a God, or the greatest honours that are due to him;\nthus Seneca and Plato, and, in particular, the latter of them says,\nconcerning himself[71], that when he wrote any thing in a grave and\nserious manner, his custom was, to preface his epistles with the mention\nof one God; though, it is true, when he wrote otherwise, he used the\ncommon mode of speaking, and talked of other gods; and it is observed,\nin his writings, that he sometimes uses this phrase; If it please God,\nor by the help of God, not the gods.\n\nBut, notwithstanding this, they were all idolaters, for they joined in\nthe rites of worship performed to the false gods of their respective\ncountries; yea, Socrates himself, who fell under the displeasure of the\nAthenians, for asserting the unity of the Godhead, which cost him his\nlife, did not refuse to pay some religious honour to the heathen gods.\nSo that it is plain they paid some religious worship to them, but it was\nof an inferior and subordinate nature, not much unlike to that which the\nPapists give to saints and angels: but they are far from setting them\nupon a level with God; for they confess they were but men, who formerly\nlived in this world; they give an account of their birth and parentage;\nwhere they lived and died; write the history of their lives, and what\nprocured them the honour they suppose them after death advanced to[72];\nhow some of them obtained it, as the reward of virtue, or in\ncommemoration of the good they had done to the world in their life: as\nsome were advanced to this honour, who were the inventors of arts,\nbeneficial to mankind, or were successful in wars, or a public blessing\nto the country where they lived, others had this honour conferred upon\nthem, especially among the Romans, at the request of their surviving\nfriends; and this was done after Julius C\u00e6sar\u2019s time, by the decree of\nthe senate, who, at the same time, when they ranked them among the\nnumber of their gods, appointed also the rites of worship that should be\npaid to them; and some of the Roman emperors obliged the senate to deify\nthem while they were alive. These things are very largely insisted on,\nby many ancient and modern writers[73]; so that, upon the whole, it\nplainly appears, that, whatever they say of a plurality of gods, the\nwiser sort among the heathen did not deny the unity of the divine\nessence, in the highest and most proper sense; and, inasmuch as they\nreceived the knowledge hereof from the light of nature, we may from\nhence conclude that this truth might be known that way, as well as by\ndivine revelation.\n\nWe shall conclude with some practical inferences from the doctrine\ncontained in this answer.\n\n1. Since he, who is the object of our worship, is the living God; this\nreproves that lifeless formal way, in which many address themselves to\nhim, in the performance of religious duties, without that reverence and\ndue regard to the divine perfections, which are contained in this\ncharacter of the Godhead. It is also a very great aggravation, not only\nof apostacy, but of any degree of backsliding, in those who have made a\nprofession of religion; that it is a _departure from the living God_,\nHeb. iii. 12. Is he the God and giver of life, and shall we forsake him,\nwho _has the words of eternal life_, John vi. 68. whose sovereign will\nhas the sole disposal thereof?\n\nAgain, this consideration, of his being the living God, renders his\njudgments most terrible, and his wrath insupportable; as the apostle\nsays, _It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God_,\nHeb. x. 31.\n\n2. From his being the true God, we infer, that all hypocrisy, both in\nheart and life, is to be avoided; and we should draw nigh to him with a\ntrue heart and faith unfeigned; and not like those whom the prophet\nreproves, when he says, God was _near in their mouth, and far from their\nreins_, Jer. xii. 2.\n\nMoreover, let us take heed that we do not set up an idol in our hearts,\nin opposition to him as the true God: whatever has a greater share in\nour affections than God, or is set up in competition with him, that is,\nto us, a god, and is therefore inconsistent with our paying that regard\nwhich is due to him; as our Saviour says, _Ye cannot serve God and\nmammon_, Mat. vi. 24. and, upon this account, covetousness is styled\nidolatry, Col. iii. 5. as the world is loved more than him; and we read\nof some _whose God is their belly_, Phil. iii. 19. who make provision\nfor the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof, as though this was their\nchief good. And when we confide in any thing below him, in a religious\nway, or expect that from the creature which is only to be found in him;\nor when we esteem men as lords of our faith; or when his sovereignty, or\nright to govern us, is called in question, while we presumptuously, or\nwilfully, rebel against him; this is, in effect, a dethroning, or\ndenying him to be the true God: but more of this when we consider the\nsins forbidden in the first commandment[74].\n\n3. From the unity of the Godhead, we may infer, that we ought to take\nheed that we do not entertain any conceptions of the divine Being, which\nare inconsistent herewith; therefore, as we are not to assert a\nplurality of gods, so we are not to think or speak of God in such a way\nas tends to overthrow the simplicity of the divine nature; therefore we\nmust not conceive that it is compounded of various parts, all which,\nbeing taken together, tend to constitute the divine essence; which gives\noccasion to that known aphorism, generally laid down by those who treat\nof this subject, that _whatever is in God, is God_; which we must reckon\nas one of the incomprehensibles of the divine Being, which when we\nattempt to speak of, we only give an evident proof of the imperfection\nof our finite understandings, and that we cannot order our words, by\nreason of darkness: however, it is necessary, when we lay down this\nproposition, that we signify what we intend hereby, that so we may not\nbe supposed to use words without ideas; and especially that we may, in\nsome measure, account for those modes of speaking, which are agreeable\nto scripture, which so often describes God as having a plurality of\nperfections, and those, in some respects, distinct; and yet, at the same\ntime, that we may not hereby be led to infer a plurality of gods. Here\nlet it be considered,\n\n(1.) That we have not the least similitude, or resemblance, of this in\nany finite being. Every thing below God is composed of parts, some of\nwhich we call integral, as all the parts of matter taken together\nconstitute the whole; others are called essential, as when we say an\nintelligent being has various powers or properties which are essential\nto it; so that it would not be complete without every one of them; and\nthat these are all of them distinct, so that we cannot say whatever is\nin the soul of man is the soul, but every one of those powers, or\nproperties, taken together, constitute the man; but this is by no means\nto be applied to the divine Being; therefore,\n\n(2.) When we conceive of God, as holy, powerful, just, good, &c. we must\nnot suppose that these perfections are so many ingredients in the divine\nBeing, or that, when taken together, they constitute it, as the whole is\nconstituted of its parts; for then every one of them would have no other\nthan a partial perfection, and consequently the essential glory of one\nof those attributes would not be equal to the glory of the divine Being,\nwhich is supposed to consist of them all; and therefore there would be\nsomething in God less than God, or a divine perfection less than all the\ndivine perfections taken together, which we are not to suppose. These\nare the properties of composition; and therefore, when we speak of God\nas a simple or uncompounded Being, we cannot forbear to mention them as\nwhat are inconsistent with his perfection as such.\n\nNeither are the divine perfections distinct or different from one\nanother, as the various parts of which the whole is constituted are said\nto be distinct; which follows from the former, since the divine essence\nhas no parts; therefore we are not to suppose, that the divine\nattributes, considered as they are in God, are so distinguished, as one\nthing, or being, is from another; or as wisdom, power, justice, mercy,\n&c. are in men; for that would be to suppose the divine Being as having\nseveral distinct, infinitely perfect beings contained in it, which is\ncontrary to its simplicity or unity; or, at least, if we call it one, it\nwould be only so by participation and dependence, as a general or\ncomplex idea is said to be one, which partakes of, and depends on, all\nthose particular or simple ideas that are contained in it; or, to\nillustrate it by numbers, as one hundred is one, as it contains such a\nnumber of units in it, as are, all taken together, equal to a hundred;\nthis is not what we mean, when we say God is one.\n\nMoreover, when we speak of the divine perfections, as being in God, we\nsuppose them all essential to him, as opposed to what is accidental. Now\nan accident is generally described, as what belongs, or is superadded,\nto a being or subject, which it might have existed without, or have been\ndestitute of, and yet sustained no loss of that perfection, which is\nessential to it: thus, wisdom, holiness, justice, faithfulness, are\naccidents in men; so that they who have them not, do not cease to be\nmen, or to have the essential perfection of the human nature: but this\nis by no means to be applied to the divine Being and attributes; for to\nsuppose God to be destitute of any of them, is as much as to say that he\nis not infinitely perfect, or that he is not God. This, I think, is\ngenerally intended, when it is said, _whatever is in God, is God_;\nwhich, because it may be reckoned by some to be a metaphysical\nspeculation, I should have avoided to mention, had it not been, in some\nrespects, necessary, since the unity of God cannot well be conceived of,\nunless his simplicity be defended; and I do not see how that can be\nmaintained, if this proposition be not duly considered. If I have used\nmore words than are needful, or repeated the same ideas too often, in\nattempting to explain it, I have done it to avoid some scholastic modes\nof speaking, or with a design to render what has been said more\nintelligible; but to this we may add,\n\n(3.) That when we speak of the divine perfections as many, or distinct\nfrom one another, as we often do, and have scripture warrant to justify\nus therein, namely, when we speak of the justice of God, as different\nfrom his mercy, or these, from his power, wisdom, faithfulness, &c. this\nmust not be deemed inconsistent with what has been said concerning the\ndivine simplicity: and therefore let it be considered, that the nature\nand perfections of God are incomprehensible; and therefore all the ideas\nwhich we have of them are taken from our comparing them with some small\nresemblance that there is thereof in intelligent creatures, and, at the\nsame time, separating from them whatever argues imperfection.\n\nAnd from hence it follows, that we are not supposed to know, or be able\nto describe, what God is in himself, and, as I humbly conceive, never\nshall: such knowledge as this is too great for any but a divine person;\ntherefore our conceptions of him are taken from and conformed to those\nvarious ways, by which he condescends to make himself visible, or known\nto us, namely, by various acts conversant about certain objects, in\nwhich he is said to manifest his perfections: thus, when an effect is\nproduced, we call that perfection that produces it his power; or as the\ndivine acts are otherwise distinguished with respect to the objects, or\nthe manner of his glorifying himself therein, these we call his wisdom,\njustice, goodness, &c. And this is what we mean, when we speak of\nvarious perfections in God; though some suppose that they express\nthemselves more agreeably to the nature of the subject, or to the\nsimplicity of God, in that, whenever they speak of any of the divine\nperfections, they speak of them in such a way, as that they are\ndenominated from the effect thereof; as when they take occasion to\nmention the power of God, they call it God acting powerfully; or of his\njustice or faithfulness, they express those perfections by, God acting\njustly or faithfully[75]. But however we express ourselves, when we\nspeak of the distinct perfections of the divine nature, this is what we\nprincipally intend thereby: and here our thoughts must stop, and make\nwhat is too great for a finite mind to conceive of the subject of our\nadmiration, and adore what we cannot comprehend: such knowledge is too\nwonderful for us; it is high, we cannot attain to it.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  _See Quest._ cv.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  \u201cAs gravity is the common quality of all bodies, arising not from the\n  nature and properties of matter, nor to be explained without the\n  agency of a foreign cause, yet producing numberless uniform effects in\n  the corporeal system, it is in all reason to be attributed to one\n  contrivance, rather than the different designs of two or more partial\n  independent causes. What a vast variety of appearances in nature\n  depend on this one? The self-balanced earth hangs upon its centre; the\n  mountains are set fast; there is a perpetual flux and reflux of the\n  sea; vapours continually arise; the clouds are balanced till by their\n  own weight they descend in rain; animals breathe and move; the\n  heavenly bodies hold their stations, and go on in their constant\n  course, by the force of gravity, after the _ordinance_ of that wisdom\n  which appointed them this law. Now when we see a multitude of effects\n  proceeding from one Cause, effects so various in their kind and so\n  important, a Cause simple and unvaried in all the diversity produced\n  by it, can we avoid ascribing this to an unity of intelligence, if\n  there be intelligence in it all? For could we suppose different\n  independent beings, acting with different designs, and by distinct\n  operations to have formed the several parts of the world, and the\n  several species of creatures which are in it, what reason can be\n  imagined why they should all be governed by, and all necessarily\n  depend upon, one law? The Maker of the sun, or, if a partial cause of\n  nature could be supposed to have an understanding large enough for it,\n  the Contriver of the whole visible heavens, must, one would think,\n  have finished his scheme independently on any other, without borrowing\n  aid from the work of another God. In like manner the Gods of the seas\n  and of the dry land, and the Creator of animals, would have completed\n  their several systems, each by itself, not depending on any other for\n  its order and preservation. Whereas, on the contrary, we see in fact\n  they are none of them independent, but all held together by the common\n  bond of gravity. The heavens and the earth continue in their\n  situations at a proper distance from each other by the force of this\n  law; the sea keeps within its channels; and animals live and move by\n  it. All which lead us to acknowledge one directing Counsel in the\n  whole frame. For what but an understanding which comprehends the whole\n  extent of nature, reaching from the utmost circuit of heaven to the\n  centre of the earth, could have fixed such a common law, so necessary\n  to all its parts, that without it not one of them could subsist, nor\n  the harmony of the whole be preserved? The strict cohesion of the\n  parts which constitute particular bodies requires a peculiar cement,\n  different from that of the gravitating force; and as it can never be\n  explained by the nature and properties of matter itself, and is\n  absolutely necessary to the forms and the uses of bodies in the\n  several far distant regions of the world, it must in like manner be\n  attributed to the contrivance of an understanding, and the agency of a\n  power, which takes in the whole corporeal system, not to a partial\n  cause, limited in its intelligence and operation.\n\n  \u201c_2dly_, The beautiful order and harmony of the universe, since it\n  must be acknowledged to be the work of understanding, has all the\n  appearance which is necessary to satisfy any fair inquirer, of its\n  being formed under the direction of one governing wisdom. Disconcerted\n  counsels can never produce harmony. If a plurality of intelligent\n  causes pursue each his separate design, disunion will continually\n  cleave to their works; but when we see an intire piece made up of many\n  parts, all corresponding to each other, and conspiring together so as\n  to answer one common end, we naturally conclude unity of design. As a\n  work of art is formed according to the preconceived idea of a\n  designing artificer, without which it has not its necessary intireness\n  and uniformity, the same may be observed in the works of nature. A\n  tree is as much one as a house; an animal as complete a system in it\n  self, (only much more curiously framed,) as a clock. If we carry our\n  views farther into nature, and take in whole regions of the universe,\n  with all their contents, the same characters of unity are still\n  visible. The earth itself is not a confused mass, or a medley of\n  incoherent and unrelated parts, but a well contrived fabric, fitted\n  and plainly designed for use. If we consider what a multitude of\n  living creatures are in it, of different kinds and degrees of\n  perfection, each sort having proper apartments assigned them, where\n  they dwell conveniently together, with suitable provision made for\n  them, and instincts directing them to the use of it; if we consider\n  the interests of the several kinds, not interfering in the main, but\n  rather serviceable to each other, furnished with necessary defences\n  against the inconveniences to which they are liable, either by the\n  preventing care of nature, which without any thought of their own has\n  provided for their safety, by the appointed advantages of their\n  situation, or by an implanted wisdom directing them to find out the\n  means of it; and if we consider the constant interposition of the same\n  liberal intelligent nature, appearing by the daily new productions\n  from the same fertile womb of the earth, whereby the returning wants\n  of animals are relieved with fresh supplies, all the species of living\n  things having the common benefit of the air, without which they could\n  not subsist, and the light of the sun, which cannot at once illuminate\n  the whole globe, being dispensed among them with so good \u0153conomy, that\n  they have every one what is sufficient to guide them in the exercise\n  of their proper functions, that they may fulfil the purposes of their\n  beings;\u2014when we consider all this, can we doubt but the earth is\n  disposed and governed by one intending Cause? If in a large house,\n  wherein are many mansions, and a vast variety of inhabitants, there\n  appears exact order, all from the highest to the lowest continually\n  attending their proper business, and all lodged and constantly\n  provided for suitably to their several conditions, we find ourselves\n  obliged to acknowledge one wise \u0153conomy. And if in a great city or\n  commonwealth there be a perfectly regular administration, so that not\n  only the whole society enjoys an undisturbed peace, but every member\n  has the station assigned him which he is best qualified to fill; the\n  unenvied chiefs constantly attend their more important cares, served\n  by the busy inferiors, who have all a suitable accommodation, and food\n  convenient for them, the very meanest ministering to the public\n  utility and protected by the public care; if, I say, in such a\n  community we must conclude there is a ruling Counsel, which if not\n  naturally, yet is politically one, and, unless united, could not\n  produce such harmony and order, much more have we reason to recognize\n  one governing Intelligence in the earth, in which there are so many\n  ranks of beings disposed of in the most convenient manner, having all\n  their several provinces appointed to them, and their several kinds and\n  degrees of enjoyment liberally provided for, without encroaching upon,\n  but rather being mutually useful to each other, according to a settled\n  and obvious subordination. What else can account for this but a\n  sovereign Wisdom, a common provident nature, presiding over, and\n  caring for the whole?\n\n  \u201cBut the earth, as great as it appears to us, complicated in its\n  frame, and having such a variety in its constitution, sustaining and\n  nourishing so many tribes of animals, yet is not an intire system by\n  itself, but has a relation to, and dependence on, other parts of the\n  universe, as well as the beings it contains have upon it. It owes its\n  stability to the common law of gravitation; it derives its light and\n  its heat from the sun, by which it is rendered fruitful and commodious\n  to its inhabitants. In short, a bond of union runs through the whole\n  circle of being, as far as human knowledge reaches; and we have reason\n  to make the same judgment concerning the parts of the world which we\n  do not know, and to conclude that they all together compose one great\n  whole, which naturally leads us to acknowledge one supreme uniting\n  Intelligence. To object against this the possibility of wild confusion\n  reigning in worlds unknown is to feign, and not to argue; and to\n  suppose disorder prevalent in an infinity of being which we are\n  unacquainted with, which is the _Atheistic_ hypothesis, is to take\n  away all rational foundation for regularity any where, though we see\n  it actually obtains every where, as far as our observation can reach.\n  But confining our speculations on this subject within the compass of\n  known existence, as we ought to do in a fair inquiry, the apparent\n  order of the effects is a strong evidence of unity in the Cause. For\n  if different independent causes produced, each, a part, why are there\n  no footsteps of this in the whole extent of nature? Why does not so\n  much as one piece appear, as the separate monument of its author\u2019s\n  power and wisdom? From divided counsels one would naturally expect\n  interfering schemes; but, on the contrary, we see an universal\n  harmony. Men indeed from a sense of their indigence, and by the\n  direction of instincts, which must be attributed to the designing\n  author of their constitution, join in societies; which, though\n  composed of many, are governed by one counsel: but that is only an\n  artificial union, a submission to the majority, or to those who have\n  the supreme power delegated to them, rather than an agreement in\n  design. But this cannot be the case of independent beings,\n  self-existent, and each complete in itself, without relation to any\n  other. And yet we see in nature a perfect harmony, from whence it is\n  plain there must be an agreement at least in counsel and design, if we\n  could suppose a plurality of independent causes. But whence comes this\n  agreement? To say by chance, is _atheistically_, and very\n  unreasonably, to attribute the most perfect of all effects, universal\n  order, to no cause at all. If we say by design, it must be one\n  comprehensive design forming the whole scheme of nature and\n  providence, which directly brings us to what we are looking for, one\n  sovereign commanding Intelligence in the universe, or one God. This\n  was the argument by which some of the ancient philosophers proved that\n  there is one only eternal and independent Principle, the Fountain of\n  being and the Author of all things. _Pythagoras_ called it a _Monad_;\n  and _Aristotle_ argued from the ph\u00e6nomena that all things are plainly\n  co-ordered, to one, the whole world conspiring into agreeing harmony:\n  Whereas, if there were many independent principles, the system of the\n  world must needs have been incoherent and inconspiring; like an\n  ill-agreeing _drama_, botched up of many impertinent _intersertions_.\n  And he concludes that things are well administered, which they could\n  not be under the government of many, alluding to the verse in _Homer_,\n  \u039f\u03c5\u03ba \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b7, \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9.\n\n  \u201c_3dly_, The condition and order of inferior, derived, and evidently\n  dependent intelligent agents shew not only intelligence, but unity of\n  intelligence, in the Cause of them. Every man, a single active\n  conscious self, is the image of his Maker. There is in him one\n  undivided animating principle, which in its perceptions and operations\n  runs through the whole system of matter that it inhabits; it perceives\n  for all the most distant parts of the body; it cares for all, and\n  governs all, leading us, as a resemblance, to form an idea of the one\n  great quickening Spirit, which presides over the whole frame of\n  nature, the spring of motion and all operation in it, understanding\n  and active in all the parts of the universe, not as its soul indeed,\n  but as its Lord, by whose vital directing influence it is, though so\n  vast a bulk, and consisting of so many parts, united into one regular\n  fabric. Again, the general apparent likeness which there is among all\n  the individuals of the human kind is a strong evidence of their being\n  the children of one Father. I do not mean principally the similitude\n  of the exterior form, (though even that, in reason, should be\n  attributed to the direction of one intelligent Cause,) but that\n  whereby we are especially God\u2019s offspring, our intellectual\n  capacities, which as far as we can judge are very nearly alike. A\n  great difference there may be, no doubt there is, in the improvement\n  of them; but the powers themselves, and all the original modes of\n  perception, in the different individuals of mankind, seem to resemble\n  each other, as much as any real distinct things in nature. Now from a\n  multitude, or a constant series of similar effects which do not arise\n  from necessity, we infer unity of design in the Cause. So great a\n  number of rational beings as the whole human race, disposed of in the\n  same manner, endued with like faculties and affections, having many,\n  and those principal things in their condition, common, provided for\n  out of the same fund, and made for the same purposes, may reasonably\n  be supposed to belong to one family, to be derived from the same\n  origin, and still under the same paternal care.\n\n  \u201cAbove all, the moral capacity of mankind, which is a most important\n  part of their constitution, tending to the highest perfection of their\n  nature, and the principal bond of regular society among them, as it\n  proceeds from a wise intending Cause, shews unity of wisdom in the\n  Cause; and the government over the moral, as well as the natural,\n  world evidently appears to be a monarchy.\u201d\n\n  ABERNETHY\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  _See Arist. Metaphys. Lib. I. Cap. 2. & Lib. XII. Cap. 7._\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  _Vid. ejus. Mag. Moral. Lib. II. Cap. 15._\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  _Vid. ejus. De Moribus, Lib. IX. Cap. 4. & De Mundo, Cap. 6._\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  _Vid. Morn\u00e6i de Verit. Relig. Christ. cap. 3._\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  _Epist. XIII. ad Dionys_.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  _See Cicero de Natura Deorum._\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  _See Tertull. Apol. Lactant. de falsa Relig. Arnob. contra Gentes;\n  Minut. Fel. Herodian. Hist. Lib. IV. See also Mede\u2019s apostasy of the\n  latter times, chap. 3, 4._\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  _Quest. cv._\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  _See de Vries Exercitat. Rational._\n\n\n\n\n                          Quest. IX., X., XI.\n\n\n    QUEST. IX. _How many persons are there in the Godhead?_\n\n    ANSW. There be three Persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son,\n    and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one, true, eternal God, the\n    same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished\n    by their personal properties.\n\n    QUEST. X. _What are the personal properties of the three Persons in\n    the Godhead?_\n\n    ANSW. It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to\n    be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the\n    Father and the Son from all eternity.\n\n    QUEST. XI. _How doth it appear that the Son and the Holy Ghost are\n    God equal with the Father?_\n\n    ANSW. The scriptures manifest, that the Son and the Holy Ghost are\n    God equal with the Father; ascribing unto them such names,\n    attributes, works, and worship, as are proper to God only.\n\n\nIn these three answers is contained the doctrine of the ever blessed\nTrinity, which is a subject of pure revelation;[76] and, because it is\nso much contested in the age in which we live, we are obliged to be more\nlarge and particular, in laying down the reasons of our belief of it,\nand in our defence thereof, against those that deny it. It is a doctrine\nthat has been defended by some of the most judicious writers, both in\nour own and other nations; whereof some have proved that it was\nmaintained by the church in the purest ages thereof, which therefore\nrenders it less necessary for us to enter into that part of the\ncontroversy; but we shall principally insist on it as founded on the\nsacred writings: and whereas others have rendered some parts of this\ndoctrine more obscure, by confining themselves to the scholastic ways of\nspeaking, we shall endeavour to avoid them, that so it may be better\nunderstood by private Christians; and the method we shall pursue in\ntreating of it shall be,\n\nI. To premise some things which are necessary to be considered, with\nrelation to it in general.\n\nII. We shall consider in what sense we are to understand the words\n_Trinity_, and _Persons in the Godhead_, and in what respect the divine\nPersons are said to be One.\n\nIII. We shall prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, have distinct\npersonal properties, and therefore that we have sufficient reason to\ncall them Persons, in the Godhead, as they are in the first of these\nanswers; and under this head shall consider what is generally understood\nby what is contained in the second of them, which respects the eternal\ngeneration of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; and what\ncautions we are to use, lest, by mistaking the sense thereof, we be led\ninto any error, derogatory to, or subversive of the doctrine of the\nTrinity; and also shall endeavour to explain those scriptures, which are\ngenerally brought to establish that doctrine.\n\nIV. We shall endeavour to prove that these three Persons, especially the\nSon and Holy Ghost, are truly divine, or that they have all the\nperfections of the divine nature; and therefore that they are, in the\nmost proper sense, the one only living and true God.[77]\n\nI. We shall premise some things which are necessary to be considered,\nwith relation to the doctrine of the Trinity in general. And,\n\n1. It is a doctrine of the highest importance, and necessary to be\nbelieved by all Christians, who pay a just deference to revealed\nreligion. It may probably be reckoned an error in method to speak of the\nimportance of this doctrine, before we attempt to prove the truth\nthereof: however, it is not altogether unjustifiable, since we address\nourselves to those who believe it, hoping thereby to offer some farther\nconviction, or establishment, to their faith therein, as well as to\nothers who deny it; we may therefore be allowed to consider it as an\nimportant doctrine, that we may be excited to a more diligent enquiry\ninto the force of some of those arguments, which are generally brought\nin its defence.\n\nNow to determine a doctrine to be of the highest importance, we must\nconsider the belief thereof as connected with salvation, or subservient\nto that true religion, which is ordained by God, as a necessary means\nleading to it, without which we have no warrant to expect it: and such\ndoctrines are sometimes called fundamental, as being the basis and\nfoundation on which our hope is built. Here, I think, it will be\nallowed, by all whose sentiments do not savour of scepticism, that there\nare some doctrines of religion necessary to be believed to salvation.\nThere are some, it is true, who plead for the innocency of error, or, at\nleast, of those who are sincere enquirers after truth, who, in the end,\nwill appear to have been very remote from it, as though their endeavours\nwould entitle them to salvation, without the knowledge of those things,\nwhich others conclude to be necessarily subservient to it. All that we\nshall say concerning this is, that it is not the sincerity of our\nenquiries after important truths, but the success thereof, that is to be\nregarded in this, as well as other means, that are to be used to obtain\nso valuable an end. We may as well suppose that our sincere endeavours\nto obtain many of those graces that accompany salvation, such as faith,\nlove to God, and evangelical obedience, will supply, or atone for, the\nwant of them; as assert that our unsuccessful enquiries after the great\ndoctrines of religion will excuse our ignorance thereof; especially when\nwe consider, that blindness of mind, as well as hardness of heart; is\nincluded among those spiritual judgments, which are the consequence of\nour fallen state; and also that God displays the sovereignty of his\ngrace as much, in leading the soul into all necessary truth, as he does\nin any other things that relate to salvation. However, it is not our\nbusiness to determine the final state of men; or how far they make\nadvances to, or recede from, the knowledge of such important doctrines;\nor what will be the issue thereof; but rather to desire of God, that so\nfar as we, or others, are destitute of this privilege, he would grant us\nand them _repentance, to the acknowledgment of the truth_, 1 Tim. ii.\n25. And here we cannot but observe, that the question relating to\nimportant or fundamental articles of faith is not whether any doctrines\nmay be so called? but what those doctrines are: in determining of which,\nmany make provision for their own particular scheme of doctrine: and\naccordingly some, as the Papists in particular, assert several doctrines\nto be fundamental, without scripture warrant; yea, such as are directly\ncontrary thereunto; and others allow no doctrine to be so, but what\nwill, if adhered to, open a door of salvation to all mankind, and these\nset aside the necessity of divine revelation; and others, who desire not\nto run such lengths, will allow, that some scripture-doctrines are\nnecessary to be believed to salvation: but these are only such as may\ninclude those who are in their way of thinking; thus they who deny the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, are obliged in conformity to their own\nsentiments, to deny also that it is an important article of faith. These\nmay justly demand a convincing proof of the truth thereof, before they\nbelieve it to be of any importance, especially to themselves; and\ntherefore it would be a vain thing to tell them, that the belief thereof\nis connected with salvation; or that it is necessary, inasmuch as divine\nworship is so, which supposes the belief of the divinity of the Persons,\nwhom we adore; without first proving that the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, are divine Persons: and it would be as little to their\nedification to say that there are several doctrines necessary to be\nbelieved; such as that of Christ\u2019s satisfaction, and our justification,\ndepending thereon, and that of regeneration and sanctification, as the\neffects of the divine power of the Holy Ghost; all which suppose the\nbelief of their being divine Persons; unless we first give some\nconvincing proof of the truth of these doctrines, which are supposed to\nstand or fall with it; for it would be immediately replied, that one is\nfalse, and consequently far from being of any importance; therefore so\nis the other.\n\nBut inasmuch as we reserve the consideration of these things to their\nproper place; we shall only observe at present, that there are some who\ndo not appear to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather the\nimportance of it; and express themselves with very great indifference\nabout it, and blame all attempts to defend it, as needless, or\nlitigious, as though it were only a contest about words: thus they say,\nthough we hold it ourselves, others who deny it, may have as much to say\nin defence of their own cause as we have, and therefore that these\ndisputes ought to be wholly laid aside. Now, with respect to these, what\nwe have hinted, concerning the importance of this doctrine, may not be\naltogether misapplied; therefore we have taken occasion to mention it in\nthis place, that we may not be supposed to plead a cause which is not\nworth defending, as though the doctrine of the Trinity were no other\nthan an empty speculation; but as that which we are bound to esteem a\ndoctrine of the highest importance.\n\n2. We are next to consider what degree of knowledge of this doctrine is\nnecessary to, or connected with salvation. It cannot be supposed that\nthis includes in it the knowledge of every thing that is commonly laid\ndown in those writings, wherein it is attempted to be explained; for\nwhen we speak of this, as a doctrine of the highest importance, we mean\nthe scripture-doctrine of the Trinity. This is what we are to assent to,\nand to use our utmost endeavours to defend; but as for those\nexplications, which are merely human, they are not to be reckoned of\nequal importance; especially every private Christian is not to be\ncensured as a stranger to this doctrine, who cannot define personality\nin a scholastic way, or understand all the terms used in explaining it,\nor several modes of speaking, which some writers tenaciously adhere to;\nsuch as hypostasis, subsistence, consubstantiality, the modal\ndistinction of the Persons in the Godhead, filiation, or the\ncommunication of the divine essence by generation, or its being farther\ncommunicated by procession; some of which rather embarrass the minds of\nmen, than add any farther light to the sense of those scriptures, in\nwhich this doctrine is contained.\n\nBut when we consider how far the doctrine of the Trinity is to be known,\nand believed to salvation, we must not exclude the weakest Christian\nfrom a possibility of knowing it, by supposing it necessary for him to\nunderstand some hard words, which he doth not find in his Bible; and if\nhe meets with them elsewhere, will not be much edified by them. That\nknowledge, therefore, which is necessary to salvation, is more plain and\neasy, and to be found in every part of scripture: accordingly, every\nChristian knows, that the word _God_ signifies a being that has all\nthose divine perfections, which are so frequently attributed to him\ntherein, and are displayed and glorified in all his works of common\nprovidence and grace; and that this God is one. To which we may also\nadd, that he learns from his Bible, and therefore firmly believes that\nthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are possessed of these divine\nperfections, and consequently that they are this one God; and that they\nare distinguished, as we often find in scripture, by such characters and\nproperties, which we generally call personal, and so apply the word\n_Person_ to each of them, and conclude that the divine glory attributed\nto them is the same, though their personal properties, or characters,\nare distinct; which is the substance of what is contained in the first\nof those answers, under our present consideration. And he that believes\nthis, need not entertain any doubt as though he wanted some ideas of\nthis sacred doctrine, which are necessary to salvation; since such a\ndegree of knowledge, attended with a firm belief thereof, is sufficient\nto warrant all those acts of divine worship, which we are obliged to\nascribe to the Father, Son, and Spirit, and is consistent with all those\nother doctrines, which are founded on, or suppose the belief thereof, as\nwas before observed under our last head.\n\n3. We shall consider this doctrine as a great mystery, such as cannot be\ncomprehended by a finite mind; and therefore we shall first enquire what\nwe are to understand by the word _Mystery_, as it is used in scripture.\nThis word sometimes denotes a doctrine\u2019s having been kept secret, or, at\nleast, revealed more obscurely, upon which account it was not so clearly\nknown before; in which sense, the gospel is called, _The mystery which\nhath been hid from ages, and from generations, but now is made manifest\nto his saints_ Col. i. 26. It was covered with the ceremonial law, as\nwith a vail, which, many of the people, through the blindness of their\nminds, did not so fully understand; and accordingly, when persons are\nled into a farther degree of knowledge thereof, it is said, as our\nSaviour tells his disciples, that to them it is given _to know the\nmysteries of the kingdom of heaven_, Matt. xiii. 11. or when something\nis revealed in scripture, which the world was not in the least apprised\nof before; this is, by way of eminence, called a mystery, as the apostle\nsays, speaking concerning the change that shall be passed on those that\nshall be found alive at the last day; _Behold, I shew you a mystery; we\nshall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the\ntwinkling of an eye_, 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.\n\nBut to this we may add, that there is also another idea affixed to the\nword _Mystery_, namely, that though it be revealed, yet it cannot be\nfully comprehended; and it is in this sense that we call the doctrine of\nthe Trinity a _Mystery_. Both these ideas seem to be contained in the\nword, in some scriptures, particularly where the apostle says, _Unto me,\nwho am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I\nshould preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and\nto make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which, from\nthe beginning of the world, hath been hid in God_, Eph. iii. 8, 9. where\nhe speaks of the gospel, not only as hid, but unsearchable; and he\nspeaks of _the mystery of God, even the Father, and of Christ, in whom\nare hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge_, Col. ii. 3. where\nthe word mystery seems to contain both these ideas; for few will deny,\nthat the glory of the Father, who is here spoken of, as well as Christ,\nis incomprehensible by a finite mind; and if it be said, that the gospel\nis hereby intended, and so that the words ought to be rendered, _in\nwhich_ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; this must be\nsupposed to be incomprehensible, as well as formerly less known,\notherwise this character of it would be too great.\n\nBut suppose the word _Mystery_ were always used to signify a doctrine,\nnot before revealed, without the other idea of its being\nincomprehensible contained in it; this would not overthrow our argument\nin general, since we can prove it to be incomprehensible from other\narguments, which we shall endeavour to do.\n\nAnd that we may prepare our way for this, let it be considered, that\nthere are some finite things, which we cannot now comprehend, by reason\nof the imperfection of our present state, which are not incomprehensible\nin themselves. How little do we know of some things, which may be called\nmysteries in nature; such as the reason of the growth and variety of\ncolours and shapes of plants; the various instinct of brute creatures;\nyea, how little do we know comparatively of ourselves, the nature of our\nsouls, any otherwise, than as it is observed by their actions, and the\neffects they produce; the reason of their union with our bodies, or of\ntheir acting by them, as the inspired writer observes; so that it may\nwell be said, _Thou knowest not the way of the spirit, nor how the bones\ndo grow in the womb of her that is with child; even so thou knowest not\nthe works of God, who maketh all things_, Eccles. xi. 5. and Elihu,\ntogether with some of the other wonderful works of nature, which he\nchallengeth Job to give an account of, speaks of this in particular.\n_Dost thou know how thy garments are warm, when he quieteth the earth,\nby the south wind?_ Job xxxvii. 17, &c. which not only signifies that we\ncannot account for the winds producing heat or cold, as blowing from\nvarious quarters of heaven; but that we know not the reason of the vital\nheat, which is preserved for so many years, in the bodies of men, the\ninseparable concomitant and sign of life; or what gives the first motion\nto the blood and spirits, or fits the organized body to perform its\nvarious functions. These things cannot be comprehended by us.\n\nBut if we speak of that which is infinite, we must conclude it to be\nincomprehensible, not only because of the imperfection of our present\nstate, but because, as has been before observed, of the infinite\ndisproportion that there is between the object and our finite\ncapacities. In this respect we have before shewn that the perfections of\nthe divine nature cannot be comprehended, such as the immensity,\neternity, omnipresence, and simplicity of God; yet we are to believe\nthat he is thus infinitely perfect. And it seems equally reasonable to\nsuppose the doctrine of the Trinity to be incomprehensible; for the\nmutual relation of the Father, Son, and Spirit, to each other, and their\ndistinct personality, are not the result of the divine will; these are\npersonal perfections, and therefore they are necessary, and their glory\ninfinite, as well as that of his essential perfections; and if we are\nbound to believe one to be incomprehensible, why should we not as well\nsuppose the other to be so? or if there are some things which the light\nof nature gives us some ideas of, concerning which we are\nnotwithstanding bound to confess that we know but little of them, for\nthe reason but now mentioned, why should it be thought strange, that\nthis doctrine, though the subject of pure revelation, should be equally\nincomprehensible? This consequence appears so evident, that some of\nthem, who deny the doctrine of the Trinity to be incomprehensible, do\nnot stick to deny the perfections of the divine nature to be so, when\nthey maintain that there is nothing which is the object of faith but\nwhat may be comprehended by us, which is to run such lengths in the\ndefence of their cause, as no one who hath the least degree of that\nhumility, which becomes a finite creature, should venture to do. But\nthey proceed yet farther, as the cause they defend seems to require it,\nand say, that every doctrine which we cannot comprehend is to be\nrejected by us, as though our understandings were to set bounds to the\ntruth and credibility of all things.\n\nThis, I think, is the true state of the question about mysteries in\nChristianity: it is not whether the word _Mystery_ is never used in\nscripture to signify what is incomprehensible; for if that could be\nsufficiently proved, which I think hath not yet been done, we would\nassert the doctrine of the Trinity to be more than a mystery, namely, an\nincomprehensible doctrine; and the proof thereof seems absolutely\nnecessary, since the Antitrinitarians, and some of them with an air of\ninsult, conclude this to be our last resort, which we betake ourselves\nto when they have beaten us out of all our other strong holds; and\ntherefore we may suppose, that this would be opposed with the greatest\nwarmth, but I do not find that it has hitherto been overthrown: and\nindeed when they call it one of our most plausible pretences, as though\nwe laid the whole stress of the controversy upon it, it might be\nexpected that it should be attacked with stronger arguments than it\ngenerally is. Sometimes they bend their force principally against the\nsense of the word _Mystery_; and here they talk not only with an air of\ninsult, but profaneness, when they compare it with the abominable\nmysteries of the heathen, which were not to be divulged to any but those\nof them who were in the secret; and the doctrine of the Trinity, and\nthat of transubstantiation, are compared together, so that they are to\nbe reckoned equally mysterious, that is, according to their application\nof the word, absurd and nonsensical. And this way of arguing has so far\nprevailed among them, that no one must apply the word to any doctrines\nof religion without exposing himself to scorn and ridicule; but this\nwill do no service to their cause, nor prejudice to our doctrine, in the\nopinion of those who enquire into the truth thereof, with that\nseriousness and impartiality, that the importance of the doctrine calls\nfor.[78]\n\nThe question therefore in controversy is; whether any doctrines of\nreligion may be deemed incomprehensible, that is, such as we can have no\nadequate ideas of, because of the disproportion between them and our\nfinite minds? and whether the incommunicable perfections of God are not\nto be reckoned among these incomprehensible doctrines? if they are not,\nthen it will be reasonable to demand that every thing relating to them\nbe particularly accounted for, and reduced to the standard of a finite\ncapacity; and if this cannot be done, but some things must be allowed to\nbe incomprehensible in religion, then it will be farther enquired, Why\nshould the doctrine of the Trinity be rejected, because we cannot\naccount for every thing that relates to the personal glory of God, any\nmore than we can for those things that respect his essential glory? or\nmay not some things, that are matter of pure revelation, be supposed to\nexceed our capacities, and yet we be bound to believe them, as well as\nother things which appear to be true, and at the same time,\nincomprehensible, by the light of nature? But, that we may enter a\nlittle more particularly into this argument, we shall consider the most\nmaterial objections that are brought against it, and what may be replied\nto them.\n\n_Object._ 1. It is objected that we take up with the bare sound of\nwords, without any manner of ideas affixed to them. And,\n\n2. That it is unbecoming the divine wisdom and goodness to suppose that\nGod should give a revelation, and demand our belief thereof, as\nnecessary to salvation, when, at the same time, it is impossible for our\nunderstandings to yield an assent to it, since nothing that is\nunintelligible can be the object of faith.\n\n3. That practical religion is designed to be promoted in the world\nhereby, and therefore the will of man must follow the dictates of the\nunderstanding, and not blindly embrace, and be conversant about we know\nnot what, which is to act unbecoming our own character as intelligent\ncreatures.\n\n4. That the design of divine revelation is to improve our\nunderstandings, and render our ideas of things more clear, and not to\nentangle and perplex them.\n\n_Answ._ 1. As to our using words without ideas, there is no Christian,\nthat I know of, who thinks there is any religion in the sound of words,\nor that it is sufficient for us to take up with the word Trinity, or\nPersons in the Godhead, without determining, in some measure, what we\nunderstand thereby. We will therefore allow that faith supposes some\nideas of the object, namely, that we have some knowledge of what we\nbelieve it to be: now our knowledge of things admits of various degrees;\nsome of which we only know that they are what they are determined, or\nproved to be; if we proceed farther in our enquiries, and would know how\nevery thing is to be accounted for, that may justly be affirmed\nconcerning them, here our ideas are at a stand; yet this is not in the\nleast inconsistent with the belief of what we conclude them to be. For\nthe illustrating of which, let it be considered that we believe that\nGod\u2019s eternity is without succession, his immensity without extension;\nthis we know and believe, because to assert the contrary would be to\nascribe imperfection to him. In this respect, our faith extends as far\nas our ideas: but as for what exceeds them, we are bound to believe that\nthere is something in God, which exceeds the reach of a finite mind,\nthough we cannot comprehend, or fully describe it, as though it was not\ninfinite. And to apply this to the doctrine of the Trinity; it is one\nthing, to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit, have the perfections of\nthe divine nature attributed to them in scripture, as well as distinct\npersonal characters and properties, and because the Godhead is but one,\nthat therefore these three are one, which we firmly believe, inasmuch as\nit is so clearly revealed in scripture; and another thing, to say, that\nwe can fully describe all the properties of their divine personality,\nwhich, though we cannot do, yet we believe that they subsist in an\nincomprehensible manner. And while we compare them with finite persons,\nas we do the perfections of God with those of the creature, we separate\nfrom the one, as well as the other, whatever savours of imperfection.\n\n2. As to the unintelligibleness of divine revelation, and its being\nunbecoming the wisdom and goodness of God to communicate those doctrines\nthat are so, it may be replied, that we must distinguish between the\nrendering a doctrine, which would be otherwise easy to be understood,\nunintelligible, by the perplexity or difficulty of the style in which it\nis delivered, and the imparting a doctrine which none can comprehend;\nthe former of these cannot be charged on any part of scripture, and it\nis only a revelation, which is liable to such a charge, that could be\nreckoned inconsistent with the wisdom and goodness of God. As to the\nlatter, the design of revelation is not to make us comprehend what is in\nitself incomprehensible: as, for instance, God did not design, when he\nmade known his perfections in his word, to give us such a perfect\ndiscovery of himself, that we might be said hereby to find him out unto\nperfection, or that we should know as much of his glory as is possible\nto be known, or as much as he knows of it himself; for that is to\nsuppose the understanding of man infinitely more perfect than it is.\nWhatever is received, is received in proportion to the measure of that\nwhich contains it; the whole ocean can communicate no more water than\nwhat will fill the vessel, that is to contain it. Thus the infinite\nperfections of God being such as cannot be contained in a finite mind,\nwe are not to suppose that our comprehending them was the design of\ndivine revelation; God, indeed, designed hereby that we should apprehend\nsome things of himself, namely, as much as should be subservient to the\ngreat ends of religion; but not so much as might be inconsistent with\nour humble confession, that _we are but of yesterday, and know,\ncomparatively, nothing_, Job viii. 9.\n\nAnd this is applicable, not only to the essential, but the personal,\nglory of God, _Who hath ascended into heaven, or descended? Who hath\ngathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment?\nWho hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and\nwhat is his Son\u2019s name, if thou canst tell?_ Prov. xxx. 4. Our Saviour,\nindeed, speaks of his having _ascended into heaven_, John iii. 13. as\nhaving a comprehensive knowledge of all divine truths; but this he\naffirms concerning himself as a divine person, exclusively of all\ncreatures.\n\nMoreover, when it is said, in this objection, that God makes the\ncomprehensive knowledge of these things a term of salvation, this we\nmust take leave to deny; and we need not add any more as to that head,\nsince we have already considered what degree of knowledge is necessary\nthereunto, namely, such as is subservient to religion, which teaches us\nto adore what we apprehend to be the object thereof, though we cannot\ncomprehend it.\n\nAs to that part of the objection, that which is unintelligible, is not\nthe object of faith, we must distinguish before we grant or deny it;\ntherefore, since the object of faith is some proposition laid down, it\nis one thing to say that a proposition cannot be assented to, when we\nhave no ideas of what is affirmed or denied in it; and another thing to\nsay that it is not believed, when we have ideas of several things\ncontained therein, of which some are affirmed, and others denied; as,\nfor instance, when we say God is an infinite Spirit, there is a positive\nidea contained in that proposition, or some things affirmed therein,\n_viz._ that he is able to put forth actions suitable to an intelligent\nbeing; and there is something denied concerning him, to wit, his being\ncorporeal; and in concluding him to be an infinite Spirit, we deny that\nthey are limits of his understanding; all this we may truly be said to\nunderstand and believe: but if we proceed farther, and enquire what it\nis to have such an understanding, or will? this is not a proposition,\nand consequently not the object of faith, as well as exceeds the reach\nof our understanding. So as to the doctrine of the Trinity, when we\naffirm that there is one God, and that the Father, Son, and Spirit, have\nall the perfections of the Godhead; and that these perfections, and the\npersonality of each of them, are infinitely greater than what can be\nfound in the creature, this we yield our assent to; but if it be\nenquired how far does God herein exceed all the ideas which we have of\nfinite perfections, or personality, here our understandings are at a\nloss; but so far as this does not contain the form of a proposition, it\ncannot, according to our common acceptation of the word, be said to be\nthe object of faith.\n\n3. As to what concerns practical religion, the ideas we have of things\nsubservient to it are of two sorts; either such as engage our obedience,\nor excite our adoration and admiration: as to the former of these, we\nknow what we are commanded to do; what it is to act, as becomes those\nwho are subject to a divine person, though we cannot comprehend those\ninfinite perfections, which lay us under the highest obligation to obey\nhim: as to the latter, the incomprehensibleness of the divine\npersonality, or perfections, has a direct tendency to excite our\nadmiration, and the infiniteness thereof our adoration. And, since all\nreligion may be reduced to these two heads, the subject matter of divine\nrevelation is so far from being inconsistent with it, that it tends to\npromote it. Things commanded are not, as such, incomprehensible, as was\nbut now observed, and therefore not inconsistent with that obedience, or\nsubjection, which is contained in one branch thereof; and things\nincomprehensible do not contain the form of a command, but rather excite\nour admiration, and therefore they are not only consistent with, but\nadapted to promote the other branch thereof. Is it not an instance of\nreligion to adore and magnify God, when we behold the display of his\nperfections in his works? And is he less to be adored, or admired,\nbecause we cannot comprehend them? Or should we not rather look upon\nthem with a greater degree of astonishment, than if they did not exceed\nthe reach of a finite mind? Must a person be able to measure the water\nof the ocean, or number all the particles of matter that are contained\nin the world; or can our ideas be no ways directed to shew forth the\nCreator\u2019s praise? Or must we be able to account for every thing that is\na mystery in nature; or can we not improve it to promote some of the\nends of practical religion, that we are engaged to thereby? May we not\nsay, with wonder, _O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast\nthou made them all; the earth is full of thy riches?_ Psal. civ. 24. So\nwhen we behold the personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, as\ndisplayed in the work of redemption, or as contained in scripture, which\nis therein said to be an instance of his _manifold wisdom_, Eph. iii.\n10. should we not admire it the more, inasmuch as it is, as the apostle\ncalls it, unsearchable? Therefore practical religion, as founded on\ndivine revelation, is not, in all the branches thereof, inconsistent\nwith the incomprehensibleness of those things, which are, some in one\nrespect, and others in another, the objects thereof.\n\nAnd as to what is farther contained in this objection, concerning the\nwill\u2019s following the dictates of the understanding, and practical\nreligion\u2019s being seated therein, I own, that we must first know what we\nare to do in matters of religion, before we can act; thus we must first\nknow what it is to worship, love, and obey, the Father, Son, and Spirit,\nas also that these three divine persons are the object of worship, love,\nand obedience, and then the will follows the dictates of the\nunderstanding; but it is one thing to know these things, and another\nthing to be able to comprehend the divine, essential, or personal glory,\nwhich belongs to them, and is the foundation of these acts of religious\nworship.\n\n4. As to what is farther objected, concerning the design of divine\nrevelation\u2019s being to improve our understanding; or, as it is sometimes\nexpressed, that it is an improvement upon the light of nature; this\nseems to have a double aspect, or tendency, _viz._ to advance, or\ndepreciate, divine revelation.\n\n1. If we take it in the former view, we freely own,\n\n(1.) That it is a very great improvement upon the light of nature, and\nthat, either as we are led hereby, not only into the knowledge of many\nthings which could not be discovered by it, namely, the doctrine of the\nTrinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, and that infinite\nsatisfaction which was given by him to the justice of God, in order to\nour discharge from condemnation, as also that communion which believers\nhave with the Father, Son, and Spirit; and therefore, since the light of\nnature gives us no discovery of these doctrines, divine revelation, and\nparticularly the gospel, makes a very great addition to those ideas\nwhich we are led into by the light of nature. It is true, they both take\ntheir rise from God, yet one excels the other, as much as the light of\nthe sun does that of a star; and is, as the Psalmist says, when\ncomparing them together, _perfect, converting the soul_; and _sure,\nmaking wise the simple_, Psal. xix. 7.\n\n(2.) That when the same truths are discovered by the light of nature,\nand by divine revelation, the latter tends very much to improve our\nideas: thus when the light of nature leads us into the knowledge of the\nbeing and perfections of God, his wisdom, power, and goodness, as\nillustrated in the works of nature and providence, we have not so clear\nideas thereof, as we receive from the additional discoveries of them in\ndivine revelation; and in this respect one does not cloud or darken\nthose ideas which the other gives. But neither of these are designed by\nthose who bring this objection against the doctrine of the Trinity:\ntherefore we must suppose,\n\n2. That they intend hereby to depreciate divine revelation, and then the\nsense thereof is this; that though the light of nature leads mankind\ninto such a degree of the knowledge of divine truths, as is sufficient,\nin its kind to salvation; so that they, who are destitute of divine\nrevelation, may thereby understand the terms of acceptance with God, and\nthe way which, if duly improved, would lead to heaven; yet God was\npleased to give some farther discovery of the same things by his word,\nand, in this sense, the one is only an improvement upon the other, as it\nmakes the same truths, which were known, in some degree, without it more\nclear, and frees them from those corruptions, or false glosses, which\nthe perverse reasonings of men have set upon them; whereas we, by\ninsisting on inexplicable mysteries, which we pretend to be founded on\ndivine revelation, though, in reality, they are not contained in it,\ncloud and darken that light, and so make the way of salvation more\ndifficult, than it would otherwise be; and this certainly tends to\ndepreciate divine revelation, how plausible soever the words, at first\nview, may appear to be; for it supposes those doctrines but now\nmentioned, and many others of the like nature, not necessary to\nsalvation; so that this objection takes its first rise from the Deists,\nhowever it may be applied, by the Anti-trinitarians, in militating\nagainst the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, since it is principally\ndesigned to overthrow this doctrine, by supposing it to be\nunintelligible, and consequently, according to their method of\nreasoning, in no sense the object of faith, the only reply which need be\nmade to it is, that the discoveries of the glory of God, by the light of\nnature, are, in some respects, as incomprehensible as the doctrine of\nthe Trinity; which we are not, for that reason, obliged to disbelieve,\nor reject; and therefore there is no advantage gained against our\nargument, by supposing that the light of nature contains a discovery of\ntruths, plain, easy, and intelligible by all, in the full extent\nthereof, and that the doctrine of the Trinity is otherwise, and\nconsequently must not be contained in divine revelation, and, as such,\ncannot be defended by us.\n\n4. Another thing that may be premised, before we enter on the proof of\nthe doctrine of the Trinity, is, that it is not contrary to reason,\nthough it be above it; neither are our reasoning powers, when directed\nby scripture-revelation, altogether useless, in order to our attaining\nsuch a degree of the knowledge thereof, as is necessary, and ought to be\nendeavoured after. When a doctrine may be said to be above reason, has\nbeen already considered, as well as that the doctrine of the Trinity is\nso; and now we are obliged to obviate an objection, which is the most\npopular one of any that is brought against it, namely, that it is an\nabsurd and irrational doctrine; and that they who maintain it must first\nlay aside their reason, before they can be induced to believe it, for it\nis as much as to say that three are equal to one; which is contrary to\nthe common sense of all mankind, or else, that we maintain a plurality\nof gods, which is contrary to the very first principles of the light of\nnature. And here we are reflected on, as though we demanded that our\nantagonists should lay aside their reason, before we argue with them,\nand then it is easy to determine on which side the argument will turn;\ntherefore, to make way for what might be said in defence of the doctrine\nof the Trinity, we shall, under this head, consider,\n\n(1.) When a doctrine may be said to be contrary to reason.\n\n(2.) Shew that the doctrine of the Trinity is not so.\n\n(3.) What is the use of reason, in establishing it, or any other\ndoctrines, which are the subject of pure revelation.\n\n(1.) When we may conclude, that a doctrine is contrary to reason. This\nit may be said to be, when it is contrary to the methods of reasoning\nmade use of by particular persons, which are not always just, and\ntherefore it does not follow, from hence, that it is false or absurd,\nbecause our reasoning about it is so, but rather the contrary; so that\nwhen they, on the other side of the question, tell us, with an air of\nboasting, that if the doctrine we are maintaining could have been\naccounted for, how comes it to pass that so many men of sense and\nlearning, as are to be found among the Anti-trinitarians, have not been\nable to do it? But this is nothing to our present argument; therefore we\nsuppose that a doctrine is contrary to reason, when it contradicts some\nof the first principles, which the mind of man cannot but yield its\nassent to, as soon as ever it takes in the sense of the words which\ncontain them, without demanding any proof thereof; as that the whole is\ngreater than the part; and that a thing can be, and not be, at the same\ntime; or that two is more than one, &c. or when we can prove a thing to\nbe true to a demonstration, and yet suppose that a contradictory\nproposition, in which the words are taken in the same sense, may be\nequally true.[80]\n\n(2.) That the doctrine of the Trinity is not contrary to reason. This\nappears, inasmuch as we do not say that the three Persons in the Godhead\nare one Person, or that the one divine Being is three divine Beings.\n\n_Object._ But it is objected, that it is contrary to reason, which\nestablishes and proves the unity of the Godhead, to say that the divine\nnature may be predicated of more than one, inasmuch as that infers a\nplurality of Gods, and every distinct Person must be concluded to be a\ndistinct God; therefore the Trinitarian doctrine is down-right\nTritheism, and consequently contrary to reason; and here those words of\nthe Athanasian Creed are produced, as an instance hereof, namely, that\nthe Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, yet there\nare not three Gods, but one God; so, that the Father is Eternal, the Son\nis Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal, yet there are not three\nEternals, but one Eternal; and the Father Almighty, the Son Almighty,\nand the Holy Ghost Almighty, yet are there not three Almighties, but one\nAlmighty. This they suppose, though without ground, to be a plain\ncontradiction.\n\n_Answ._ But to this it may be replied, that when we say the Father, Son,\nand Holy Ghost, are God, we do not say they are distinct Gods, for the\ndistinction between them respects their personality, not their deity:\nand when we assert that they are all Eternal, or Almighty, we do not\nsuppose that their duration, or power, are distinct; and the same may be\nsaid of all other divine perfections that are attributed to them, the\nperfections are the same in all of them, though the persons are\ndistinct. So that the charge of Tritheism lies in a narrow compass: they\nsay that there is one divine Being, so do we; and to this they add, that\nthis divine Being is a divine person, since existence and personality\nare the same; therefore, if there are more divine Persons, there must be\nmore Gods; this consequence they maintain, but we deny. But how do they\nprove it? The proof amounts to no more than this; that there is no\ninstance in finite things, when we speak of angels or men, to whom alone\npersonality can be applied, of any distinct persons, but at the same\ntime their beings are distinct; therefore it must be so with respect to\nthe divine persons. This we are bound to deny, since our ideas of\npersonality and existence are not the same; therefore, how inseparable\nsoever they may be in what respects creatures, we may have distinct\nideas of them, when we speak of the divine being and personality of the\nFather, Son, and Spirit. Here it will, doubtless, be demanded, that we\ndetermine wherein the difference consists; or, in particular, since\nevery distinct finite person is a distinct being, what there is in the\ndivine personality, that should exclude the Father, Son, and Spirit,\nfrom being distinct beings, because distinct persons; so that when we\nconclude that there is a small or faint resemblance between divine and\nhuman personality, we must be able to comprehend, and fully to describe,\nthat infinite disproportion that is between them, or else must be\ncharged with using words without any manner of ideas annexed to them,\nand so our cause must fall to the ground. If, indeed, the divine\npersonality were finite, like that of the creature, then it might be\nrequired that a finite mind should account for it: but since it is not\nso, but incomprehensible, we are bound to believe what we cannot\ncomprehend.\n\nBut have we no ideas at all of the distinct personality of the Father,\nSon, and Spirit? To this we may answer; that we have finite ideas\nthereof, and more than these we have not of any of the divine\nperfections. We are taught, by scripture, to say that they are distinct\npersons; and we know what those personal characters, or properties, from\nwhence our ideas take their rise, signify, when applied to men; but, at\nthe same time, abstract, in our thoughts, every thing from them that\nargues imperfection; or, in short, our conceptions hereof proceed in the\nsame way, as when we think of any of the perfections of the divine\nnature: these, as well as the divine personality, are equally\nincomprehensible; yet, while we say they are infinitely more than can be\nin any creature, we, notwithstanding, retain such ideas of them, as tend\nto answer those ends of religion, which suppose that we apprehend\nsomething of them that is conducive hereunto. We are now to consider,\n\n(3.) The use of reason in proving or defending the doctrine of the\nTrinity, or any other doctrines of pure revelation. They could not,\nindeed, have been at first discovered by reason, nor can every thing\nthat is revealed be comprehended by it, yet our reason is not to be laid\naside as useless; therefore some call it a servant to faith. Thus\nrevelation discovers what doctrines we are to believe, demands our\nassent to them, and reason offers a convincing proof that we are under\nan indispensable obligation to give it: it proves the doctrine to be\ntrue, and such as is worthy of God, as it is derived from him, the\nfountain of truth and wisdom; and this office of reason, or the\nsubserviency thereof to our faith, is certainly necessary, since what is\nfalse cannot be the object of faith in general; and nothing unworthy of\nGod can be the matter of divine revelation, nor consequently the object\nof a divine faith.\n\nNow, in order to reason\u2019s judging of the truth of things, it first\nconsiders the sense of words; what ideas are designed to be conveyed\nthereby, and whether they are contrary to the common sense of mankind;\nand if it appears that they are not, it proceeds to enquire into those\nevidences that may give conviction, and enforce our belief thereof; and\nleads us into the nature of the truths revealed, receives them as\ninstamped with the authority of God, and considers them as agreeable to\nhis perfections, and farther leads us into his design of revealing them,\nand what we are to infer from them; and in doing this it connects things\ntogether, observes the dependence of one thing on another, what is the\nimportance thereof, and how they are to be improved to answer the best\npurposes.\n\nNow this may be applied particularly to the doctrine of the Trinity; for\nit contains in it no absurdity contradictory to reason, as has been\nalready proved; and the evidences on which our faith herein is founded\nwill be farther considered, when we prove it to be a scripture doctrine,\nby the express words thereof, agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost,\nor by just consequences deduced from it; by which it will farther\nappear, that it is necessary for us to use our reason in stating those\ndoctrines, which are neither founded on, nor can be comprehended by it.\n\n5. We are now to consider from whence the doctrine of the Trinity is to\nbe deduced, or where we are to search for that knowledge thereof, which\nwe are to acquiesce in. And here it must be observed, that it cannot be\nlearnt from the light of nature, for then we should certainly be able to\nbehold some traces or footsteps thereof in the works of creation and\nprovidence, that so this might be understood thereby, as well as the\npower, wisdom, and goodness of God, as the cause is known by its effect;\nbut we should never have known that God made all things by his essential\nword, _without whom nothing was made, that was made_, as the evangelist\nspeaks, John i. 3. had we not received this doctrine from divine\nrevelation: likewise, we should never have known that the Spirit, as a\ndistinct Person from the Father, created all things, and performed\nseveral other works, by which his personal glory is demonstrated, had we\nnot received the account which we have thereof from scripture. The light\nof nature could discover to us, indeed, that God, who is a Spirit, or\nincorporeal Being, has produced many effects worthy of himself; but we\ncould not have known hereby, that the word Spirit signifies a distinct\nperson, which we are beholden to divine revelation for.\n\nAnd as for the work of our redemption, in which, more than in all the\nother divine works, the personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit,\nis demonstrated, we could have known as little of that by the light of\nnature, as we do the persons to whom it is attributed. But I am sensible\nthat it will be objected to this,\n\n_Object._ 1. That our first parents knew the doctrine of the Trinity as\nsoon as they were created, otherwise they could not have given that\ndistinct glory to the Persons in the Godhead that is due to them; and if\nwe are required, not only to worship the divine Being, but to worship\nthe Father, Son, and Spirit; and, if this worship is due from us, as\ncreatures, and not merely as fallen and redeemed; then it will follow\nfrom hence, that our first parents must know the doctrine of the\nTrinity: but this they did not know by divine revelation; therefore they\nknew it by the light of nature.\n\n_Answ._ We will allow every thing contained in this objection, excepting\nthat they did not know this by divine revelation; for certainly they had\nsome ideas conveyed this way at first, otherwise they could not have\nknown any thing that related to instituted worship, which, it is plain,\nthey did. And shall it be reckoned any absurdity to suppose that they\nreceived this doctrine of the Trinity by divine revelation, though we\nhave no particular account thereof, in that short history which Moses\ngives us of things relating to the state of innocency? It is therefore\nsufficient to our purpose, to suppose that it was agreeable to the\nwisdom and goodness of God to make known to them this important truth,\nand consequently that he did so, though not by the light of nature.\n\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected, that the heathen knew something of\nthe doctrine of the Trinity, as appears by their writings, though they\nwere unacquainted with scripture. To support this objection, they refer\nto several mystical expressions in the works of Plato, which seem to\nlook that way, when he speaks of three principles; one whereof he calls\ngoodness, or a being that is good; the second he calls his word, or\nreason; and the third a spirit, which diffuses its influence throughout\nthe whole system of beings, and calls him sometimes the soul of the\nworld; and in other places, he speaks of them as having a distinct\nsovereignty.[81] And he supposes the first of these to be the cause of\nthings most great and excellent; the second, the cause of things of an\ninferior nature; the third, of things yet more inferior; and some of his\nfollowers plainly call them three hypostases; and sometimes, Father,\nWord, and Spirit.\n\n_Answ._ The account which Plato and his followers seem to have given of\nthe doctrine of the Trinity does not appear to have been taken from the\nlight of nature, and therefore this makes nothing to the objection. We\nhave sufficient ground to conclude that Plato travelled into Egypt, with\na design to make improvements in knowledge; and some suppose, that there\nhe saw some translation of a part of the Bible into Greek,[82] more\nancient than that which is commonly attributed to the LXX, which was not\ncompiled till an hundred years after his time. But whether he did this,\nor no, is uncertain: it is true, he used several expressions, which are\ncontained in the books of Moses, and took the plan of his laws from\nthence; upon which account some have called him a second Moses, speaking\nGreek: but whether he received his notions more immediately from\nscripture, or by conversation with the Jews, of whom a great number\nsettled in Egypt, after Gedaliah\u2019s death, is not material; however, it\nis sufficiently evident, that he had not all of them, in a way of\nreasoning, from the light of nature: and as for his followers, such as\nPlotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, and others, they lived in those ages, when\nChristianity prevailed in the world, though none of them pretended to be\nChristians; and one of them was the most inveterate enemy to\nChristianity that lived; yet these might well be supposed to make their\nmaster Plato speak several things, as to this mystery, which he never\nintended, were it only to persuade the Christians to believe that he was\nnot inferior to Moses, or any other recorded in scripture.\n\nThus having answered the objections, we shall take leave to consider how\nunwarily some divines, who have defended the doctrine of the Trinity,\nhave not only asserted that Plato understood a great a deal of it, but\nhave made use of this, as an answer to the Anti-trinitarian objection\nbefore mentioned, that the doctrine of the Trinity is unintelligible;\nand they have taken a great deal of pleasure in accounting for this\ndoctrine in such a way as these philosophers have done:[83] and some of\nthem have taken notice of a few dark hints, which they have met with in\nsome of the poetical fictions, and from thence concluded that there was\nsomething of the Trinity known, even by the Heathen in general: thus\nwhen the word three is mentioned by them, and applied to some things,\nwhich they relate concerning their gods; or when they speak of gods\ndelighting in an unequal number, or in the number three. But this is too\ngross to be particularly mentioned, lest it should give us an unbecoming\nidea of this divine mystery, or of those who have better arguments than\nthese to defend it.\n\nThe reflection which I would make on this is, that what they call an\nadvantage to the doctrine has been certainly very detrimental to it;\nand, as a late learned divine observes, has tended only to pervert the\nsimplicity of the Christian faith with mixtures of philosophy and vain\ndeceit.[84] And I doubt not but the apostle had an eye to this, among\nother corruptions, which they who were attached to the Heathen\nphilosophy began to bring into their scheme of divinity, and would\nnotoriously do in after ages, which he purposely fences against, when he\nsays, _Beware, lest any man spoil you, through philosophy and vain\ndeceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,\nand not after Christ_, Col. ii. 8. And this corruption so much\nprevailed, that it has given occasion to some of the Anti-trinitarians,\nto reproach the doctrine of the Trinity, as though it were a system of\nPlatonism. And it is their being too fond of using Plato\u2019s words, in\nexplaining the doctrine of the Trinity, that has given occasion to some\nof the fathers to be suspected, as though they were less favourable to\nthe scripture account thereof; by which means the adversaries have laid\nclaim to them as their own; and produced some unwary expressions out of\nJustin Martyr, and others, supposing them to be in the Arian scheme,\nwho, in other parts of their writings, appear to be remote from it.[85]\n\nAnd this leads us to consider the method which some divines have taken,\nin using similitudes to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, which, at\nbest, tend only to illustrate, and not to prove a doctrine: and we can\nhardly make use of this method of illustrating this doctrine, without\nconveying some ideas, which are unbecoming, if not subversive thereof;\nand while we pretend to explain that which is in itself inexplicable, we\ndo no service to the truth.\n\nI shall here give a short specimen of this matter, that hereby we may\nsee how some have unwarily weakened the cause which they have been\nmaintaining. Some have taken a similitude from three of the divine\nperfections, _viz._ that there are three invisibles of God; power,\nwisdom, and goodness. Power creates, wisdom governs, and goodness\nconserves; and so they have gone on to explain this doctrine, till they\nhad almost given it into the hands of the Sabellians: and, indeed, they\nmight have instanced in more divine perfections than three, had it been\nto their purpose.\n\nAgain, others have explained this doctrine by some resemblance which\nthey apprehend to be of it in man; and so they speak of the soul as a\nprinciple of a threefold life, rational, sensitive, and vegetative.\nOthers speak of three causes concurring to produce the same effect; such\nas the efficient, constitutive and final cause. Others have taken their\nsimilitude from inanimate things; as the sun, in which there is light,\nheat, and motion, which are inseparably connected together, and tend to\nproduce the same effects.\n\nMoreover, others illustrate it by a similitude, taken from a fountain,\nin which there is the spring in the bowels of the earth, the water\nbubbling out of the earth, and the stream diffusing itself in a\nperpetual course, receiving all it communicates from the fountain. I am\nsorry there is occasion to caution any against this method of explaining\nthe doctrine of the Trinity. But these, and many other similitudes of\nthe like nature, we find in the writings of some, who consider not what\na handle they give to the common enemy. There are, indeed, in most of\nthem, three things, which are said, in different respects, to be one;\nbut we may observe, that all these similitudes, and others of the like\nnature, brought to illustrate this doctrine, lead us to think of the\nwhole divided into those parts, of which they consist, whereof they take\nnotice of the number three; or they speak of three properties of the\nsame thing; and if their wit and fancy saw it needful to speak of more\nthan three, the same method of illustrating would serve their purpose,\nas much as it does the end for which they bring it. Therefore I would\nconclude this head, by using the words of God to Job, _Who is this that\ndarkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?_ Job xxxviii. 2. Who are\nthese, that, by pretending to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity by\nsimilitudes, do that, which, though very foreign to their design, tends\nto pervert it?\n\n6. We shall now consider what general rules may be observed for our\nunderstanding those scriptures, on which our faith, with respect to the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, is founded; and since it is a doctrine of pure\nrevelation, as has been before observed, we must keep close to\nscripture, even to the words thereof, where they are express and\ndistinct, as to this matter; and to consequences deduced from it, so far\nas they are just, and self-evident; and, at the same time, while we are\nsensible that we cannot comprehend this mystery, we must take care that\nwe pretend not to be wise above what is revealed. Now there are some\nrules, which may be of use to us, in our enquiries into the sense of\nscripture concerning this doctrine; as,\n\n(1.) We must not suppose that the words of scripture, relating\nthereunto, are to be taken in a sense, which can be known by none but\ncriticks, as though it were designed only for them to understand; or\nthat the unlearned part of the world should be left in the dark, or led\nastray, as to several things contained in this important doctrine. Thus\nwe are not to suppose that we are at a loss as to the proper sense of\nthe word God; or could hardly know how to direct our faith and worship,\nfounded thereon, without the help of criticism; or, for want of being\nacquainted with some distinctions, concerning one that may be called God\nby nature, or the supreme God, and others who may be called gods by\noffice, or subordinate gods, we should be led to ascribe divine honour\nwhere it is not due; or else we must be able to distinguish also\nconcerning worship, and, instead of honouring the Son as we honour the\nFather, must give him an inferior kind of divine worship, short of what\nis due to the Father. This we have no scripture warrant for; neither are\nwe led by the scriptures to have any notion of a middle being between\nGod and the creature, or one that is not properly God, so as the Father\nis, and yet more than a creature, as though there were a medium between\nfinite and infinite; neither are we led, by scripture, to conceive of\nany being, that has an eternal duration, whose eternity is supposed to\nbe before time, and yet not the same with the eternal duration of the\nFather. These things we shall have occasion to mention in their proper\nplace, and therefore need make no farther use of them at present, but\nonly to observe, from hence, how intelligible the scripture would be in\nwhat relates to this doctrine, if the words thereof had not a plain and\ndeterminate sense; but we must make use of these methods of reasoning,\nif we would arrive to the meaning thereof.\n\n(2.) If some divine perfections are attributed in scripture to the Son\nand Spirit, all the perfections of the divine nature, may, by a just\nconsequence from thence, be proved to belong to them, by reason of the\nsimplicity and unity thereof: therefore, if we can prove, from\nscripture, that they have some perfections ascribed to them, which, I\nhope, it will not be a difficult matter to do, we are not to suppose\nthat our argument is defective, or that the doctrine of the Trinity is\nnot sufficiently maintained, if we cannot produce a scripture to prove\nevery perfection of the divine nature to be ascribed to them.\n\n(3.) When any thing is mentioned in scripture, concerning our Saviour,\nor the Holy Spirit, which argues an inferiority to the Father, this is\nto be understood consistently with other scriptures, which speak of\ntheir having the same divine nature; since scripture does not, in the\nleast, contradict itself; and how this may be done, will be farther\nconsidered under a following head.\n\n(4.) If we have sufficient arguments to convince us of the truth of this\ndoctrine, our faith ought not to be shaken, though we cannot fully\nunderstand the sense of some scriptures, which are brought to support\nthe contrary; not that we are to suppose that the scripture gives\ncountenance to two opposite doctrines: but a person may be fully\nsatisfied concerning the sense of those scriptures that contain the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, and yet not be supposed perfectly to understand\nthe meaning of every word or phrase used in scripture, or of some\nparticular texts, which are sometimes brought to support the contrary\ndoctrine; so that objections may be brought, which he is not able\nreadily to reply to. Shall he therefore deny the truth, because he\ncannot remove all the difficulties that seem to lie in the way of it?\nThat would be to part with it at too easy a rate, which, when he has\ndone, he will find greater difficulties attending the contrary scheme of\ndoctrine. Do they object, that we believe things contrary to reason,\nbecause we assert the incomprehensibleness of divine mysteries? or that\nwe are Tritheists, because we believe that there are three Persons in\nthe Godhead, and cannot exactly determine the difference between divine\nand human personality? We could, on the other hand, point at some\ndifficulties, that they cannot easily surmount. What shall we think of\nthe head of giving divine worship to our Saviour, when, at the same\ntime, they deny him to have those perfections, that denominate him God\nin the same sense as the Father is so called? The Socinians found it\nvery difficult, when the matter was disputed among themselves, to\nreconcile their practice with their sentiments, when they worshipped\nhim, whose Deity they denied. And the Arians will find that this\nobjection equally affects their scheme; and it will be no less difficult\nfor them to reconcile Christ\u2019s character, as Redeemer, Governor of the\nworld, Judge of quick and dead, with their low ideas of him, when\ndenying his proper Deity. These things we only mention occasionally at\npresent, that it may not be thought that the doctrine of the Trinity is\nexposed to greater difficulties than the contrary doctrine, to the end\nthat they who are not furnished with all those qualifications, which are\nnecessary for its defence, may not reckon those arguments, by which they\nhave been convinced of the truth thereof, less valid, because they are\nnot able, at present, to answer all the objections that may be brought\nagainst them.\n\n(5.) The weight of several arguments, taken from scripture, to prove\nthis doctrine, is to be considered, as well as the arguments themselves;\nwe do not pretend that every one of them is equally conclusive; there\nare some, which are oftentimes brought to support it, which we can lay\nno great stress upon, and therefore shall omit to mention them, among\nother arguments brought to that purpose, lest we should give occasion to\nthe adversary to insult, or conclude that we take any thing for an\nargument that has been brought as such to prove this doctrine. Therefore\nwe will not pretend to prove, or peremptorily to determine, that the\ndoctrine of the Trinity is contained in those words of the Psalmist,\nPsal. xxxiii. 6. _By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all\nthe Hosts of them by the breath of his mouth._ Nor will we pretend to\nprove this doctrine from the threefold repetition of the word Jehovah,\nin the form of benediction to be used by the high priest, Numb. vi. 24,\n25, 26. _The Lord bless thee, and keep thee; the Lord make his face to\nshine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; the Lord lift up his\ncountenance upon thee, and give thee peace._ Nor do we lay any stress on\nthe three-fold repetition of the word _Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of\nHosts_, Isa. vi. 3. though we shall shew, in its proper place, that\nthere are several things in this chapter, which prove this doctrine.\nHowever, if at any time, together with arguments that are more\nconclusive, we bring some that are less so; this use may be made of it,\nto shew how the scripture way of speaking is consistent therewith in\nthose places that do not so directly prove it. This we thought proper to\nmention, because it is a very common thing for those, who cannot answer\nthe most weighty arguments that are brought to support a doctrine, to\nbend their greatest force against those which have the least strength;\nand then to triumph, as though they had gained the victory, when they\nhave only done it in what respects that which is less material.\n\nII. We shall now consider in what sense we are to understand the words\n_Trinity_ and _Persons_ in the Godhead; and in what respect the Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost, are said to be one. It is true, the word _Trinity_\nis not to be found in scripture, but what we understand by it is plainly\ncontained therein; therefore we use the word, as agreeable thereunto:\nthus we read of the _three that bear record in heaven_, _viz._ _the\nFather, the Word, and the Holy Ghost_, and that _these three are one_, 1\nJohn v. 7. These three here mentioned are Persons, because they are\ndescribed by personal characters; and we shall take occasion elsewhere,\nwhen we prove the Deity of the Son and Spirit, to consider their being\none, that is, having the same divine nature, which we shall therefore\nwave at present, being only considering the sense of words commonly used\nby us in treating of this doctrine. All contending parties, however they\nhave explained the word _Trinity_, according to their different ways of\nthinking, have notwithstanding, in compliance with custom, used the\nword, and so far explained it, as that we might understand that they\nintend hereby three, who are, in some respect one, though some have not\ncared to use the word _Person_; or if they have, it is without the most\nknown and proper idea contained in it. Thus the Sabellians, whenever\nthey use the word, intend nothing by it, but three relations, which may\nbe attributed to the same Person; as when the same Person may be called\na father, a son, and a brother, in different respects; or as when he\nthat, at one time, sustains the person of a judge, may, at another time,\nsustain that of an advocate: this is what some call a Trinity of names;\nand they might as well have declined to use the words altogether, as to\nexplain them in this sense.\n\nAgain, the Arians use the word _Person_; but these have run into another\nextreme, inasmuch as that, whilst they avoid Sabellianism, they would\nlay themselves open to the charge of Tritheism, did they not deny the\nproper Deity of the Son and Spirit; for they suppose that every distinct\nPerson is a distinct being, agreeable to the sense of personality, when\napplied to men; but this, as has been before considered, is to be\nabstracted from the idea of personality, when applied to the Persons in\nthe Godhead. These also understand the oneness of these divine Persons,\nin a sense agreeable to their own scheme, and different from ours, and\ntherefore they speak of them as one in will, consent, or design, in\nwhich respect God and the creature may be said to be one: accordingly\nArius, and his adherents, in the council at Nice, refused to allow that\nthe divine persons were \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 consubstantial, and, with a great many\nevasions and subterfuges, attempted to conceal their sentiments: all\nthat they could be brought to own was, that the Son was \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, or\n\u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, which amounts to no more than this, that whatever likeness\nthere may be, in some respects, yet he has not the same proper divine\nnature with the Father and Holy Ghost.\n\nWhich leads us to consider the sense in which it is generally used by\nthose who defend what we think to be the scripture-doctrine of the\nTrinity. There are some, it is true, both among ancient and modern\nwriters, that attempt to explain what they mean by the word _Person_,\nwho are so unhappy as to leave the sense thereof more dark than they\nfound it, when they have given a definition thereof, agreeable to what\nis used by metaphysicians and schoolmen, to this effect, that it is a\n_suppositum_, endowed with reason; or that it is one entire, individual,\nincommunicable, rational subsistence: and when they define Personality,\nsome tell us, that it is a positive mode of a being terminating and\ncompleating its substantial nature, and giving incommunicability to it,\nwhich words need to be explained more than the thing defined thereby.\nAnd here I cannot but take notice of that warm debate which there was\nbetween the Greek and Latin church about the words _Hypostasis_ and\n_Persona_; the Latin, concluding that the word _Hypostasis_ signified\nsubstance or essence, thought, that to assert that there were three\ndivine _Hypostases_, was to say that there were three Gods: On the other\nhand, the Greek church thought that the word _Person_ did not\nsufficiently guard against the Sabellian notion of the same individual\nbeing sustaining three relations; whereupon each part of the church was\nready to brand the other with heresy, till by a free and mutual\nconference, in a synod at Alexandria, A. D. 362. they made it appear,\nthat it was but a mere contention about the grammatical sense of a word;\nand then it was allowed, by men of temper on both sides, that either of\nthe two words might be indifferently used.[86] But what signifies the\nuse of them, when perplexed with the scholastic explications thereof?\nThis has given occasion to some, whose sentiments have been very remote\nas to the doctrine of the Trinity, to express themselves with some\ndislike; on the one hand, the Socinians, and some among the\nRemonstrants, who made very great advances toward their scheme, _viz._\nCurcell\u00e6us, Episcopius, and others,[87] have complained of clouding this\ndoctrine with hard words; and the complaint is not altogether\ngroundless, though it may be their design herein was to substitute such\nwords in the room of them, as would make the remedy worse than the\ndisease. On the other hand, some, who have embraced the doctrine of the\nTrinity, would not have liked its advocates the worse, had they chose to\nhave defended it in a more plain intelligible manner. Thus Calvin\nhimself wishes, that some words, which are so warmly opposed and\ndefended on each side, were altogether laid aside, and buried, provided\nthat such might be retained as express our faith in the doctrine of the\nFather, Son, and Spirit, being the one God, but distinguished by their\npersonal properties.[88] And this is that plain sense of the word, which\nI shall make use of, in what I shall farther attempt to lay down in the\ndefence thereof. And accordingly,\n\n1. We never call any thing a person that is not endowed with\nunderstanding and will; and therefore the most glorious inanimate\ncreatures, either in heaven or earth, whatever excellencies they have,\nor how useful soever they are to the world, they are not persons. Thus,\nwhen the sun is described as though it were a person, and is compared to\n_a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoicing as a strong man\nto run a race_, Psal. xix. 5. the words are never understood in any\nother but a metaphorical sense; so Behemoth and the Leviathan, mentioned\nin Job, being no other than brute creatures, are described with personal\ncharacters, in the same figurative way of speaking; therefore we suppose\na person to have an understanding and will.\n\n2. Whenever _I_, _thou_, or _he_, are applied to such a subject, they\nalways connote a person; _I_, a person speaking; _thou_, a person spoken\nto; and _he_, or _him_, a person spoken of; and when such modes of\nspeaking are sometimes applied to things that are destitute of reason,\nor to any moral virtues or principles of acting, which, from the nature\nof the thing, cannot be denominated persons, such expressions are very\neasily understood in a figurative sense, which may without any\ndifficulty be distinguished from the proper one, whereby those who are\nso described are denominated persons.\n\nThere are some characters which always denote persons, and some works\nperformed which are properly personal, which can be performed by none\nbut persons. Thus the character of a father, or a son; so a Creator, a\nRedeemer, a benefactor, a Mediator, an advocate, a surety, a judge, a\nlord, a law-giver, and many others of the like nature, are all of them\npersonal characters. So that whoever acts with design, and has such-like\ncharacters attributed to him, according to the proper acceptation of the\nword, him we call a person; and these characters we shall endeavour to\napply to the Persons in the Godhead, to prove their distinct\npersonality.\n\nBut since we are at present only considering the acceptation of words,\nwe shall briefly observe the difference between a divine and a human\nperson, when some personal properties, characters, or works, are\nattributed to each of them. And,\n\n(1.) Human persons are separated one from the other: thus, for instance,\nPeter, James, and John, were three persons, but they were separated one\nfrom the other; whereas the Persons in the Godhead, however\ndistinguished by their characters and properties, are never separated,\nas having the same divine essence or nature. As for human persons, one\nof them might have had a being and personality, had the other never\nexisted, because it exists by the will of God; but the divine persons\nhave a necessary existence and personality, as being, in all respects,\nindependent, so that as they could not but be God, they could not but be\ndivine Persons; the personality of the Son and Spirit are equally\nindependent with that of the Father, and as much independent as their\nbeing and divine perfections.\n\n(2.) Human persons have only the same kind of nature, which is generally\ncalled a common specific nature, but not the same individual nature with\nanother person; so that though every man has a nature like that of the\nrest of mankind, yet the human nature, as attributed to one person, is\nnot the same individual human nature that is attributed to another, for\nthen the power and understanding, or the ideas that there are in one\nman, would be the same individual power and ideas, that are in another,\nwhich they are not. Whereas, when we speak of the Persons in the\nGodhead, as having the divine nature and perfections, we say that this\nnature is the same individual nature in all of them, though the persons\nare distinct, otherwise the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, could not be\nsaid to be truly and properly God, and to have the same understanding,\nwill, and other perfections of the divine nature.\n\n(3.) When we speak of human persons, we say, that as many persons as\nthere are, so many beings there are; every human person has its own\nproper being, distinct from all other persons or beings; but we do not\nsay so with respect to the divine Persons, for the divine Being is but\none, and therefore the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is\nthe very same; which is what we understand when we say, that though\nthere are three Persons in the Godhead, yet they are the same in\nsubstance, or the one only living and true God.\n\nThis leads us to consider in what respect the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, are said to be one; by which we mean, that the Son and Holy Ghost\nhave all the perfections of the divine nature, in the same sense as the\nFather has; to say less than this, is to assert no more than what our\nadversaries will allow; for they will not deny them perfections, nor\nwould they be thought to deny them to have divine perfections; yea, many\nof them will not stick to say, that they are truly and properly God; by\nwhich they mean, that whatever deity is attributed to them in scripture,\nby the appointment of the Father, that is, whatever divine authority\nthey have, this properly belongs to them: but, I think, they will none\nof them allow that they have the divine nature in the same sense in\nwhich the Father is said to have it. This is what we shall endeavour to\nprove; and more need not be said concerning them, in order to establish\nthat supreme worship which is due to them, as well as the Father; and,\nin order hereto, we shall consider the force of those arguments\ncontained in one of these answers, and, together with them, the sense of\nthat scripture, John x. 30. in which our Saviour says, _I and my Father\nare one_; as also that other scripture, 1 John v. 7. that _the Father,\nthe Word, and the Holy Ghost, who bear record in heaven, are one_; the\nconsideration whereof we shall reserve to a following head.\n\nAnd inasmuch as they are said to be equal in power and glory, we may\nobserve, that there are two expressions, which we often use, to set\nforth the deity of the Son and Spirit; sometimes we say they are God,\nequal with the Father; at other times, that they have the same essential\nperfections. To which, it may be, some will reply, that if they are\nequal, they cannot be the same; or, on the other hand, if they are the\nsame, they cannot be equal. For the understanding what we mean by\nsuch-like expressions, let it be observed, that when we consider them as\nhaving the divine essence, or any of the perfections thereof, we do not\nchuse to describe them as equal, but the same; we do not say that the\nwisdom, power, holiness, &c. of the Son and Spirit are equal to the same\nperfections, as ascribed to the Father: but when we speak of them as\ndistinct Persons, then we consider them as equal: the essential glory of\nthe Father, Son, and Spirit, is the same; but their personal glory is\nequal; and in this sense we would be understood, when we say the Son and\nHoly Ghost are each of them God, or divine Persons, equal with the\nFather.[89]\n\nIII. We shall prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are distinct\npersons in the Godhead, by applying what has been but now observed, by\nwhich any one may, by our common mode of speaking, be denominated a\nperson; and to this we shall add something concerning those personal\nproperties, mentioned in one of the answers we are explaining, with\nrespect to the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the\nHoly Ghost. And,\n\n1. To prove the personality of the Son. If this be reckoned needless,\ninasmuch as the Arians and Socinians never yet called it in question, we\nown that it is not necessary, when we dispute with them, to prove it:\nbut inasmuch as the Sabellians deny it, as a late writer[90] has done,\nwho plainly gives in to that scheme, and concludes the Son of God to be\nno other than the eternal reason of God; and so he renders that text,\nJohn i. 1. _In the beginning was the word_, that is, _reason, and by\nhim_, that is, _by it, were all things made_; and when it is objected,\nthat this mode of speaking signifies nothing more than a quality in God,\nthe only answer he gives to it, is, that it signifies no more a quality,\nthan if we should translate it, _The word_, as it is generally done: I\nsay, if persons, whether they pretend to be Sabellians or no, express\nthemselves in such a manner, it is certainly necessary for us to prove\nthe personality of the Son.\n\nIt appears, therefore, that the Son is a distinct Person from the\nFather,\n\n(1.) Inasmuch as we often read, in scripture, of two divine Persons\nspeaking to, or of, one another, the distinguishing personal characters,\n_I_, _thou_, and _he_, being applied to them: thus it is said, Psal. cx.\n1. _The Lord_, that is the Father, _said unto my Lord_, namely the Son,\n_sit thou at my right-hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool_:\nthis may be observed throughout the whole Psalm; thus, ver. 3. _Thy\npeople shall be willing_; and ver. 6. _He_, meaning the Son, _shall\njudge among the heathen_; and ver. 7. _He shall drink of the brook in\nthe way_; so Psal. xlv. 2. speaking of the Son, _Thou art fairer than\nthe children of men_; and ver. 6. _Thy throne, O God, is for ever and\never_. The places of scripture, which have such modes of speaking\nconcerning the Son, are almost innumerable; and therefore we proceed to\nconsider,\n\n(2.) Other personal characters given him; thus, when he is called the\nSon of God, whatever we are to understand by that relation or character,\nof which more under a following head, it certainly denotes him a Person\ndistinct from the Father; so does his being sent into the world by the\nFather, which expression is frequently used in the New Testament; now a\nquality, relation or property, cannot be said to be sent as the Son is.\nSo when he is described as a Redeemer, a Mediator, a Surety, a Creator;\nand when he is styled, by the prophet, _the everlasting Father_; and\noften described as a prophet, priest, or king; or _Lord of all_, or the\n_Prince of peace_, or the _Prince of the kings of the earth_; all these\ncharacters sufficiently prove his personality; and all those works which\nhe performs, as sustaining these relations or characters, are properly\npersonal; and some of them are never ascribed to any other person. Thus\nthe Father, or Holy Ghost, are never said to assume the human nature, or\nto become sureties for the salvation of men, or to execute mediatorial\noffices, subservient thereunto; from all which it evidently appears,\nthat the Son is a distinct Person: that he is a divine Person, will be\nproved under a following head: we shall therefore proceed,\n\n2. To prove the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost. This is denied,\nnot only by the Sabellians, but by some of the Socinians; yea, even by\nSocinus himself; who describes the Holy Ghost as the power of God,\nintending hereby, as his mode of speaking seems to denote, the energy of\nthe divine nature, or that whereby the Father, who is the only one, to\nwhom, according to him, the divine nature is attributed, produces those\neffects which require infinite power; so that they call the Spirit the\npower of God essentially considered; these set aside all those proofs,\nthat may be produced from scripture, to evince his personality, which\nare so plain and evident, that many of them have dissented from Socinus\nherein, and owned the Spirit to be a person. Accordingly some of them\nhave described him as the chief of created spirits, or the head of the\nangels, because they deny his divine nature. Thus a bold writer\nexpresses himself; \u201cI believe that there is one principal minister of\nGod and Christ, peculiarly sent from heaven, to sanctify the church,\nwho, by reason of his eminency and intimacy with God, is singled out of\nthe number of other heavenly ministers, or angels, and comprised in the\nholy Trinity, being the third person thereof; and that this minister of\nGod and Christ is the Holy Spirit.[91]\u201d\n\nNow we shall prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, by considering\nsome personal characters ascribed to, and works performed by him. Thus\nthere are several such characters, by which he is denominated a person;\nparticularly when he is called a Sanctifier, a Reprover, a Witness, a\nComforter, it evidently appears from hence that he is a person: thus\nwhen it is said, in John xvi. 8. that _when he_, to wit, _the Comforter\nis come, he will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and\njudgment_; and also, that _he will guide you into all truth; he shall\nshew you things to come_, &c. And in John xiv. 16, 17. there is the\ndistinct personality of the three persons, and particularly of the Holy\nGhost, asserted; _I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another\nComforter, even the Spirit of truth_; and also in ver. 26. _The\nComforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my\nname, he shall teach you all things._[92]\n\nIt is certain, that to be said to teach, or to instruct, is a personal\ncharacter; so it is to speak, or to dictate, to another what he should\nsay; but this he is said to do, as our Saviour says to his disciples,\n_Whatever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not\nyou that speak, but the Holy Ghost_, Mark xiii. 11.\n\nMoreover, to witness, or testify, is a personal character; especially\nwhen the testimony is not merely objective, as when Job calls his\n_wrinkles and his leanness a witness_ against him, Job xvi. 8. But when\nthere is a formal testimony given, he that gives it is, according to our\ncommon way of speaking, generally considered as a person; and thus the\nHoly Ghost is described, Acts v. 32. _We are his witnesses of these\nthings, and so is the Holy Ghost, whom God has given to them that obey\nhim._ Here the Holy Ghost\u2019s being a witness is as much a personal\ncharacter, as their being witnesses; and, Acts xx. 23. it is said, _The\nHoly Ghost witnesseth in every city, that bonds and afflictions abide\nme_.\n\nAgain, dwelling is a personal character; no one ever supposes that any\nthing that is in a house dwells there, excepting persons; but the Holy\nGhost is said to dwell in believers, John xiv. 17. and alluding hereto,\nas also connoting his divine personality, it is said, 1 Cor. vi. 19.\n_Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost_; as a house is the\ndwelling-place of a person, so a temple is the dwelling-place of a\ndivine person.\n\nAgain, to send any one is a personal character; but this is attributed\nto the Holy Ghost, Acts xiii. 4. _The apostles being sent forth by the\nHoly Ghost, departed._\n\nAgain, acting with a sovereign will and pleasure is what belongs only to\na person; but this is applied to the Holy Ghost, Acts xv. 28. _It seemed\ngood to the Holy Ghost and to us._\n\nAgain, prohibiting, or forbidding, a person to act, is a personal\ncharacter; but this is applied to the Holy Ghost, Acts xvi. 6. _The\napostles were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia._\n\nAgain, to constitute, or appoint, any one to execute an office is a\npersonal character; but this the Holy Ghost is said to do, Acts xx. 28.\nhe is said to have _made them overseers_. There are several other\npersonal works and characters, which might have been mentioned; but\nthese are, I humbly conceive, sufficient to prove the thing intended,\nthat the Holy Ghost is a person. I have no more than mentioned the\nscriptures, which contain these personal characters, because I shall\nhave occasion under a following head, to refer to some of them for the\nproof of his deity.[93]\n\n_Object._ It will be objected, by those who are favourers of the\nSabellian scheme, that the characters which we have laid down, to prove\nthe personality of the Son, and Holy Ghost, are not Sufficient to answer\nthat end; inasmuch as they are oftentimes applied, in a metaphorical\nway, to those things which no one supposes to be persons, and therefore\nthat they may be taken in this sense, when applied to the Son and\nSpirit. To support this objection, they produce several instances out of\nthe book of Job, and some other parts of scripture, where things are\ndescribed with personal characters, which are not really persons. Thus\nJob xxxix. 11, 12. speaking concerning the unicorn, it is said; _Wilt\nthou trust him? Wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe\nhim, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?_ So\nconcerning the horse, it is said, as though he acted with design, as an\nintelligent creature, ver. 21. &c. _He goeth on to meet the armed men;\nhe mocketh at fear; neither believeth he that it is the sound of the\ntrumpet; he saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha!_ And concerning the eagle,\nver. 28. _She dwelleth in the rock._ And concerning the leviathan, chap.\nxli. 3. &c. _Will he make many supplications to thee? Will he speak soft\nwords unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? He esteemeth iron as\nstraw, and brass as rotten wood. Darts are counted as stubble; he\nlaugheth at the shaking of the spear._ And ver. 34. _He beholdeth all\nhigh things; he is a king over all the children of pride._ There are\nmany other personal characters given to brute creatures, which are taken\nin a metaphorical sense; and sometimes they are applied to inanimate\ncreatures. Thus Job xxxviii. 28, &c. _Hath the rain a father? and who\nhath begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? and the\nhoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? Canst thou bind the sweet\ninfluences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring\nforth Mazzaroth in his season, or canst thou guide Arcturus with his\nsons?_ By which nothing is intended but the signs in the Zodiack, or\nsome of the constellations, together with the particular stars of which\nthey consist; yet these are described, as though they were persons. So\nver. 35. _Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto\nthee, here we are?_ Again, the powers and faculties of the soul of man\nhave sometimes personal characters ascribed to them. Thus, conscience is\nsaid _to bear witness_, Rom. ix. 1. And some instances may be brought\nfrom scripture of a person\u2019s speaking to himself; yet this doth not\nconnote two persons in man, one speaking, and the other spoken to. It is\ntherefore inferred from hence, that we cannot prove the personality of\nthe Son and Holy Ghost from those personal characters ascribed to them,\nwhich may be taken in a metaphorical sense, as well as in the instances\nbut now mentioned.\n\n_Answ._ In answer to this objection, several things may be considered.\n\n1. Though the scripture often uses figurative, and particularly\nmetaphorical, ways of speaking, yet these may be easily distinguished\nfrom the like phrases used elsewhere, concerning which we have\nsufficient ground to conclude that they are to be taken in a proper\nsense; therefore, though it is true that there are personal characters\ngiven to things which are not persons, yet we are not to conclude from\nhence, that whenever the same modes of speaking are used, and applied to\nthose who are capable of performing personal actions, that therefore\nthese must be taken in a metaphorical sense; which is a known exception\nfrom the common idea contained in the same words.\n\n2. Most of those passages of scripture, where personal characters are\nattributed to things which are not persons, in a metaphorical sense, are\nin the poetical books thereof; or in some particular places, where there\nis a peculiar beautiful mode of speaking taken from thence; will it\ntherefore follow, that these personal characters are used in other parts\nof scripture, in which the Holy Ghost does not think fit to express\nhimself in such an elegancy of style? Now it is certain, that the\npersonal characters before mentioned are given to the Son and Holy\nGhost, throughout the whole scripture, without designing to use a lofty,\nfigurative, or uncommon way of speaking, as in the instances before\nmentioned.\n\n3. We must not suppose that the Holy Ghost uses any figurative ways of\nspeaking, so as to cast a veil on plain truths, or to endanger our being\nled hereby out of the way, as we should certainly be, if so many hundred\nplaces of scripture, in which these personal characters are applied to\nthe Son and Spirit, were to be taken in a metaphorical sense, without\nany intimation given in the context that they are so to be understood.\nAnd it will be certainly very difficult to find out any place in\nscripture, that may serve to direct us in our application of these\ncharacters, _viz._ when they are to be taken in a metaphorical sense,\nwhen applied to the Persons in the Godhead, and when not.\n\n4. Though we find many metaphors in scripture, yet we observe that the\nmost important truths are laid down in the plainest manner; so that the\ninjudicious and unlearned reader, who understands nothing of the art of\nrhetoric, or criticism, may be instructed thereby; at least they are not\nuniversally wrapt up in such figurative ways of speaking; and it would\nbe strange, if the account we have of the Personality of the Son and\nHoly Ghost, which is a doctrine of the highest importance, and such as\nrenders them distinct objects of worship, should be expressed in such a\nway, as that we should be at the greatest uncertainty whether they are\npersons or not.\n\n5. If these personal characters are not metaphorical, when applied to\nmen or angels, who are subjects capable of having personality attributed\nto them, why should they be reckoned metaphorical, when applied to the\nSon and Spirit, who, though they are not distinct beings, yet they have\na divine understanding and will, and therefore are not rendered\nincapable of having personality ascribed to them, as signified by these\ncharacters.\n\n6. The asserting that personal characters attributed to the Son and\nSpirit are always to be understood in a metaphorical sense, would give\nequal ground to conclude that they are to be so taken, when applied to\nthe Father; and accordingly, while we militate against the Personality\nof these, we should, at the same time, overthrow his Personality: and\nwhile we deny that there are three Persons in the Godhead, we should, in\neffect, suppose that there are no Persons in the Godhead, any otherwise\nthan as the Godhead, which is common to be Father, Son, and Spirit, is\noften described as though it were a Person; and if ever _Personality_ is\nused or applied in a metaphorical sense, it must be when the Godhead is\ndescribed as though it were a Person.\n\n7. Though some personal characters are occasionally applied, in a\nmetaphorical sense, to things that are not persons, yet it is not usual\nfor them to be described as performing personal works, and these not\noccasionally hinted at, and joined with other metaphorical ways of\nspeaking, but a long series of action referred to, and variety of works\nperformed, which must certainly be taken in a most proper sense. Thus,\nwhen the Son and Spirit are set forth in scripture as performing those\nworks, which are expressive of their personal glory; the one in what\nrespects the purchase of redemption; and the other in the application\nthereof: and when each of them is described as standing in those\nrelations to men, which are founded in the performance of these works\nfor them; certainly this must be taken in a most proper sense; and we\nmust take heed, lest, while we attempt to prove that the Persons in the\nGodhead are to be taken in a figurative sense, we do not give occasion\nto any to think that the great benefits, which we receive from them, are\nto be understood in the same sense.\n\nWe shall now take notice of some other personal properties, whereby the\nSon and Spirit are distinguished from one another, and from the Father;\nparticularly, as they are expressed in one of the answers under our\npresent consideration; it is proper to the Father to beget the Son, or,\nas it is sometimes expressed, to be unbegotten; and to the Son, to be\nbegotten of the Father; and to the Holy Ghost, to proceed from the\nFather and the Son, from all eternity. This is certainly one of the most\ndifficult heads of divinity that can be insisted on; and some have made\nit more so, by their attempting to explain it. I have sometimes thought\nthat it would be the safest and most eligible way, to pass it over, as a\ndoctrine less necessary to be understood; but since there are several\nscripture-expressions, on which it is founded, which we ought to pay the\ngreatest deference to, much more than to those explications which are\nmerely human; and inasmuch as these properties plainly prove the Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost, to be distinct Persons, therefore we must humbly\nenquire into the meaning of those scriptures, wherein they are\ncontained; and so to speak something as to what is generally called the\neternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; and\nI hope, through divine assistance, we shall advance no doctrine that is\neither subversive of our faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, which we\nare endeavouring to maintain, derogatory to the essential or personal\nglory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, or altogether contrary to the\nsense, in which many Christians, who are unacquainted with those modes\nof speaking, used by the fathers and schoolmen, understand those\nscriptures upon which this doctrine is founded.\n\nAnd here we shall give a brief account of what we apprehend to be the\ncommonly received sentiments of divines, who, in their writings, have\nstrenuously maintained, and judiciously defended, the doctrine of the\nTrinity, concerning the eternal generation of the Son, and the\nprocession of the Holy Ghost; which I shall endeavour to do with the\ngreatest deference to those who have treated of these subjects, as well\nas with the greatest impartiality; and shall take occasion to shew how\nfar the Arians conclude that we give up the cause to them, and yet how\nlittle reason they have to insult us upon this head.\n\n(1.) As to the eternal generation of the Son, it is generally explained\nin this manner; the Father is called, by some, the fountain of the\nGodhead, an expression taken from some of the fathers, who defended the\nNicene faith: but others of late, have rather chose to call the Father\nthe fountain of the Trinity; and he is said to be of himself; or\nunbegotten; which they lay down as his distinct Personal character, from\nthat of the Son.\n\nOn the other hand, the Son, as to his Personality, is generally\ndescribed as being from the Father, and many chuse to express themselves\nabout this mystery in these terms; that the Father communicated the\ndivine essence to the Son, which is the most common mode of speaking,\nthough others think it safer to say, that he communicated the divine\nPersonality to him; though I cannot tell which is least exceptionable.\n\nBut when I find others calling it the Father\u2019s giving the divine essence\nto the Son, their mode of speaking being founded, as they apprehend, on\nthat scripture, John v. 26. _As the Father hath life in himself so hath\nhe given to the Son to have life in himself_, I cannot but think it an\nunguarded expression, and foreign to the design of the Holy Ghost in\nthat scripture, as will be hereafter considered. The Arians are ready to\ninsult us upon such modes of speaking, and suppose that we conclude that\nthe Son receives his divine perfections, and therefore cannot be God\nequal with the Father: but, however, none of them, who use this\nexpression, suppose that the Son\u2019s Deity is founded on the arbitrary\nwill of the Father; for they all assert that the divine nature is\ncommunicated necessarily, and from all eternity, as the sun communicates\nits rays necessarily, which are of equal duration with it; so that while\nthey make use of a word, which, according to its most known acceptation,\nseems subversive of the truth, they happily, for truth\u2019s sake, explain\naway the proper sense thereof; so that all they can be blamed for\nherein, by the adversary, is impropriety of expression.\n\nAgain, others speak a little more exceptionally, when, explaining the\neternal generation of the Son, they say that the Father produced him:\nbut this idea they also happily explain away; and therefore say it is\nnot such a production, where the cause produces the effect, though some\nof the fathers, who have been in the Trinitarian scheme, have unwarily\ncalled the Father the cause of the Son; yet our modern divines seldom,\nor never, use that expression, or if they speak of an eternal\nproduction, they suppose it vastly differs from the production of all\ncreatures, or from that sense in which the Arians suppose the Son to be\nproduced by him; but certainly this expression had better be laid aside,\nlest it should be thought that we conclude the Son not equally\nnecessary, and, from all eternity, co-existent with the Father, which\nour divines, how unwarily soever in other respects they may express\nthemselves, are very far from denying.\n\n(2.) We shall now proceed to consider how some divines express\nthemselves, concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost, which they\ngenerally do in this manner, as though the divine essence were\ncommunicated by the Father and the Son to the Holy Ghost; and so they\nsuppose that the Holy Ghost, at least as he is a divine Person, or has\nthe divine nature communicated to him, cannot be said to be, any more\nthan the Son, of himself, but from the Father and the Son, from whom he\nproceeds, or receives, as some express it, the divine nature, and others\nthe divine personality.\n\nOthers speak of the Spiration of the Holy Ghost, which they suppose to\nbe the same with his procession; but the world is much at a loss to\nunderstand what they mean by the word _Spiration_: it seems to be a mere\nmetaphorical expression, as when they call him the breath of the Father\nand the Son, and, if so, then it will not prove his proper personality:\nbut since we are pretty much in the dark about the reason of this mode\nof speaking, it would be much better to lay it aside, as many modern\nwriters have done.\n\nAs to the manner of the procession of the Holy Ghost, there was, about\nthe eighth and ninth centuries, a very warm dispute between the Greek\nand Latin church; whether the Spirit proceeded from the Father only, or\nfrom the Father and the Son; and the controversy arose to such a height,\nthat they charged one another with heresy and schism, when neither side\nwell understood what they contended about; and if they had agreed to the\nhealing expedient, afterwards proposed, that they should mutually\nacknowledge that the Holy Ghost was from the Father by the Son, the\nmatter would have been left as much in the dark as it was before.\n\nSome speak of the procession of the Holy Ghost, as though he was\nproduced by the Father and the Son, as the Son, as was before observed,\nis said, in his eternal generation, to have been produced by the Father;\nyet they suppose that neither of them were so produced, as that they may\nbe called effects; and they term it the production of a person in, and\nnot out of, the divine essence, for that would be to give away the cause\nwe contend for: but which way soever we take it, it contains such an\nimpropriety of expression, as can hardly be defended; and it is much\nbetter to explain away the proper and grammatical sense of words, than\nto corrupt the truth; however, I would not copy after them in this mode\nof speaking.\n\nMoreover, some have pretended to determine the difference between the\neternal generation of the Son and the Spirit\u2019s procession; to which they\nhave, with modesty, premised, that it is not to be explained; but, as\nfar as they enter into this matter, they suppose that they differ in\nthis; that in the eternal generation of the Son, the Father communicated\nthe divine essence, or, at least, personality to him, which is his act\nalone, and herewith he communicated a property, or power, to him, to\ncommunicate the same divine essence to the Holy Ghost; whereas, when the\nHoly Ghost is said to proceed from the Father and the Son, there is no\npower therewith conveyed to him to communicate the divine essence to any\nother, as a fourth person in the Godhead. These things may be observed\nin the writings of those who treat of this subject; but it is to be\nfeared, they enter too far into the explication of this unsearchable\nmystery; and some will be ready to conclude that they attempt to be wise\nabove what is written. And,\n\nIf I may be allowed to give my sense of the communication of the divine\nessence, though it will probably be thought that I do not say enough\nconcerning it, yet I hope that, in other respects, none will conclude\nthat I advance any thing subversive of the doctrine of the Trinity, when\nI assert that the divine essence is communicated, not by the Father to\nthe Son and Holy Ghost, as imparting or conveying it to them; but take\nthe word _communicate_ in another sense, namely, that all the\nperfections of the divine nature are communicated, that is, equally\nattributed to, or predicated of, the Father, Son, and Spirit; this sense\nof the word is what some intend when they say the human nature is\ncommunicated to every individual, upon which account they are\ndenominated men; and, as the word is used in this sense, sometimes, by\nlogicians and schoolmen, so it seems to be taken in the same sense, in\nHeb. ii. 14. where the Greek words, \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, which we render, the children were partakers of flesh and\nblood, might be rendered, as in the vulgar Latin version,\n_Communicaverunt carni & sanguini_, _i. e._ they have the human nature\ncommunicated to, and predicated of, them, or they are truly and properly\nmen. And it is in this sense that we use the word, when we say that the\ndifferent properties of the divine and human nature are communicated to,\nthat is, predicated of, the Person of Christ, which divines generally\ncall a communication of properties. In this sense I would be understood,\nwhen I say that the divine perfections are communicated to, or\npredicated of, the Father, Son, and Spirit; and this all who maintain\nthe doctrine of the Trinity will allow of. The other sense of\ncommunication, _viz._ imparting, conveying, or giving the divine\nessence, I shall be very ready to fall in with, when the apparent\ndifficulties, which, to me, seem to lie in the way thereof, some of\nwhich have been already considered, are removed.\n\nAs to what concerns the farther explication of this mystery, we may\nobserve, that the more nice some have been in their speculations about\nit, the more they have seemed bewildered: thus, when some have enquired\nwhether the eternal generation is one single act, or an act continued;\nor whether, when it is said, This day have I begotten thee, the meaning\nis, that the divine nature was communicated at once, or whether it is\nperpetually communicating.[97] And the difficulties that attend their\nasserting either the one or the other of them, which they, who enquire\ninto these matters, take notice of, I shall entirely pass over, as\napprehending that this doctrine receives no advantage by such\ndisquisitions.\n\nNeither do I think it tends much to our edification to enquire, as some\nhave done, whether, in the eternal generation, the Father is considered\nas acting, and the Son as him on whom the action terminates, as the\nsubject thereof; which, when they suppose it does, they farther enquire,\nwhether, in this respect, he is said to be passive, which they are not\nwilling to assert.\n\nAnd I cannot but take notice of another nicety of inquiry, _viz._\nwhether, in the eternal generation, the Son is considered as co-existent\nwith the Father, or as having the divine essence, and hereby only\nderiving his Sonship from him, from all eternity; or whether he derives\nboth his Sonship and his essence; the former of which is the most\ngenerally received opinion. But I am not desirous to enter into this\nenquiry, especially without first determining what we mean by Sonship.\n\nThere is indeed one thing that must be enquired into, and that is,\nwhatever be the explication given of the eternal generation of the Son,\nand procession of the Holy Ghost, whether they are each of them\nself-existent, or, as some call it, \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2; and it is generally\ndetermined, that the Son and Holy Ghost have the same self-existent\ndivine nature: but with respect to their manner of having it, some say\nthe Son has his divine nature from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from\nthe Father and Son; or that the Father only is self-existent, as some\nspeak; or, as most others say, that he is self-subsistent; and that this\nis his personal property, as he is distinguished from the Son and Holy\nGhost, whom they conclude not to be self-subsistent, but the one to\nsubsist from the Father, and the other from the Father and the Son. This\nis a generally received opinion; notwithstanding I must confess myself\nto be at a loss to account for it: so that the principal thing, in which\nI am obliged, till I receive farther conviction, to differ from many\nothers, is, whether the Son and Spirit have a communicated or derived\nPersonality: this many assert, but, I think, without sufficient proof;\nfor I cannot but conclude that the divine Personality, not only of the\nFather, but of the Son and Spirit, is as much independent, and\nunderived, as the divine essence.\n\nThus we have considered how some have embarrassed this doctrine, by\nbeing too nice in their enquiries about it: we shall proceed to consider\nhow others have done prejudice to it, by pretending to explain it; and\nwhen they make use of similitudes to that purpose, have rather\nprejudiced the enemies of this doctrine against it, than given any\nconviction to them. I shall only mention what I have found in some of\ntheir writings, whom, in other respects, I cannot but exceedingly value,\nas having deserved well of the church of God, in defending this truth\nwith good success, yet, when they take this method to explain this\ndoctrine, to say the best of it, they have done but little service to\nthe cause which they have maintained: thus we find them expressing\nthemselves to this purpose; as the soul of man sometimes reflects on\nitself, and considers its own nature, powers, and faculties, or when it\nis conversant about itself, as its object, this produces an idea, which\ncontains the moral image of itself, and is like as when he sees his face\nin a glass, and beholds the image of himself; this, say they,\nillustrates the eternal generation of the Son, as God beholding himself,\nor his divine perfections, begets an image of himself, or has an eternal\nidea of his own perfections in his mind, which is called his internal\nword, as opposed to the word spoken, which is external; by this they\nexpress the generation of the Son, for which reason he is called, in\nHeb. i. 3. _The brightness of the Father\u2019s glory, and the express image\nof his person_, as the wax expresses the character or mark of the seal\nthat is impressed on it.\n\nAgain, they farther add, that there is a mutual love between the Father\nand the Son, which brings forth a third Person, or subsistence in the\nGodhead, to wit, the Holy Ghost; so that as there is in the divine\nessence an infinite understanding reflecting on itself, whereby it\nbegets, a Son, as was before observed, and an infinite will, which leads\nhim to reflect on himself, with love and delight, as the chief good,\nwhereby he brings forth a third Person in the Godhead, to wit, the Holy\nGhost, accordingly they describe this divine Person as being the result\nof the mutual joy and delight that there is between the Father and the\nSon: these explications many are at a loss to understand; and we humbly\nconceive it would be much better to let them alone, and confess this\ndoctrine to be an inexplicable mystery, or else some other way may be\nfound out, which is less liable to these exceptions, while we explain\nthose scriptures, which speak of the generation of the Son, and the\nprocession of the Holy Ghost.\n\nThe scriptures generally brought in defence of this doctrine are such as\nthese.\n\n1. To prove the eternal generation of the Son, there are several\nscriptures referred to, particularly that in which the Father is\nrepresented as speaking to him, in Psal. ii. 7. _Thou art my Son; this\nday have I begotten thee_; that is, say they, I have, in my eternal,\nunsuccessive duration, communicated, or imparted, the divine essence,\nor, at least, personality, to thee.\n\nAnother scripture brought to this purpose is that in Prov. viii. 22, 23,\n25. _The Lord possessed me_, speaking of his eternal Word, or Son, _in\nthe beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from\neverlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was; before the\nmountains were settled; before the hills was I brought forth._ Where\nthey suppose that God\u2019s possessing him, which is certainly to be taken\nin a different sense from his being the possessor of all creatures, is\nto be understood of his being God\u2019s proper Son by nature; and his being\nsaid to be brought forth, they suppose, proves his eternal generation.\n\nAnother scripture brought to the same purpose is that in Micah v. 2.\nspeaking of the Son, it is said, _His goings forth have been of old,\nfrom everlasting_; by which they attempt to prove his being begotten in\nthe divine essence: but how that can be called his going forth, I do not\nwell understand.\n\nMoreover, that scripture before mentioned, in Heb. i. 3. _Who being the\nbrightness of his glory, and the express image of his person._ And\nanother parallel scripture, in Col. i. 15. _Who is the image of the\ninvisible God, the first-born of every creature_; where, by first-born,\nthey understand, that he was begotten before all worlds: the divine\nessence, or, at least, personality, being communicated to him from\neternity.\n\nAnother scripture, which we before referred to, brought to prove this\ndoctrine, is John v. 26. _As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath\ngiven to the Son to have life in himself_; that is, say some, as the\nFather hath all divine perfections in himself originally, so the Son\nhath these perfections, by communication from him; which they suppose\nnot to be an arbitrary, but a necessary, donation.\n\nAgain, this is farther proved, from John i. 17. where he is said to be\n_the only begotten Son of the Father_. And ver. 18. _The only begotten\nSon, who is in the bosom of the Father._ From the former of which\nscriptures they prove the eternal generation of the Son; and from the\nlatter, his being begotten in the divine essence, which distinguishes it\nfrom all finite productions, which are out of himself.\n\nMoreover, there are many other scriptures that speak of our Saviour as\nthe Son of God; and particularly in Matth. xvi. 16. he is called, _The\nSon of the living God_; and in Rom. viii. 32. _his own Son_, \u1f31\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\nwhich some render, _his proper Son_, that is, not only his Son, who has\nthe same divine nature with himself, but as implying also the manner of\nits communication; and in Mat. iii. 17. he is called his _beloved Son_.\n\n2. We shall now consider the scriptures that are generally brought to\nprove the procession of the Holy Ghost, in the sense before explained.\nThus he is said, in John xv. 26. to be _sent by the Son from the\nFather_; and _to proceed from the Father_; where they suppose that this\nproceeding from the Father signifies the communication of the divine\nessence, or, at least, his personality; and his being sent by the Son,\nimplies, that this communication is from him, as well as the Father. So\nin Gal. iv. 6. it is said, _God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son_;\nand, in John xvi. 7. our Saviour says, _I will send him unto you_, and\nver. 14. _He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you_; these\nscriptures, if not brought directly to prove this doctrine, are,\nnotwithstanding, supposed sufficient to evince the truth thereof,\ninasmuch as the Son could not send him, if he had not proceeded from\nhim; nor could he have received that which he shews to his people, if he\nhad not, from all eternity, received his divine essence, or personality,\nfrom him.\n\nThere is another scripture, brought by some very valuable divines, to\nprove the Spiration of the Holy Ghost, which is so termed, either as\nsupposed to be expressive of the manner of his having his personality as\na Spirit, or else it is taken from those words of scripture, brought to\nprove this Spiration, John xx. 22. in which our Saviour is said to have\nbreathed on his disciples, saying, _Receive ye the Holy Ghost_; which\nexternal sign, or symbol, used in the act of conferring him on them in\ntime, proves his procession from him from eternity; as a temporal\nprocession supposes an eternal one.\n\nThese are the scriptures which are generally brought to prove this\ndoctrine. But we shall take occasion to enquire, whether there may not\nbe another sense given thereof, which is less liable to exception, as\nwell as more intelligible. It is to be owned, that they contain some of\nthe deep things of God; and therefore it is no wonder, if they are\nreckoned among those scriptures that are hard to be understood: but so\nfar as I have any light, either from the context of the respective\nscriptures, or the analogy of faith, I cannot but conclude that these,\nand all others of the like nature, that are brought to prove the eternal\ngeneration, or Sonship of Christ, respect him as God-man, Mediator;[98]\nand those other scriptures, that speak of the procession of the Holy\nGhost, respect the subserviency of his acting as a divine Person to the\nMediator\u2019s glory, in applying the work of redemption.\n\nAnd here we shall consider these scriptures in particular; and then\nanswer some objections that may be brought against this sense thereof,\nwhereby, I hope, it will appear, that we assert nothing but what tends\nto the glory of the Son and Spirit, establisheth the doctrine of the\never-blessed Trinity, and agrees with the commonly received faith, so\nfar as it is founded on scripture, without being tenacious of those\nmodes of speaking, which have the sanction of venerable antiquity, and\nare supported by the reputation of those who have used them; though it\nmay be, those scriptures will be otherwise understood by them, who\nregard explications that are merely human, no farther than they are\ndefensible.\n\nThe first scripture before mentioned, which was brought to prove the\neternal generation of the Son, was Psal. ii. 7. _Thou art my Son, this\nday have I begotten thee._ This cannot, I humbly conceive, respect the\ncommunication of the divine nature, or personality to the Son, as\nappears from the words immediately foregoing, in which it is said, _I\nwill declare the decree_, or what I had before decreed, or determined.\nFar be it from us to suppose that the divine nature, or personality, of\nthe Son was the result of an act of the divine will: and, indeed, the\nwhole Psalm plainly speaks of Christ as Mediator; as such he is said,\nver. 6. _To be set as God\u2019s king, on his holy hill of Sion_, and, as\nsuch, he is said to intercede with, or ask of God; and, as the result\nhereof, the Father is said, ver. 8. to give him _the heathen for his\ninheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession_;\nand all this is spoken of him, as a farther explication of those words,\n_Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee_. And the apostle, in\nHeb. i. 5. refers to this scripture, when speaking of him as Mediator,\nand as _having, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than the\nangels_; which he has done, as he is constituted heir of all things: and\nhe subjoins that promise, _I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to\nme a Son_, that is, he shall perform that obedience that is due from him\nas a Son; and I will give unto him those rewards, which are due from a\nFather, who has committed this work to him, with a promise of the\nconferring those revenues of Mediatorial glory on him, that should ensue\non his fulfilling it. Moreover, this scripture is referred to, by the\napostle, in Acts xiii. 32, 33. when he says, _That the promise, which\nwas made to the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto their\nchildren, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is written in the\nsecond Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee_. So that\nit is plain the Psalmist speaks of him as having finished his work of\nredemption, at which time he was raised from the dead; and then, in the\nfullest sense, he had the _heathen for his inheritance_. And, upon this\naccount, he is also called, in Rev. i. 5. _The first begotten of the\ndead_; and, in Col. i. 18. _The first-born from the dead._\n\nThe next scripture brought to prove the eternal generation of the Son,\nin Prov. viii. 22, 23, 25. refers to Christ, as Mediator; when God is\nsaid to _possess him in the beginning of his way_, the meaning is, that\nin his eternal design oi grace relating to the redemption of man, the\nFather possessed, or laid claim to him as his Son, or servant, appointed\nin the human nature, to bring about that great work; and accordingly it\nfollows, _I was set up from everlasting_, that is, fore-ordained of God,\nto be the Mediator and head of his elect: and this agrees very well with\nwhat follows, ver. 30, 31. _I was daily his delight_, that is, God the\nFather was well pleased with him, when foreseeing from all eternity what\nhe would do in time, to secure the glory of his perfections in the\nredemption of man, as God publicly testified his well-pleasedness in\nhim, when he was actually engaged in this work. And it is farther added,\n_That he was always rejoicing before him; rejoicing in the habitable\npart of his earth, and his delights were with the sons of men_; which\nsignifies the great pleasure Christ had, in his eternal fore-sight of\nwhat he would do for the sons of men, whom he is elsewhere said to _have\nloved with an everlasting love_.\n\nThe next scripture is in Micah v. 2. where speaking of the Son, it is\nsaid, _Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting_. For the\nunderstanding of which scripture, let us consider, that God\u2019s goings are\nsometimes taken in scripture for what he does, whereby he renders\nhimself the object of his people\u2019s astonishment and praise; these are\nhis visible goings. Thus, Psal. lxvi. 24. _They have seen thy goings, O\nGod, even the goings of my God, my King, in the sanctuary_; that is,\nthey shall see the great things which thou wilt do for man, in the work\nof redemption: so in this scripture, the sense whereof we are\nconsidering, we read of Christ\u2019s goings forth, his invisible goings, as\nwe may call them, or his secret purposes, or designs of grace, relating\nto the redemption of his people: _His goings forth were from\neverlasting_; that is, he did, from eternity, design to save them; the\noutgoings of his heart were towards them, and, as the result hereof, he\ncame into the world according to this prediction, and was born in\nBethlehem, as in the foregoing words.\n\nThe next scripture is in Heb. i. 3. where he is said to be _the\nbrightness of his_, that is, his Father\u2019s _glory, and the express image\nof his person_. By the former expression, I humbly conceive, is meant,\nthat the glory of the divine perfections shines forth most illustriously\nin Christ, our great Mediator, as the apostle expresses it elsewhere, 2\nCor. iv. 6. _God hath shined in our hearts, to give the knowledge of his\nglory, in the face of Jesus Christ._ By the latter expression, in which\nChrist is called _the express image of his Person_, I humbly conceive,\nis meant, that though his divine nature be the same with the Father\u2019s,\nyet his Personality is distinct; and therefore it is not said to be the\nsame, but the _image of his Father\u2019s_; and it also proves his proper\ndivine Personality, as being, in all respects, like that of the Father,\nthough not the same.\n\nThe next scripture is in John v. 26. _As the Father hath life in\nhimself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself._ We cannot\nthink that the Father\u2019s having _given to the Son to have life in\nhimself_ implies his giving him the divine perfections, for the\npropriety of that mode of speaking cannot be defended consistently with\nhis proper underived Deity. But I humbly conceive that the meaning of it\nis this; that _as the Father hath life in himself_, that is, as he has\neternal life, or that fulness of grace and glory, which his people are\nto be made partakers of, at his own disposal, and has designed to give\nit, in his eternal purpose; so hath he given to the Son, as Mediator, to\nhave life in himself, that is, that, as such, he should be the treasury\nof all this grace, and that he should have life in himself to dispense\nto them. This is very agreeable to his character and office, as\nMediator, and with what follows, ver. 24. where it is said; _Verily,\nverily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him\nthat sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into\ncondemnation, but is passed from death unto life_; and ver. 27. it is\nfarther added, that He, to wit, the Father, _hath given him authority to\nexecute judgment also, because he is the Son of man_; which plainly\ndenotes, that this life, which he has received from the Father, is that\neternal life, which he is impowered or commissioned to bestow on his\npeople, as Mediator; this he has in himself, and accordingly he is said,\nJohn i. 14. to be _full of grace and truth_; and Col. i. 19. _It pleased\nthe Father that in him should all fulness dwell._\n\nThe next thing to be considered, is the sense of those many scriptures,\nin which our Saviour is described as the _Son of God_, or the _Son of\nthe living God_, or _his only begotten Son_, or _his own_ or _proper\nSon_, as distinguished from all others, which, I humbly conceive, sets\nforth his glory, as Mediator, which we shall endeavour to prove. But, to\nprepare our way for the prosecution of this argument, as well as to\nprevent any misconstruction that might give prejudice thereunto, we\nshall take leave to premise,\n\n1. That when we read of the Son of God, as dependent on the Father,\ninferior and obedient to him; and yet, as being equal with him, and\nhaving the same divine nature, we cannot conceive of any character which\nanswers to all these ideas of sonship, unless that of a Mediator. If we\nconsider the properties of sonship among men, every one who stands in\nthis relation to a Father is dependent on him. In this respect, the\nfather is the cause of his son, and it is not like other productions,\nfor no effect can, properly speaking, be called a son, but that which\nhath the same kind of nature with his father; and the relation of\nsonship always connotes inferiority, and an obligation to yield\nobedience. I do not apply this, in every respect, to the Sonship of\nChrist, which no similitude, taken from mere creatures, can sufficiently\nillustrate; but his character, as Mediator, seems to answer to it, more\nthan any thing else that can be said of him, since he has, as such, the\nsame individual nature with the Father, and also is inferior to, and\ndependent on him. As a son, among men, is inferior to, and dependent on,\nhis father, and, as the prophet speaks, Mal. i. 6. _Honoureth his\nfather_; so whatever Christ is, as Mediator, he receives it from the\nFather, and, in all that he does, he _honoureth his Father_, as he says,\nJohn viii. 49. As the whole work of redemption is referred to the\nFather\u2019s glory, and the commission, by which he acts as Mediator, is\nreceived from the Father, so, as a Son, he refers all the glory thereof\nto him.\n\n2. This account of Christ\u2019s Sonship does not take away any argument, by\nwhich we prove his Deity; for when we consider him as Mediator, we\nalways suppose him to be both God and man, which is what we intend when\nwe speak of the Person of Christ in this respect; so that, as God, he is\nequal with the Father, and has an equal right to divine adoration. This\nbelongs to him as much, when considered as Mediator, as it can be\nsupposed to do, if we consider his Sonship in any other respect.\n\n3. It does not take away any argument to prove his distinct Personality\nfrom the Father and Holy Ghost, or, at least, if it sets aside that\nwhich is taken from the dependence of his Personality on the Father, as\nreceived from him by communication, it substitutes another in the room\nof it, inasmuch as to be a Mediator is, without doubt, a personal\ncharacter; and because neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, can be\nsaid to be Mediators, it implies, that his Personality is distinct from\ntheirs; likewise his acting as Mediator from the Father; and the Holy\nSpirit\u2019s securing the glory which arises to him from hence, and applying\nthe redemption purchased by him, is a farther proof of this distinction\nof the Persons in the Godhead.\n\n4. Since we consider the Mediator as both God and man, in one Person, we\ndo not suppose that this character respects either of his two natures,\nconsidered separately.\n\n(1.) Not his divine nature. It is true, that his having the same nature\nwith the Father might be reckoned, by some, a character of Sonship, as\nit contains one ingredient in the common idea that we have among men.\nThey, as sons, are said to have the same kind of nature with their\nfathers; so our Saviour\u2019s having the same individual nature with the\nFather might give occasion to some to denominate him, for that reason,\nhis Son; but though this may be the foundation of his being called God\u2019s\n_proper Son_, \u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, yet this is not his distinguishing character\nas a Son: for it would follow from hence, that the Holy Ghost, who has\nthe same nature with the Father, would, for that reason, be called his\nSon, which is contrary to the scripture-account given of him, as\nproceeding from the Father and the Son.\n\n(2.) This character of Christ, as God-man, Mediator, does not respect\nhis human nature, considered separately from his divine, nor any of\nthose peculiar honours conferred upon it, beyond what any mere creatures\nare made partakers of.\n\nThis leads us to consider the difference between this notion of his\nSonship, and that which was generally assigned, as the reason of his\nbeing so called, by the Socinians; these generally speak of Christ, as\nbeing denominated the Son of God, because of the extraordinary and\nmiraculous conception, or formation, of his human nature in the womb of\nthe Virgin; and for this they refer to that scripture in Luke i.\n35.[101] _The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the\nhighest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that Holy Thing, which\nshall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God_. The sense, in\nwhich they understand this text, is, that Christ is called the Son of\nGod, because of this extraordinary event: But we cannot think that a\nmiraculous production is a sufficient foundation to support this\ncharacter, and therefore must conclude, that the glory of Christ\u2019s\nSonship is infinitely greater than what arises from thence: therefore, I\nhumbly conceive that this scripture is to be understood, with a small\nvariation of the translation, in this sense, _The Holy Ghost shall come\nupon thee_, &c. _because that Holy Thing, which shall be born of thee,\nshall be called_, as he really is, _the Son of God_; that is, he is as\nMediator, an extraordinary Person appointed to execute a glorious\noffice, the Godhead and the manhood being to be united together, upon\nwhich account he is called the Son of God: and therefore it is expedient\nthat the formation of his human nature should be in an extraordinary\nway, to wit, by the power of the Holy Ghost.\n\nAgain, there is a very wide difference between our account of Christ\u2019s\nSonship, as Mediator, and theirs, as taken from this scripture, in that\nthey suppose that his being called the Son of God, refers only to some\ndignities conferred upon him, whom they suppose to be no more than a\nman. This is infinitely below the glory, which we ascribe to him, as\nMediator, since their idea of him, as such, how extraordinary soever his\nconception was, argues him to be no more than a creature; but ours, as\nhas been before observed, proves him a divine Person, since we never\nspeak of him, as Mediator, without including both natures.\n\nHaving premised these things, to explain our sense of Christ\u2019s being\ncalled the Son of God, as Mediator, we proceed to prove this from\nscripture. And here we are not under a necessity of straining the sense\nof a few scriptures, to make them speak agreeably to this notion of\nChrist\u2019s Sonship; but, I think, we have the whole scripture, whenever it\nspeaks of Christ, as the Son of God, as giving countenance to this plain\nsense thereof; so that I cannot find one place, in the whole New\nTestament, in which Christ is called the Son of God, but it is, with\nsufficient evidence, proved, from the context, that it is applied to\nhim, as Mediator. Here we shall refer to several scriptures, in which he\nis so considered: thus that scripture before-mentioned, in Matth. xvi.\n16. where Peter confesses, _Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God_;\nin which, speaking of him as Christ, or the Mediator, that is, the\nPerson who was invested in the office, and came to perform the work of a\nMediator, he is, in this respect, _the Son of the living God_; so when\nthe high priest asked our Saviour, Matth. xxvi. 63. _Art thou the\nChrist, the Son of God?_ that is, art thou the Messiah, as thou art\nsupposed to be by thy followers? Our Saviour, in ver. 64. replied to\nhim, _Thou hast said_, that is, it is as thou hast said; and then he\ndescribes himself in another character, by which he is often\nrepresented, as Mediator, and speaks of the highest degree of his\nMediatorial glory to which he shall be advanced at his second coming,\nver. 64. _Nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son\nof man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of\nheaven._ And, doubtless, the centurion, and they who were with him, when\nthey confessed that _he was the Son of God_, in Matth. xxvii. 54.\nunderstood by it, that he was the Messiah, or the Christ, which is a\ncharacter by which he was most known, and which had been supported by so\nmany miracles, and was now confirmed by this miracle of the earthquake,\nwhich gave him this conviction; also in Luke iv. 41. when the devils are\nrepresented as crying out, _Thou art Christ, the Son of God_, it\nfollows, _that they knew that he was Christ_; so that the commonly\nreceived notion of our Saviour\u2019s Sonship was, that he was the Christ.\nAnd in John xi. 3. when Jesus says concerning Lazarus, _that his\nsickness was not unto death_, that is, not such as that he should\ncontinue in the state of the dead, _but for the glory of God, that the\nSon of God might be glorified thereby_, the meaning is, that he might\ngive a proof of his being the Christ, by raising him from the dead;\ntherefore, when he speaks to Martha, with a design to try whether she\nbelieved he could raise her brother from the dead, and represents\nhimself to her as the object of faith, she replies, ver. 27. _I believe\nthat thou art the Christ the Son of God, which should come into the\nworld._ Again, it is said, in Acts ix. 20. that Saul, when converted,\n_preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God_, that is,\nhe proved him to be the Messiah; and accordingly, ver. 22. when he was\nestablishing the same doctrine, it is said, that _he proved that he was\nthe very Christ_.\n\nMoreover, our Saviour is farther described, in scripture, as executing\nsome of his mediatorial offices, or as having received a commission to\nexecute them from the Father, or as having some branches of mediatorial\nglory conferred upon him, at the same time that he is called the Son of\nGod, which gives us ground to conclude, that this is the import of his\nSonship. Thus we read, Heb. iv. 14. that _we have a great High Priest\nthat is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God_; and in John i.\n29. John the Baptist gives a public testimony to him, as sustaining such\na character, which belongs to him, as Mediator, when he says, _Behold\nthe Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world_; and\nafterwards, referring to the same character, he says, ver. 34. _I saw,\nand bare record, that this is the Son of God_; and at another time he\ngives a noble testimony to him, as God-man, Mediator, John iii. 29, &c.\nwhen he calls him, _The Bridegroom which hath the bride_, that is, who\nis related to, and has a propriety, in his church, and that _he\ntestifies what he has seen and heard_, and that it is _he whom God hath\nsent, who speaks the words of God, for God giveth not the Spirit by\nmeasure unto him_; and then, as a farther explication hereof, he says,\nver. 35. _The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his\nhand._ This is, in effect, the same, as when he is called elsewhere,\n_his beloved Son_; and, in Heb. iii. 6. Christ is said to be _a Son over\nhis own house, whose house are we_; which denotes not only his propriety\nin his church, but his being the Head thereof, as Mediator; and the\napostle, 1 Thess. i. 10. speaks of him, as _the Son of God, whom we are\nto wait for from heaven; whom he has raised from the dead, even Jesus,\nwhich delivered us from the wrath to come_; and, Gal. ii. 20. he speaks\nof the Son of God, as one who _loved him, and gave himself for him_; and\nCol. i. 13. he is spoken of as _God\u2019s dear Son_, and, at the same time,\nas having a kingdom, into which his people are translated; and in the\nfollowing verse, as the person _in whom we have redemption, through his\nblood, who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every\ncreature_; which seems to be taken in the same sense as when he said,\nHeb. i. 2. to have been _appointed Heir of all things_, and so referring\nto him as God-man, Mediator.\n\nMoreover, when he is considered as a Son related to his Father; this\nappears, from the context, to be a description of him as Mediator. Thus,\nJohn xx. 17. he says, _I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; to my\nGod, and your God_; that is, my Father by whom I am constituted\nMediator, and your Father, namely, the God who loves you for my sake: he\nis first my God, as he has honoured, loved and glorified me; and then\nyour God, as he is reconciled to you for my sake; so the apostle says, 2\nCor. i. 3. _Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;\nthe Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort._\n\n_Object._ 1. In these scriptures, and others of the like nature, there\nare two ideas contained; namely, one of our Saviour, as the Son of God,\nby eternal generation; the other of him, as Mediator; whereas we suppose\nthat one contains only an explication of the other.\n\n_Answ._ If Christ\u2019s Sonship, in the sense in which it is generally\nexplained, were sufficiently proved from other scriptures, which take no\nnotice of his mediatorial character, or works, or could be accounted\nfor, without being liable to the difficulties before-mentioned, and if\nhis character, as Mediator, did not contain in it an idea of\nPersonality, the objection would have more weight than otherwise it\nseems to have.\n\n_Object._ 2. It is said, Gal. iv. 4. _God sent forth his Son, made of a\nwoman, made under the law_; therefore he was the Son of God before he\nwas sent into the world, when made of a woman, and under the law, that\nis, his Son by eternal generation.\n\n_Answ._ The answer I would give to this objection is,\n\n1. It is not necessary to suppose that Christ had the character of a Son\nbefore he was sent, though he had that of a divine Person; since the\nwords may, without any strain, or force, upon the sense thereof, be\nunderstood thus; when the fulness of time was come, in which the Messiah\nwas expected, God sent him forth, or sent him into the world, with the\ncharacter of a Son, at which time he was made of a woman, made under the\nlaw; the end whereof was, that he might redeem them that were under the\nlaw.\n\n2. If we suppose Christ had the character of a Son before he was sent\ninto the world, it will not overthrow our argument: since he was, by the\nFather\u2019s designation, an eternal Mediator, and, in this respect, God\u2019s\neternal Son; and therefore, he who before was so by virtue of the\neternal decree, is now actually sent, that he might be, and do, what he\nwas from all eternity designed to be, and do: he was set up from\neverlasting, or appointed to be the Son of God; and now he is sent to\nperform the work which this character implies in it.\n\n_Object._ 3. It is farther objected, that his Sonship is distinct from\nhis being Mediator, inasmuch as it is said, Heb. v. 8. _Though he were a\nSon, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered._ Now it\ncannot, in propriety of speech, be said, though he were Mediator, yet he\nlearned obedience, since he was under an obligation to obey, and suffer\nas Mediator; therefore the meaning must be, though he were a Son by\neternal generation, yet he condescended to put himself into such a\ncapacity, as that he was obliged to obey, and suffer, as Mediator.\n\n_Answ._ The stress of the objection lies in the word which we render\n_though_, \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c9\u03bd \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 &c. which may be rendered, with a small\nvariation, _though being a Son_, he learned obedience by the things he\nsuffered; _but being made perfect_, _viz._ after his sufferings, he\nbecame the author of eternal salvation, unto all them that obey him; and\nthen it takes away the force of the objection. However, I see no\nabsurdity if it be rendered, as it is in the vulgar Latin version, _And,\nindeed, being a Son, he learned obedience_[102], and then it proves the\nargument we are endeavouring to defend, _q. d._ it is agreeable to the\ncharacter of a son to learn obedience; it was with this view that it was\nconferred upon him, and in performing obedience, and suffering as\nMediator, and thereby securing the glory of the divine perfections in\nbringing about the work of our redemption, he acted in pursuance of that\ncharacter.\n\n_Object._ 1. It will be farther objected, that what we have said\nconcerning the Sonship of Christ, as referred to his being Mediator, has\nsome consequences attending it, which seem derogatory to his Person;\nparticularly, it will follow from hence, that had not man fallen, and\nstood in need of a Mediator, our Saviour would not have had that\ncharacter, and therefore never have been described as the Son of God, or\nworshipped as such. And our first parents, while in the state of\ninnocency, knowing nothing of a Mediator, knew nothing of the Sonship of\nChrist, and therefore could not give him the glory, which is the result\nthereof. Moreover, as God might have prevented the fall of man, or, when\nfallen, he might have refused to have recovered him by a Mediator; so\nour Saviour might not have been the Son of God, that is, according to\nthe foregoing explication thereof, a Mediator between God and man.\n\n_Answ._ This objection may be very easily answered, and the charge, of\nChrist\u2019s mediatorial Sonship being derogatory to his glory, removed;\nwhich that we may do, let it be considered,\n\n1. That we allow, that had not man fallen, our Saviour would not have\nbeen a Mediator between God and man; and the commonly received notion is\ntrue, that his being a Mediator is, by divine ordination and\nappointment, according to the tenor of several scriptures relating\nthereunto; and I see no absurdity in asserting, that his character, as\nthe Son of God, or Mediator, is equally the result of the divine will,\nor decree. But this I hope, if duly considered, will not contain the\nleast diminution of his glory, when we farther assert,\n\n2. That though our Saviour had not sustained this character if man had\nnot fallen, or if God had not designed to bring about the work of\nredemption by him, yet he would have been no less a distinct Person in\nthe Godhead, and, as such, would have had a right to divine glory. This\nappears from what hath been before said, concerning his personality\nbeing equally necessary with his Deity, which, if it be not communicated\nto him, certainly it has not the least appearance of being the result of\nthe divine will; and, indeed, his divine personality is the only\nfoundation of his right to be adored, and not his being invested in an\noffice, which only draws forth, or occasions our adoration. When we\nspeak of Christ\u2019s being adored, as Mediator, it is his divine\npersonality, which is included in that character, that renders him the\nobject of adoration, and not his taking the human nature, or being, or\ndoing, what he was, or did, by divine appointment; and I question\nwhether they, who assert that he had the divine nature, or personality,\ncommunicated to him, will lay the stress of his right to divine\nadoration, on its being communicated, but on his having it, abstracting\nfrom his manner of having it; so when we speak of Christ as Mediator, it\nis his having the divine glory, or personality, which is included in\nthat character, that renders him the object of adoration; therefore, if\nman had not fallen, and Christ had not been Mediator, he would have had\na right to divine glory, as a Person in the Godhead. And I doubt not but\nthat our first parents, before they fell, had an intimation hereof, and\nadored him as such; so that if Christ had not been Mediator, it would\nonly follow from thence, that he would not have had the character of a\nSon, but he would, notwithstanding, have had the glory of a divine\nPerson; for though his sonship be the result of the divine will, his\npersonality is not so.[103]\n\nHaving enquired into the sense of those scriptures which treat of the\nSonship of Christ, we shall next consider those that are generally\nbrought to prove the procession of the Holy Ghost; the principal of\nwhich, as has been before observed, are in John xiv. 26. and chap. xv.\n26. and xvi. 7. in which he is said _to proceed from the Father_, or to\nbe _sent by the Father in Christ\u2019s name_, or to be _sent by the Son_. We\nhave already considered the most commonly received sense hereof, as\nincluding in it an eternal procession, _viz._ the communication of the\ndivine essence, or personality to him, as distinguished from the eternal\ngeneration of the Son; but now we shall enquire whether there may not be\nanother sense given of these scriptures, agreeable to the analogy of\nfaith, that may be acquiesced in by those, who cannot so well\nunderstand, or account for, the common sense given thereof, which, I\nhumbly conceive, is this: that the Spirit is considered not with respect\nto the manner of his subsisting, but with respect to the subserviency of\nhis acting, to set forth the Mediator\u2019s glory, and that of the Father\nthat sent him. I chuse to call it a subserviency of acting, without\nconnoting any inferiority in the agent; or if we suppose that it argues\nany inferiority in the Holy Spirit, this is only an inferiority in\nacting, as the works that he does are subservient to the glory of the\nMediator, and of the Father, though his divine personality is, in all\nrespects, equal with theirs. This explication of these texts, is allowed\nof by many, if not by most, of those who defend the doctrine of the\nTrinity, notwithstanding their maintaining another notion of the\nSpirit\u2019s procession from the Father and the Son, from all eternity, in\nthe sense before considered. I need only refer to that explication which\na great and learned divine gives of these, and such like texts,\nnotwithstanding his adhering, in other respects, to the common mode of\nspeaking, relating to the eternal generation of the Son, and procession\nof the Holy Ghost. His words are these[106]: \u201cAll that discourse which\nwe have of the mission, and sending of the Holy Ghost, and his\nproceeding and coming forth from the Father and Son, for the ends\nspecified, John xiv. 26. and xv. 26. and xvi. 7, 13. concerns not at all\nthe eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, as to\nhis distinct personality and subsistance, but belongs to that \u0153conomy,\nor dispensation of the ministry, that the whole Trinity proceedeth in,\nfor the accomplishment of the work of our salvation.\u201d\n\nNow if these scriptures, which are the chief in all the New Testament,\non which this doctrine is founded, are to be taken in this sense, how\nshall we find a sufficient proof, from other scriptures, of the\nprocession of the Holy Ghost in any other sense? Therefore, that we may\nfarther explain this doctrine, let us consider, that whatever the Son,\nas Mediator, has purchased, as being sent by the Father for that end, is\napplied by the Holy Ghost, who therefore acts in subserviency to them.\nThis is generally called, by divines, the \u0153conomy of persons in the\nGodhead, which, because it is a word that we often use, when we consider\nthe distinct works of the Father, Son, and Spirit, in their respective\nsubserviency to one another, we shall take occasion briefly to explain,\nand shew how it may be applied to them in that respect without inferring\nany inferiority as to what concerns their Personal glory. We shall say\nnothing concerning the derivation, or use, of the word \u0153conomy, though\nwe cannot forbear to mention, with indignation, the sense which some of\nthe opposers of the blessed Trinity have given of it, while laying aside\nall the rules of decency and reverence, which this sacred mystery calls\nfor, they represent us, as speaking of the family-government of the\ndivine Persons, which is the most invidious sense they could put upon\nthe word, and most remote from our design in the use of it. Now that we\nmay explain and apply it to our present purpose, let it be considered,\n\n1. That all those works, which are the effects of the divine power, or\nsovereign will, are performed by all the Persons in the Godhead, and\nattributed to them in scripture; the reason whereof is very evident,\nnamely, because the power and will of God, and all other divine\nperfections, belong equally, and alike, to the Father, Son, and Spirit:\nif therefore that which produces these effects belongs to them, then the\neffects produced must be equally ascribed to them; so that the Father is\nno more said to create and govern the world, or to be the author of all\ngrace, and the fountain of blessedness, than the Son and Spirit.\n\n2. Nevertheless, since the Father, Son, and Spirit, are distinct\nPersons, and so have distinct personal considerations in acting, it is\nnecessary that their personal glory should be demonstrated, or made\nknown to us, that our faith and worship may be fixed on, and directed to\nthem, in a distinct manner, as founded thereon.\n\n3. This distinction of the Persons in the Godhead cannot be known, as\ntheir eternal power or Deity is said to be, by the works of creation and\nprovidence, it being a doctrine of pure revelation; therefore,\n\n4. We are given to understand, in scripture, when it treats of the great\nwork of our salvation, that it is attributed first to the Father, then\nto the Son, as Mediator, receiving a commission from him to redeem and\nsave his people, and then to the Holy Ghost, acting in subserviency\nthereunto; this is what we are to understand when we speak of the\ndistinct \u0153conomy of the Father, Son, and Spirit, which I cannot better\nexpress than by considering of it as a divine determination, that the\npersonal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, should be demonstrated in\nsuch a way. Now, to instance in some particular acts, or works; when a\ndivine Person is represented in scripture as doing, or determining to\ndo, any thing relating to the work of our redemption, or salvation, by\nanother divine Person, who must, for that reason, be considered herein,\nas Mediator, it is to be understood of the Father, in this \u0153conomic\nsense, inasmuch as, by this means, he demonstrates his personal glory:\nthus it is said, Eph. i. 4, 5. _He_, _i. e._ the Father, _hath chosen us\nin him_, namely, the Son; and _he_ is said to have _predestinated us\nunto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ_. Though election and\npredestination are also applied to the Son and Spirit, when they have\nanother reference corresponding with the demonstration of their personal\nglory, yet, in this place, they are only applied to the Father. And\nthere are several other scriptures, in which things done are\nparticularly applied to the Father for the same reason. Thus, 2 Cor. v.\n18, 19. it is said, _God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ_,\nand that _he was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself_; and, in 1\nCor. i. 30. it is said, _Of him_, namely the Father, _are ye in Christ\nJesus, who of God_, that is, the Father, _is made unto us wisdom_, &c.\nin which, and several other scriptures to the same purpose, the Father\nis, in a peculiar manner, intended, because considered, as no other\ndivine person is, as acting by the Mediator, or as glorifying the\nperfections of the divine nature, which belong to him, by what this\ngreat Mediator did by his appointment.\n\nMoreover when a divine Person is considered as acting in subserviency to\nthe Father\u2019s glory, or executing a commission relating to the work of\nredemption, which he had received from him, and accordingly performing\nany act of obedience in an human nature assumed by him for that purpose,\nthis is peculiarly applied to, and designed to demonstrate the Son\u2019s\nPersonal character, as belonging to no other Person in the Godhead but\nhim. Of this we have several instances in scripture; thus though to\njudge the world be a branch of the divine glory, which is common to all\nthe Persons in the Godhead; yet there are some circumstances in the\ncharacter of a divine Person in particular, who is denominated as Judge\nof quick and dead, that are applicable to none but the Son; and so we\nare to understand that scripture, John v. 22. _The Father judgeth no\nman, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son_; that is, the Son is\nthe only Person in the Godhead who displays his Mediatorial character\nand glory, as the Judge of the whole world; yet when there is another\npersonal character ascribed to God, as the Judge of all; or when he is\nsaid to _judge the world in righteousness, by that Man_, to wit, our\nLord Jesus, _whom he hath ordained_, as in Acts xvii. 31. then this\npersonal character determines it to belong to the Father.\n\nAgain, to give eternal life is a divine prerogative, and consequently\nbelongs to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet when a divine Person is\nsaid to give eternal life to a people, that were given to him for that\npurpose, and to have received power, or authority, from another, to\nconfer this privilege as Mediator, then it is peculiarly applied to the\nSon: thus John xvii. 2. _Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that\nhe should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him._\n\nMoreover, when a divine Person is said to do any thing in subserviency\nto the Mediator; or, as it is said, in John xvi. 14. _He shall glorify\nme; for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you_, this is\npeculiarly applied to the Spirit. So when he is said to give his\ntestimony to the mission, or work of the Mediator, by any divine works\nperformed by him, this is peculiarly applied to him; or when he is said\nto sanctify and comfort, or to seal and confirm believers unto the day\nof redemption. Though these being divine works, are, for that reason,\napplicable to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet when he is said to\nperform them in a way of subserviency to Christ, as having purchased\nthem, then his distinct personal character, taken from thence, is\ndemonstrated, and so these works are especially applied to him. This is\nwhat we understand by that peculiar \u0153conomy, or dispensation, which\ndetermines us to give distinct personal glory to each of the Persons in\nthe Godhead.\n\nAnd now we are speaking of the Spirit, considered as acting, whereby he\nsets forth his Personal glory, we may observe, that, in compliance with\nthis way of speaking, the gifts and graces of the Spirit, are, by a\nmetonymy, called the _Spirit_, as in Acts xix. 2. when it is said, _Have\nye received the Holy Ghost? They said unto him, We have not so much as\nheard whether there be any Holy Ghost._ We are not to understand it as\nthough they had not heard whether there were such a Person as the Holy\nGhost; but they had not heard that there was such an extraordinary\ndispensation of the gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred on men; so John\nvii. 39. it is said, _The Holy Ghost was not yet given_, because Jesus\nwas not yet glorified; the word _given_ being supplied in our\ntranslation, and not in the original; it ought rather to be rendered,\n_The Holy Ghost was not as yet_; by which we are to understand the gifts\nof the Holy Ghost, and not his Personality, which was from all eternity.\n\nAnd here we may farther observe, that when the Holy Ghost is spoken of\nas a Person, that word which denotes his Personality, ought not to be\nrendered _It_, but _He_, as expressive of his Personal character; but\nwhen it is taken in a figurative sense, for the gifts or graces of the\nSpirit, then it should be translated _It_. This is sometimes observed in\nour translation of scripture; as in John xvi. 13. it is said of the\nSpirit, _He will guide you into all truth_, where the Personal character\nof the Spirit is expressly mentioned, as it ought to be: but it is not\nduly observed by our translators in every scripture; Rom. viii. 16. it\nis said, _The Spirit itself beareth witness_, which ought to have been\nrendered _Himself_; as also in ver. 26. _The Spirit itself maketh\nintercession for us._ The same ought to be observed in all other\nscriptures, whereby we may be led to put a just difference between the\nSpirit, considered as a divine Person; or as acting, or producing those\neffects, which are said to be wrought by him.\n\nThus concerning the Sonship of Christ, and the procession of the Holy\nGhost. What I have said, in attempting to explain those scripture that\ntreat of the Person of Christ, as God-man, Mediator, and of his\ninferiority, in that respect, (or as he is said to sustain that\ncharacter) to the Father; as also those which speak of the subserviency\nof the Spirit, in acting, to the Father and the Son, does not, as I\napprehend, run counter to the common faith of those who have defended\nthe doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity. Therefore I hope that when I\ncall one the Sonship of Christ, and the other the procession of the Holy\nGhost, this will not be deemed a new and strange doctrine. And I cannot\nbut persuade myself, that what I have said concerning the Mediator, as\nacting in obedience to the Father, and the Spirit, in subserviency to\nhim, will not be contested by those who defend the doctrine of the\nTrinity. And, if I have a little varied from the common way of speaking,\nI hope none will be offended at the acceptation of a word, especially\nsince I have endeavoured to defend my sense thereof, by referring to\nmany scriptures. And, if I cannot give into the common explication of\nthe eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost,\nI am well satisfied I do no more than what many Christians do, who have\nreceived the doctrine of the Trinity from the scripture, and are\nunacquainted with those modes of speaking which are used in the schools:\nthese appear as much to dislike them, when used in public discourses\nabout this doctrine, as any other can do, what has been attempted to\nexplain it in a different way.\n\nIV. We shall now proceed to consider the Godhead of the Son, and Holy\nGhost, as maintained in one of the answers we are explaining, by four\ngeneral heads of argument.\n\nI. From those divine names which are given to them, that are peculiar to\nGod alone.\n\nII. From their having the divine attributes ascribed to them, and\nconsequently the divine nature.\n\nIII. From their having manifested their divine glory, by those works\nthat none but God can perform.\n\nIV. From their having a right to divine worship, which none but God is\nworthy to receive.\n\nIf these things be made to appear, we have all that we need contend for;\nand it will be evident from thence, that the Son and Holy Ghost are God\nequal with the Father. These heads of argument we shall apply to them\ndistinctly; and,\n\n_First_, To the Son, who appears to be God equal with the Father,\n\nI. From those divine names given to him, that are peculiar to God alone.\nAnd here we shall premise something concerning the use of names given to\npersons, together with the design thereof. Names are given to persons,\nas well as things, with a twofold design.\n\n1. Sometimes nothing else is intended thereby, but to distinguish one\nfrom another, in which sense the names given are not in themselves\nsignificant, or expressive of any property, or quality, in those that\nare so described. Thus most of those names we read of in scripture,\nthough not all of them, are designed only to distinguish one man from\nanother, which is the most common use and design thereof;\nnotwithstanding,\n\n2. They are sometimes given to signify some property in those to whom\nthey are applied, _viz._ what they should be, or do. Thus we have many\ninstances, in scripture, of persons called by names, which have had some\nspecial signification annexed to them, assigned as a reason of their\nbeing so called. Thus Adam had that name given him, because made of\nearth; and Eve was so called, because she was the mother of all living.\nThe same may be said concerning Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,\nMoses, Joshua, Samuel, and several others, whose respective names have a\nsignification annexed to them, agreeable to the proper sense of the\nwords, and the design of their being so called.\n\nAnd, to apply this to our present purpose, we may conclude, that when\nnames are given to any divine Person, they are designed to express some\nexcellency and perfection belonging to him; and therefore we shall have\nsufficient reason to conclude the Son to be a divine Person, if we can\nmake it appear that he has those names given to him in scripture, which\nare proper to God alone. And,\n\n1. The name Jehovah is given to him, which is peculiar to God. Here we\nshall prove, _First_, that the name Jehovah is peculiar to God. And,\n_Secondly_, that it is ascribed to Christ.\n\n(1.) That the name Jehovah is peculiar to God, whereby he is\ndistinguished from all creatures: thus it is said, Isa. xlii. 8. _I am\nthe Lord_, or Jehovah, _that is my name, and my glory will I not give to\nanother_; or, as the text may be rendered, _I am Jehovah, that name of\nmine, and my glory_, which is signified thereby, _will I not give to\nanother_: therefore it follows, that it is an incommunicable name of\nGod: and when he says, _I will not give it to another_, it supposes that\nit necessarily belongs to him; and therefore that he cannot give it to\nanother, since that would be unbecoming himself; therefore this name,\nwhich is expressive of his glory in so peculiar a manner, is never given\nto any creature.\n\nThere are other scriptures to this purpose, in which the name Jehovah is\nrepresented, as peculiar to God. Thus when the prophet Amos had been\nspeaking of the glory of God, as displayed in the works of creation and\nprovidence, he adds, _that the Lord_, or Jehovah, _is his name_, chap.\nv. 8. So that those works, which are peculiar to God, might as well be\napplied to creatures, as that name Jehovah, which is agreeable\nthereunto. And in chap. ix. 6. the prophet gives another magnificent\ndescription of God, with respect to those works that are peculiar to\nhim, when he says, _It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven,\nand hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters\nof the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth_; and then\nhe adds, _the Lord_, or Jehovah, _is his name_.\n\nAgain, it is said, in Psal. lxxxiii. 18. _That men may know, that thou,\nwhose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth._ This\nis never said of any other divine names, which are, in a limited sense,\nsometimes given to creatures; and, indeed, all creatures are expressly\nexcluded from having a right hereunto.\n\nAgain, there are other scriptures, in which this name Jehovah is applied\nto God, and an explication thereof subjoined, which argues that it is\npeculiar to him. Thus when Moses desired of God, that he would let him\nknow what _his name_ was for the encouragement of the faith of the\nIsraelites, to whom he sent him, Exod. iii. 13. _q. d._ he desires to\nknow what are those divine glories, that would render him the object of\nfaith and worship; or how he might describe him in such a way to the\nchildren of Israel, whereby they might express that reverence and regard\nto him, that was due to the great God, who sent him about so important\nan errand. In answer to which God says, ver. 14. _I AM THAT I AM. Thus\nshalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM_ hath sent me unto you;\nwhich description of him doth not set forth one single perfection, but\nall the perfections of the divine nature; as though he should say, I am\na God of infinite perfection; and then he adds, in the following verse,\n_Thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, The Lord_, or Jehovah, _the\nGod of your fathers hath sent me unto you_; where Jehovah signifies the\nsame with _I AM THAT I AM_. And he adds, _This is my memorial unto all\ngenerations_; therefore this glorious name is certainly peculiar to God.\n\nWhat has been already observed, under this head, is sufficient to prove\nthat the name Jehovah is proper to God alone. But we might hereunto add\nanother argument, of less weight, which, though we do not lay that\nstress upon, as though it was sufficient of itself to prove this matter;\nyet, being added to what has been already suggested, it may not be\nimproper to be mentioned, _viz._ that the word Jehovah has no plural\nnumber, as being never designed to signify any more than the one God;\nneither has it any emphatical particle affixed to it, as other words in\nthe Hebrew language have; and particularly several of the other names of\nGod, which distinguishes him from others; who have those names sometimes\napplied to them; and the reason of this is, because the name Jehovah is\nnever given to any creature.\n\nAnd to this we might add, that since the Jews best understood their own\nlanguage, they may, in some respects, be depended on, as to the sense\nthey give of the word Jehovah; and it is certain they paid the greatest\nregard to this name, even to superstition. Accordingly, they would never\npronounce it; but, instead thereof, use some other expressions, by which\nthey describe it. Sometimes they call it, _that name_, or _that glorious\nname_, or _that name that is not to be expressed_;[107] by which they\nmean, as Josephus says,[108] that it was not lawful for them to utter\nit, or, indeed, to write it, which, if any one presumed to do, they\nreckoned him not only guilty of profaneness, in an uncommon degree, but\neven of blasphemy; and therefore it is never found in any writings of\nhuman composure among them. The modern Jews, indeed, are not much to be\nregarded, as retaining the same veneration for this name; but Onkelos,\nthe author of the Chaldee paraphrase on some parts of scripture, who\nlived about fifty years after our Saviour\u2019s time, and Jonathan\nBen-Uzziel, who is supposed to have lived as many years before it, never\ninsert it in their writings; and, doubtless, they were not the first\nthat entertained these sentiments about it, but had other writings then\nextant, which gave occasion thereunto. Some critics conclude, from\nJewish writers, that it was never pronounced, even in the earliest ages\nof the church, except by the High Priest; and when he was obliged, by\nthe divine law, to pronounce it, in the form of benediction, the people\nalways expressed an uncommon degree of reverence, either by bowing, or\nprostration; but this is not supported by sufficient evidence. Others\nthink it took its rise soon after their return from captivity, which is\nmore probable; however, the reason they assign for it is, because they\nreckoned it God\u2019s incommunicable name.\n\nAnd here I cannot but observe, that the translators of the Greek version\nof the Old Testament, commonly called the LXX. which, if it be not\naltogether the same with that mentioned by Arist\u00e6us, which was compiled\nalmost three hundred years before the Christian \u00c6ra, is, without doubt,\nof considerable antiquity; these never translate the word JEHOVAH, but,\ninstead thereof, put \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Lord;[109] and, even when it seems absurd\nnot to do it, as in Exod. vi. 3. when it is said, by my name, JEHOVAH,\nwas I not known, they render it, by my name, the LORD, was I not\nknown.[110]\n\nThis we take occasion to observe, not as supposing it is a sufficient\nproof of itself, of the argument we are maintaining, but as it\ncorresponds with the sense of those scriptures before mentioned, by\nwhich it appears that this is the proper, or incommunicable, name of\nGod.\n\n_Object._ It is objected, by the Anti-Trinitarians, that the name\nJehovah is sometimes given to creatures, and consequently that it is not\nGod\u2019s proper name; nor does it evince our Saviour\u2019s Deity, when given to\nhim. To prove that it is sometimes given to creatures, they refer to\nseveral scriptures; as Exod. xvii. 15. where the altar that Moses\nerected is called _Jehovah Nissi_, _i. e._ the Lord is my banner; and,\nin Judges vi. 22. another altar that Gideon built, is called _Jehovah\nShallom_; and Gen. xxii. 14. it is said, that Abraham called the name of\nthe place, in which he was ready to offer Isaac, _Jehovah Jireh_; and,\nin Ezek. xlviii. 35. it is said, that Jerusalem, from that day, should\nbe called _Jehovah Shammah_; they add also, that the Ark was called\n_Jehovah_, upon the occasion of its being carried up into the city of\nDavid, when it is said, Psal. xlvii. 5. _The Lord_, _i. e._ Jehovah _is\ngone up with a shout, even the Lord with the sound of a trumpet_, and\nalso on other occasions. And the name Jehovah is often, in the Old\nTestament, given to angels, and therefore not proper to God alone.\n\n_Answ._ 1. When they pretend that the name Jehovah was given to\ninanimate things, and in particular to altars, as in the instance\nmentioned in the objection, that one of the altars was indeed called\n_Jehovah Nissi_, it is very unreasonable to suppose, that the name and\nglory of God was put upon it; had it been a symbol of God\u2019s presence, it\nwould not have been called by this name, especially in the same sense in\nwhich our Saviour and the Holy Spirit have it applied to them; and\ntherefore the meaning of this scripture, as I apprehend, is nothing but\nthis, that there was an inscription written on the altar, containing\nthese words, _Jehovah Nissi_, the design whereof was to signify, to the\nfaith of those who came to worship there, that the Lord was their\nbanner: therefore this name, strictly speaking, was not given to the\naltar, but to God; upon which some, not without good reason, render the\nword; he built an altar, and called the name of it, the altar of\n_Jehovah Nissi_. The same may be said with respect to the altar erected\nby Gideon, which was called _Jehovah Shalom_, or the altar of _Jehovah\nShalom_, to the end that all who came to offer sacrifice upon it, might\nhereby be put in mind that God was a God of peace, or would give peace\nto them.\n\n2. As for the place to which Abraham went to offer Isaac, which is\ncalled Jehovah-Jireh, it was the mount Moriah; and it is certain that\nthis was not known by, or whenever spoken of, mentioned, as having that\nname; neither had Abraham any right to apply to it any branch of the\ndivine glory, as signified thereby; therefore when it is said, he called\nthe name of the place Jehovah-Jireh, it is as though he should have\nsaid, let all that travel over this mountain know, that the Lord was\nseen, or provided a ram instead of Isaac, who was ready to be offered\nup; let this place be remarkable, in future ages, for this amazing\ndispensation of providence, and let them glorify God for what was done\nhere, and let the memory hereof be an encouragement to their faith. Or\nelse we may farther consider him speaking as a prophet, and so the\nmeaning is, this place shall be very remarkable in future ages, as it\nshall be the mount of vision; here Jehovah will eminently appear in his\ntemple, which shall be built in this place. Or if you take the words in\nanother sense, _viz._ _God will provide_, it is as though he should say,\nas God has provided a ram to be offered instead of Isaac, so he will\nprovide the Lamb of God, who is to take away the sin of the world, which\nwas typified by Isaac\u2019s being offered. So that the place was not really\ncalled Jehovah; but Abraham takes occasion, from what was done here, to\nmagnify him, who appeared to him, and held his hand, whom alone he calls\nJehovah.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that when Jerusalem is called _Jehovah Shammah,\nthe Lord is there_, the meaning hereof is only this, that it shall\neminently be said in succeeding ages of the new Jerusalem, that _the\nLord is there_; the city, which was commonly known by the name\nJerusalem, is not called Jehovah, as though it had any character of\ndivine glory put upon it; but it implies, that the gospel church, which\nis signified thereby, should have the presence of God in an eminent\ndegree; or, as our Saviour promised to his disciples, Matth. xxviii. 20.\nthat _he would be with them always, even unto the end of the world_;\nand, as the result thereof, that _the gates of hell should not prevail\nagainst it_, Matth. xvi. 18.\n\n3. As for the _ark_; it was not called _Jehovah_, though the Psalmist\ntakes occasion, from its being carried up into the city of David, with a\njoyful solemnity, and an universal shout, with the sound of a trumpet,\nto foretel the triumphant and magnificent ascension of our Saviour into\nheaven, which was typified hereby; concerning whom he says, _Jehovah_ is\ngone up; or, speaking in a prophetic style, the present, or time past,\nbeing put for the time to come, it is as though he should say, the Lord,\nwhen he has completed the work of redemption on earth, will ascend into\nheaven, which shall be the foundation of universal joy to the church;\nand then he shall, as the Psalmist farther observes, _reign over the\nheathen_, and _sit on the throne of his holiness_.\n\nAgain, it does not appear that the ark was called _Jehovah_, in Exod.\nxvi. 33, 34. because, when Aaron is commanded _to lay the pot full of\nmanna before the testimony_, that is, _the ark_, this is called, a\nlaying it before Jehovah: but the reason of the expression is this;\n_viz._ God hath ordained that the mercy-seat over the ark should be the\nimmediate seat of his residence, from whence he would condescend to\nconverse with men, and accordingly he is said, elsewhere, to _dwell\nbetween the cherubims_; and, upon this account, that which was laid up\nbefore the ark, might be said to be laid up before the Lord.\n\nBut since none are so stupid to suppose that inanimate things can have\nthe divine perfections belonging to them, therefore the principal thing\ncontended for in this argument, is, that the ark was called Jehovah,\nbecause it was a sign and symbol of the divine presence; and from thence\nthey conclude, that the name of God may be applied to a person that has\nno right to the divine glory, as the sign is called by the name of the\nthing signified thereby.\n\nTo which it maybe answered, that the ark was not only a sacramental sign\nof God\u2019s presence, for that many other things relating to ceremonial\nworship were; but it was also the seat thereof: it was therefore the\ndivine Majesty who was called Jehovah, and not the place of his\nresidence; and it was he alone to whom the glory was ascribed that is\ndue to his name.\n\n4. When it is farther objected, that the name Jehovah is often applied\nto angels, the answer that may be given to this is; that it is never\nascribed to any but him, who is called, by way of eminence, the angel,\nor _Messenger of the covenant_, _viz._ our Saviour, Mal. iii. 1. And\nwhenever it is given to him, such glorious things are spoken of him, or\nsuch acts of divine worship demanded by and given to him, as argue him\nto be a divine Person; as will plainly appear, if we consider what the\nangel that appeared, in Exod. iii. says concerning himself, ver. 6. _I\nam the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the\nGod of Jacob_; and it is said, Moses _hid his face, for he was afraid to\nlook upon God_; and in verses 7, 8. _The Lord_, or Jehovah, _said, I\nhave surely seen the affliction of my people that are in Egypt, and I am\ncome down to deliver them_; and ver. 10. _I will send thee unto\nPharaoh_; and then, in the following verses, he makes mention of his\nname, as of the great _Jehovah_, the _I AM_, who sent him. And Jacob\ngives divine worship to him, when he says, Gen. xlviii. 16. _The Angel,\nthat redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads._ I might refer to many\nother scriptures, where the Angel of the Lord is said to appear, in\nwhich from the context, it is evident that it was a divine Person, and\nnot a created angel. The most ancient Jewish writers generally call him\nthe _Word_[111] of the Lord.\n\nBut this will not properly be deemed a sufficient answer to the\nobjection, inasmuch as it is not denied, that the Person, who so\nfrequently appeared in the form of an angel, made use of such\nexpressions, as can be applied to none but God; therefore they say that\nhe personated God, or spake after the manner of his representative, not\ndesigning that the glory of the divine perfections should be ascribed to\nhim, but to Jehovah, whom he represented.\n\nTo which it may be replied, that the angel appearing to Moses, in the\nscripture before mentioned, and to several others, doth not signify\nhimself to personate God, as doubtless he ought to have done, had he\nbeen only his representative, and not a divine Person; as an embassador,\nwhen he speaks in the name of the king, whom he represents, always uses\nsuch modes of speaking, as that he may be understood to apply what he\nsays when personating him, not to himself, but to him that sent him; and\nit would be reckoned an affront to him, whom he represents, should he\ngive occasion to any to ascribe the honour that belongs to his master to\nhimself. Now there is nothing, in those texts, which speak of this\nangel\u2019s appearing, that signifies his disclaiming divine honour, as what\ndid not belong to him, but to God; therefore we must not suppose that he\nspeaks in such a way as God doth, only as representing him: we read,\nindeed, in Rev. xxii. 8, 9. of a created angel appearing to John, who\nwas supposed by him, at the first, to be the same that appeared to the\nchurch of old, and accordingly John gave him divine honour; but he\nrefused to receive it, as knowing that this character, of being the\ndivine representative, would not be a sufficient warrant for him to\nassume it to himself; we must therefore from hence conclude, that the\nangel that appeared to the church of old, and is called Jehovah, was a\ndivine Person.\n\n2. Having considered that the name Jehovah is peculiarly applied to God,\nwe now proceed to prove that it is given to the Son, whereby his Deity\nwill appear; and the first scripture that we shall refer to is Isa. xl.\n3. _The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way\nof the Lord_, or Jehovah, _make Straight in the desert a highway for our\nGod_. Now if we can prove that this is a prophecy of John\u2019s preparing\nthe way of our Saviour, then it will appear that our Saviour, in this\nscripture, is called Jehovah. That it is a prediction of John\u2019s being\nChrist\u2019s fore-runner, appointed to prepare the Jews for his reception,\nand to give them an intimation, that he, whom they had long looked for,\nwould suddenly appear, is plain from those scriptures in the New\nTestament, which expressly refer to this prediction, and explain it in\nthis sense: thus Matth. iii. 3. _This is he that was spoken of by the\nprophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,\nPrepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight_; therefore he\nwhose way John was to prepare, whom the prophet Isaias calls Jehovah, is\nour Saviour.\n\nAgain, it is said, in Isa. viii. 13. _Sanctify the Lord_, or Jehovah,\n_of hosts himself, and let him be your fear and your dread_; where he\nspeaks of a person, whom he not only calls Jehovah, the Lord of hosts,\nwhich alone would prove him to be a divine Person; but he farther\nconsiders him as the object of divine worship, _Sanctify him, and let\nhim be your fear and your dread_. Certainly, if we can prove this to be\nspoken of Christ, it will be a strong and convincing argument to evince\nhis proper Deity; now that it is spoken of him, is very evident, if we\ncompare it with the verse immediately following, _And he shall be for a\nsanctuary_, which I would chuse to render, _For he shall be for a\nsanctuary_, as the Hebrew particle _Vau_, which we render _And_, is\noften rendered elsewhere, and so it is assigned as a reason why we\nshould sanctify him; and then it follows, though we are obliged so to\ndo, yet the Jews will not give that glory to him, for he will be _to\nthem for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence_, as he shall\n_be for a sanctuary_ to those that are faithful. That this is spoken of\nChrist, not only appears from the subject matter hereof, as it is only\nhe that properly speaking, is said to be a rock of offence, or in whom\nthe world was offended, by reason of his appearing in a low condition\ntherein; but, by comparing it with other scriptures, and particularly\nIsa. xxviii. 16. _Behold, I lay in Sion, for a foundation, a stone, a\ntried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that\nbelieveth shall not make haste_, this will more evidently appear. In the\nlatter of these scriptures, he is styled, a foundation stone, the rock\non which his church is built; in the former a burthensome stone; and\nboth these scriptures are referred to, and applied to him, 1 Pet. ii. 6,\n8. _Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in\nSion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and a stone of stumbling,\nand a rock of offence to them that are disobedient_; where the apostle\nproves plainly, that our Saviour is the Person who is spoken of, in both\nthese texts, by the prophet Isaiah, and consequently that he is Jehovah,\nwhom we are to sanctify, and to make our fear and our dread.\n\nAgain, there is another scripture, which plainly proves this, _viz._\nNumb. xxi. 5, 6, 7. _And the people spake against God, and against\nMoses; and the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit\nthe people, and much people of Israel died; therefore the people came to\nMoses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord_,\nor Jehovah, _and against thee_. He, who is called God, in ver. 5. whom\nthey spake against, is called Jehovah in ver. 7. who sent fiery serpents\namong them, that destroyed them, for their speaking against him; now\nthis is expressly applied to our Saviour by the apostle, 1 Cor. x. 9.\n_Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were\ndestroyed of serpents._\n\nAgain, the prophet Isaiah, having had a vision of the angels, adoring\nand ministering to that glorious Person, who is represented, as sitting\non a throne, in chap. vi. 1, 2. he reflects on what he had seen in ver.\n5. and expresses himself in these words, _Mine eyes have seen the King,\nthe Lord_, or Jehovah, _of hosts_. Now this is expressly applied to our\nSaviour, in John xii. 41. _These things said Esaias, when he saw his\nglory, and spake of him_; where it is plain that he intends this vision;\nas appears from the foregoing verse, which refers to a part thereof, in\nwhich God foretels that he would blind the eyes, and harden the hearts\nof the unbelieving Jews; from whence it is evident, that the Person who\nappeared to him, sitting on a throne, whom he calls Jehovah, was our\nSaviour.\n\nAgain, this may farther be argued, from what is said in Isa. xlv. 21. to\nthe end, _There is no God else besides me, a just God, and a Saviour,\nthere is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of\nthe earth; for I am God, and there is none else, I have sworn by myself,\nthe word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return,\nthat unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely,\nshall one say, In the lord have I righteousness and strength; even to\nhim shall men come, and all that are incensed against him shall be\nashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and\nshall glory._ This is a glorious proof of our Saviour\u2019s Deity, not only\nfrom his being called Jehovah, but from several other divine characters\nascribed to him; thus the Person whom the prophet speaks of, styles\nhimself _Jehovah_, and adds, that there is no God besides me; and he is\nrepresented as swearing by himself, which none ought to do but a divine\nPerson; and he encourages all the ends of the earth to look to him for\nsalvation; so that if it can be made appear that this is spoken of our\nSaviour, it will be an undeniable proof of his proper Deity, since\nnothing more can be said to express the glory of the Father than this.\nNow that these words are spoken of our Saviour, must be allowed by every\none, who reads them impartially, for there are several things that agree\nwith his character as Mediator; as when all the ends of the earth are\ninvited to look to him for salvation. We have a parallel scripture,\nwhich is plainly applied to him, in Isa. xi. 10. _And in that day there\nshall be a root of Jesse_, that is, the Messiah, who should spring from\nthe root or stock of Jesse; _which shall stand for an ensign to the\npeople_, to _it_, or to _him_, _shall the Gentiles seek_, which is the\nsame thing as for the ends of the earth to look to him; and besides, the\nword looking to him is a metaphor, taken from a very remarkable type of\nthis matter, to wit, Israel\u2019s looking to the brazen serpent for healing;\nthus he, who is here spoken of, is represented as a Saviour, and as the\nobject of faith.\n\nAgain, he is represented as swearing by himself; and the subject matter\nof this oath is, _That unto him every knee should bow, and every tongue\nshould swear_; this is expressly applied to our Saviour, in the New\nTestament, as containing a prophecy of his being the judge of the world,\nRom. xiv. 10, 11, 12. _We shall all stand before the judgment seat of\nChrist; for it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall\nbow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God; so then every one of\nus shall give an account of himself to God_. And the same words are\nused, with a little variation, in Phil. ii. 10, 11. _That at the name of\nJesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,\nand things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess, that\nJesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father._\n\nAgain, the person, of whom the prophet speaks, is one against whom the\nworld was incensed, which can be meant of none but Christ, as signifying\nthe opposition that he should meet with, and the rage and fury that\nshould be directed against him, when appearing in our nature.\n\nAgain, he is said to be one in whom we have _righteousness_, and in whom\nthe _seed of Israel shall be justified_; which very evidently agrees\nwith the account we have of him in the New Testament, as a person by\nwhose righteousness we are justified, or whose righteousness is imputed\nto us for that end.\n\nAnd this leads us to consider another scripture, Jer. xxiii. 6. in which\nit is said, _This is his name, whereby he shall be called, The Lord_, or\nJehovah, _our righteousness_. His being called our righteousness, as was\nbut now observed, implies, that the Messiah, our great Mediator, is the\nperson spoken of, who is called Jehovah. But this is farther evinced\nfrom the context, inasmuch as it is said, ver. 5. _Behold the days\ncome_, _viz._ the Gospel day, _that I will raise unto David a righteous\nbranch, and a king shall reign and prosper; and shall execute judgment\nand justice in the earth_; which any one, who judges impartially of the\nsense of Scripture, will conclude to be spoken concerning our Saviour\u2019s\nerecting the gospel-dispensation, and being the sole lord and governor\nof his church. How the exercise of his dominion over it proves his\nDeity, will be considered under a following head. All that we need to\nobserve at present is, that this description is very agreeable to his\ncharacter in Scripture, as Mediator; therefore he is called Jehovah in\nthis verse.\n\n_Object._ 1. It is objected, that the words may be otherwise translated,\n_viz._ _This is the name, whereby the Lord our righteousness_, namely,\nthe Father, _shall call him_.\n\n_Answ._ It may be replied, that the Father is never called in Scripture,\nour righteousness as was but now observed; this being a character\npeculiar to the Mediator, as it is fully explained in several places in\nthe New Testament. As to what may be farther said, in answer to this\nobjection, it is well known that the Hebrew word \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5 signifies either\nactively or passively, as it is differently pointed, the letters being\nthe same; and we shall not enter into a critical disquisition concerning\nthe origin, or authenticity of the Hebrew points, to prove that our\ntranslation is just, rather than that mentioned in the objection; but\nshall have recourse to the context to prove it. Accordingly it appears\nfrom thence, that if it were translated according to the sense of the\nobjectors, it would be little less than a tautology, _q. d._ _I will\nraise to David a righteous branch; and this is the name whereby Jehovah,\nour righteousness, shall call him_, _viz._ _the Branch_; so that at\nleast, the sense of our translation of the text, seems more natural, as\nwell as more agreeable to the grammatical construction observed in the\nHebrew language, in which the words of a sentence are not so transposed\nas they are in the Greek and Latin, which they are supposed to be, in\nthe sense of the text contained in this objection.\n\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected; that though our translation of the\ntext were just, and Christ were called Jehovah, yet it will not prove\nhis Deity, since it is said, in Jer. xxxiii. 16. speaking concerning the\nchurch, _This is the name whereby she shall be called, The Lord_, or\nJehovah, _our righteousness_.\n\n_Answ._ It is evident from the context, that this is a parallel\nscripture with that before mentioned; the same person, to wit, the\nBranch, is spoken of and the same things predicted concerning the gospel\nchurch, that was to be governed by him. Therefore, though it is plain\nthat our translators understood this text, as spoken of the church of\nthe Jews or rather the Gospel-Church, as many others do, yet, if we\nconsider the sense of the Hebrew words here used \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d4, it is very\nevident that they might, with equal, if not, with greater propriety,\nhave been rendered, _shall be called by her_; and so the sense is the\nsame with that of the other but now mentioned; the Branch, to wit, our\nSaviour, is to be called, The Lord our righteousness, and adored as such\nby the church.\n\nThere is another scripture, in which our Saviour is called Jehovah, in\nJoel ii. 27. _And ye shall know that I am the Lord_, _viz._ Jehovah,\n_your God, and none else_; compared with ver. 32. _And it shall come to\npass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord_, _viz._\nJehovah, _shall be delivered_. In both these verses, it is evident, that\nour Saviour is called Jehovah; for the person, who is so called, in the\nformer of them, is said, ver. 28. to _Pour out his Spirit on all flesh_;\n&c. which Scripture is expressly referred to him, in Acts ii. 16, 17.\nand this pouring out of his Spirit on all flesh here predicted is also\napplied, in ver. 33. to him; _Therefore being by the right hand of God\nexalted, and having received of the Father, the promise of the Holy\nGhost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear_. The argument\nis therefore this: he who was, according to this prophecy, to pour out\nhis Spirit on all flesh, is called Jehovah, your God; but this our\nSaviour is said to have done, therefore the name Jehovah is justly\napplied to him. As to the latter of these verses, _viz._ 32. _Whosoever\nshall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered_; this also is\nreferred to, and explained, as spoken of Christ, in Rom. x. 13. And that\nthe apostle here speaks of calling on the name of Christ, is plain, from\nthe foregoing and following verses. In ver. 9. it is expressed, by\nconfessing the Lord Jesus, and it is there connected with salvation. And\nthe apostle proceeds to consider, that, in order to our confessing, or\ncalling on his name, it is necessary that Christ should be preached,\nver. 14, 15. and he farther adds, in the following verses, that though\nChrist was preached, and his glory proclaimed in the gospel, yet the\nJews believed not in him, and consequently called not on his name; which\nwas an accomplishment of what had been foretold by the prophet Isaiah,\nchap. liii. 1. _Who hath believed our report_, &c. intimating that it\nwas predicted, that our Saviour should be rejected, and not be believed\nin by the Jews: so that it is very evident the apostle is speaking\nconcerning him, and applying to him what is mentioned in this scripture,\nin the prophecy of Joel, in which he is called Jehovah; therefore this\nglorious name belongs to him. Several other scriptures might have been\nreferred to, to prove that Christ is called Jehovah, which are also\napplied to him in the New-Testament, some of which may be occasionally\nmentioned under some following arguments; but, I think, what hath been\nalready said is abundantly sufficient to prove his Deity, from his\nhaving this glorious name given to him; which leads us to consider some\nother names given to him for the proof thereof; accordingly,\n\n2. He is styled Lord and God, in such a sense, as plainly proves his\nproper Deity. We will not, indeed, deny, that the names _Lord_ and\n_God_, are sometimes given to creatures; yet we are not left without\nsufficient light, whereby we may plainly discern when they are applied\nto the one living and true God, and when not. To assert the contrary,\nwould be to reflect on the wisdom and goodness of God; and it would not\nonly render those scriptures, in which they are contained, like the\ntrumpet, that gives an uncertain sound, but we should be in the greatest\ndanger of being led aside into a most destructive mistake, in a matter\nof the highest importance, and hereby be induced to give that glory to\nthe creature, which is due to God alone; therefore we shall always find\nsomething, either in the text, or context, that evidently determines the\nsense of these names, whenever they are applied to God, or the creature.\n\nAnd here let it be observed, that whenever the word God or Lord is given\nto a creature, there is some diminutive character annexed to it, which\nplainly distinguishes it from the true God: thus when it is given to\nidols, it is intimated, that they are so called, or falsely esteemed to\nbe gods by their deceived worshippers; and so they are called strange\ngods, Deut. xxxii. 16. and molten gods, Exod. xxxiv. 17. and new gods,\nJudges v. 8. and their worshippers are reproved as brutish and foolish,\nJer. x. 8.\n\nAgain, when the word God, is applied to men, there is also something in\nthe context, which implies, that whatever characters of honour are given\nto them, yet they are subject to the divine controul; as it is said,\nPsal. lxxxii. 1, 6. _God standeth in the congregation of the mighty he\njudgeth among the gods_; and they are at best but mortal men; _I have\nsaid ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most high, but ye\nshall die like men_; they are, indeed, described, as being made\npartakers of the divine image, consisting in some lesser branches of\nsovereignty and dominion; but this is infinitely below the idea of\nsovereignty and dominion, which is contained in the word when applied to\nthe great God.\n\nIt is true, God says to Moses, See, _I have made thee a god to Pharaoh_,\nExod. vii. 1. by which we are not to understand that any of the divine\nperfections were communicated to, or predicated of him; for God cannot\ngive his glory to another: but the sense is plainly this, that he was\nset in God\u2019s stead: thus he is said to be instead of God to Aaron, chap.\niv. 16. and the same expression is used by Elihu to Job, chap. xxxiii.\n6. _I am according to thy wish in God\u2019s stead_; so that Moses\u2019s being\nmade a god to Pharaoh, implies nothing else but this, that he should, by\nbeing God\u2019s minister, in inflicting the plagues which he designed to\nbring on Pharaoh and his servants, be rendered formidable to them; not\nthat he should have a right to receive divine honour from them.\n\nAgain, when the word God is put absolutely, without any additional\ncharacter of glory, or diminution annexed to it, it must always be\nunderstood of the great God, this being that name by which he is\ngenerally known in scripture, and never otherwise applied, without an\nintimation given that he is not intended thereby: thus the Father and\nthe Son are described in John i. 1. _The Word was with God, and the Word\nwas God_, and in many other places of scripture; therefore if we can\nprove that our Saviour is called God in scripture, without any thing in\nthe context tending to detract from the most known sense of the word,\nthis will be sufficient to prove his proper Deity; but we shall not only\nfind that he is called God therein; but there are some additional\nglories annexed to that name, whereby this will more abundantly appear.\n\nAs to the word Lord, though that is often applied to creatures, and is\ngiven to superiors by their subjects or servants, yet this is also\nsufficiently distinguished, when applied to a divine Person, from any\nother sense thereof, as applied to creatures. Now, if we can prove that\nour Saviour is called Lord and God in this sense, it will sufficiently\nevince his proper Deity; and, in order hereto, we shall consider several\nscriptures, wherein he is not only so called, but several characters of\nglory are annexed, and divine honours given to him, which are due to\nnone but a divine Person, which abundantly determines the sense of these\nwords, when applied to him. And,\n\n(1.) We shall consider some scriptures in which he is called _Lord_,\nparticularly, Psal. cx. 1. _The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my\nright hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot-stool_; that our Saviour\nthe Messiah, is the person whom David calls his Lord, is very evident,\nfrom its being quoted and applied to him in the New Testament, in Mat.\nxxii. 44. &c. and that by calling him Lord he ascribes divine honour to\nhim, appears from hence, that when the question was put to the\nPharisees, If Christ were David\u2019s Lord, how could he be his Son? They\nmight easily have replied to it, had it been taken in a lower sense; for\nit is not difficult to suppose that David might have a son descending\nfrom him, who might be advanced to the highest honours, short of what\nare divine; but they not understanding how two infinitely distant\nnatures could be united in one person, so that at the same time he\nshould be called David\u2019s son, and yet his Lord, in such a sense as\nproves his Deity, they were confounded, and put to silence.\n\nBut whether they acknowledged him to be a divine Person or no, it is\nevident that David considers him as such; or as the Person who, pursuant\nto God\u2019s covenant made with him, was to sit and rule upon his throne, in\nwhom alone it could be said that it should be perpetual, or that of his\nkingdom there should be no end; and inasmuch as he says, ver. 3. _Thy\npeople shall be willing in the day of thy power_, speaking of the Person\nwhom he calls his Lord, who was to be his Son, he plainly infers that he\nshould exert divine power, and consequently prove himself to be a divine\nPerson.\n\nAgain, if the word _Lord_ be applied to him, as denoting his sovereignty\nover the church, and his being the Governor of the world, this will be\nconsidered under the next head, when we speak concerning those glorious\ntitles and attributes that are given to him, which prove his Deity; and\ntherefore we shall waive it at present, and only consider two or three\nscriptures, in which he is called _Lord_, in a more glorious sense than\nwhen it is applied to any creature: thus in Rev. xvii. 14. speaking of\nthe Lamb, which is a character that can be applied to none but him, and\nthat as Mediator, he is called _Lord of lords_, and the _Prince of the\nkings of the earth_, in Rev. i. 5. and _the Lord of glory_, in 1 Cor.\nii. 8. which will be more particularly considered, when we speak\nconcerning his glorious titles, as an argument to prove it; therefore\nall that we shall observe at present is, that this is the same character\nby which God is acknowledged by those that deny our Saviour\u2019s Deity to\nbe described in Deut. x. 17. _The Lord your God, is God of gods, and\nLord of lords; a great God and terrible_; so that we have as much ground\nto conclude, when Christ is called Lord, with such additional marks of\nglory, of which more in its proper place, that this proves his Deity, as\ntruly as the Deity of the Father is proved from this scripture.\n\n(2.) Christ is often in scripture called _God_, in such a sense, in\nwhich it is never applied to a creature: thus he is called, in Psal.\nxlv. 6. _Thy throne O God, is for ever, and ever_; and there are many\nother glorious things spoken of him in that Psalm, which is a farther\nconfirmation that he, who is here called _God_, is a divine Person, in\nthe same sense as God the Father is; particularly he is said, ver. 2.\n_To be fairer than the children of men_, that is, infinitely above them;\nand, ver. 11. speaking to the church, it is said, _He is thy Lord, and\nworship thou him_; and, in the following verses, the church\u2019s compleat\nblessedness consists in its being brought into his palace, who is the\nKing thereof, and so denotes him to be the spring and fountain of\ncompleat blessedness, and _his name_, or glory, _is to be remembered in\nall generations, and the people shall praise him for ever and ever_.\nThis glory is ascribed to him, who is called God; and many other things\nare said concerning him, relating to his works, his victories, his\ntrumphs, which are very agreeable to that character; so that it\nevidently appears that the Person spoken of in this Psalm, is truly and\nproperly God.\n\nI am sensible that the Anti-trinitarians will object to this, that\nseveral things are spoken concerning him in this Psalm, that argue his\ninferiority to the Father; but this only proves that the Person here\nspoken of is considered as God-man, Mediator, in which respect he is, in\none nature, equal, and, in the other, inferior to him; were it\notherwise, one expression contained in this Psalm would be inconsistent\nwith, and contradictory to another.\n\nTo this we shall only add, as an undeniable proof, that it is Christ\nthat is here spoken of, as also that he is considered as Mediator, as\nbut now observed; that the apostle, speaking of him as Mediator, and\ndisplaying his divine glory as such, refers to these words of the\nPsalmist, Heb. i. 8. _Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for\never and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy\nkingdom._\n\nAgain, another proof of our Saviour\u2019s Deity may be taken from Matth. i.\n23. _Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall call his name\nEmmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with us._ His incarnation is\nwhat gives occasion, as is plain from the words, for his being described\nby this name or character, _God with us_, which imports the same thing\nas when it is elsewhere said, John i. 14. _The Word was made flesh, and\ndwelt among us._ This cannot be applied to any but Christ; to say the\nFather is called _Emmanuel_, is such a strain upon the sense of the\ntext, as no impartial reader will allow of; for it is plain that it is a\nname given to the Son upon this great occasion; and this is as glorious\na display of his Deity, as when God the Father says, if we suppose that\ntext to be spoken of him elsewhere, in Exod. xxix. 45. _I will dwell\namongst the children of Israel, and will be their God._\n\nAgain, Christ\u2019s Deity is proved, in 1 Tim. iii. 16. from his being\nstyled _God, manifest in the flesh_, implying, that the second Person in\nthe Godhead was united to our nature; for neither the Father nor the\nHoly Ghost were ever said to be manifested in the flesh; and, besides,\nhe is distinguished from the Spirit, as justified by him. And he is not\ncalled _God_, because of his incarnation, as some Socinian writers\nsuppose; for to be incarnate, supposes the pre-existence of that nature,\nto which the human nature was united, since it is called elsewhere,\nassuming, or taking flesh, as it is here, being manifested therein, and\nconsequently that he was God before this act of incarnation; and there\nis certainly nothing in the text which determines the word _God_ to be\ntaken in a less proper sense, any more than when it is applied to the\nFather.\n\n_Object._ It is objected that the word _God_ is not found in all the\nmanuscripts of the Greek text, nor in some translations thereof,\nparticularly the Syriac, Arabic, and vulgar Latin, which render it, _the\nmystery which was manifest in the flesh_, &c.\n\n_Answ._ It is not pretended to be left out in above two Greek copies,\nand it is very unreasonable to oppose these to all the rest. As for the\nSyriac and Arabic translations; some suppose that it is not true in fact\nthat the word _God_ is left out in the Arabic, and though it be left out\nin the Syriac, yet it is contained in the sense there, which is, great\nis the mystery of godliness _that he was_ manifested in the flesh; and\nas for the vulgar Latin version, that has not credit enough, especially\namong Protestants, to support it, when standing in competition with so\nmany copies of scripture in which the word is found; therefore we can by\nno means give up the argument which is taken from this text to prove our\nSaviour\u2019s Deity. Besides as a farther confirmation hereof, we might\nappeal to the very words of the text itself, whereby it will plainly\nappear, that if the word _God_ be left out of it, the following part of\nthe verse will not be so consistent with _a mystery_ as it is with _our\nSaviour_; particularly it is a very great impropriety of expression to\nsay that a mystery, or as some Socinian writers explain it, the will of\nGod[112], was manifest in the flesh, and received in a glorious manner;\nfor this is not agreeable to the sense of the Greek words, since it is\nplain that \u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b7, which we render _was manifest in the\nflesh_, is justly translated, being never used in scripture to signify\nthe preaching the gospel by weak mortal men, as they understand it: but\non the other hand it is often applied to the manifestation of our\nSaviour in his incarnation, and is explained when it is said, John i.\n14. that he was _made flesh, and we beheld his glory_[113]; and as for\nthe gospel, though it met with reception when preached to the Gentiles,\nand there were many circumstances of glory that attended this\ndispensation, yet it could not be said for that reason to be received up\ninto glory. Now since what is said in this verse agrees to our Saviour,\nand not to the mystery of godliness, we are bound to conclude that he is\nGod manifest in the flesh, and therefore that this objection is of no\nforce.\n\nThe next scripture which we shall consider, is Acts xx. 28. _Feed the\nchurch of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood_, where we\nobserve, that he who is here spoken of is said to have a propriety in\nthe church; this no mere creature can be said to have, but our Saviour\nis not only here but elsewhere described as having a right to it; thus\nit is said in Hebrews iii. 3, 4, 6. _He was counted worthy of more glory\nthan Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house, hath more honour\nthan the house_; and _he that hath built all things is God_, which is as\nthough he should say, our Lord Jesus Christ hath not only built his\nchurch but all things, and therefore must be God; and ver. 6. he is\ncalled a Son over his own house; so that he is the purchaser, the\nbuilder, and the proprietor of his church, and therefore must be a\ndivine person; and then it is observed, that he that hath purchased this\nchurch is God, and that God hath done this with his own blood; this\ncannot be applied to any but the Mediator, the Son of God, whose Deity\nit plainly proves.\n\n_Object._ 1. Some object against this sense of the text, that the word\n_God_ here is referred to the Father, and so the sense is, feed the\nchurch of God, that is, of the Father, which _He_, that is, Christ, hath\npurchased with his own blood.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered, that this seems a very great strain\nand force upon the grammatical sense of the words, for certainly _He_\nmust refer to the immediate antecedent, and that is God, to wit, the\nSon. If such a method of expounding scripture were to be allowed, it\nwould be an easy matter to make the word of God speak what we please to\nhave it; therefore we must take it in the most plain and obvious sense,\nas that is which we have given of this text, whereby it appears that God\nthe Son has purchased the church with his own blood, and that he has a\nright to it.\n\n_Object._ 2. God the Father is said to have purchased the church by the\nblood of Christ, which is called his blood, as he is the Proprietor of\nall things.\n\n_Answ._ Though God be the Proprietor of all things, yet no one, that\ndoes not labour very hard to maintain the cause he is defending, would\nunderstand _his blood_ in this sense. According to this method of\nspeaking, God the Father might be said to have done every thing that the\nMediator did, and so to have shed his blood upon the cross, as well as\nto have purchased the church thereby, as having a propriety in it.\n\nThe next scripture, which proves our Saviour\u2019s Deity, is Rom. ix. 5. _Of\nwhom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed\nfor ever_; where he is not only called _God_, but _God blessed for\never_; which is a character too high for any creature, and is the very\nsame that is given to the Father, in 2 Cor. xi. 31. who is styled, _The\nGod and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore_,\nthat is, not only the Object of worship, but the Fountain of\nblessedness. Now if Christ be so called, as it seems evident that he is,\nthen the word _God_ is, in this text, applied to him in the highest\nsense, so as to argue him a divine Person. Now that this is spoken of\nour Saviour, is plain, because he is the subject of the proposition\ntherein contained, and is considered, as being _of the fathers,\nconcerning the flesh_, _i. e._ with respect to his human nature; so that\nif we can prove that he is here called _God, blessed for ever_, we shall\nhave the argument we contend for, this being the only thing contested by\nthe Anti-trinitarians.\n\n_Object._ It is objected, that the words maybe otherwise rendered,\nnamely, _Let God_, _viz._ the Father, _who is over all, be blessed for\never_, to wit, for this great privilege, that Christ should come in the\nflesh; therefore it does not prove that which we bring it for.\n\n_Answ._ In defence of our translation of these words, it may be replied,\nthat it is very agreeable to the grammatical construction thereof. It is\ntrue, Erasmus defends the other sense of the text, and thereby gives an\nhandle to many after him, to make use of it, as an objection against\nthis doctrine, which, he says, may be plainly proved from many other\nscriptures; it is very strange, that, with one hand, he should build up,\nand, with the other, overthrow Christ\u2019s proper Deity, unless we\nattribute it to that affectation which he had in his temper to appear\nsingular, and, in many things, run counter to the common sense of\nmankind; or else to the favourable thoughts which he appears to have\nhad, in some instances, of the Arian scheme. It may be observed, that\nthe most ancient versions render this text in the sense of our\ntranslation; as do most of the ancient fathers in their defence of the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, as a late writer observes.[114] And it is\ncertain, this sense given thereof by the Anti-trinitarians, is so\napparently forced and strained, that some of the Socinians themselves,\nwhose interest it was to have taken it therein, have not thought fit to\ninsist on it. And a learned writer[115], who has appeared in the\nAnti-trinitarian cause, seems to argue below himself, when he attempts\nto give a turn to this text, agreeable to his own scheme; for certainly\nhe would have defended his sense of the text better than he does, had it\nbeen defensible; since we can receive very little conviction from his\nalleging, that \u201cIt is uncertain whether the word _God_ was originally in\nthe text; and if it was, whether it be not spoken of the Father.\u201d To say\nno more than this to it, is not to defend this sense of the text; for if\nthere were any doubt whether the word _God_ was left out of any ancient\nmanuscripts, he would have obliged the world, had he referred to them,\nwhich, I think, no one else has done: and, since he supposes it\nuncertain whether it be not there spoken of the Father, that ought to\nhave been proved, or not suggested. We might observe, in defence of our\ntranslation, that whenever the words are so used in the New Testament,\nthat they may be translated, _Blessed be God_[116], they are disposed in\na different form, or order, and not exactly so as we read them therein:\nbut, though this be a probable argument, we will not insist on it, but\nshall rather prove our translation to be just, from the connexion of the\nwords, with what goes immediately before, where the apostle had been\nspeaking of our Saviour, as descending from the fathers, according to\nthe flesh, or considering him as to his human nature; therefore it is\nvery reasonable to suppose he would speak of him as to his divine\nnature, especially since both these natures are spoken of together, in\nJohn i. 14. and elsewhere; and why they should not be intended here,\ncannot well be accounted for; so that if our translation be only\nsupposed to be equally just with theirs, which, I think, none pretend to\ndeny, the connexion of the parts of the proposition laid down therein,\ndetermines the sense thereof in our favour.\n\nHere I cannot pass over that proof which we have of our Saviour\u2019s\ndivinity, in 1 John v. 20. _This is the true God, and eternal life_;\nwhere the _true God_ is opposed, not only to those idols, which, in the\nfollowing verse, he advises them to _keep themselves from_; in which\nsense the Anti-trinitarians themselves sometimes call him the true God,\nthat is as much as to say, he is not an idol; upon which occasion a\nlearned writer[117] observes, that they deal with him as Judas did with\nour Saviour, cry, Hail Master, and then betray him: they would be\nthought to ascribe every thing to him but proper Deity; but that this\nbelongs to him, will evidently appear, if we can prove that these words\nare spoken of him. It is true, the learned author of the\nscripture-doctrine of the Trinity[118], takes a great deal of pains to\nprove that it is the Father who is here spoken of; and his exposition of\nthe former part of the text, which does not immediately support his\ncause, seems very just, when he says, _The Son of God is come, and hath\ngiven us an understanding, that we may know him that is true_, _viz._\nthe Father, and _we are in him that is true_, speaking still of the\nFather, _by or through his Son Jesus Christ_; but, I humbly conceive, he\ndoes not acquit himself so well in the sense he gives of the following\nwords, upon which the whole stress of the argument depends, not only in\nthat he takes it for granted, that the word \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _This_, refers back,\nas is most natural and usual, not to the last word in order, but to the\nlast and principal in sense, namely, the Father, which is, at least,\ndoubtful, since any unprejudiced reader, who hath not a cause to\nmaintain, which obliges him to understand it so, would refer it to the\nimmediate antecedent, _viz._ the Son, by whom we have an interest in the\nFather; for when he had been speaking of him as Mediator, and, as such,\nas the author of this great privilege, namely, our knowing the Father,\nand being in him, it seems very agreeable to describe him as a Person\nevery way qualified for this work, and consequently as being the true\nGod; and besides, the apostle had spoken of the Father in the beginning\nof the verse, as _him that is true_, or, as some manuscripts have it,\n_him that is the true God_, as the same author observes; therefore what\nreason can be assigned why this should be again repeated, and the\napostle supposed to say we know the Father, who is the true God, which\ncertainly doth not run so smooth, to say the best of it, as when we\napply it to our Saviour: that author, indeed, attempts to remove the\nimpropriety of the expression, by giving an uncommon sense of these\nwords, namely, _This knowledge of God is the true religion, and the way\nto eternal life_; or, _this is the true worship of God by his Son unto\neternal life_, which, though it be a truth, yet can hardly be supposed\nto comport with the grammatical sense of the words; for why should _the\ntrue God_ be taken in a proper sense in one part of the verse, and a\nfigurative in the other? And if we take this liberty of supposing\nellipses in texts, and supplying them with words that make to our own\npurpose, it would be no difficult matter to prove almost any doctrine\nfrom scripture; therefore the plain sense of the text is, that our\nSaviour is the true God intended in these words; and it is as evident a\nproof of his Deity, as when the Father is called, _the true God_; or\n_the only true God_, as he is in John xvii. 3. where, though he be so\ncalled, nevertheless he is not to be considered as the only Person who\nis God, in the most proper sense, but as having the one divine nature;\nin which sense the word _God_ is always taken, when God is said to be\none.\n\nMoreover, let it be observed, that he who is here called the true God,\nis styled, _life eternal_, which, I humbly conceive, the Father never\nis, though he be said to _give us eternal life_, in one of the foregoing\nverses; whereas it is not only said concerning our Saviour, that _in him\nwas life_, John i. 4. but he says, John xiv. 6. _I am the life_; and it\nis said in 1 John i. 2. _The life was manifested, and we have seen it_,\nor him, _and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the\nFather_, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 which is an explication of his own words, John\ni. 1. \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd _with God_; and then he explains what he had said in\nver. 14. of the same chapter, when he says, _the word of life_, or the\nPerson who calls himself _the life_ was _manifested unto us_; which\nseems to be a peculiar phrase, used by this apostle, whereby he sets\nforth our Saviour\u2019s glory under this character, whom he calls _life_, or\n_eternal life_; and he that is so, is the same Person, who is called the\ntrue God; which character of being _true_, is often used and applied to\nChrist, by the same inspired writer, more than by any other, as appears\nfrom several scriptures, Rev. iii. 17, 14, and chap. xix. 11. and\nthough, indeed, it refers to him, as Mediator, as does also his being\ncalled _eternal life_, yet this agrees very well with his proper Deity,\nwhich we cannot but think to be plainly evinced by this text.\n\nThere is another scripture, which not only speaks of Christ as God, but\nwith some other divine characters of glory added to his name, which\nprove his proper Deity: thus in Isa. ix. 6. he is styled, _the mighty\nGod_, and several other glorious titles are given to him; as, _the\nwonderful Counsellor, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace_;\nthese are all applied to him, as one whose incarnation was foretold, _to\nus a Child is born_, &c. And he is farther described as a Person who was\nto be the Governor of his church, as it is said, _the government shall\nbe upon his shoulders_; all which expressions so exactly agree with his\ncharacter as God-man, Mediator, that they contain an evident proof of\nhis proper Deity.\n\n_Object._ They who deny our Saviour\u2019s Deity, object, that the words\nought to be otherwise translated, _viz._ _the wonderful Counsellor_, the\n_mighty God, the everlasting Father, shall call him, the Prince of\npeace_.\n\n_Answ._ We have before observed, in defence of our translation of\nanother text,[119] that the Hebrew word, that we translate, _he shall be\ncalled_, (which is the same with that which is used in this text) does\nnot fully appear to signify actively; and also that such transpositions,\nas are, both there and here, made use of, are not agreeable to that\nlanguage; and therefore our sense of the text is so plain and natural,\nthat any one, who reads it impartially, without forcing it to speak what\nthey would have it, would take it in the sense in which we translate it,\nwhich contains a very evident proof of our Saviour\u2019s divinity.\n\nThere is another scripture which speaks of Christ, not only as God, but\nas the _great God_, in Tit. ii. 13. _Looking for that blessed hope, and\nthe glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ_;\nnone ever denied that he, who is said _to appear_, is true and proper\nGod, and therefore the principal thing we have to prove is, that the\ntext refers only to our Saviour, or that the apostle does not speak\ntherein of two Persons, to wit, the Father and the Son, but of the Son;\nand accordingly, though we oftentimes take occasion to vindicate our\ntranslation, here we cannot but think it ought to be corrected; and that\nthe word _and_ should be rendered _even_:[120] But, because I would not\nlay too great a stress on a grammatical criticism, _how_ probable soever\nit may be; we may consider some other things in the text, whereby it\nappears that our Saviour is the only Person spoken of therein, from what\nis said of him, agreeable to his character as Mediator: thus the apostle\nhere speaks of his appearing; as he also does elsewhere, in Heb. ix. 28.\n_He shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation_; and in 1\nJohn iii. 2. _When he shall appear, we shall be like him_, &c. and then\nhe who, in this text, is said to appear, is called the _blessed hope_,\nthat is, the object of his people\u2019s expectation, who shall be blessed by\nhim when he appears: thus he is called, in 1 Tim. i. 1. _our hope_, and\nin Coloss. i. 27. _The hope of glory_; now we do not find that the\nFather is described in scripture as appearing, or as the hope of his\npeople. It is true, a late writer[121] gives that turn to the text, and\nsupposes, that as the Father is said to judge the world by Jesus Christ,\nand as when the Son shall come at last, it will be in the glory of his\nFather; so, in that sense, the Father may be said to appear by him, as\nthe brightness of his glory shines forth in his appearance. But since\nthis is no where applied to the sense of those other scriptures, which\nspeak of every eye\u2019s seeing him in his human nature, and plainly refer\nto some glories that shall be put upon that nature, which shall be the\nobject of sense; why should we say that the text imports nothing else\nbut that the Father shall appear in his appearing, which is such a\nstrain upon the sense of the words, that they who make use of it would\nnot allow of, in other cases? I might have added, as a farther\nconfirmation of the sense we have given of this text, its agreeableness\nwith what the apostle says, in Tit. ii. 10. when he calls the gospel,\n_The doctrine of God our Saviour_, and with what immediately follows in\nver. 14. where, having before described him as our Saviour, he proceeds\nto shew wherein he was so, namely, _by giving himself for us, that he\nmight redeem us from all iniquity_; and he is not only called _God our\nSaviour_ by this apostle, but he is so called in 2 Pet. i. 1. where the\nchurch is said _to have obtained like precious faith, through the\nrighteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ_; or as the marginal\nreading has it, _of our God and Saviour_; this seems to be so just a\nreading of the text we are considering, that some, on the other side of\nthe question, allow that the words will very well bear it; but they\nthink their sense agreeable, as the author but now mentioned says, to\nthe whole tenor of Scripture, which is little other than a boast, as\nthough the scripture favoured their scheme of doctrine, which, whether\nit does or no, they, who consider the arguments on both sides, may\njudge; and we think, we have as much reason to conclude that our sense\nof the words, which establishes the doctrine of our Saviour\u2019s being the\ngreat God, is agreeable to the whole tenor of scripture; but, passing\nthat over, we proceed to another argument.\n\nThere is one scripture in which our Saviour is called both _Lord and\nGod_, _viz._ John xx. 28. _And Thomas answered and said unto him, My\nLord, and my God._ The manner of address to our Saviour, in these words,\nimplies an act of adoration, given to him by this disciple, upon his\nhaving received a conviction of his resurrection from the dead; and\nthere is nothing in the text, but what imports his right to the same\nglory which belongs to the Father, when He is called his people\u2019s God.\nHerein they lay claim to him, as their covenant God, their chief good\nand happiness; thus David expresses himself, Psal. xxxi. 14. _I trusted\nin thee, O Lord, I said thou art my God_; and God promises, in Hos. ii.\n23. that _he would say to them which were not his people, Thou art my\nGod_; and chap. viii. 2. _Israel shall cry unto me, My God we know\nthee_; and the apostle Paul speaking of the Father, says, Phil. iv. 19.\n_My God shall supply all your need_, &c. that is, the God from whom I\nhave all supplies of grace; the God whom I worship, to whom I owe all I\nhave, or hope for, who is the Fountain of all blessedness. Now if there\nbe nothing in this text we are considering, that determines the words to\nbe taken in a lower sense than this, as there does not appear to be,\nthen we are bound to conclude, that Christ\u2019s Deity is fully proved from\nit.\n\n_Object._ Some of the Socinians suppose, that the words, _my Lord_, and\n_my God_, contain a form of exclamation, or admiration; and that Thomas\nwas surprized when he was convinced that our Saviour was risen from the\ndead, and so cries out, as one in a rapture, _O my Lord! O my God!_\nintending hereby the Father, to whose power alone this event was owing.\n\n_Answ._ Such exclamations as these, though often used in common\nconversation, and sometimes without that due regard to the divine\nMajesty, that ought to attend them, are not agreeable to the scripture\nway of speaking. But, if any scriptures might be produced to justify it,\nit is sufficiently evident, that no such thing is intended in these\nwords, not only because the grammatical construction will not admit of\nit,[122] but because the words are brought in as a reply to what Christ\nhad spoken to him in the foregoing verse; _Thomas answered and said unto\nhim, My Lord_, &c. whereas it is very absurd to suppose, that an\nexclamation contains the form of a reply, therefore it must be taken for\nan explicit acknowledgment of him, as _his Lord_, and _his God_; so that\nthis objection represents the words so contrary to the known acceptation\nthereof, that many of the Socinians themselves, and other late writers,\nwho oppose our Saviour\u2019s proper Deity, do not think fit to insist on it,\nbut have recourse to some other methods, to account for those\ndifficulties, that lie in their way, taken from this, and other texts,\nwhere Christ is plainly called God, as in John i. 1. and many other\nplaces in the New Testament.\n\nHere we may take occasion to consider the method which the\nAnti-trinitarians use to account for the sense of those scriptures, in\nwhich Christ is called God. And,\n\n1. Some have had recourse to a critical remark, which they make on the\nword \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 _God_, namely, that when it has the article \u1f41 before it, it\nadds an emphasis to the sense thereof, and determines it to be applied\nto the Father. And inasmuch as the word is sometimes applied to him,\nwhen there is no article, (which, to some, would appear an objection,\nsufficient to invalidate this remark) they add, that it is always to be\napplied to him, if there be nothing in the text that determines it\notherwise. This remark was first made by Origen, and afterwards largely\ninsisted on by Eusebius, as Dr. Clarke observes;[123] and he so far\ngives into it, as that he apprehends it is never applied, when put\nabsolutely in scripture, to any other Person; we shall therefore enquire\ninto the justice thereof.\n\nBy the word _God_ absolutely taken, (whether \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 have an article before\nit or no) we understand nothing else but its being used without any\nthing to determine its application, either to the Father, Son, or Holy\nGhost; whereas, on the other hand, when it is not absolutely used, there\nare several things, by which we may certainly know to which of the\ndivine persons it belongs: thus it is particularly applied to the\nFather, when there is something in the text that distinguishes him from\nthe Son or Spirit: so John xiv. 1. _Ye believe in God_, _viz._ the\nFather, _believe also in me_; and in all those scriptures, in which\nChrist is called the Son of God, there the word _God_ is determined to\nbe applied to the Father; and when God is said to act in relation to\nChrist as Mediator, as in Heb. ii. 13. _Behold, I and the children which\nGod hath given me_, it is so applied.\n\nAnd the word _God_ is determined to be applied to the Son, when he is\nparticularly mentioned, and so called, or described, by any of his\nMediatorial works or characters; as in Matt. i. 23. _God_, _viz._ the\nSon, _with us_; and 1 Tim. iii. 16. _God manifest in the flesh_; or when\nthere is any thing in the context, which discovers that the word _God_\nis to be applied to him.\n\nAlso, with respect to the Holy Ghost, when any of his Personal works, or\ncharacters, are mentioned in the text or context, and the word _God_\napplied to him, to whom they are ascribed, that determines it to belong\nto the Holy Ghost; as in Acts v. 3, 4. speaking concerning lying to the\nHoly Ghost, it is explained, _Thou hast not lyed unto men, but unto\nGod_; and 1 Cor. iii. 16. _Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,\nand that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you_; but more of this when we\nspeak of the Deity of the Holy Ghost. In these, and such like cases, the\nword _God_ is not put absolutely; but, on the other hand, it is put\nabsolutely when there is nothing of this nature to determine its\napplication; as in those scriptures that speak of the divine Unity,\n_viz._ in Matt. xix. 17. _There is none good but one, that is God_; and\nin 1 Cor. viii. 4. _There is none other God but one_; and in James ii.\n19. _Thou believest that there is one God_, &c. and John x. 33. _Thou,\nbeing a man, makest thyself God_; and in many other places of the like\nnature, in which there is an idea contained of the divine perfections;\nbut it is not particularly determined which of the Persons in the\nGodhead is intended thereby.\n\nThis is what we are to understand by the word \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, _God_, being put\nabsolutely without any regard to its having an article before it, or\nnot; from whence nothing certain can be determined concerning the\nparticular application thereof, since many scriptures might easily be\nreferred to, in which it is put without an article, though applied to\nthe Father; and, on the other hand, it has very often an article put\nbefore it when applied to idols, or false gods;[124] and the devil is\ncalled, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, _the god of this world_; and it may be\nobserved, that in two evangelists,[125] referring to the same thing, and\nusing the same words, one has the word with an article, and the other\nwithout.\n\nTherefore, setting aside this critical remark about the application of\nthe word _God_, when there is an article before \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, the main thing in\ncontroversy is how we are to apply it, when neither the context, nor any\nof the rules above-mentioned, give us any direction, therein, namely,\nwhether it is in that case only to be applied to the Father, or\nindifferently to any of the Persons in the Godhead. The author\nabove-mentioned, in his scripture-doctrine of the Trinity, always\napplies it to the Father; and it may easily be perceived, that he has no\nother reason than this to apply many scriptures to the Father, which\nothers, who have defended the doctrine of the Trinity, in another way,\napply to the Son, as being directed herein by something spoken of him in\nthe context, as in Rev. xix. 4, 5, 6, 17.[126]\n\nAnd this is, indeed, the method used by all the Anti-trinitarians, in\napplying the word _God_, especially when found absolutely in scripture.\nThat which principally induces them hereunto, is because they take it\nfor granted, that as there is but one divine Being, so there is but one\nPerson who is truly and properly divine,[127] and that is the Father, to\nwhom they take it for granted that the word _God_ is to be applied in\nscripture to signify any finite being, as the Son, or any creature below\nhim. But this supposition is not sufficiently proved, _viz._ that the\none divine Being is a person, and that this is only the Father, whom\nthey often call the supreme, or most high God, that is, superior, when\ncompared with the Son and Spirit, as well as all creatures; but this we\ncannot allow of, and therefore cannot see sufficient reason to conclude,\nthat the word _God_, when put absolutely, is to be applied to no other\nthan the Father.\n\nThat which I would humbly offer, as the sense of the word, when thus\nfound in scripture, is, that when the Holy Ghost has left it\nundetermined, it is our safest way to consider it as such, and so to\napply it indifferently to the Father, Son, or Spirit, and not to one\nperson, exclusive of the others: thus when it is said, Mark xii. 29, 32.\n_The Lord our God is one Lord_; and _there is one God, and there is none\nother but him_; the meaning is, that there is but one divine Being, who\nis called God, as opposed to the creature, or to all who are not God by\nnature: thus when the unity of the Godhead is asserted in that scripture\nhere referred to, Deut. vi. 4. and Israel was exhorted to _serve him_,\nthey are, at the same time, forbidden to _go after other gods_, ver. 13,\n14. And when it is said, that to love the Lord with all our heart, soul,\nmind, and strength, is more than all burnt-offering and sacrifices, Mark\nxii. 33. it implies, that religious worship was performed to God; but it\nis certain that this was performed to all the Persons in the Godhead;\ntherefore none of them are excluded in this scripture, in which the\nunity of God is asserted. And however Dr. Clarke concludes Athanasius,\nfrom his unguarded way of speaking, in some other instances, to be of\nhis side; yet, in that very place, which he refers to,[128] he expressly\nsays, that when the scripture saith the Father is the only God, and that\n_there is one God_, and _I am the First_, and _the Last_; yet this does\nnot destroy the divinity of the Son, for he is that one God, and first\nand only God, &c. And the same thing may be said of the Holy Ghost.\n\nAgain, when it is said, Mat. xix. 17. _There is none good but one, that\nis God_; it implies, that the divine nature, which is predicated of all\nthe persons in the God-head, hath those perfections that are essential\nto it, and particularly that goodness by which God is denominated\nAll-sufficient: so in Acts xv. 18. when it is said, _Known unto God are\nall his works_; where the word _God_ is absolute, and not in a\ndeterminate sense, applied either to Father, Son, or Spirit, the meaning\nis, that all the Persons in the Godhead created all things, which they\nare expressly said to do in several scriptures, and, as the consequence\nthereof, that they have a right to all things, which are known unto\nthem.\n\n_Object._ It will probably be objected to this, that we assert that\nthere are four divine Persons, namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,\nand the Godhead which is common to them all, since we call it _God_,\nwhich word in other instances, connotes a personal character; and, if\nso, then it will follow, that we are chargeable with a contradiction in\nterms, when we say that there are three Persons in the Godhead, _viz._\nin one Person.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that though the divine nature, which\nis common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is represented, in\nscripture, as though it were a Person, when it is called God, yet it is\nto be taken in a metaphorical sense; whereas the Father, Son, and\nSpirit, as has been before considered, are called Divine Persons\nproperly, or without a metaphor.[129] Moreover, the divine nature,\nthough it be called God, is never considered as co-ordinate with, or as\ndistinguished from the divine Persons, as though it were a Person in the\nsame sense as they are; and therefore, whenever it is so called, it must\nbe considered as opposed to the creature; as we before observed, the one\nGod is opposed to those who are not God by nature. It may also be\nconsidered, that those divine perfections, which are implied in the word\n_God_, taken in this sense, are known by the light of nature; (whereas\nthe divine Personality, as applied either to the Father, Son, or Spirit,\nis a matter of pure revelation) and it is such an idea of God, or the\nGodhead, that is intended thereby; so that all the force of this\nobjection consists only in the sense of a word, and the principal thing\nin debate is, whether the word _God_ thus absolutely and indeterminately\nconsidered, is a proper mode of speaking, to set forth the divine\nnature: now if the scripture uses the word in this sense, it is not for\nus to enquire about the propriety, or impropriety, thereof; but we must\ntake heed that we do not pervert, or misunderstand, the sense hereof\nwhich they do, who either speak, on the one hand, of the Godhead, when\ncalled _God_, as though it were distinct from the Father, Son, and\nSpirit; or, on the other hand, understand it only of the Father, as\nopposed to the Son and Spirit, as the Anti-trinitarians do, who deny\ntheir proper Deity, and when they assert that there is but one God, do\nin effect, maintain that there is but one Person in the Godhead. Thus\nconcerning the sense in which the Anti-trinitarians take the word _God_,\nwhen (as it is generally expressed) it is taken absolutely in scripture,\nas applying it only to the Father; we proceed to consider,\n\n2. That they farther suppose that our Saviour is called God, in the New\nTestament, by a divine warrant, as a peculiar honour put upon him; and\nhere they think it not difficult to prove, that a creature may have a\nright conferred on him to receive divine honour; which if they were able\nto do, it would tend more to weaken our cause, and establish their own,\nthan any thing they have hitherto advanced. But this we shall have\noccasion to militate against under the fourth head of argument, to prove\nthe Deity of the Son, _viz._ his having a right to divine worship, and\ntherefore shall pass it over at present, and consider them as intending\nnothing more by the word _God_, when applied to our Saviour, but what\nimports an honour infinitely below that which belongs to the Father; and\nthis they suppose to have been conferred upon him, on some occasions,\nrelating to the work for which he came into the world. The Socinians, in\nparticular, speak of his being called God, or the Son of God.\n\n(1.) Because of his having been _sanctified_ and _sent into the world_,\nJohn x. 36. _viz._ to redeem it, in that peculiar and low sense in which\nthey understand the word _redemption_, of which more hereafter.\n\n(2.) Also from his extraordinary conception and birth, by the power of\nthe Holy Ghost, as it is said, in Luke i. 35. _The Holy Ghost shall come\nupon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over-shadow thee;\ntherefore also that Holy Thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be\ncalled the Son of God._\n\n(3.) Another reason of his having this honour conferred upon him, they\ntake from his resurrection, and so refer to Rom. i. 4. in which it is\nsaid, that he was _declared to be the Son of God with power, by the\nresurrection from the dead_.\n\n(4.) Another reason hereof they take from his ascension into heaven, or\nbeing glorified, at which time they suppose that he was made an High\nPriest, and had, in an eminent degree, the name and character of God put\nupon him, for which they refer to Heb. v. 3. in which it is said,\n_Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest; but he that\nsaid unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee_.\n\nBut they plainly pervert the sense of these respective texts but now\nmentioned, inasmuch as they suppose that his mission, incarnation,\nresurrection, and ascension, are the principal reasons of his being\ncalled God; and that his deity is founded not in the excellency of his\nnature, but in these relative circumstances, in which, as an act of\ngrace, this honour was conferred upon him, which God, had he pleased,\nmight have conferred on any other creature, capable of yielding\nobedience to him, or receiving such a commission from him: whereas, in\nreality, these scriptures refer to that glory which he had as Mediator,\nas a demonstration of his Deity, and these honours were agreeable to his\ncharacter, as a divine Person, but did not constitute him God, as they\nsuppose.\n\nBut these things are not so particularly insisted on by some late\nAnti-trinitarians, though they all agree in this, that his right to\ndivine honour is the result of that authority which he has received from\nGod, to perform the works which are ascribed to him, relating to the\ngood of mankind; whereas we cannot but conclude, from the scriptures\nbefore brought to prove his proper Deity, in which he is called _Lord_\nand _God_, in as strong a sense, as when those words are applied to the\nFather, that he is therefore God equal with the Father.\n\nThus having considered our Saviour\u2019s proper Deity, as evinced from his\nbeing called Lord and God; and also, that these names are given to him\nin such a sense, as that hereby the Godhead is intended, as much as when\nit is applied to the Father; we shall close this head, by considering\ntwo scriptures, in which the divine nature is ascribed to him; and the\nfirst of them is in Coloss. ii. 9. _In him dwelleth all the fulness of\nthe Godhead bodily_; in which we may observe, that it is not barely\nsaid, that God dwelleth in him, which would not so evidently have proved\nhis deity, because God is elsewhere said to dwell in others: thus, in 1\nJohn iv. 12. it is said, _God dwelleth in us_; but here it is said, the\nGodhead dwelleth in him, which is never applied to any creature; and the\nexpression is very emphatical, the fulness, yea, all the fulness of the\nGodhead dwelleth in him; what can we understand thereby, but that all\nthe perfections of the divine nature belong to him? The apostle had been\nspeaking, in ver. 2. of the _mystery of Christ_, as what the church was\nto know, and acknowledge, as well as that of the Father; and he also\nconsiders him as the Fountain of wisdom, ver. 3. _In whom are hid all\nthe treasures of wisdom and knowledge_; and what is here spoken\nconcerning him, very well corresponds therewith, as being expressive of\nhis divine glory; the fulness of the Godhead is said, indeed, to dwell\nin him _bodily_, by which we are to understand his human nature, as the\nbody is, in some other scriptures taken for the man; thus, in Rom. xii.\n1. we are exhorted _to present our bodies_, _i. e._ ourselves, _a living\nsacrifice to God_; so here the divine nature, as subsisting in him, is\nsaid to dwell in, that is, to have the human nature united to it, which\nis meant by its dwelling in him bodily.\n\nThe account which some give of the sense of this text, to evade the\nforce of the argument, taken from thence, to prove our Saviour\u2019s Deity,\ndoes little more than shew how hard the Anti-trinitarians are put to it\nto maintain their ground, when they say that the word \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, which we\nrender _Godhead_, signifies some extraordinary gifts conferred upon him,\nespecially such as tended to qualify him to discover the mind and will\nof God; or, at least, that nothing else is intended thereby, but that\nauthority which he had from God, to perform the work which he came into\nthe world about; since it is certain, that this falls infinitely short\nof what is intended by the word _Godhead_, which must signify the divine\nnature, subsisting in him, who assumed, or was made flesh, and so dwelt\ntherein, as in a temple.\n\nThere is another scripture, which seems to attribute to him the divine\nnature, _viz._ Phil. ii. 6. where it is said, that he was _in the form\nof God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God_; by _the form\nof God_, I humbly conceive, we are to understand the divine nature which\nhe had, and therefore it was no instance of robbery in him to assert,\nthat he was equal with God. If this sense of the text can be defended,\nit will evidently prove his proper Deity, since it is never said,\nconcerning any creature, that he is in the form of God, or, as the words\nmay be rendered, that he subsisted in the form of God; now it is well\nknown, that the word which we render _form_, is not only used by the\nschoolmen, but by others, before their time, to signify the nature, or\nessential properties, of that to which it is applied; so that this sense\nthereof was well known in the apostle\u2019s days. Therefore, why may we not\nsuppose, that the Holy Ghost, in scripture, may once, at least, use a\nword which would be so understood by them? And it will farther appear,\nthat Christ\u2019s Deity is signified thereby, if the following words are to\nbe understood in the sense contained in our translation, that _he\nthought it not robbery to be equal with God_; now this seems very plain,\nfor the same word \u1f21\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, _he thought_, is taken in the same sense in\nthe third verse of this chapter; _Let every man esteem_, or think,\n_others better than themselves_; and it is used about twenty times in\nthe New Testament, five times in this epistle, besides in this text, and\nnever understood otherwise than as signifying _to think_, _esteem_, or\n_account_; and it would destroy the sense of the respective texts, where\nit is used, to take it otherwise. This the Anti-trinitarians themselves\nwill not deny, inasmuch as it does not affect their cause;\nnotwithstanding they determine that it must be otherwise translated in\nthis text; and so they render the words, \u03bf\u03c5\u03c7 \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03c9, _he did not covet to be honoured_, or was not greedy, or in\nhaste of being honoured _as God_[130], that is, he did not affect to\nappear like a divine Person, or catch at those divine honours that did\nnot belong to him. Could this sense of the text be made out to be just,\nit would effectually overthrow our argument, taken from thence, to prove\nChrist\u2019s proper Deity: but this is as foreign from the sense of the\nwords, as any sense that could be put upon them; and all that is\npretended to justify it, is a reference which they make to a phrase, or\ntwo, used in a Greek writer, which is not at all to their purpose[131].\nMoreover the sense of this text, as agreeable to the words of our\ntranslation, will farther appear to be just, if we consider, that our\nSaviour\u2019s _being in the form of God_, is there opposed to his having\nafterwards been _in the form of a servant_, or the _fashion of a man_;\nnow if the latter be to be understood of his being truly and properly\nman, and not to be taken barely for something in him which resembled the\nhuman nature; or if his _taking on him the form of a servant_, imports,\nhis being in a capacity to perform that obedience which was due from\nhim, as man to God, in a proper, and not a theatrical sense; then it\nwill follow, that his being in the form of God, as opposed hereunto,\nmust be taken for his being truly and properly God, or for his having\nthe divine nature, as before mentioned; which was the thing to be\nproved.\n\nI might here consider the sense which Dr. Whitby, in his annotations,\ngives of our Saviour\u2019s being _in the form of God_, as opposed to that of\na servant, (after he had given up the sense of the words, as in our\ntranslation, to the adversary) which is, that his being in the form of\nGod, implies, his appearing, before his incarnation, in a bright shining\ncloud, or light, or in a flame of fire, or with the attendance of an\nhost of angels, as he is sometimes said to have done, which the Jews\ncall Shechinah, or the divine Majesty, as being a visible emblem of his\npresence; this he calls _the form of God_, and his not appearing so,\nwhen incarnate in this lower world, _the form of a servant_, as opposed\nto it; and adds, that when he ascended into heaven, he assumed the form\nof God; and therefore whenever he has occasionally appeared, as to the\nmartyr Stephen at his death, or to the apostle Paul at his first\nconversion, it has been in that form, or with like emblems of majesty\nand divinity, as before his incarnation,\n\nHere I would observe concerning this, that what he says of Christ\u2019s\nappearing with emblems of majesty and glory before his incarnation, and\nthe glory that was put upon his human nature after his ascension into\nheaven, is a great truth; but as this is never styled, in scripture, the\nform of God, nor was the symbol of the divine glory ever called therein\nthe divine majesty, however it might be called by Jewish writers;\ntherefore this has no reference to the sense of this text, nor does it,\nin the least, enervate the force of the argument, taken from it, to\nprove our Saviour\u2019s proper Deity, any more than this critical remark on\nthe words thereof does, the sense of our translation, whereby it\nevidently appears. I might also observe the sense which another\nlearned[132] writer gives of _the form of God_ in this text, which is\nthe same that is given by several of the Socinians; namely, that it has\na relation to his working miracles while here upon earth, which is\ncertainly very disagreeable to the scope and design of the text, since\nhe is said to be _in the form of God_, before he took upon him the form\nof a servant, that is, before his incarnation: and besides, the working\nmiracles, never was deemed sufficient to denominate a person to be in\nthe form of God, for if it had, many others, both before and after him,\nmight have had this applied to them; whereas it is a glory appropriate\nto him, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God.\n\nI would not wholly pass over that which some call a controverted text of\nscripture, in 1 John v. 7. _For there are three that bear record in\nheaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are\none_, lest it should be thought that I conclude the arguments, brought\nby the Anti-trinitarians, sufficiently conclusive to prove it\nspurious,[133] but I shall say the less on this subject, because it is a\nvery hard matter to advance any thing that has not been very largely\ninsisted on, by various writers; among whom I cannot but mention, with\ngreat esteem; one who has defended the scripture-doctrine of the Trinity\nwith a great deal of learning and judgment, who has given a particular\naccount of several that have written on either side of the\nquestion[134]. No one pretends to deny, that this text is not to be\nfound in a great number of manuscripts, among which some are generally\nallowed to be of great antiquity; therefore it is less to be wondered\nat, that it is left out in some ancient versions thereof, which were\ntaken from copies that were destitute of it; all which only proves, that\nthe text has been corrupted: but the main question is, which of those\ncopies are to be reckoned genuine, those which have it, or others which\nhave it not? It must be allowed, that there are a considerable number,\nin which the text is inserted, as Beza and others observe; and it will\nbe a hard matter to prove that these are all spurious, which must be\ndone, before we shall be obliged to expunge it out of scripture.\n\nIf it be objected, that the manuscripts, which have the text, are not so\nancient as those that are without it, it will be a difficult matter for\nthem to determine the antiquity thereof, with such exactness, as, by\ncomparing one with the other, it may be certainly known, with respect to\nall of them, which has the preference, and by what a number of years:\nbesides, since it is certain, that more manuscripts of scripture are\nlost by far, than are now known to be in the world; unless we suppose\nthat religion, in ancient times, was contracted into a very narrow\ncompass, or that very few, in the first ages of the church, had copies\nof scripture by them, which is not to be supposed; and, if so, then it\nwill be hard to prove that those manuscripts, which have the text\ninserted, did not take it from some others, that were in being before\nthem; so that the genuineness, or spuriousness of the text, is not to be\ndetermined only or principally by inspection into ancient manuscripts.\n\nNor can I think it very material to offer conjectures concerning the\nmanner how the text came first to be corrupted. Dr. Hammond, and others,\nsuppose, that some one, who transcribed this epistle, might commit a\nblunder, in leaving out this text, because of the repetition of the\nwords in the following verse, _There are three that bare record_. It is,\nindeed, a hard thing to trace every mistake made by an amanuensis to its\nfirst original; however, this must be concluded, that it is possible for\nit to be left out through inadvertency, but it could not be put in\nwithout a notorious fraud; and no one would attempt to do this, unless\nsome end, which he thought valuable, were answered thereby. Indeed, if\nthe doctrine of the Trinity could not have been maintained without such\nan insertion, I will not say, that every one, who ever defended it, had\nhonesty enough to abhor such a vile practice; but this I am bound to\nsay, that if any one did so, he was guilty not only of fraud, but folly,\nat the same time; since the divinity of the Son and Spirit, as well as\nof the Father, is maintained throughout the whole scripture; and the\nprincipal thing asserted concerning the Son, in this text, _viz._ that\nhe is _One_ with the Father, is expressly laid down in his own words,\nJohn x. 30. _I and my Father are one._\n\nI know the Arians take occasion to censure the defenders of the doctrine\nof the Trinity, as being guilty of this fraud, though Father Simon[135]\nis a little more sparing of his reflections on them; but he is no less\ninjurious to the truth, when he maintains, that some person or other, in\nthe margin of a copy, which he had by him, which he supposes to have\nbeen about five hundred years old, had affixed to ver. 8. these words,\nas an explication thereof, as though the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost\nwere intended thereby, to wit, by the _Spirit_, _water_, _and blood_;\nand from hence concludes, that the next person, who transcribed from\nthis manuscript, mistook this note for a part of the text; and so the\n7th verse came to be inserted. This Le Clerc calls a setting the matter\nin a clear light; for some persons are ready to believe that which\nsupports their own cause, how weakly soever it be maintained.\n\nIt might easily be replied to this, that this text was known in the\nworld long enough before that manuscript was wrote, and consequently\nthis insertion could not first take its rise from thence; and therefore\nto produce a single instance of this nature, is, I humbly conceive,\nnothing to the purpose[136].\n\nBut, passing by what respects scripture-manuscripts, there is more\nstress to be laid on the writings of those who have referred to this\ntext; and accordingly it is certain, that it was often quoted in defence\nof the doctrine of the Trinity, by ancient writers, in the fifth and\nfollowing centuries, therefore it was found in the manuscripts that they\nused. It is true, it is not quoted by the Fathers, who wrote in the\nfourth century, to wit, Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory, Nazianzen,\nChrysostom, nor by Augustin, and some others; but nothing can be\ninferred from hence, but that it was not in the copies they made use of:\nbut it does not follow that it was in no copy at that time; for, if we\nlook farther back to the third century, we find it expressly referred to\nby Cyprian, which I cannot but lay a very great stress on; he has it in\ntwo places[137], in the former of which, he occasionly mentions these\nwords, _These three are one_; and, in the latter, he expressly quotes\nthis scripture; and says, it is _written of the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, that these three are one_; which evidently proves, that he found\nit in some manuscript extant in his time, which was before any\nmanuscript, now in being, is pretended to have been written; for even\nthe Alexandrian manuscript is, I think, supposed by none to be of\ngreater antiquity than the fourth century, which seems to me to be of\ngreater force than any thing that is suggested, concerning its being not\nfound in manuscripts of later date; and we may observe, that that Father\ndoes not speak of it as a certain manuscript, which was reserved, as a\ntreasure, in some private library, which might be adulterated; nor doth\nhe pretend to prove the authority thereof, nor make use of it, to prove\nthe genuineness of the text; but quotes the text, as we do any other\nplace of scripture, as supposing it was generally acknowledged to be\ncontained therein; and he also was reckoned a man of the greatest\nintegrity, as well as piety, and so would not refer to any text, as a\npart of the sacred writings, which was not so.\n\n_Object._ It is objected against this, by the Anti-trinitarians, that\nthough he quotes scriptures, yet it is not this, but ver. 8. and that\nnot in the words thereof, but in a mystical sense, which he puts upon\nit, by the Spirit, water, and blood, agreeing in one, intending the\nFather, Son, and Spirit, being one: and this is the sense Facundus, an\nAfrican bishop, who lived about the middle of the sixth century, puts\nupon it, and supposes him thus to quote it.\n\n_Answ._ But to this it may be answered, that his judgment is no more to\nbe valued, who lived three hundred years after him, than if he had lived\nin this present age; nor had he any farther light to understand\nCyprian\u2019s meaning, than we have; and we know very well, that Cyprian was\nnot so unreasonably fond of mystical interpretations of scriptures, as\nOrigen, and some others of the Fathers were: and even they never\npresumed to quote any mystical sense, which they put on scripture, as\nthe words thereof, or say, as this Father does, it is so written; much\nless are we to suppose that his words are to be taken in this sense. And\nwhatever Facundus\u2019s sense was of his words, another who lived in the\nsame century, together with, or a little before him, _viz._ Fulgentius,\nrefers (as the learned author above mentioned[138] observes) to this\npassage of Cyprian; not as a mystical explication of ver. 8. but as\ndistinctly contained in ver 7. and, as such, makes use of it against the\nArians.\n\nAs for that known passage in Tertullian[139], in which he speaks of the\nunion, or connexion, as he calls it, of the Father in the Son, and of\nthe Son in the Comforter, making three joined together, and that these\nthree are one, that is, one divine Being, not one Person, and so\nreferring to our Saviour\u2019s word\u2019s, _I and the Father are one_, it is a\nvery good explication of the sense of this text, and discovers that, in\nthat early age of the church, he had a right notion of the doctrine of\nthe Trinity: but whether it is sufficiently evident from hence, that he\nrefers to this scripture under our present consideration, though\ndefending the doctrine contained in it, I will not determine. I shall\nadd no more in the defence of the genuineness of this text, but rather\nrefer the reader to others, who have wrote professedly on this\nsubject.[140]\n\nAnd whereas some of the anti-trinitarians have supposed, that if this\nscripture were genuine, it doth not prove the doctrine of the Trinity,\nbecause the words ought to be taken as implying, that the Father, Son,\nand Spirit, are one only in testimony; to this it may be answered, that\nthough it be an undoubted truth that they agree in testimony, yet it\ndoth not amount to the sense of the words, _They are one_; for if that\nhad been the principal idea designed to be conveyed thereby, no reason\ncan be assigned why the phrase should be different from what it is in\nthe following verse; but it would, doubtless, have been expressed, \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf \u1f11\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, _They agree in one_.\n\nThus we have endeavoured to prove our Saviour\u2019s proper Deity from those\nscriptures that speak of him, not only as a being called _Lord_ and\n_God_, but from others, that assert him to have the divine nature, or to\nbe equal with God the Father; we shall now proceed to consider some\nscriptures, by which it appears, that he asserts this concerning\nhimself; or what proofs we have of his Deity from his own words, in\nseveral conferences which he held with the Jews, by which he gave them\nreason to conclude that he was God equal with the Father; and the\nopposition which he met with from them, who, for this reason, charged\nhim with blasphemy, plainly intimates, that they understood his words in\nthis sense. And if it be replied to this, as it often is, that nothing\ncan be inferred to prove his Deity from their misunderstanding his\nwords, and so charging him, without ground to be guilty thereof; to this\nit may be answered, though we do not lay much stress on what they\nunderstood to be the meaning of his words, yet it plainly appears, that\nhe intended them in this sense, inasmuch as if they misunderstood him,\nhe did not undeceive them, which certainly he ought to have done, had he\nnot been a divine Person. If any one seems to assume to himself any\nbranch of the glory of God, that does not belong to him, though the\nambiguity of words, provided they may be taken in two contrary senses,\nmay in some measure, excuse him from having had such a design, however\nunadviseable it be to speak in such a way, yet if he apprehends that\nthey, to whom he directs his discourse, are in the least inclined to\nmisunderstand him, he is obliged, from the regard which he has to the\ndivine glory, and the duty which he owes to those with whom he\nconverses, as well as in defence of his own character, to undeceive\nthem; therefore, if our Saviour had not been equal with God, he would,\ndoubtless, upon the least suspicion which the Jews might entertain, that\nhe asserted himself to be so, immediately have undeceived them, and\nwould have told them, that they took his words in a wrong sense, and\nthat he was far from usurping that glory, which belonged to God; that\nhad he intended them in that sense, they might justly have called him a\nblasphemer; this he would, doubtless have done, had he by his words,\ngiven them occasion to think him a divine Person if he were not so.\n\nThus the apostles Paul and Barnabas, when the people at Lystra, upon\ntheir having wrought a miracle, concluded that they were gods, with what\nzeal and earnestness did they undeceive them! In Acts xiv. 14, 15. it is\nsaid, when they perceived they were going to offer sacrifice to them,\n_they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and\nsaying, Sirs, why do ye these things? we also are men of like passions\nwith you_. And, at another time, we read, that Peter and John, in Acts\niii. 11-13. when they had cured the lame man, though the people did not\nconclude them to be divine persons, yet, perceiving that they were\namazed, and being jealous that some thoughts might arise in their minds,\nas though they had a right to that glory, which belongs to God alone, or\nthat this miracle was to be ascribed to themselves, rather than to him,\nwe read, that _when Peter saw that they marvelled, and that the people\nran together, he answered, ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or\nwhy look ye so earnestly on us, as though, by our own power, or\nholiness, we had made this man to walk?_ and accordingly takes occasion\nto shew, that the glory hereof was due to none but God.\n\nBut our Saviour takes no such method to exculpate himself from this\ncharge of blasphemy; therefore we must suppose they did not mistake his\nwords but that he intended thereby, that they should understand him to\nbe a divine Person; yea, he is so far from undeceiving them, if they\nwere deceived, that he rather confirms, than denies, the sense, which\nthey put upon them. This appears from Matt. ix. 2-5. when they brought\nto him a man sick of the palsey, to whom, when he healed him, he said,\n_Son be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee_, he perceived, that\n_certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth_,\nsupposing _that none had power to forgive sins but God_. It is true, the\nwords might have been understood, as though he had said, thy sins are\nforgiven thee, only in a _declarative way_, as signifying, that the man\nhad obtained forgiveness from God, without insinuating thereby, that he\nhad a power, as a divine Person, to forgive sins. But it is plain, that\nthe Jews took his words in this latter sense, from their charging him\nwith blasphemy; but, instead of rectifying the mistake, if it was one,\nhe asserts, that notwithstanding the meanness of his appearance, while\nin his humble state on earth, yet he had a power to forgive sins; and he\nnot only asserts, but proves this, when he says, ver. 5. _Whether it is\neasier to say, thy sins be forgiven thee? or to say Arise, and walk?_\nMany suppose, that Our Saviour hereby intends to establish his Deity, by\nasserting his infinite power, which was exerted in working a miracle,\nand so it is as though he should say: he that can produce any effect,\nwhich is above the laws of nature, as miracles are, at least if he does\nit by his own power, must be God: but this he had done, and so proved\nhis deity thereby, and consequently his right to forgive sins.\n\nBut I am sensible it will be objected to this, that since creatures have\nwrought miracles, which were as truly and properly so as this that\nChrist wrought; therefore the working a miracle will not prove the\ndivinity of the person that wrought it, unless we could prove that he\ndid it by his own power, that we cannot do without supposing his deity,\nand therefore that ought not to be made use of, as a medium to prove it.\n\nSome, indeed, attempt to prove it from that scripture, Luke xi. 20. in\nwhich he says, _he cast out devils by the finger of God_, supposing he\nmeans hereby his own divine power. Others take notice of something\npeculiar to himself as they suppose, in the way of his working miracles,\nthat herein he spake, and acted like a God. But, since neither of these\narguments will be reckoned conclusive, therefore I would take a method\nsomewhat different, which is not liable to the aforesaid objection, to\naccount for this matter; and that is that our Saviour first tells the\nman, that his sins were forgiven him, knowing, before-hand, how this\nwould be resented by the scribes, who would, upon this occasion, charge\nhim with blasphemy, which accordingly they did; and then, to convince\nthem that he was a divine Person, and had a power to forgive sin, he\nwrought a miracle, and so bade the man, sick of the palsey, to _arise\nand walk_; whereby he proved his deity, of which he designed to give an\nextraordinary conviction, and consequently of his having a power to\nforgive sin, by an appeal to this miracle. Now though miracles do not\nargue the divinity of the person that works them, from any visible\ncircumstance contained therein as but now mentioned, yet they\neffectually prove it, provided this be the thing contested, and an\nexplicit appeal be made to the divine power to confirm it by miracles,\nthen they are an undoubted proof thereof, as much as they prove any\nthing relating to the Christian religion: and, in this sense, I humbly\nconceive, Christ proved his deity by miracles, which he is expressly\nsaid elsewhere to have done; as in John ii. 11. speaking concerning his\nfirst miracle in Cana of Galilee, it is said, that thereby _he\nmanifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him_; where,\nby _his glory_ is doubtless, meant his divine glory; for the faith of\nhis disciples, which was consequent hereupon, was a divine faith: and we\nnever read of the glory of Christ, in his humbled state more especially,\nbut it must import the glory of his deity, which his disciples are said,\nin some measure to behold, when they believed in him. This Christ\nconfirmed by his miracles, in the same way, as his mission was confirmed\nthereby. By this means, therefore, he proved his deity and consequently\nhis right to forgive sin: and therefore was so far from endeavouring to\nconvince the Jews, that they were mistaken in thinking him a divine\nperson, he farther insists on, and proves, that he was so.\n\nThere is another conference which our Saviour held with the Jews,\nmentioned, John vi. in which we read, that after he had healed a lame\nman on the sabbath-day, for which, ver. 16. _the Jews sought to slay\nhim_, as a sabbath-breaker, he replies, ver. 17. _My Father worketh\nhitherto, and I work_; upon which they were more enraged, and as it is\nsaid, ver. 18. _sought the more to kill him, because he had not only\nbroken the sabbath, but said also, that God was his Father, making\nhimself equal with God_. It is plain they understood his words, as\nimporting that he was equal with God; and, indeed they could do no\notherwise, for he compares his works with God\u2019s, and speaks of himself\nas working co-ordinately with him. Certainly our works ought not to be\nmentioned at the same time with God\u2019s; therefore they suppose that he\nasserted himself to be a divine Person, and farther proved it by calling\nGod his Father; which, according to the sense in which they understood\nit, denoted an equality with him. Hereupon they charge him with\nblasphemy, and go round about to kill him for it. Now it is certain,\nthat, if he had not been equal with God, he ought to have undeceived\nthem, which he might easily have done, by telling them that though I\ncall God my Father, I intend nothing hereby, but that I worship,\nreverence, and yield obedience to him; or that I am his Son, by a\nspecial instance of favour, in such a sense as a creature may be; but\nfar be it from me to give you the least occasion to think that I am\nequal with God, for that would be to rob him of his glory: but we find\nthat our Saviour is far from denying his equality with the Father, but\nrather establishes and proves it in the following verses.\n\nIt is true, indeed, in some passages thereof, he ascribes to himself the\nweakness of a man, as having therein respect to his human nature, which\nis included in his being the Messiah and Mediator, as well as his\ndivine: thus he says, ver. 19. _The Son_, _viz._ as man, _can do nothing\nof himself_; and ver. 20. _The Father sheweth him all things_; but, in\nother passages, he proves that he had a divine nature, and farther\nconfirms what he had before asserted, namely, that he was equal with\nGod; in ver. 21. _For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth\nthem, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will._ Observe, he not only\nspeaks of himself, as having divine power, but sovereignty; the former\nin that he quickeneth; the latter, in that he does it according to his\nown will or pleasure; and, in ver. 23. he signifies his expectation from\nmen, that _all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the\nFather_. Thus he lays claim to divine glory, as well as ascribes to\nhimself the prerogative of raising the whole world, at the general\nresurrection, and determining their state, either of happiness or\nmisery, ver. 28, 29. _Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in\nwhich all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come\nforth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they\nthat have done evil to the resurrection of damnation._ From hence,\ntherefore, we may conclude, that our Saviour was so far from disclaiming\nthe charge of being equal with God, which they called blasphemy, that he\nproves it by arguments yet more convincing.\n\nAnother conference, which he held with the Jews about this matter, we\nread of in John viii. wherein, taking occasion to speak concerning\nAbraham, who rejoiced to see his day, he tells them plainly, ver. 58.\n_Before Abraham was, I am_; not intending hereby, as the Arians suppose,\nthat he was the first creature, but that he was equal with God; and,\nindeed, there seems to be something in his mode of speaking that argues\nhis asserting his eternal and unchangeable Deity. The phrase here used\nis the same, with a little variation, with that which is used to set\nforth the eternity and immutability of God, in Isa. xliii. 13. _Before\nthe day was, I am he._ If the prophet is to be understood, as asserting\nthat God the Father existed before time, before the _day_ was, or the\ncourse of nature began, why may we not suppose our Saviour to intend as\nmuch, when he says, _Before Abraham was, I am_.\n\nHowever, since it will be objected, that this, at best, is but a\nprobable argument, though it is such as many of the Fathers have made\nuse of in defending his Deity, yet we will not lay the whole stress of\nour cause upon it, but may observe, that whatever critical remark others\nmay make on the sense of the words, it is certain the Jews understood\nthem no otherwise, than as implying, that he thought himself equal with\nGod; therefore it is said, ver. 59. that _they took up stones to stone\nhim_; which was a punishment inflicted, under the law, on blasphemers;\nand ought he not, had they misunderstood his words, to have cleared\nhimself from this imputation, if he had not been equal with God? But he\nis far from doing this; for it is said, in the following words, that _he\nhid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of\nthem, and so passed by_.\n\nAgain, there is another conference, which he held with the Jews,\nmentioned in John x. in which he speaks like a divine Person in several\nverses; as ver. 14. _I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am\nknown of mine_; which is the same that is ascribed to God, in Psal.\nxxiii. 1. _The Lord is my Shepherd_; and he lays claim to his church,\nwhom he calls his sheep, as his own; and ver. 18. he speaks of himself,\nas having a power over his own life; _I have power to lay it down, and I\nhave power to take it again_; which is a greater instance of dominion\nthan belongs to a creature, who has not a power to dispose of his own\nlife at pleasure; and, in ver. 28. he ascends yet higher in his\nexpression, when he speaks of himself, as having a power _to give\neternal life_ to his people, which is certainly the gift of none but\nGod; and when, in ver. 29. he owns himself to be inferior to his Father,\nas man; notwithstanding, in ver. 30. he plainly asserts his Deity, when\nhe says, _I and my Father are one_.\n\n_Object._ 1. The Anti-trinitarians object to this, that Christ did not\nspeak of himself as one with the Father, any otherwise than in consent,\nor, at least, as having power and authority derived from him.\n\n_Answ._ To say that those words, _I and my Father are one_, imply\nnothing more than that they are One in consent, does not well agree with\nthe sense of the foregoing words, in which he speaks of the greatness,\nand the power of his Father, and in this of his being One with him.\nBesides, had he only meant his being One with him in consent, as\nimplying the subjection of all the powers and faculties of his soul to\nhim, that is a sense in which every good man may be said to be one with\nGod; therefore the Jews would not have charged him with blasphemy for\nit, which, it is plain, they did, and took up stones to stone him, if\nhis own words had not given them ground to conclude that he intended\nmore than this, namely, that he was one in nature with God. It is\ntherefore farther objected,\n\n_Object._ 2. That the Jews, indeed, misunderstood him, and nothing can\nbe inferred from their stupidity, to prove his Deity: but he seems, in\nthe following verses, to do more to the undeceiving them, than he had\ndone in some of the foregoing instances; for he tells them plainly the\nreason why he spake of himself as a God, namely, because he was a\nprophet; and these were called _gods, to whom the word of God came_, or,\nat least, that he had a right to be so called, from his being\n_sanctified, and sent into the world_.\n\n_Answ._ By these expressions, he does not intend to set himself upon a\nlevel with the prophets of old, but they contain an argument from the\nless to the greater; and so it is, as though he should say, If some\npersons, who made a considerable figure in the church of old, and were\nsent about important services to them, are called gods, I have much more\nreason to claim that character, as having been sanctified, and sent into\nthe world about the great work of redemption, consecrated, or set apart\nto glorify the divine perfections therein; which work, as will be\nobserved under a following head, proves his Deity; and therefore we are\nnot to suppose that he disclaims it, when he speaks of himself, as\nengaged therein. Then he proceeds yet farther, in asserting his Deity,\nwhen he speaks of his _being in the Father, and the Father in him_,\nwhich, it is certain, the Jews took in a very different sense from what\nthose words are taken in, when applied to creatures, for they concluded,\nthat he spake of himself as a divine Person; for it follows, ver. 39.\nthat _they sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their hand_;\nso that he still gives them occasion to conclude, that he was God equal\nwith the Father.\n\nThus he asserted his Deity in all these various conferrences with the\nJews; in which, if he had not been what they apprehended him to\ninsinuate that he was, many charges must have been brought against him;\nnot only as to what concerns matters of common prudence, as incensing\nthe people by ambiguous expressions, and thereby hazarding his own life;\nbut his holiness would have been called in question, had he given\noccasion to them, to think that he assumed to himself divine glory, had\nhe not had a right to it.[141]\n\nAnd this leads us to consider that last public testimony, which he gave\nto his Deity, in the presence of the Sanhedrim, which, in some respects,\nmay be said to have cost him his life, when he stood before Pontius\nPilate; upon which occasion, the apostle says, 1 Tim. vi. 13. that _he\nwitnessed a good confession_: this we have recorded, Matth. xxvi. 61.\nwhere we observe, that when false witnesses were suborned to testify\nagainst him, who contradicted one another, in their evidence, upon which\nthe high priest desired that he would make a reply to what they said, in\nhis own defence, he did not think that worthy of an answer, and\ntherefore held his peace: but when he was asked, in the most solemn\nmanner, and adjured by the living God, to tell them, _Whether he were\nthe Christ, the Son of God_? that is, the Messiah, whom the Jews\nexpected, who governed his church of old, and whom they acknowledged to\nbe a divine Person, or the Son of God; here the whole matter is left to\nhis own determination. Had he denied this, he would have saved his life;\nand if he confessed it, he was like to die for it. On this occasion, he\ndoes not hold his peace, or refuse to answer; therefore, says he, ver.\n64. _Thou hast said_; which is as though he had said, It is as thou hast\nsaid, I am the Christ, the Son of God; and then in the following words,\n_Nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man,\nsitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven_;\nwhereupon the high priest rent his clothes, and appealed to the people\nthat they had heard his blasphemy, and accordingly they judged him\nworthy of death. Here we observe, that he not only asserts himself to be\nthe Son of God, and to have a right to the glory of a divine Person,\nbut, as a farther confirmation thereof, applies to himself a text, which\nthe Jews, supposed to belong to the messiah, Dan. vii. 13. _I saw in the\nnight-visions, and behold, one, like the Son of man, came with the\nclouds of heaven_, &c. So that, from all this, it follows, that if\nChrist, when he conversed occasionally with the Jews, or when he was\ncalled before the Sanhedrim, asserts himself to be the Son of God, which\nincludes in it his Deity, and so does not shun to speak of himself, as\nequal with God, we have the doctrine, which we are defending, maintained\nby himself; therefore we must conclude, that he really is what he\ndeclared himself to be, namely, God equal with the Father.\n\nII. We proceed to consider how our Saviour\u2019s Deity appears, from those\ndivine attributes, which are ascribed to him, which are proper to God\nalone; to which we shall add, those high and glorious titles, by which\nhe is described in scripture. The attributes of God, as has been before\nobserved[142], are all essential to him, and therefore cannot, in a\nproper sense, be any of them, applied to a creature, as they are to\nChrist, which will be particularly considered in some following heads.\n\n1. He is said to be eternal, and that not only without end, as the\nangels and saints in heaven shall be, but from everlasting: this appears\nfrom Micah v. 2. _Whose goings forth have been from of old, from\neverlasting._ If his goings forth have been from everlasting, then he\nexisted from everlasting, for action supposes existence. Nothing more\nthan this can be said, to prove that the Father was from everlasting:\nand that this is spoken of our Saviour is very plain, from the reference\nto this text, in Matth. ii. 6. where the former part of this verse is\nquoted and explained, as signifying our Saviour\u2019s being born in\nBethlehem; therefore the latter part of it, _whose goings forth_, &c.\nmust belong to him. Again, he is said, in John i. 1. to have been _in\nthe beginning_; observe, it is not said he was _from_ but _in_, the\nbeginning; therefore it is plain, that he existed when all things began\nto be, and consequently was from eternity.\n\nWhen we consider this divine perfection as belonging to our Saviour, we\nmilitate against both the Socinians and the Arians; as for the former,\nthey deny, that he had any existence, properly speaking, before his\nconception in the womb of the virgin Mary, and interpret all those\nscriptures that speak of his pre-existence to it, such as that in John\nviii. 58. _Before Abraham was, I am_, or that _the Word was in the\nbeginning_, as importing either, that he was from eternity, in the\ndecree and purpose of God, relating to his incarnation, in which sense\nevery thing that comes to pass was eternal, as fore-ordained by God,\nwhich is therefore a very absurd exposition of such-like texts; or else\nthey suppose, that his being in the beginning signifies nothing else but\nhis being the Founder of the gospel-state, which cannot be the sense of\nthe evangelist\u2019s words, because he is said _to be with God_; and it\nimmediately follows, _and all things were made by him_, which every\nunprejudiced reader would suppose to intend the creation of the world,\nand not the erecting the gospel-dispensation; this therefore evidently\nappears to be a perversion of the sense of the text.\n\nAs for the Arians, they distinguish between Christ\u2019s being in the\nbeginning of time, and his being from eternity; and so they suppose the\nmeaning of the text to be, that _the Word was from the beginning_; and\nwhatever disguise they seem to put upon their mode of speaking, when\nthey say there was not a point of time in which Christ was not, or that\nhe was before the world, they are far from asserting that he was without\nbeginning, or properly from eternity. And, in answer hereunto, let it be\nconsidered, that we cannot conceive of any medium between time and\neternity; therefore whatever was before time, must be from eternity, in\nthe same sense in which God is eternal. That this may appear, let us\nconsider that time is the measure of finite beings, therefore it is very\nabsurd, and little less than a contradiction, to say that there was any\nfinite being produced before time; for that is, in effect, to assert\nthat a limited duration is antecedent to that measure, whereby it is\ndetermined, or limited. If we should allow that there might have been\nsome things created before God began to create the heavens and the\nearth, though these things might be said to have had a being longer than\ntime has had, yet they could not have existed before time, for time\nwould have begun with them; therefore if Christ had been created a\nthousand millions of ages before the world, it could not be said that he\nexisted before time; but it would be inferred from hence, that time,\nwhich would have taken its beginning from his existence, had continued\nso many ages; therefore that which existed before time, must have\nexisted before all finite beings, and consequently was not produced out\nof nothing, or did not begin to be, and is properly from eternity.\nTherefore I cannot but think the objection evasive, or a fruitless\nattempt to take off the force of this argument, to prove our Saviour\u2019s\nDeity, since the expressions of scripture, by which his eternity is set\nforth, are as strong and emphatical, as those whereby the Father\u2019s is\nexpressed, and consequently his Deity is equally evident.\n\n2. Our Saviour is said to be unchangeable, which perfection not only\nbelongs to God, but is that whereby he is considered as opposed to all\ncreated beings, which are dependent upon him, and therefore changed by\nhim, at his pleasure. Now that Christ is immutable, is evident, if we\ncompare the words of the Psalmist, Psal. cii. 25-27. _Of old hast thou\nlaid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy\nhands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall\nwax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they\nshall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no\nend_, with Heb. i. 10. where the apostle uses the same words and\nconsiders them as applied to Christ; so that it will be a very hard\nmatter for any to evade the force of this argument. I am persuaded, that\nif the apostle had not applied these words to Christ, the\nAnti-trinitarians would have allowed, that the Psalmist gives as plain\nan account of the immutability of God, as can be found in scripture, or,\nindeed, as words can express. Some of the writers on that side of the\nquestion, have passed over this scripture, as thinking, I suppose, that\nit is better not to attempt to account for it consistently with their\nscheme, than to do it in such a way, as will not, in the least, support\nit: others do not care to own that they are applied to Christ; but that\nis to break the chain of the apostle\u2019s reasoning, and thereby to fasten\nan absurdity upon him. Now, that we may briefly consider the connexion\nbetween this and the foregoing verses, whereby it will evidently appear\nthat our Saviour is the Person here described, as unchangeable, let us\nconsider, that the design of this chapter is to set forth the\nMediatorial glory of Christ, to establish his superiority to angels; and\nafter he had referred to that scripture, which speaks of the eternity of\nhis kingdom, to wit, the 45th Psalm, ver. 6. he then speaks of him as\nunchangeable, and so applies the words of the Psalmist, but now\nmentioned, to him. We may also observe, in the text, that he is not only\nunchangeable, as to his existence, but his duration is unchangeable,\nwhich farther confirms what was observed under the last head, that he is\neternal, as God is, _viz._ without succession, as well as from\neverlasting: this seems to be contained in that expression, _Thou art\nthe same, thy years shall not fail_, as though he should say, thy\nduration does not slide, or pass away by successive moments, as the\nduration of time and created beings do.\n\nTo this we might add what the apostle says, Heb. xiii. 8. that he _is\nthe same yesterday, to-day, and for ever_, that is, throughout all the\nchanges of time, he remains unchangeably the same in his divine nature.\nA late writer[143] supposes the meaning of this scripture to be nothing\nbut this, that the doctrine of Christ, once taught by the apostles,\nought to be preserved unchanged: it is true, he says elsewhere,[144]\nthat it is certainly true that the Person of Christ is the same\nyesterday, to-day, and for ever; whether, by yesterday, he means any\nthing more than a limited duration of time past, which he must do, or\nelse give up the doctrine that he every where contends for, I cannot\ntell; but he does not think that this text respects the Person of\nChrist, but his doctrine as above mentioned; the principal argument by\nwhich he proves it is, its supposed connexion with the foregoing verse;\nand so it is as though he should say; Have regard to what has been\ndelivered to you by those who have preached the word of God, who, though\nthey are no more among you, yet the doctrine they have delivered is the\nsame yesterday, to-day, and for ever. But it seems to be too great a\nstrain on the sense of the words, to suppose _Christ_ to import the same\nwith _his doctrine_; and, with submission, I cannot think that this is\nto be inferred from what goes before, or follows after it; but the sense\nseems to be this; Adhere to the doctrine you have formerly received from\nthose who have preached the word of God to you, and be not carried about\nwith divers and strange doctrines, so as to change your sentiments with\nyour teachers, for that would not be to act in conformity to Jesus\nChrist, who is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; so that he\ndesigns to establish their faith from the consideration of Christ\u2019s\nimmutability, whatever changes they are liable to from the death of\ntheir teachers, or the innovations of those who succeed them, and\nendeavour to carry them away by divers and strange doctrines; so the\ntext seems to be as plain a proof of our Saviour\u2019s immutability as that\nscripture, Rev. i. 4. is of the immutability of God, in which it is\nsaid, _He is, was, and is to come_. If, by his being _yesterday_, we are\nto understand, as some do, his managing the affairs of his church under\nthe legal dispensation; and _to-day_, his governing them under this\npresent dispensation; and _for ever_, the eternity of his kingdom, it\nplainly proves, that whatever changes he has made in the affairs of the\ngovernment of the church and of the world, yet he is the same, and\nconsequently a divine Person.\n\n3. Another divine attribute ascribed to our Saviour, is omnipresence, as\nin Matt, xviii. 20. _Where two or three are gathered together in my\nname, there am I in the midst of them_; which expression imports the\nsame thing, with that whereby the divine omnipresence (as is allowed by\nall) is set forth in Exod. xx. 24. _In all places where I record my\nname, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee._ Now that Christ\u2019s\npresence in the midst of his people, in all places, argues his\nomnipresence, is very evident, since he designs, by this promise, to\nencourage them in all places, and at all times, to perform religious\nduties, with an eye to this privilege; so that wherever there is a\nworshipping assembly, they have hereby ground to expect that he will be\npresent with them. Now it is certain, that no creature can be in two\nplaces at the same time, much less in all places, which is the same as\nto _fill heaven and earth_, and is applicable to God alone, as the\nprophet expresses it, in Jer. xxiii. 24. Moreover, when Christ says,\nthat he will be with his people in all places, it must be meant at the\nsame time, and not successively, otherwise he could not be where-ever\ntwo or three are met in his name; this therefore is a plain proof of his\nomnipresence, which is an incommunicable perfection of the divine\nnature, and consequently argues him to be true and proper God.\n\n_Object._ 1. It is objected to the sense we have given of this\nscripture, (to weaken the force of the argument taken from it) that our\nSaviour is here said to be present, only by his authority, where two or\nthree are met together in his name; and accordingly the words are to be\ntaken in a metaphorical sense, as when a king is said to be present in\nall parts of his dominions, where persons, who are deputed to represent\nhim, act by his authority.\n\n_Answ._ Though we allow, that whatever is done in Christ\u2019s name, must be\nsaid to be done by his authority; yet we cannot allow that his being in\nthe midst of them is to be taken only for his being so by his authority;\nfor we must not suppose that our Saviour, in these words, makes use of a\ntautology; and, indeed, it would be a very jejune and empty way of\nspeaking to say, that where two or three are met together in my name,\nthat is, by my authority, there am I in the midst of them, by my\nauthority. Certainly, Christ\u2019s being in the midst of them, must be taken\nin the same sense with that parallel scripture before referred to, in\nExod. xx. 24. where God\u2019s _coming to his people_, in those places where\nhe records his name, is explained, as having a very great privilege\nattending it, namely, his _blessing them_, which he is said to do, when\nhe confers blessedness upon them, and gives them a full and rich supply\nof all their wants; this therefore must be the sense of our Saviour\u2019s\nbeing in the midst of his people.\n\nMoreover, as God is said to be present where he acts, so Christ\u2019s\npowerful influence, granted to his people in all places, which supposes\nhis omnipresence, contains a great deal more than his being present by\nhis authority; and if that were the only sense in which this scripture\nis to be taken, it might as well be alleged, that all the scriptures,\nwhich speak of the divine omnipresence might be taken in that sense,\nwhich would be to set aside all the proofs we have from thence of this\nperfection of the divine nature; therefore this objection seems to be\nrather an evasion, than an argument, to overthrow Christ\u2019s divinity,\ntaken from his omnipresence.\n\n_Object._ 2. Others suppose that Christ being in the midst of his\npeople, when met together in his name, implies nothing more than his\nknowing what they do when engaged in acts of religious worship.\n\n_Answ._ We observe, that they who make use of this objection, that they\nmay militate against that argument, which is brought to prove his Deity\nfrom his omnipresence, will, for argument\u2019s sake, allow him to be\nomniscient, not considering that that equally proves him to be a divine\nPerson, as will be considered under our next head. Now, to prove that\nChrist\u2019s being present with his people, is to be understood of his\nknowing what they do, they refer to that scripture, 2 Kings v. 26. in\nwhich Elisha says to Gehazi, as knowing what he had done, when he\nfollowed Naaman, the Syrian, for a reward; _Went not mine heart with\nthee, when the man turned again from his chariot with thee?_ But since\nthis scripture signifies nothing else but that this secret was revealed\nto him, which is, in a figurative way of speaking, as though he had been\npresent with him, it will not follow from hence that the prophet\npretended to know what was done in all places, and that at all times,\nwhich is more (as will be farther observed under the next head) than\nwhat seems communicable to any creature: but this is intended by\nChrist\u2019s knowing all things, and more than this, doubtless, is meant by\nhis being in the midst of his people, whereby he encourages them to\nexpect those blessings, which they stand in need of, from him, in which\nrespect he promises to be with them in a way of grace; and certainly he\nthat is so present with his people, must be concluded to be, in the most\nproper sense, a divine Person.\n\nThere is another scripture, which is generally brought to prove Christ\u2019s\nomnipresence, and consequently his proper Deity, to wit, John iii. 13.\n_And no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from\nheaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven._ For the understanding\nof which words, we must consider their connexion with what goes\nimmediately before; thus by, _No man hath ascended up into heaven, but\nhe that came down from heaven_, It is plain our Saviour means, that no\nman has a full and comprehensive knowledge of heavenly things, of which\nhe had been speaking in the foregoing verse, but he that came down from\nheaven; in which he asserts his divine omniscience[145], as the person\nin whom all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid, as it is\nexpressed elsewhere; or none knows the mysteries which are hid in God,\nbut he that is in the bosom of the Father, who came down from heaven;\nor, as the apostle expresses it, 1 Cor. xv. 47. who is _the Lord from\nheaven_; and then, as a farther proof of his Deity, he adds, that _he is\nin heaven_; that is, while he was on earth, in one nature, as being\nomnipresent, he was in heaven in the other nature; and, agreeably to\nthis sense of the scripture, he is said to _come down from heaven_, as\nhis divine nature manifested its glory here on earth, when the nature\nwas united to it, which is the only sense in which God is said to come\ndown into this lower world; as we have the same mode of speaking, in\nGen. xi. 7. Exod. iii. 8. and other places; so that if he is thus\nomnipresent, we must conclude that he is a divine Person.\n\nThe Arians give a very different sense of this text, especially those\nwords, _The Son of man, who is in heaven_;[146] for, they suppose, the\nwords ought to be rendered, _was in heaven_; and that it does not argue\nhis omnipresence, but that nature, which they call divine, first resided\nin heaven from the beginning, when it was produced by the Father; and\nafterwards in his incarnation, by a removal from heaven to earth it was\nsaid to come down from thence. But, before we allow of this sense of the\ntext, they must prove that Christ was the first creature, and that, in\nthis finite nature, he resided in heaven till his incarnation, and that\nhe afterwards, by a change of place, descended into this lower world;\nand, if they could make this appear, there is yet a difficulty in the\nexpression, as they understand the words; for it is not usual to say, I\ncame from a place, and was in that place before I came from it;\ntherefore whether their exposition of the words, or ours, be most\nproper, I leave any one to judge.\n\nAs for the Socinians, who deny that Christ had any existence before his\nincarnation, these are very much at a loss to account for the sense of\nthis scripture; though Socinus himself, and many of his followers, have\nconcluded from thence, that Christ was taken up into heaven some time\nafter his incarnation, which they suppose to have been in some part of\nthose forty days in which the scripture says he was in the wilderness\ntempted of the devil; but how he could ascend into heaven, and yet be in\nthe wilderness, where one of the evangelists says he was all the forty\ndays, as Mark i. 13. cannot be easily understood, or accounted for; and,\nindeed, the scripture is altogether silent as to this matter: and it is\nvery strange, if it had been so, that when we have an account of other\ncircumstances in his life, which are of less importance, no mention\nshould be made of this, which, had it been discovered, would have been a\ngreat inducement to his followers to have paid the highest regard to his\ndoctrine; for they suppose he was taken up into heaven, that he might be\ninstructed in those things which he was to impart to the world. And,\ninstead of a proof hereof, they only say that this is a parallel\ninstance with that of Moses, who was called up to the top of mount\nSinai, which was then the immediate seat of the divine presence, and\nthere received the law, which he was to impart to Israel; so, they\nsuppose, it was necessary, that our Saviour should ascend into heaven,\nthat he might there be instructed in that doctrine, which he was to\ncommunicate to his church.\n\nBut we cannot but conclude, that being omniscient, as will be proved\nunder our next head, he had no need to receive instructions, and having,\nin his human nature, had an unction from the Holy Ghost; or, as it is\nexpressed, John iii. 34. that _God gave not the Spirit by measure unto\nhim_, therefore it was necessary that he should ascend into heaven, to\nreceive the doctrines from thence, which he was to deliver. Moreover,\naccording to this conjecture, his coming from heaven, in the end of\ntime, to judge the world, should have been called his _third_ coming,\n(as his first coming from thence was in his incarnation, and his second\ncoming is supposed to be his return to this world, after he ascended\ninto heaven, during this interval of time) which is contrary to that\ntext of scripture, in Heb. ix. 28. which calls it, _his coming the\nsecond time, without sin, unto salvation_. And, indeed, it is so\nungrounded a supposition, that some of the Socinians themselves reckon\nit, at most, but a probable conjecture, but do not pretend to say that\nit is sufficiently founded in scripture; and therefore we cannot think\nthat this will have any tendency to enervate the force of our argument,\nto prove Christ\u2019s Deity, taken from the above-mentioned sense of that\ntext; _The Son of man, which is in heaven_.\n\n4. Our Saviour\u2019s Deity may farther be proved, from his being omniscient:\nthus the apostle Peter says, in John xxi. 17. _Lord thou knowest all\nthings, thou knowest that I love thee._ This is too great a glory to be\nascribed to any creature; and had it been spoken of the Father, the\nAnti-trinitarians themselves would have owned, that it is as great a\nproof of his Deity, as any contained in scripture, as importing the same\nthing with what the Psalmist says, Psal. cxlvii. 5. _His understanding\nis infinite._ But, besides this there is another expression that\nabundantly proves this matter, wherein he is denominated the Searcher of\nhearts, which is a glory that God appropriates to himself, in Jer. xvii.\n10. _I the Lord search the hearts, I try the reins, even to give every\nman according to his ways_; and elsewhere, 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. _The Lord\nsearcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the\nthoughts_; and all creatures are excluded from having any branch of this\nglory, when it is said, in 1 Kings viii. 39. _Thou only knowest the\nhearts of all the children of men_: now such a knowledge as this is\nascribed to Christ; sometimes he is said to know the _inward thoughts\nand secret reasonings of men within themselves_, Mark ii. 8. And, if it\nbe said, that this is only a particular instance of knowledge, such as\nhe might have had by immediate divine inspiration, and therefore that it\ndoes not prove his Godhead; there is another scripture, that speaks of\nhis knowledge, as more extensive, _viz._ that he knows the thoughts of\nall men, John ii. 25. _He needed not that any one should testify of man,\nfor he knew what was in man_; and this his knowledge does not only\nrespect men\u2019s present, but their future thoughts, which are not known to\nthemselves: thus it is said, in John vi. 64. that _he knew from the\nbeginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him_.\nAnd if all this be not reckoned sufficient to prove him to be the\nheart-searching God, nothing can be expressed in plainer terms than this\nis, concerning him, in Rev. ii. 23. _All the churches shall know that I\nam he which searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto every\none of you, according to your works._\n\n_Object._ 1. It is objected to this argument for Christ\u2019s omniscience,\ntaken from Peter\u2019s confession above-mentioned, _Lord, thou knowest all\nthings_, &c. that nothing else is intended hereby, but that he had a\nvery great degree of knowledge; not that he was strictly and properly\nomniscient, as supposing that it is an hyperbolical expression, not\naltogether unlike that of the woman of Tekoa to David, in 2 Sam. xiv.\n20. when she says, _My lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel\nof God, to know all things that are in the earth_.\n\n_Answ._ It is true, this expression of her\u2019s is either an unwarrantable\nstrain of compliment, or flattery, occasioned by David\u2019s suspecting that\nJoab had employed her to plead the cause of Absalom; or else it is a\nsincere acknowledgment of his great wisdom, without supposing him to be\nabsolutely omniscient, as though she should say, thou knowest all things\nthat are done in the land: there is no plot or contrivance, how secret\nsoever it may be managed, but thou wilt, some way or other, find it out,\nas thou hast done this that I am sent about. But what reference has this\nto Peter\u2019s confession? Does it follow, that because there are\nhyperbolical expressions in scripture, as well as in other writings,\nthat this must be one? or because a wise governor may have a conjectural\nknowledge of what is done by his subjects, when considering the various\ncircumstances that attend their actions, that therefore the apostle\nintends nothing more than this? It is plain he appeals to Christ, as the\nheart-searching God, concerning the inward sincerity of his love to him,\nas well as of his repentance, after a public and shameful denial of him,\nwhich might have given just occasion for its being called in question;\nand it is as evident a proof of his omniscience, as that is of the\nFather\u2019s, in Psal. cxxxix. 23, 24. _Search me, O God, and know my heart;\ntry me and know my thoughts, and see if there be any wicked way in me_,\n&c.\n\n_Object._ 2. Others, especially some of the Arians, do not so much deny\nChrist\u2019s omniscience, as the consequence deduced from it, to wit, his\nproper Deity; and these make use of a more abstruse and metaphysical way\nof reasoning, and accordingly they suppose that a creature may know all\nthings, that is, all finite objects, and consequently all things that\nare done in the world, namely, all creatures, and all their actions,\nsince the object of this knowledge is, at most, but finite; therefore it\nis possible for a finite mind to be so enlarged, as to take in all\nfinite things, or to have the knowledge of all things communicated to\nit, since the object and the recipient are commensurate with each other.\nTherefore our Saviour may know all things; and yet it will not follow\nfrom hence, that his understanding is infinite, or that his knowledge is\nso properly divine as the Father\u2019s is; and consequently this is no\nsufficient argument to prove his Deity in the sense in which we\nunderstand it.\n\n_Answ._ This method of reasoning might as well be used to evade the\nforce of every argument, brought from scripture, to prove the Father\u2019s\nomniscience, or, indeed, to evince his infinite power, since all effects\nproduced, which are the objects thereof, are but finite; and therefore\nit may as well be said, that it does not require infinite power to\nproduce them, nor prove his eternal power and Godhead.\n\nMoreover, as this would tend to destroy the infinite disproportion\nbetween God and the creature in acting, so it supposes that God can\ncommunicate a branch of his own glory to a creature, by enlarging it to\nsuch a degree, as to take in all finite objects. There are some things\nnot so properly too great for God to do, as for a creature to be the\nsubject of: we do not pretend to set limits to the divine power; yet we\nmay infer, from the nature of things, and the powers of finite beings,\nthat it is impossible for any one, below God, to know all things past,\npresent, and to come, at one view; which our Saviour must be supposed to\ndo, or else this attribute of omniscience is not justly applied to him;\nnor would he be fit to govern the world, as will be observed under a\nfollowing head; therefore we must conclude, from hence, that he is truly\nand properly a divine Person.\n\nTo what has been said, concerning Christ\u2019s omniscience, we may subjoin\nthose scriptures that speak of him, as the _wisdom of God_, the Fountain\nof all communicated wisdom, _the light which lighteth every man that\ncometh into the world_, as he is called, in John i. 9. And it is\nsupposed, by many, that _wisdom_ spoken of in Prov. viii. is to be\nunderstood of our Saviour, as the personal wisdom of God, inasmuch as\nthere are several personal characters ascribed to him: thus it is said,\nver. 23. _I was set up from everlasting_, &c. and ver. 30, 31. _Then_,\nto wit, before the creation of all things, _I was by him, as one brought\nup with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him,\nrejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with\nthe sons of men_. This cannot properly speaking, be applied to God\u2019s\nessential wisdom; it must therefore be a description of an eternal\ndivine Person, distinct from the Father.\n\nBut since many suppose, that whatever is spoken of wisdom, in this and\nsome other chapters of this book, is only metaphorical, or a beautiful\ndescription of divine wisdom, as the instructor of mankind; though we\ncannot see how this, if nothing else be intended by it, can agree with\nsome of the personal characters before mentioned, which seem applicable\nto our Saviour; yet we find that he is elsewhere called the _wisdom of\nGod_, in a sense, that can by no means be supposed to be figurative:\nthus when we read in Luke xi. 49. _Therefore also said the wisdom of\nGod, I will send them prophets and apostles_, &c. it is certainly\nunderstood of our Saviour.[147] To which, if it be objected, that, by\nthe _wisdom of God_, is meant there the wise God, to wit, the Father; it\nmay be answered, that another evangelist, referring to the very same\nthing, explains what is meant by the _wisdom of God_, and represents our\nSaviour as speaking in his own Person, Matt. xxiii. 34. _Therefore,\nbehold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes_, &c.\n\n5. The next divine perfection that is ascribed to Christ, is almighty\npower. This attribute is appropriated, by the Arians to the Father;[148]\nand accordingly they suppose, that it implies not only his supremacy\nover all creatures, but over the Son and Holy Ghost; and therefore they\nperemptorily conclude it is never applied to them, and consequently that\nthe Deity of our Saviour cannot be proved by it; and that they may turn\nour own weapons upon us, or improve some unwary concessions, made by\nsome very considerable writers, who have, in other respects, very well\ndefended the doctrine of the Trinity, they seem to insinuate, as though\nthis were a matter to be taken, as it were, for granted, though it might\neasily be made appear, that they strain the sense of those expressions,\nfrom whence they conclude them to have given up the cause to them,\nbeyond what they ever intended; and there are many others, who are far\nfrom making such concessions.\n\nAs for the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, _Almighty_, there is nothing in the\nderivation thereof, from whence it may justly be inferred, that it is a\nperfection, that contains a greater display of the divine glory, than\nthe other perfections, that are attributed to all the Persons in the\nGodhead, though indeed it contains in it an idea of the universal extent\nof divine power, with respect to the objects thereof; yet this is not to\nbe separated from the sense of the word, when power is ascribed to God\nin those scriptures, where he is called _the Almighty_; therefore, if we\ncan prove that Christ has power ascribed to him, that is properly\ndivine, this will evince his Deity, as much as though we could produce\nseveral scriptures, in which he is indisputably called _the Almighty_;\nand this we shall first endeavour to do, and then enquire whether we\nhave not as much, or more reason to conclude, that he is called\nAlmighty, than they have to deny it.\n\nThat power, such as is properly divine, is attributed to Christ, may be\nproved from that scripture before-mentioned, which is evidently applied\nto him, Isa. ix. 6. where he is called, _the mighty God_; and, in Psal.\nxlv. 3. which, as has been before observed, is spoken concerning him, in\nwhich he is called _most mighty_; and, in Phil. iii. 21. we read of his\n_changing our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious\nbody_; which is such an effect of power, as plainly argues it divine, as\nmuch as the production of all things out of nothing could do; and this\nis said to be done, _according to the working, whereby he is able to\nsubdue all things to himself_. We might observe many other things, which\nhe has done, and will do, that require infinite power, which we shall\nhave occasion to consider, when we prove his deity from his works under\na following head.\n\nBut since all this is to no purpose, with respect to those who deny his\nproper Deity, unless we can prove that he is called _Almighty_; and the\nwhole stress of this argument is laid upon it, for no other reason, as I\npresume, but because they think it impossible for us to do it: I shall\nattempt it; and I hope to make it appear that we have greater\nprobability, on our side, that he is so called, than they have ground to\ndeny it. Here I shall take notice of this perfection of the divine\nnature, as we find it in the book of the Revelations, in which this\nattribute is mentioned nine times, and, in some places, seems to be\napplied to the Father, but in others to the Son.\n\nThe first we shall mention is in chap. i. 8. _I am Alpha and Omega, the\nbeginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and\nwhich is to come, the Almighty_; which seems to be spoken of our\nSaviour,\n\n1. Because he is described at large in the three foregoing verses; and\nthere is nothing which gives the least ground to question its\napplication to him, unless that character s being given to the Person\nhere spoken of, which is given to the Father, in ver. 4. _which is, and\nwhich was, and which is to come_; but since we find in other scriptures,\nthe same divine glories ascribed to the Son that had before been\nascribed to the Father; as in John v. 21. _As the Father raiseth the\ndead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will_; and\nin Tit. iii. 4. the Father is called _God our Saviour_, as appears by\ncomparing it with the 5th and 6th verses; and so is Christ called, chap.\nii. 10, 13. therefore, why may not the Father and the Son be each of\nthem described with this character, _Which was, is, and is to come_? and\nthat more especially, if we consider, that the ascribing this to Christ,\nis, in effect, the same with what is said of him elsewhere, Heb. xiii.\n8. where he is said _to be the same yesterday, to-day, and for\never_.[149]\n\n2. It farther appears, that this text, in which the Person spoken of is\ncalled _Almighty_, is applied to Christ, because that character, _Alpha_\nand _Omega_, seems to be applied to none but him in other places, where\nit is used. We find it four times in this book, _viz._ not only in this\nverse, but in ver. 11. in which it is indisputably applied to him, as\nwill appear, by comparing it with the followings verses. And, in chap.\nxxi. 6. he is again called _Alpha_ and _Omega_, which, that it is\napplied to him, appears from the context; it is he that _makes all\nthings new_, or puts a new face upon the affairs of his church; and it\nis he who commands John to write what he saw and heard; _He said unto\nme, Write these words_, ver. 5. We may observe, that whereever John is\ncommanded, in this book, to write, it is Christ that gives forth the\ncommand: thus he said to him before, chap. i. 19. _Write the things\nwhich thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which\nshall be hereafter_; and he is again commanded to write, _Blessed are\nthe dead which die in the Lord_, by him who is called the Son of man,\nchap. xiv. 13, 14.\n\nAgain, in chap. xxii. 13. he is called _Alpha_ and _Omega_, who is\ndescribed in the foregoing verse, _as coming quickly, whose reward is\nwith him_; which is undoubtedly meant of our Saviour; for it is said\nconcerning him, ver. 20. _Surely I come quickly, Amen: even so come,\nLord Jesus._\n\nThat which I infer from hence, is, that if Christ be styled _Alpha_ and\n_Omega_, in all other placed in this book, it is more than probable he\nis so in this 8th verse of the 1st chapter, in which he is said to be\n_the Almighty_. And as he is called _Alpha_ and _Omega_, so the\nexplication of these words, wherever we meet with it in this book\nwithout the words themselves, is applied to Christ: thus he is called,\nchap. i. 17. and ii. 8. _the first and the last_; and, chap. iii. 14.\n_the beginning of the creation of God_: from hence, I humbly conceive,\nwe have more ground to conclude, that Christ is called the _Almighty_ in\nthis verse, than the Arians have to deny it.\n\nAgain, there is another place in this book where he seems to be styled\n_the Almighty_, chap. xv. 3. _And they sing the song of Moses, the\nservant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous\nare thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King\nof saints._ This triumphant song is occasioned by one of the greatest\nvictories which the church expects to obtain in this world: by the song\nof Moses, I humbly conceive, is meant the church\u2019s celebrating the glory\nof God, for the greatest victory that ever was obtained under the legal\ndispensation; and the song of the Lamb, is an acknowledgment of the\ngreatest that is, or shall be obtained under the gospel-dispensation;\nand, in celebrating the Lamb\u2019s victories, they set forth the praises of\nthe mighty Conqueror in the following words, _Great and marvellous are\nthy works, Lord God Almighty_: it is the Lamb that is every where\ndescribed in this book, as fighting the church\u2019s battles, and obtaining\nvictory for it; therefore it is his glory which is here set forth.\n\nAnd as he is always described, in this book, as thus fighting the\nchurch\u2019s battles; so it is he who is described as taking vengeance on\nits enemies, which is the just consequence thereof. Therefore I cannot\nbut conclude, that he is spoken of, in chap. xvi. 6, 7. as having\n_given_ their persecutors _blood to drink, for they were worthy_; and,\nin ver. 7. _Even so Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy\njudgments._\n\nAgain, in chap. xvi. 14. we read of _the battle of that great day of God\nAlmighty_; and then it immediately follows, _Behold, I come as a thief\nin the night_, &c. which expression is known to be elsewhere applied to\nour Saviour, and to none but him; and that it is he who fights the\nchurch\u2019s battles, is evident from chap. xvii. 14. _These shall make war\nwith the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overthrow them_; and from chap. xix.\n12, &c. where it is said, _his eyes were as a flame of fire_; as he is\nelsewhere described, chap. i. 14. to denote that the great day of his\nwrath was come; and his name is called, in the 13th verse of this 19th\nchapter, _the Word of God_; and we read of the _armies which followed\nhim_, and that _out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that he might\nsmite the nations_. From whence we may conclude, that since Christ is\nrepresented, in so many places in this book, as fighting with, and\ntriumphing and reigning over his enemies, inflicting his plagues upon\nthem, and delivering his church from their persecution, which is a work\nof divine power, he is fitly styled in several places, _Lord God\nAlmighty_.\n\nWe might consider several other divine attributes ascribed to Christ,\nwhich prove his Deity, _viz._ holiness, truth, and faithfulness: thus,\nin Rev. iii. 7. _These things saith he that is holy, he that is true_;\nand he is farther described in the following words, as having\nuncontroulable power; _who openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth,\nand no man openeth_. That this is spoken of him, is beyond dispute; and\nin chap. vi. 10. _They cried with a loud voice, How long, O Lord, holy\nand true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell\nupon the earth?_ to whom did they cry but to the Lamb, who is said to\nhave opened the seals, or to have discovered the mysteries that were\nthereby revealed, as in ver. 1.? And when he had opened the sixth seal,\nhe is described, as hearing his church\u2019s prayer, and avenging their\nblood, and so is represented as coming to judgment, in a very terrible\nmanner; upon which occasion it is said, _the great day of his wrath is\ncome_; and therefore it is he who is described as _holy and true_.\n\nBut if it be replied to this, that creatures are sometimes called holy\nand true, we may farther add, that it is Christ to whom it is said,\nchap. xv. 4. _Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name, for\nthou only art holy; for all nations shall come and worship before thee,\nfor thy judgments are made manifest._ This I infer from what has been\nbefore considered, that it is he who obtains victory over, and pours\nforth his judgments on his church\u2019s enemies; and it is he whose praises\nare celebrated in the song of the Lamb, mentioned in the verse\nimmediately foregoing.\n\nHaving considered several divine perfections, as ascribed to our\nSaviour, and these so glorious, that nothing greater can be mentioned to\nset forth the glory of a divine Person; yet we may add hereunto, those\nglorious titles that are given him with a design to excite in us adoring\nand admiring thoughts of him: amongst which we shall only mention some\nwhich are either the same with, or are equivalent to those which are\ngiven to the Father, which they who deny Christ\u2019s Deity, cannot but own\nto be distinguishing characters of a divine Person, when so applied.\nThus, is the Father styled, in Heb. xiii. 20. _The God of peace_? our\nSaviour is styled, in Isa. ix. 6. _The Prince of peace_; and he is said,\nEph. ii. 14. to be _our peace_; and as peace includes in it all the\nblessings that accompany salvation, Christ\u2019s being styled the Author\nthereof, denotes him to be the Fountain of blessedness, which he could\nnot be, were he not a divine Person.\n\nAgain, as God is called _a Sun_, and _a Shield_, Psal. lxxxiv. 9. so\nChrist is called, in Mal. iv. 2. _The Sun of Righteousness_; and, in\nIsa. xxxii. 2. _An hiding place from the wind, a covert from the\ntempest, and the shadow of a great rock in a weary land._\n\nAgain, it is said of God the Father, Deut. xxx. 20. _He is thy life, and\nthe length of thy days_; our Saviour says, concerning himself, in John\nxi. 25. compared with chap. xiv. 6. that he is _the life_; and, Acts\niii. 15. he is called _the Prince of life_; and, in Colos. iii. 4. _our\nlife_. Again, is the Father called, in Psal. lxxx. 1. _The Shepherd of\nIsrael_? Christ is called, in Heb. xiii. 20. _That great Shepherd of the\nsheep._\n\nMoreover, is God often described in scripture as a glorious King; as in\nZeph. iii. 15. _The King of Israel, even the Lord in the midst of thee_?\nour Saviour is styled, in Isa. vi. 5. _The King, the Lord of hosts_;\nand, in John i. 49. _The King of Israel_; and, in Rev. xix. 16. _King of\nkings, and Lord of lords._\n\nAgain, is God styled the _Hope of Israel_, Jer. xiv. 8? our Saviour\nseems to be so called by the apostle, when he says, in Acts xxviii. 20.\n_for the Hope of Israel, I am bound with this chain_, that is, for\nChrist\u2019s sake, who is the object of his people\u2019s hope. However, whether\nhe is intended thereby, or no, in that scripture, he is called elsewhere\n_our hope_, 1 Tim. i. 1. compared with Coloss. i. 27.\n\nMoreover, is God the object of desire, so that there is _nothing in\nheaven or earth_, or within the whole compass of finite beings, that is\nto be desired _besides_, or in comparison with _him_, as the Psalmist\nsays, Psal. lxxiii. 25? our Saviour is called, in Hag. ii. 7. _The\ndesire of all nations._ I might refer to many other glorious titles that\nare given to him in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of the Revelations, in the\nepistles to the seven churches; every one of which is prefaced with such\na character given of him, as is designed to strike them with an holy\nreverence, and esteem of him, as a divine Person. Thus concerning those\nproofs of Christ\u2019s Deity, which are taken from the names, attributes,\nand titles which are given to him; which leads us to consider,\n\nIII. The next head of argument taken from those works, which have been\ndone by our Saviour, that are proper to God alone. Divine works argue a\ndivine efficient, or that he has infinite power, and consequently that\nhe is an infinite Person, or truly and properly God, who performs them.\nNow these works are of two sorts; either of nature and common\nprovidence, or of grace, to wit, such as immediately respect our\nsalvation; in all which, he acts beyond the power of a creature, and\ntherefore appears to be a divine Person.\n\n1. He appears to be so, from his having created all things. He that made\nthe world, must be before it; and therefore since time began with the\nfirst creature, as has been before observed, it follows that he must be\nbefore time, that is, from eternity.\n\nAgain, he that created all things, must have a sovereign will, for whose\n_pleasure they are, and were created_, Rev. iv. 11. And it follows from\nhence, that he has an undoubted right to all things, and that he might\nhave annihilated them, had it been his pleasure; and also, that he has a\nright to dispose of them as he will, as the potter has power over his\nclay. All these things are consequent on the work of creation; therefore\nit is an undeniable argument, that he, who created all things, must be\nGod.\n\nIt may also be observed, that to create, is to exert infinite power, or\nto act above the power of a creature, which, at best, is but finite: now\nwhatever is more than finite, must be infinite; and consequently he who\ncreated all things, must exert infinite power, and that is certainly\nsuch as is truly divine.\n\nWe might farther consider, that there are many scriptures which\nappropriate creation to God, and, indeed, it cannot be otherwise; for to\nsuppose that a creature gave being to itself, is to suppose him to be\nboth a cause and an effect, and consequently to be, and not to be, at\nthe same time, to exist as a creator, and not to exist as brought into\nbeing, which is a plain contradiction; and it is evident, that, in\nscripture, the creature is opposed to the Creator: thus, in Rom. i. 25.\nit is said, _they worshipped and served the creature more than the\nCreator, who is blessed forever_. And there are several scriptures that\nspeak of creation, as a distinguishing evidence of divine glory: thus,\nin Isa. xl. 28. we have a magnificent description of God, taken more\nespecially from this work, when he is called, _The everlasting God, the\nLord, the Creator of the ends of the earth_; and, in chap. xlii. 5.\n_Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched\nthem out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of\nit; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them\nthat walk therein_; in which, and many other scriptures of the like\nnature, which might be referred to, it appears that creation is a work\npeculiar to God.\n\nThe next thing we are to prove is, that our Saviour created all things.\nThere are many who think that this may be proved from the work of\ncreation\u2019s being ascribed to more persons than one; and therefore when\nwe read of creators, in the plural number, as it is in the original, in\nEccles. xii. 1. _Remember thy Creator_, or creators; and when God, in\ncreating man, is represented as speaking after this manner, _Let us make\nman after our own image_, &c. this seems to imply that there were more\ndivine Persons engaged in this work than the Father.\n\nI do not indeed lay so much stress on this argument, as many do, yet it\nis not wholly to be neglected; for, I confess, I cannot see any reason\nwhy there should be such a mode of expression used, were it not to\nsignify this divine mystery, of a plurality of Persons in the Godhead,\nto whom this work is ascribed.\n\n_Object._ As for the objection, which some of the Anti-trinitarians,\nespecially the Socinians, bring against it, that this mode of speaking,\nis such as is used in conformity to the custom of kings who, speak in\nthe plural number;\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered, that though kings do often speak in\nthe plural number, yet this is only a modern way of speaking, implying,\nthat whatever a king does, is by the advice of some of his subjects, who\nare his peculiar favourites, and who are also made use of to fulfil his\nwill; but, nevertheless, this way of speaking is not so ancient as\nscripture-times, much less as Moses\u2019s time, or the beginning of the\nworld, which he refers to, when God is represented as thus speaking. It\nis the custom of kings, in scripture, to speak in the singular number:\nand it is very absurd to pretend to explain any mode of speaking used in\nscripture, by customs of speech, not known till many ages after.\n\nI am sensible, some think that mode of speaking used by Ahasuerus Esth.\ni. 15. _What shall we do unto the queen_ Vashti, _according to law?_ is\na proof that it was used in former ages. But the words may be rendered,\n_What is to be done_, according to law, &c. or what is expedient for me\nto do? and therefore it doth not prove that kings used, in ancient\ntimes, to speak of themselves in the plural number; and consequently it\ncannot be argued, that when God is represented as speaking so in\nscripture, it is in compliance with any such custom. Besides, whenever\nhe is represented as speaking in scripture, in all other instances,\nexcepting those that are supposed to be contained in our argument, he is\nalways represented as speaking in the singular number; and therefore it\nseems still more probable, that this variation from his usual way of\nspeaking, is not without some reason, and that hereby we are led into\nthis doctrine, that there are more divine Persons than one, that created\nall things.\n\nBut not to insist on this, since we have more plain proofs hereof in\nscripture, it evidently appears that Christ made all things, not only\nfrom what is said in John i. 3. that _all things were made by him; and\nwithout him was not any thing made that was made_; but, from Col. i. 16.\n_By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are on\nearth, visible and invisible, whether they are thrones, or dominions, or\nprincipalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him_;\nin which he is not only said to be the Creator, but the end of all\nthings, which is the same with what is said in Prov. xvi. 4. that _the\nLord hath made all things for himself_.\n\nThis farther appears from Psal. cii. 25. _Of old hast thou laid the\nfoundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands_;\nwhich is expressly applied to Christ by the apostle, in Heb. i. 10.\n\nBy these, and such-like scriptures, it evidently appears that Christ\nmade all things. The Socinians, indeed, who are sensible that creation\nwas an evident proof of divine power, and therefore that the Creator of\nall things must be God, labour very hard to prove that all those\nscriptures that ascribe this work to our Saviour, are to be taken in a\nmetaphorical sense, and so signify nothing else but his being the author\nof the gospel-state, which is a kind of new creation peculiar to him;\nand that he did this as a prophet, revealing those doctrines which\nrelate thereunto; and accordingly they take the sense of that scripture,\nin John i. 2, 3. which speaks of his being _in the beginning, and that\nall things were made by him_, as intending nothing else, but that he was\nin the beginning of the gospel, and that whatever was made, or ordained,\nto be a standard and rule of faith, was by him; and that, in the\ndischarge of this work, he was to restore decayed religion, and to\ncorrect several mistaken notions, which the Jews had entertained\nconcerning the moral law, to add some new precepts to it, and give\ndirections concerning that mode of worship which should be observed in\nthe church for the future. This is all they suppose to be intended by\nthat work, which is ascribed to Christ as a Creator; whereas, in this\nscripture, it is plainly said, that there was nothing in the whole frame\nof nature, nothing that was an effect of power, made without him. And\nthere is another scripture, which cannot, with any colour of reason, be\nunderstood in that sense, _viz._ in Col. i. 16. _By him were all things\ncreated that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and\ninvisible_; where the apostle speaks of the creation of angels and men,\nas well as all other things: now, certainly, Christ did not come into\nthe world to rectify any mistakes or restore decayed religion among the\nangels, therefore the apostle here plainly proves that our Saviour\ncreated all things.\n\nBut since this opinion of the Socinians is now almost universally\nexploded by the Anti-trinitarians, we have no occasion to add any thing\nfarther in opposition to it; but shall proceed to consider what the\nArians say concerning Christ\u2019s creating all things. These allow that the\nwork of creation is ascribed to him; but they deny that this argues him\nto be God in the same sense as the Father is. The account which they\ngive thereof is, that God, to wit, the Father, created all things by the\nSon, as an instrument, created by him, immediately for that purpose; so\nthat the Son was an inferior, or second cause of the production of all\nthings; and therefore that it cannot, from thence, be concluded that he\nis God equal with the Father.\n\nWhat I would humbly offer, in opposition hereunto is,\n\n1. That, in this account of creation, there is not a just difference put\nbetween the natural and supernatural production of things, of which the\nlatter can only be called creation; therefore, if these two be\nconfounded, the distinguishing character of a Creator is set aside, and\nconsequently the glory arising from hence cannot be appropriated to God;\nnor is that infinite perfection, that is displayed therein, duly\nconsidered, but according to this scheme or method of reasoning a\ncreature may be a Creator, and a Creator a creature; nor can the\n_eternal power and Godhead_ of the divine Being be demonstrated by the\nthings that are made or created, as the apostle says they are in Rom. i.\n20.\n\n2. From that first mistake arises another, namely, that because, in\nnatural productions, that which was created by God, may be rendered\nsubservient to the production of other things; in which respect it may\nbe termed an instrument made use of by a superior cause, and may have an\nenergy or method of acting, peculiar to itself, whereby it produces\neffects according to the course and laws of nature, fixed by God, the\nfirst cause of all things; therefore they suppose, though without\nsufficient ground that God might create all things by an instrument, or\nsecond cause thereof, as they conclude he did by the Son.\n\n3. Notwithstanding we must assert, that creation being a supernatural\nproduction of things, what has been said concerning natural production,\nis not applicable to it; therefore,\n\n4. Though things may be produced in a natural way, by second causes,\nwhose powers are limited, and subjected as aforesaid, to the laws of\nnature; yet supernatural effects cannot be produced by any thing short\nof infinite power; therefore, since creation is a supernatural work, it\nmust be concluded to be a work of infinite power.\n\n5. It follows, from hence, that it is not agreeable to the idea of\ncreation, or the producing all things out of nothing, for God to make\nuse of an instrument. That this may appear, let it be considered, that\nwhatever instrument is made use of, it must be either finite or\ninfinite. An infinite instrument cannot be made use of, for then there\nwould be two infinites, one superior, the other inferior. Nor can a\nfinite one be made use of, for that, according to our last proposition,\ncannot produce any supernatural effect, as creation is supposed to be,\nwhich requires infinite power, and that cannot be exerted by a finite\nmedium, therefore no such instrument can be used. Moreover, if it\nrequires infinite power to create all things, this power, in its method\nof acting, would be limited, by the instrument it makes use of; for\nwhatever power a superior cause has in himself, the effect produced, by\nan instrument will be in proportion to the weakness thereof. This some\nillustrate by the similitude of a giant\u2019s making use of a straw, or a\nreed, in striking a blow in which the weakness of the instrument renders\nthe power of the person that uses it insignificant. Thus if God the\nFather should make use of the Son, in the creation of all things, the\npower that is exerted by him therein, can be no other than finite; but\nthat is not sufficient for the production of things supernatural, which\nrequire infinite power. To this we may add,\n\n6. That the creation of all things is ascribed to the sovereignty of the\ndivine will; accordingly the Psalmist describing it, in Psal. xxxiii. 9.\nsays, _He spake and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast_; so\nwhen God, in Gen. i. 3. said, _Let there he light, and there was light_;\nand when we read of the other parts of the creation, as produced by his\nalmighty word, it implies that they were produced by an act of his will.\nNow it seems impossible, from the nature of the thing, that an\ninstrument should be made use of in an act of willing any more than in\nan act of understanding.\n\n7. No cause can reasonably be assigned why God should make use of an\ninstrument in the production of all things; for certainly he that, by\nhis immediate power, produced the instrument, might without any\ndifficulty, or absurdity, attending the supposition, have created all\nthings immediately without one. And we must farther suppose, that if\nthere were nothing in the nature of things, which required him to make\nuse of an instrument, he would not, by making use of one, to wit, the\nSon, administer occasion to him, to assume so great a branch of his own\nglory, namely, that of being the Creator of the ends of the earth; or\nfor his being, as the result thereof, worshipped as a divine Person\nsupposing him to have a right to divine worship, for no other reason.\n\n_Object._ 1. Though no one supposes that God stood in need of an\ninstrument, or could not have created all things without it, yet we must\nconclude that he did not, because the scripture speaks of the Father\u2019s\ncreating all things by the Son; and when one person is said to do any\nthing by another, it implies that he makes use of him as an instrument\ntherein.\n\n_Answ._ This seems to be the only foundation on which this doctrine is\nbuilt. But there is no necessity of understanding the words in this\nsense, especially if we consider that all effects are produced by the\npower of God; and this power, supposing the Son to be a divine Person,\n(which we have endeavoured, by other arguments, to prove) must belong to\nhim; and the Father, and the Son being united, in the same Godhead, one\ncannot act without the other; therefore whatever is said to be done by\nthe Father, may, in this sense, be said to be done by the Son; for\nthough the Persons are distinct, the power exerted is the same.\n\nThus a learned writer[150] accounts for this matter, when he says, that\n\u201cThe Son is of the same nature and substance with the Father, so nearly\nallied, so closely united, that nothing could be the work of one,\nwithout being, at the same time, the work of both: Hence it was, that\nthe Son was Joint-creator with the Father, that all things were made by\nhim, and nothing without him; it was not possible for them either to\nact, or to exist separately; and therefore it is that the work of\ncreation is, in scripture, attributed to both.\u201d This is a very safe as\nwell as a just way of reasoning, consistent with, and founded on the\ndoctrine of the Father and the Son\u2019s being united in the same Godhead,\nthough distinct Persons; and therefore it is agreeable to the sense of\nthose scriptures, which attribute this work to the Son, in the same\nsense, as when it is attributed to the Father.\n\nBut I am sensible that the Arians will reply to it; that this does not\nsufficiently account for that subordination in acting, that seems to be\nimplied in the sense of those scriptures, in which the Father is said to\nhave created all things by the Son; therefore I shall take leave to\nspeak more particularly to those texts that treat of this matter, where\nthe same mode of speaking is used. And though there are several\nscriptures that represent the Son as a Creator, or consider all things,\nas being made by him, as well as the Father, or as a Joint-creator with\nhim; yet there are but two places in the New Testament, in which the\nFather is said to have created all things by the Son, namely, Eph. iii.\n9. in which it is said, _that God_, that is, the Father, _created all\nthings by Jesus Christ_; and the other is in Heb. i. 2. where it is\nsaid, _by whom also he made the worlds_.\n\nWe have already considered the absurdity of the Socinian way of\nexpounding those other scriptures, that speak of Christ as a Creator, in\nwhich he is not said to act in subserviency to, but co-ordinately with\nthe Father. But inasmuch as God the Father is, in these scriptures, said\nto create all things by Jesus Christ, I shall humbly offer it, as my\nopinion, that though the other scriptures, in which Christ is set forth\nas a Creator, have no reference to him as Mediator, nor to the new\ncreation, yet this seems to be the more probable sense of both these\nscriptures.[151]\n\nAs for the former of them, though some suppose that it is needless to\ngive the sense of it, since the words, _by Jesus Christ_,[152] are\nwanting in some ancient copies of scripture, as well as in the vulgar\nLatin and Syriac versions; yet, since there are many copies that have\nit, we will suppose it to be genuine; and that we may account for the\nsense of it, we may observe that the apostle makes use of the word\n_create_ three times in this epistle; we find it, in chap. ii. 10. and\niv. 24. in both which places it is taken for the new creation, which is\nbrought about by Christ, as Mediator; and, I humbly conceive, that it\nmay be taken so, in this verse, which we are now considering; and\ntherefore this is a part of that mystery, of which the apostle speaks in\nthe foregoing words, _that was hid in God_; and this sense seems not to\nbe excluded, by those who suppose, that in other respects, it has some\nreference to the first creation of all things.[153]\n\nAs for the other scripture, _by whom also he made the worlds_, \u03b4\u03b9 \u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, that is, by whom he made, instituted, or ordained,\nthe various dispensations, which the church was under, either before or\nsince his incarnation; this was certainly done by him as Mediator; and\nherein he acted in subserviency to the Father, as well as in all other\nworks performed by him, as having this character. I would not be too\nperemptory in determining this to be the sense of the text, inasmuch as\nthe apostle speaks _of his upholding all things_, in the following\nverse, which is well put after this account of his having created them:\nI am also sensible that the word which we translate _worlds_, is used in\nHeb. xi. 3. to signify the world that was at first created, in the most\nproper sense of the word _creation_, when the apostle says, that\n_through faith we understand that the worlds_, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 _were framed\nby the word of God_, &c. But yet when I find that in many other places\nof the New Testament, where the word is used, it is taken in the sense\nbut now given,[154] I cannot but conclude it the more probable sense of\nthe text; but that which most of all determines me to acquiesce in it,\nis, because the subserviency of the Son to the Father in this work is\nmost agreeable to it.\n\nIf it be objected, that this sense of the text coincides with that which\nis given of it by Socinus, and his followers, which we before-mentioned\nand opposed;\n\nTo this I answer, that the sense I have given of it, is very foreign to\ntheirs, who endeavour thereby to evade the force of the argument brought\nfrom it, to prove our Saviour\u2019s Deity; whereas we only exchange one\nargument, for the proof thereof, for another; for it seems to me to be\nas great an evidence, that he is a divine Person, when considered as the\nAuthor and Founder of the church, in all the ages thereof, or the rock\non which it is built, as when he is called, Creator of the world: if he\nbe the supreme Head, Lord, and Lawgiver to his church, in all the ages\nthereof; if the faith and hope of all that shall be saved, is founded\nupon him, as the great Mediator, Redeemer, and Sovereign thereof, then\ncertainly he is God, equal with the Father.\n\n_Object._ 2. To what has been before suggested, upon which the chief\nstress of our reasoning depends, _viz._ that a finite creature cannot be\nan instrument in supernatural productions, it is objected, that miracles\nare supernatural productions; but these have been wrought by men, as\ninstruments in the hand of God; therefore the creation of all things may\nas well be supposed to have been performed by the Son, as an instrument\nmade use of to this end by the Father.\n\n_Answ._ That miracles are supernatural productions, no one denies; and\nit follows from hence, that they are either a species of creation, or\nequivalent to it; therefore if it be allowed that a creature can have\npower communicated to him to work them, and therein may be said to be an\ninstrument made use of by God, then we cannot reasonably deny that God\nthe Father might use the Son as an instrument in creating all things.\nBut we must take leave to deny that any, who are said to have wrought\nmiracles, have had infinite power communicated to them for that purpose;\ntherefore they are not properly instruments in the hand of God, to\nproduce supernatural effects; but all that they have done therein, was\nonly by addressing themselves to God, that he would put forth his\nimmediate power in working the miracle; and in giving the people, for\nwhose sake it was to be wrought, occasion to expect it; and afterwards\nimproving it for their farther conviction. It is true, miracles are\noftentimes said to have been wrought by men; but, I humbly conceive,\nnothing more than this is intended thereby; which, that it may appear,\nwe may observe, that sometimes they who have wrought them, have not made\nuse of any action herein, but only given the people ground to expect the\ndivine interposure: thus, immediately before the earth swallowed up\nKorah and his company, Moses gave the people to expect this miraculous\nevent, Numb. xvi. 28-30. _And Moses said, Hereby shall ye know that the\nLord hath sent me. If these men die the common death of all men, then\nthe Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord make a new thing, and the\nearth open her mouth, and swallow them up, then shall ye know that these\nmen have provoked the Lord_; and as soon as he had spoken the words, the\nground clave asunder, and swallowed them up. This might be reckoned\namong the miracles wrought by Moses; though all that he did was only\nwhat tended to raise the people\u2019s expectation, that such an\nextraordinary event should immediately happen. Again, at other times,\nwhen a miracle has been wrought, we read of nothing done but only a word\nspoken to signify that God would work it: thus, when the captain, with\nhis fifty men, was sent by the king of Israel, to the prophet Elijah, to\ncommand him to come to him, the prophet uses this mode of speaking, 2\nKings i. 12. _If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and\nconsume thee and thy fifty_; which immediately happened accordingly.\n\nAt other times, when miracles have been wrought, the Person, who, in the\nsense but now mentioned, is said to work them, has made use of some\nexternal and visible sign, which was either an ordinance for his own\nfaith, if no one was present but himself; as when the prophet Elisha\nsmote the waters of Jordan with Elijah\u2019s mantle, and said, 2 Kings ii.\n14. _Where is the Lord God of Elijah?_ or else the sign, being given by\ndivine direction, was an ordinance for the faith of the people present,\nwhose conviction was intended thereby; not that they should suppose that\nthe action used had any tendency to produce the miracle: but it was only\ndesigned to raise their expectation, that God would work it by his\nimmediate power; as when Moses was commanded, in Exod. xiv. 16. _to lift\nup his rod, and stretch out his hand over the sea, and divide it, that\nIsrael might pass through_; or, in chap. xvii. 6. _to smite the rock_,\nwhereupon God caused water to come out of it; and in several other\nactions, which he used, by divine direction, when other miracles were\nwrought; in which respect, though he was said, in a less proper way of\nspeaking, to have wrought them, yet he was no more than a moral\ninstrument herein, and therefore the divine power was not communicated\nto, or exerted by him; and if creatures have been instruments in working\nmiracles in no other sense than this, it cannot be inferred from hence\nthat Christ might be made use of by the Father, as an instrument in\ncreating the world: a moral instrument he could not be; for there was no\ndoctrine contested, no truth to be confirmed thereby, no subjects\npresent to expect a divine interposure; and, indeed, none ever supposed\nthat the Son of God was an instrument in this sense; therefore if no one\never was an instrument in any other, nor could be from the nature of the\nthing, as has been already proved, then the force of the argument, which\nwe have laid down to prove it, is not in the least weakened by this\nobjection.\n\nThus we have endeavoured to prove the divinity of Christ from the work\nof creation.\n\n2. We shall proceed to consider how our Saviour\u2019s Deity appears, from\nthose works of providence, which are daily performed by him. Providence\nis as much a divine work, and contains as glorious a display of the\ndivine perfections, as creation; and this is twofold, _viz._ preserving\nand governing. With respect to the former of these, some divines have\nasserted, that it is, as it were, a continued creation, not formally so;\nbut as the one produces a creature, the other prevents its sinking into\nnothing; and because it is, in all respects, dependent on the power of\nGod, and as much so, for the continuance of its being, as it was for its\nbeing brought into being; therefore conserving providence is an evidence\nof the divine power of him who sustains all things.\n\nNow that this glory belongs to our Saviour, is plain from scripture,\nwhich speaks of him, in Heb. i. 3. _as upholding all things by the word\nof his power_; and in Coloss. i. 17. it is said, _by him all things\nconsist_; both these scriptures respect this branch of divine\nprovidence, namely, his preserving all things in being; and this is\ncertainly more than can be said of any creature. And it is not pretended\nthat herein he acts as the Father\u2019s instrument, even by those who\nsuppose that he was so, in the creation of all things, inasmuch as\nscripture does not speak of God\u2019s upholding all things by him, but of\nChrist\u2019s upholding them by his own, that is, the divine power; so that\nwe have as plain a proof of his Deity, from his upholding providence, as\nthere is of the being of a God, which is evidently inferred from it.\n\nAs to the other branch of providence, respecting the government of the\nworld in general, or of the church in particular, this is also ascribed\nto Christ, and thereby his Godhead is farther proved. Whatever degree of\nlimited dominion may be said to belong to creatures; yet universal\ndominion belongs only to God; and this is assigned, as one ground and\nreason of his right to divine honour; therefore it is said, in Job xxv.\n2. _Dominion and power are with him_, that is, there is a holy reverence\ndue to him, as the supreme Lord and Governor of the world; and, in Psal.\nlxvii. 4. when it is said concerning the great God, that _he shall judge\nthe people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth_, this is\nconsidered as the foundation of universal joy, _O let the nations be\nglad, and sing for joy_; and of praise, ver. 5. _Let the people praise\nthee, O God; let all the people praise thee_; and, in Psal. xxii. 28.\nwhen it is said, _the kingdom is the Lord\u2019s; and he is the Governor\namong the nations_; this is assigned, as the reason of their worshipping\nhim, ver. 27. _All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto\nthe Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before\nthee._ This therefore is, undoubtedly, a branch of the divine glory; so\nthat if we can prove that universal dominion belongs to Christ, or that\nhe is the Governor of the world, and of the church therein, this will\nplainly evince his Deity.\n\n1. Let us consider him as the Governor of the world. This seems to be\nthe meaning of several expressions of scripture, in which royal dignity\nis ascribed to him; and he is represented as sitting upon a throne, and\n_his throne to be for ever and ever_, Psal. xlv. 6. and he infinitely\ngreater than all the kings of the earth; upon which account, he is\ncalled, in Rev. i. 5. _The Prince of the kings of the earth_; and they\nare commanded to testify their subjection to him, and all are\nrepresented as blessed that _put their trust in him_, Psal. ii. 12. And\nas his kingdom is considered, in John xviii. 36. as _not being of this\nworld_, and the honours due to him, such as are divine, this farther\nproves his Deity.\n\nMoreover, his universal dominion, and consequently his Godhead, is\nevinced by that glorious character, which we have before\nconsidered[155], as belonging to him, namely, the Lord of hosts, as the\nprophet Isaiah says, speaking of the vision which he had of his glory,\nin chap. vi. 5. _Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts_, as\ndenoting his sovereignty over all the hosts of heaven, and all creatures\nin this lower world, as he governs them, and makes one thing subservient\nto another, and all this is done to set forth his own glory.\n\n2. This will farther appear, if we consider him as the Governor of his\nchurch; in this he has access to the souls of men, working in them those\ngraces, which are the effects of almighty power, which he does, when\nthey are effectually called; and the work of sanctification, which is\nconsequent hereupon, is carried on till it is perfected. We shall have\noccasion, under some following answers[156], to prove that these are\ndivine and supernatural works; the more full and particular proof\nwhereof, we shall reserve to its proper place, and only observe, at\npresent, that they are spoken of as such in scripture, and ascribed to\nthe exceeding greatness of the power of God, no less than that _which he\nwrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead_, Eph. i. 18,\u2014\u201420.\nand elsewhere they are called a _new creation_, chap. ii. 1. _a\nquickening_ or _resurrection_, _a breaking the rock in pieces_, _taking\naway the heart of stone_, _giving an heart of flesh_, or _a new heart_;\nJer. xxiii. 29. Ezek. xxxvi. 26. which expressions would never have been\nused, had not the work been divine and supernatural; therefore it\nfollows from hence, that since Christ is the Author of this internal\nwork, he is a divine Person. Now that he is so, is obvious, from many\nplaces in the New Testament; as when he is styled, in Heb. xii. 2. _The\nAuthor and Finisher of our faith_; and when the apostle, in 1 Tim. i.\n14. speaks of _faith and love abounding, which is in Christ Jesus_, he\nspeaks, at the same time, of the _grace of our Lord abounding_, as the\nspring and fountain thereof; and when the apostles, in Luke xvii. 5.\ndesire him to _increase their faith_, not in an objective way, as\naffording some greater foundation for it, but subjectively, by an\ninternal work, exciting and promoting the principle thereof, which was\nbefore implanted in them; and so causing all those graces, that\naccompany it, to abound, as the effects of his divine power.\n\nWe might farther consider Christ\u2019s spiritual government, as extended to\nhis church, collectively considered, which is exposed to many dangers\nand difficulties, and meets with much opposition from its enemies, who\nattempt its ruin, but in vain, because it is the object of the divine\ncare, kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation: for which\nreason, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Now this is, in\na peculiar manner, the work of Christ; he is the rock on which it is\nbuilt; and his presence, in the midst of his people, is not only their\nglory, but their safety; which it would not be, if he were no more than\na creature. We might also consider the subserviency of the various\ndispensations of providence in the world to their good, as he is _Head\nover all things to the church_, Eph. i. 22. which could not answer that\nvaluable end, had he not been a divine Person.\n\nWe might farther consider how the divine glory of Christ will be\ndemonstrated, in his second coming to compleat the work of salvation,\nbegun in this world. To prepare a way for this, there will be an\nuniversal resurrection of the dead, which will be no less an effect of\nalmighty power, than the creation of all things was at first. I need not\ntherefore say any thing farther to prove this to be a divine work; we\nneed only prove that this general resurrection shall be performed by\nChrist: this might be proved from several scriptures; in one whereof he\nexpressly asserts it himself, in words very plain and particular, _viz._\nJohn vi. 38. _The hour is coming, in which all that are in their graves\nshall hear his voice, and shall come forth_, &c.\n\nMoreover, when, at the same time, he is represented as coming in the\nclouds, with power and great glory, in his _own glory_, as well as _that\nof the Father, and of the holy angels_, in Luke ix. 26. the most natural\nsense of that text seems to be this, that his divine glory, which is\ncalled _his own_, which was comparatively hid from his people, while he\nwas here on earth, shall eminently be demonstrated in his second coming,\nand also that Mediatorial glory, which he has received from the Father,\nas what he had a right to, on his having accomplished the work of\nredemption, which he came into the world about; and then there is the\nglory of his retinue, as appearing with all his holy angels; which bears\nsome resemblance to that expression whereby the majesty of God is set\nforth upon another occasion, namely, as appearing on mount Sinai, to\ngive the law, when it is said, in Deut. xxxiii. 2. _The Lord came with\nten thousands of saints._ And to this we may add, that the work, which\nhe shall, immediately after this, be engaged in, to wit, that of judging\nthe world in righteousness, plainly proves his Deity, since none but a\ndivine Person can judge the secrets of all men, and bring to light every\nthing that has been done, from the beginning to the end of time; and\nthis is to be done, in that day; for it is said, in Eccles. xii. 14.\n_That God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing,\nwhether it be good, or whether it be evil._ This is a farther\nimprovement of that argument, before laid down to prove his divinity\nfrom his omniscience; if his judgment must be, as the apostle says, in\nRom. ii. 2. _according to truth_, and consequently performed with the\ngreatest impartiality, as well as an exquisite knowledge or discerning\nof the cause, without which it could not be said, that _the Judge of all\nthe earth does right_, (as he certainly will) in Gen. xviii. 25. and if\nrewards shall be proportioned to every work done, so that every one\nshall receive as the apostle says, in 2 Cor. v. 10. _according to what\nhe has done, whether it be good or bad_; and if persons are to be\nrewarded, or punished, for all the secret springs of action, which must\nbe reckoned either good or bad, according to what they produce, as well\nas the actions themselves; and if this respects not particular persons\nonly, but all men, who have lived, or shall live, from the beginning to\nthe end of the world, it evidently proves, that he, to whom this\nglorious work is ascribed, must be a divine Person.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that the manner of his appearing, with the\nterror, as well as the majesty of a judge, being such as shall strike\nhis enemies with the utmost horror and confusion, is a farther proof of\nthis matter. This is represented in a lively manner, in Rev. vi. 15-17.\nin which it is said, _the kings of the earth, and the great men_, those\nwho once rendered themselves formidable to their subjects shall desire\nto _hide themselves in the dens and rocks of the mountains, and shall\nsay to the rocks and to the mountains, fall on us, and hide us from the\nface of him that sitteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the\nLamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to\nstand?_ And,\n\n_Lastly_, He will not only pronounce the sentence but execute it, and\nthat with respect to his saints and subjects; and his enemies: as to the\nformer of these he will not only command them to come, and possess the\nkingdom prepared for them, but the blessedness which he will confer upon\nthem, pursuant thereunto, is called the beatific vision, in 1 John iii.\n2. _We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is_; and the\nhappiness of heaven is described in such a way as plainly proves our\nSaviour to be the fountain thereof, and consequently a divine Person;\nfor it is represented as a state, in which they will _behold his glory_,\nJohn xvii. 24. whereas certainly the beholding the glory of the most\nexalted creature, falls infinitely short of this ingredient in the\nheavenly blessedness.\n\nAnd on the other hand, the immediate impressions of the wrath of God on\nthe consciences of his enemies, or the power of his anger, which shall\nrender them eternally miserable, when banished from his presence, proves\nhim to be a divine Person, inasmuch as the highest degree of misery\nconsists in a separation, or departure from him, which it could not do,\nif he were not the fountain of blessedness; nor could the punishment of\nsinners be proportioned to their crimes, if it were not to be inflicted\nby the _glory of his power_; the apostle joins both these together, in 2\nThess. i. 9. though some understand the words, as implying, that their\npunishment proceeds from his immediate presence, in the display of the\ngreatness of his power, as a sin-avenging Judge; in either of which\nsenses, it argues him to be a divine Person. And that it is our Saviour\nwho is spoken of, is evident, from the foregoing and following verses;\nit is he who shall appear _in flaming fire_, taking vengeance on them\nthat know not God, and obey not the gospel; and it is he that shall\n_come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that\nbelieve_; so that we have a very plain proof of his Deity, from the\nexercise of his government, either in this or the other world.\n\nHaving endeavoured to prove the divinity of Christ, from his works of\ncreation and providence and under the former of these, offered some\nthings in answer to the methods taken by the Socinians, and especially\nthe Arians, in accounting for the sense of those scriptures that speak\nof the Father\u2019s creating all things by the Son; it is necessary for us\nnow to consider the most material objections, brought by the\nAnti-trinitarians in general, against what has been said in defence of\nthis doctrine, taken from the works of common and special providence, as\nascribed to him, and, in particular, from the administration of his\nkingdom of grace; it is therefore objected.\n\n_Object._ 1. That his kingdom, and power of acting, in the\nadministration of the affairs relating thereunto, is wholly derived from\nthe Father: thus he says in Luke xxii. 29. _I appoint unto you a\nkingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me_; and, in Mat. xi. 27. _All\nthings are delivered unto me of my Father_; and in Psal. ii. 6. _Yet\nhave I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion._ And whatever he does in\nmanaging the affairs thereof, is by the Father\u2019s commission and\nappointment: thus in John v. 36. he speaks of the works which he was to\nperform, as those which _the Father had given him to finish_. And as for\nhis power of executing judgment, which is one of the greatest glories of\nhis kingly government, this is derived from the Father, in John v. 22.\n_For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the\nSon_; and, in Acts xvii. 31. it is said, that _he hath appointed a day,\nin which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he\nhath ordained_, meaning our Saviour; and when he speaks, in Rev. ii. 27.\nof his ruling his enemies _with a rod of iron, and breaking them to\nshivers, as the vessels of a potter_, he adds, that this _he received of\nhis Father_; from whence they argue, that since he received his\ndominion, or right to govern the world and the church, from the Father,\ntherefore he cannot be God equal with the Father. As we say, in\nopposition to their scheme of doctrine, that a derived Deity, such as\nthey suppose his to be, cannot be the same with that which the Father\nhas; so they allege this, by way of reprisal, against the argument we\nhave but now insisted on, that a derived dominion cannot be made use of\nas a medium to prove him that has it to be a divine Person, in the same\nsense in which we maintain him to be.\n\n2. In all his works, and particularly in the administration of the\naffairs of his kingdom, he acts for the Father\u2019s glory, and not his own;\nwhereas a divine Person, cannot act, for any other end than for his own\nglory: this therefore rather disproves, than evinces, his proper Deity;\nas when he says, in John viii. 49. _I honour my Father_; and, in chap.\nv. 30. he says, _I seek not mine own will, but the will of my Father\nwhich hath sent me_. He also speaks of the Father giving him a\ncommandment to do what he did; as in John xii. 49. _I have not spoken of\nmy self, but the Father which sent me; he gave me a commandment, what I\nshould say, and what I should speak_; and, in chap. xiv. 31. _As the\nFather gave me commandment, so do I_; and, in chap. xv. 10. he speaks of\nhis having _kept his Father\u2019s commandment_, and pursuant hereunto,\n_abiding in his love_, from whence they argue, that he who is obliged to\nfulfil a commandment, or who acts in obedience to the Father, is\nproperly a subject, or a servant, and therefore cannot be God in the\nsame sense as the Father, who gave this commandment, is.\n\n3. They add, that in the government of his church, and the world, in\nsubserviency thereunto, he acts in the Father\u2019s name, as deputy and\nvicegerent; as in John x. 25. _The works that I do in my Father\u2019s name,\nthey bear witness of me_; and accordingly his works are called the\nFather\u2019s, in ver. 37. _If I do not the works of my Father, believe me\nnot_; and these works are said to be done _from the Father_, ver. 32.\n_Many good works have I shewed you from my Father_: and, as the\nconsequence of all this, he acknowledges, as he ought to do, in John\nxiv. 28. that _the Father is greater than he_. How then can he be a\ndivine Person, in the sense in which we have proved him to be, when\nthere is a God above him, in whose name he acts in all he does?\n\n4. They farther argue, that he was _made both Lord and Christ_, and that\nby the Father, as it is expressly said, in Acts ii. 36.\n\n5. They farther argue that the donatives of his kingdom, or those\nhonours which are bestowed on his subjects, are not his to give, but the\nFather\u2019s; as it is said, in Matt. xx. 23. _To sit on my right hand, and\non my left, is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them, for whom\nit is prepared of my Father._\n\n6. This kingdom which he received from the Father, and thus administers\nin subserviency to him, is, in the end, to be resigned, or delivered up:\nthus, in 1 Cor. xv. 24. _Then cometh the end, when he shall have\ndelivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father_; and in ver. 28. _When\nall things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be\nsubject unto him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in\nall_; and accordingly, he shall lay aside those divine honours which he\nnow has, or cease to perform those works which give him a right to claim\nthem. These are the strongest arguments, of any, that are brought by the\nAnti-trinitarians against our Saviour\u2019s proper Deity; and, indeed, as\nthough they had little else to object, there is scarce an argument to\ndisprove it, but what is supported in this method of reasoning, which\nthey think to be altogether unanswerable, (and there are many more\nscriptures, which might have been brought to the same purpose) therefore\nit is necessary that we should consider what may be replied to it.\n\nThe sum of what has been objected, as thus branched out into several\nparticulars, is, that since Christ is represented as below the Father,\nor inferior to him, he cannot he equal with him, for that is no other\nthan a contradiction.[157]\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that though the scripture speaks of\nour Saviour, as receiving a commission from the Father, and acting in\nsubserviency to him; yet let it be considered, that this does not\nrespect the inferiority of the divine nature, but the subserviency of\nwhat is done by him, as Mediator, to the glory of the Father, as this\ncharacter and office were received from him. And, indeed, whenever the\nSon is represented, as engaged in the great work of redemption, or in\nany thing tending thereunto, or in any work consequent thereupon,\nwhereby what was before purchased is said to be applied by him, this has\na peculiar reference to him, as Mediator: therefore let us consider,\n\n1. That nothing is more common, in scripture, than for him to be\nrepresented as Mediator, especially in all those things that concern the\nspiritual advantages, or salvation of his church, which is the principal\nthing to be considered in his government; and in this sense we are to\nunderstand those scriptures, which have been brought to support the\nobjection: and it is plain, that our Saviour generally speaks of himself\nunder this character, which is included in his being the Messiah, or\nChrist, which is the main thing that he designed to evince by his\ndoctrine and his miracles; therefore, if we duly consider the import of\nthis character, it will not only give light to the understanding such\nlike scriptures, but sufficiently answer the objection against his Deity\ntaken from them.\n\nOur adversaries will not deny that Christ is represented as a Mediator;\nbut they widely differ from us, when they take occasion to explain what\nthey intend thereby: sometimes they seem to mean nothing else by it, but\na middle-Being betwixt God and the creature; and therefore the work\nperformed by him as such is not what requires him to be, in the most\nproper sense, a divine Person, and consequently whatever inferiority to\nthe Father is contained in this character, they conclude that this\nrespects his Deity; whereas we distinguish between the subserviency of\nthe work, performed by him, as Mediator, to the glory of God the Father,\ntogether with the subjection, or real inferiority of the human nature,\nin which he performed it to the Father; and the inferiority of his\ndivine nature: the former we allow; the latter we deny.\n\n2. When we speak of him as Mediator, we always suppose him to be God and\nMan, in one Person; and that these two natures, though infinitely\ndistinct, are not to be separated. As God, without the consideration of\na human nature united to his divine Person, he would be too high to\nsustain the character, or to perform the work of a servant, and, as\nsuch, to yield obedience, which was incumbent on him, as Mediator; and\non the other hand, to be a mere man, is too low, and would be altogether\ninconsistent with that infinite value and dignity, that was to be put on\nthe work which he was to perform. Therefore it was necessary that he\nshould have two distinct natures, a divine and a human, or that he\nshould be God incarnate. This will be more particularly considered under\nsome following answers[158]; and therefore we shall reserve the proof\nhereof for its proper place, and there consider the distinct properties\nof each nature; and all that we shall observe at present is, that the\nevangelist John, in whose gospel our Saviour is often described, as\ninferior to the Father, as well as equal with him, which is agreeable to\nhis Mediatorial character, lays down this, as a kind of preface,\ndesigning hereby to lead us into the knowledge of such like expressions,\nwhen he says, in John i. 14. _The Word was made flesh and dwelt among\nus_; which is all the proof we shall give of it at present.\n\n3. It follows from hence, that several things may be truly spoken\nconcerning, or applied to him, which are infinitely opposite to one\nanother, namely that he has almighty power in one respect, as to what\nconcerns his Deity; and yet that he is weak, finite, and dependent in\nanother, as to what respects his humanity. In one nature, he is God\nequal with the Father, and so receives nothing from him, is not\ndependent on him, nor under any obligation to yield obedience. In this\nnature, he is the object of worship, as all worship terminates on that\nDeity, which is common to all the Persons in the Godhead: but, in the\nother nature, he worships, receives all from, and refers all to the\nglory of the Father; therefore,\n\n4. Those scriptures which speak of him as receiving a kingdom, doing all\nthings from, or in obedience to the Father, or in his name, and for his\nglory, and as inferior to, and dependent on him, are not only applied to\nhim, as Mediator, but they have a particular respect to his human\nnature; so that all that can be inferred from such modes of speaking, as\nthose above-mentioned, as so many objections against the doctrine which\nwe are defending, is, that he who is God is also man, and consequently\nhas those things predicated of him, as such which are proper to a nature\ninfinitely below, though inseparably united with his divine.\n\nMoreover, whereas it is said, that _the Father has committed all\njudgment to the Son_, or that _he judgeth the world in righteousness, by\nthat man whom he hath ordained_; all that can be inferred from hence is,\nthat so far as this work is performed by him, in his human nature, which\nwill be rendered visible to the whole world at the day of judgment, it\nis an instance of the highest favour and glory conferred upon this\nnature, or upon God-man Mediator, as man: but whereas he is elsewhere\ndescribed, as having a right to judge the world, as God; and as having\nthose infinite perfections, whereby he is fit to do it, these are the\nsame that belong to the Father, and therefore not derived from him.\n\nAgain, when, in another scripture, before referred to, it is said, that\n_God hath made him both Lord and Christ_, it is not there said, that the\nFather hath made him God, or given him any branch of the divine glory;\nbut it signifies the unction that he received from the Father, to be the\nKing, Head, and Lord of his church; which, so far as this is an act of\ngrace, or connotes his dependence on the Father herein, it has an\nimmediate respect to him, in his human nature, in which, as well as in\nhis divine nature, this dominion is exercised; whereas his sovereignty,\nand universal dominion over the church and the world, or those divine\nperfections, which render him, in all respects, fit to govern it; they\nbelong, more especially to the Mediator, as God, and are the same as\nwhen they are applied to the Father.\n\nMoreover, when he says, _I seek not my own will, but the Father\u2019s, that\nsent me_; and elsewhere, _Not my will, but thine be done_; it argues\nthat he had a human will, distinct from his divine, in which he\nexpresses that subjection to the Father, which becomes a creature; this\nis plainly referred to him as man; so, on the other hand, when he says,\nspeaking of himself co-ordinately with the Father, _As the Father\nraiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, so even the Son quickeneth\nwhom he will_; this, though spoken of him as Mediator, has a peculiar\nreference to his divine nature.\n\nAgain, when he says, in another scripture, _The Father is greater than\nI_, that is applied to him as man; whereas elsewhere, in John x. 30.\nwhen he says, _I, and my Father are one_, that is spoken of him as God,\nhaving the same nature with the Father so that if we suppose our Saviour\nto be God and Man, as he is plainly proved to be, from scripture, then\nit follows, that whatever is said concerning him, as importing his right\nto divine honour on the one hand, or his disclaiming it on the other,\nthese are both true, when we consider him in these different natures.\n\nThus we are to understand those scriptures, that speak of the real\ninferiority of the Son to the Father: but when, in other places, nothing\nis intended but the subserviency of what is done by the Son, as\nMediator, or its tendency to set forth the Father\u2019s glory, this may be\napplicable to those divine works, which the Mediator performs; and so we\nmay distinguish between the subserviency of the divine actions to the\nFather\u2019s glory, and the inferiority of one divine Person to another; the\nformer may be asserted without detracting from his proper Deity, while\nthe latter is denied, as inconsistent with it.\n\nThus we have endeavoured to explain those scriptures, which are referred\nto by the Arians, to overthrow our Saviour\u2019s divinity: and, by the same\nmethod of explication, I humbly conceive, all others, that can be\nbrought to that purpose, may be understood. I have passed over that\nscripture, indeed, which respects _Christ\u2019s delivering up the kingdom to\nthe Father_, and being subject to him, which it might have been expected\nthat I should have endeavoured to explain; but I choose rather to refer\nthe consideration thereof to its proper place, when we speak concerning\nChrist\u2019s kingly office, and his being exalted in the execution thereof.\n\nIV. The next argument to prove the divinity of Christ is taken from his\nbeing the object of religious worship, which is a practical owning of\nhim to be a divine Person, when there is an agreement between our words\nand actions, in both which we acknowledge him to have the perfections of\nthe divine nature. This argument is so strong and conclusive, that it is\nvery difficult to evade the force thereof; and, indeed, it affects the\nvery essentials of religion. Now, that we may herein proceed with\ngreater plainness, we shall,\n\n1. Consider what we understand by worship in general, and by religious\nworship in particular. I am very sensible that the Anti-trinitarians\nunderstand the word in a sense very different from what we do, as taking\nit in a limited sense, for our expressing some degree of humility, or\nreverence, to a person, whom we acknowledge in some respect, to be our\nsuperior; but whatever external signs of reverence, or words, we use, as\nexpressive of our regard to him who is the object thereof, this, when\napplied to our Saviour, is no more than what they suppose to be due to a\nperson below the Father. Therefore, that we may not mistake the meaning\nof the word, let it be considered; that worship is either civil or\nreligious; the former contains in it that honour and respect which is\ngiven to superiors, which is sometimes expressed by bowing, or falling\ndown, before them, or some other marks of humility, which their advanced\nstation in the world requires; Though this is seldom called worshipping\nthem; and it is always distinguished from religious worship, even when\nthe same gestures are used therein. It is true, there is one scripture,\nin which the same word is applied to both, in 1 Chron. xxix. 20. where\nit is said, _All the congregation bowed down their heads, and worshipped\nthe Lord and the king_, that is, they paid civil respect, accompanied\nwith those actions that are expressive of humility, and that honour that\nwas due to David, but their worship given to God was divine or\nreligious. This is the only sense in which we understand _worship_ in\nthis argument, and it includes in it adoration and invocation. In the\nformer, we ascribe infinite perfection unto God, either directly, or by\nconsequence; an instance whereof we have in 1 Chron. xxix. 11, 12.\n_Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the\nvictory, and the majesty; for all that is in heaven, and in the earth is\nthine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as Head above\nall. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all,\nand in thine hand is power and might and in thine hand it is to make\ngreat, and to give strength unto all_; and, in Deut. xxxii. 3. in which\nwe are said to _ascribe greatness_ unto him; and, in Rom. i. 21. to\n_glorify him as God_, or, _give unto him the glory due to his name_,\nPsal. xxix. 2.\n\nInvocation is that wherein we glorify God, as the Fountain of\nblessedness, when we ask those things from him, which none but a God can\ngive, which is sometimes called _seeking the Lord_, Psal. cv. 4. or\n_calling upon him_, Psal. l. 15. And this includes in it all those\nduties which we perform, in which we consider him as a God of infinite\nperfection, and ourselves dependent on him, and desirous to receive all\nthose blessings from him, which we stand in need of; and particularly\nfaith, in the various acts thereof, is a branch of religious worship, as\nconnoting its object to be a divine Person; as also supreme love, and\nuniversal obedience; and, indeed, it contains in it the whole of\nreligion, in which we have a due regard to that infinite distance that\nthere is between him and the best of creatures; and religious worship is\nno where taken in a lower sense than this in scripture.\n\n2. Religious worship, as thus described, is to be given to none but a\ndivine Person, according to our Saviour\u2019s words, in Matth. iv. 10. _Thou\nshall worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve._ This is\nevident, from the idea we have of religion in general, which is a giving\nthat glory, or ascribing those perfections to God, which belong to him,\nas being founded in his nature; and therefore it is the highest instance\nof blasphemy and profaneness to apply them to any creature, since it is\nin effect to say that he is equal with God.\n\n3. It plainly appears, from Scripture, that Christ is the object of\nreligious worship, and consequently that the argument we are maintaining\nis just, namely, that, for this reason, he must be concluded to be a\ndivine Person. Now that he is the object of religious worship, is\nevident, from many examples in scripture of such worship being given to\nhim, when, at the same time, they, who have given it, have not been\nreproved or restrained, but rather commended, for performing it. We have\nvarious instances of this nature in the Old Testament, of which I shall\nmention two or three, _viz._ in Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. _God, before whom\nmy fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life\nlong unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the\nlads._ When he speaks of Abraham and Isaac\u2019s walking before him, it\nimplies, that, in their whole conversation, they considered themselves\nas under his all-seeing eye; and Jacob acknowledges him as the God, who\nhad sustained, preserved, and provided for him hitherto, the support of\nhis life, and his Deliverer, or Redeemer, from all evil. This divine\nPerson he addresses himself to, in a way of supplication, for a blessing\non the posterity of Joseph; and that he intends our Saviour hereby, is\nevident, because he has a reference to his appearance in the form of an\nangel, and therefore describes him under that character. Now we cannot\nsuppose that this holy patriarch is here represented as praying to a\ncreated angel, for that would be to charge him with idolatry. Moreover,\nthis is the same description that is given of Christ elsewhere, in Isa.\nlxiii. 9. _In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of\nhis presence saved them; in his love, and in his pity he redeemed them,\nand he bare them, and carried them all the days of old_; and in Mal.\niii. 1. _The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple; even\nthe Messenger_, or Angel, _of the covenant, whom ye delight in_; which\ncontains a very plain prediction of our Saviour\u2019s incarnation, whose way\nis said to be prepared by John the Baptist, who is spoken of in the\nwords immediately foregoing. Now it is certain, that God the Father is\nnever called an angel in scripture, inasmuch as this is a peculiar\ndescription of the Mediator, who, as such, is never mentioned as the\nPerson sending, but sent; in which he is considered as one that was to\nbe incarnate, and, in our nature, to execute those offices, which he was\ntherein obliged to perform. This is the Person then whom Jacob adored\nand prayed to.\n\nWe have another instance, not only of his being worshipped, but of his\ndemanding this divine honour of him that performed it, in Josh. v. 14,\n15. where he appeared as the _Captain of the host of the Lord_; upon\nwhich, _Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said\nunto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant? And the Captain of the\nLord\u2019s host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot, for the\nplace whereon thou standest is holy; and Joshua did so_. It cannot be\nsupposed that it was any other than a divine Person that appeared; not\nonly because Joshua fell on his face and worshipped him, and expressed\nhis willingness to fulfil his command, but because he bid him loose his\nshoe from his foot, since the place on which he stood was holy; which\nexpression is no where used in any other text of scripture, except in\nExod. iii. 5. in which our Saviour, as we before considered, appeared to\nMoses, with the majesty and glory of a divine Person, whose immediate\npresence made the place relatively holy, which the presence of a\ncreature never did. Moreover, the character which he here gives of\nhimself to Joshua, as the Captain of the Lord\u2019s host, not only implies,\nthat all his success was owing to his conduct and blessing, on his\nwarlike enterprizes; but this is also agreeable to the description which\nis elsewhere given of our Saviour, in Isa. lv. 4. in which he is said to\nbe _a Leader and Commander to the people_; and he is called in Heb. ii.\n10. _The Captain of our salvation_; and elsewhere, _The Prince of life_;\nand, _The Prince of the kings of the earth_.\n\nMoreover, there are various instances in the New Testament of worship\ngiven to Christ; in which, by several circumstances contained in it, it\nis evident, that it was divine or religious. Thus he had divine honour\ngiven him by the wise men from the East, in Matth. ii. 11. who _fell\ndown and worshipped him_, &c. and, in Luke xxiv. 52. when he ascended up\ninto heaven, his disciples _worshipped him_; where there is nothing in\nthe mode of expression that distinguishes this from that worship that is\ndue to God. Moreover, there is a very illustrious instance of his being\nthus worshipped by a numerous assembly, represented in that vision, in\nRev. v. 11-13. _I beheld, and heard the voice of many angels round about\nthe throne, saying, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power,\nand riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and\nblessing: And every creature that is in heaven, and on the earth, and\nunder the earth, saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be\nunto him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and\never_; in which words there are such glories ascribed, that higher\nexpressions cannot be used by any, who adore the divine Majesty; and it\nis plain, that our Saviour is intended hereby, because he is described\nas the _Lamb that was slain_; and he is also considered co-ordinately\nwith the Father, when it is said, that this glory is given to him that\n_sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb_. Now if our Saviour be thus\nworshipped, he must have a right to it, or else his worshippers would\nhave been reproved, as guilty of idolatry; thus Peter reproves\nCornelius, or rather prevents his paying divine adoration to himself,\nwho was no more than a man, in Acts x. 26. _Stand up, I myself also am a\nman_; and the angel, in Rev. xix. 10. when John at first, through\nmistake, thinking him to be a divine person, fell at his feet to worship\nhim, expressly forbad him, saying, _See thou do it not; I am thy\nfellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus;\nworship God._ But our Saviour never forbids any to worship him;\ntherefore we must conclude that he is the object thereof, and\nconsequently a divine Person.\n\nWe shall now proceed to consider the various branches of divine worship\nthat are given to him, _viz._\n\n1. Swearing by his name, whereby an appeal is made to him, as the Judge\nof truth, and the Avenger of falsehood. Some think that the apostle, in\nRom. ix. 1. intends as much as this, when he says, _I speak the truth in\nChrist, I lie not_, that is, I appeal to Christ, as the heart-searching\nGod, concerning the truth of what I say. But there is also another sense\nof swearing, namely, when in a solemn manner, we profess subjection to\nhim, as our God and King; which agrees with, or is taken from the custom\nof subjects, who swear fealty or allegiance to their king: thus it is\nsaid, in Isa. xlv. 23. _Unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue\nshall swear_; and, in doing this, they acknowledge him to be the object\nof faith, and to have a right to universal obedience, as well as the\nFountain of blessedness. This religious worship, as the prophet\nforetels, was to be given to the Person here spoken of, who is\nparticularly said to be our Saviour by the apostle, referring to it in\nRom. xiv. 11.\n\n2. This leads us to consider another act of religious worship, which has\nsome affinity with the former, contained in the baptismal vow; in which\nthere is a consecration, or dedication, of the person baptized, to the\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the command given, in Matt.\nxxviii. 19. or a public profession, that it is our indispensable duty to\nexercise an entire subjection to them, in a religious manner. This is\none of the most solemn acts of worship that can be performed, wherein\nthere is an explicit mention of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost. And here we may consider, in general, that the Son is put\nco-ordinately with the Father, which no creature ever is: and it will be\nalso necessary for us to enquire what is meant by being baptized in the\nname of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that so it may farther appear\nto be an act of religious worship.\n\nSome hereby understand nothing else but our being baptized by the\nauthority of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or by a warrant received\nfrom them to do it: but though this be sometimes the meaning of our\nacting in the name of God, yet more is intended by this expression, used\nin the administration of this ordinance, otherwise it is not\nsufficiently distinguished from all other acts of religious worship;\nwhich cannot be rightly performed without a divine warrant. According to\nthis sense of the word, ministers may as well be said to preach the\ngospel, and the church to attend on their ministration, in the name of\nthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for this cannot he done without a\ndivine warrant, upon which account it may be deemed an ordinance.\n\nMoreover, to suppose that this instituted form of administering baptism,\nconveys no other idea, but that of a divine warrant to do it, is to\nconclude that there is no determinate meaning of the action performed,\ncontained in it; but the administrator is to intend nothing else by it,\nbut only that he has a warrant from God to baptize; whereas its being\nperformed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, seems plainly\nto intimate the principal thing signified thereby, as a direction for\nour faith, when engaging in it: which is, that they who are baptized are\nconsecrated, or devoted to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, devoted to\nGod professedly, and called by his name, in the sense in which the\nphrase is elsewhere used in scripture; his right to them is hereby\nsignified, and their indispensable obligation to be entirely his; and\nthat with a peculiar acknowledgment of the distinct personal glory of\nthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the concern that each of them have\nin our salvation. The apostle speaking of our being baptized in the name\nof Christ, calls it, in Gal. iii. 27. _a putting on Christ_; which seems\nto imply a consecration, or dedication, to him. Persons as well as\nthings, before this ordinance was instituted, were consecrated to God by\ndivers washings, as well as other rites, used under the ceremonial law;\nand this seems to be the sense in which the apostle himself explains\nthis _putting on Christ_, in ver. 29. when he infers, from this action,\nthat they who had so done _were Christ\u2019s_, not only by that right, which\nhe has to them as their Creator and Redeemer, but by another, which is\nthe immediate result of their professed dedication to him; therefore\nthis is such a comprehensive act of worship, that it includes in it the\nwhole of that subjection, which is due to the Father, Son, and Spirit;\nand since, in particular, the Son is considered as the object thereof,\ntogether with the Father, it follows that he is God, equal with the\nFather.\n\nI might here consider, that it would be not only an unwarrantable\naction, but an instance of the greatest profaneness, for us to be\nbaptized in the name of any one who is not a divine Person, which\nfarther argues that it is an act of divine worship; upon which occasion,\nthe apostle Paul, speaking concerning some of the church of Corinth, as\nbeing disposed to pay too great a veneration to those ministers who had\nbeen instrumental in their conversion, as though, for this reason, they\nwere to be accounted the lords of their faith; and, in particular, that\nsome said they were of Paul, and, being apprehensive that they thought\nthe minister, who baptized them, had a right to be thus esteemed, he not\nonly reproves this ungrounded and pernicious mistake; but takes occasion\n_to thank God, that he baptized none of them, but Crispus and Gaius,\ntogether with the household of Stephanas, lest any should say he\nbaptized in his own name_; so that while he testifies his abhorrence of\nhis giving any just occasion to any, to conclude that he was the object\nof this branch of divine worship, he takes a great deal of pleasure in\nthis reflection, that the providence of God had not led them through the\nignorance and superstition that prevailed among them, to draw this false\nconclusion from his exercising this branch of the ministerial work,\nwhich properly they would not have inferred from any other\u2019s having\nbaptized them, who had not so great an interest in their affections as\nhe had. This I apprehend to be the meaning of what the apostle says, in\n1 Cor. i. 12-16. which I take occasion to refer to, as a farther proof\nof baptism\u2019s being an act of religious worship, unalienable from the\nFather, Son, and Spirit, in whose name alone we are to be baptized; and\nI cannot but conclude, that if the Son were not a divine Person, we\nmight as well be baptized in the name of Paul, or any other of the\napostles, as in his name, which is a just consequence from its being an\nact of religious worship; and therefore he would never have joined his\nown name with the Father\u2019s when he gave forth his commission to baptize,\nif he had not had a right to it, as well as the Father.\n\nAgain, divine worship is due to Christ, as he is the object of faith;\nand that not only as we are to depend upon whatever he has revealed, as\na matter of infallible verity, otherwise the faith of the church\nespecially under the New Testament dispensation, would be built on an\nuncertain foundation; but, since I am sensible it would be objected to\nthis, that whatever is transmitted to us by divine inspiration, is\ninfallibly true, though the instruments made use of herein were not\ndivine persons; and when we assert that what Christ delivered was\ninfallible, in a higher sense than this, we rather suppose than prove\nhis Deity; the Anti-trinitarians will not deny, that what he imparted\nwas infallibly true, and therefore the object of faith; but they suppose\nat the same time, that whatever was imparted to the world by the\napostles and prophets, was equally true and infallible; therefore they\nwere the objects of faith, in the same sense that our Saviour himself\nwas.\n\nIn answer to this I would not compare what was delivered immediately by\nour Saviour with what was transmitted by those who spake and wrote by\ndivine inspiration, or suppose that one was more infallibly true than\nthe other; and therefore that which I would principally insist on, when\nI speak of Christ, as the object of faith, whereby he appears to be a\ndivine Person, is not only that we are obliged to yield an assent to\nwhat he has imparted to us, but this is to be attended with a firm\nreliance on him, or trusting him with all we have, or for all we expect,\nto make us completely happy: in this sense we are to understand the\napostle\u2019s words, when he says, in 2 Tim. i. 12. _I know whom I have\nbelieved_, or trusted, _and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that\nwhich I have committed unto him against that day_; this is such a faith,\nas no creature is the object of. Trust in man is prohibited, and called\na departure from God, in Jer. xvii. 5. _Cursed be the man that trusteth\nin man_, or, by a parity of reason in any other creature, _and maketh\nflesh his arm, and whose heart herein departeth from the Lord_. Trust is\nsuch an act of faith, as is appropriated to a divine Person; and I\ncannot but observe, that there is something peculiar in the mode of\nspeaking, when Christ is represented as the object thereof, that is\nnever applied to any creature; as his worshippers are said to believe\n_in him_; thus, in John xiv. 1. _Ye believe in God, believe also in\nme_,[159] where he commands his people to believe in him, in such a way;\nas that this act of faith is accompanied with other graces, which argue\nhim a divine Person.\n\nThis leads us to consider him as the object of supreme love and\nuniversal obedience, which are also acts of religious worship; the\nformer respects him, as our chief good and happiness; the latter as our\nundoubted sovereign and proprietor: we do not say, that a person\u2019s\nhaving a right to be obeyed, or loved, or trusted, in a limited degree,\nargues him to be a divine Person; but when these graces are to be\nexercised in the highest degree, without any possibility of our\nexceeding therein; and when the exercise thereof is inseparably\nconnected with salvation, as it often is in scripture, and our not\nexercising them, is said to exclude from it, I cannot but from hence\nconclude, that, being thus circumstanced, is an act of religious\nworship; and it is certain, that our saviour is often represented, in\nscripture, as the object thereof.\n\nThe last thing that we shall consider, under this head, is, that he is\nthe object of prayer and praise; and that these are parts of religious\nworship, needs no proof. Some think, and the conjecture is not\naltogether improbable, that this is intended by the Psalmist, Psal.\nlxxii. 15. _Prayer also shall be made for him continually_; since it\nmight as well be rendered, continually made _to him_, which agrees with\nwhat follows, _And daily shall he be praised_; and that this Psalm\nrespects the Messiah, who had a right to more glory than Solomon,\nappears from several things, which are said concerning him therein; but\nI will not insist on this, since we have more evident proofs thereof in\nother scriptures. It is also foretold concerning him in Isa. xi. 10.\nthat _to him_, for so the words ought to be rendered, _shall the\nGentiles seek_; which mode of speaking is frequently used, to signify\nour addressing ourselves to a divine Person with prayer and\nsupplication, for the supplying of our wants. But we have yet more\nevident proofs hereof in the New Testament; the Syrophenician woman\u2019s\nprayer, which was directed to him, was indeed short, but very\ncomprehensive, Matt. xv. 22. _Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of\nDavid_; and, in ver. 25. _She came and worshipped him, saying, Lord help\nme_; and this act of religious worship was commended by our Saviour, and\nher prayer answered. And can we suppose any other than an act of\nreligious worship, contained in that petition of the man who came to him\nto cast the devil out of his son, in Mark ix. 24? _Who said, with tears,\nLord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief_; by which we are not to\nunderstand that he desired that his unbelief should be removed in an\nobjective way, by our Saviour\u2019s giving him more convincing arguments to\nconfirm his faith, but by a powerful access to his heart, as the Author\nand Finisher of faith, which is the peculiar gift of God; and\naccordingly he is considered as a divine Person, by those who thus\naddress themselves to him.\n\nWe shall conclude this head, with giving a few instances of short\nprayers directed to Christ, together with doxologies, or ascriptions of\npraise, in which he is sometimes joined with the Father and Holy Ghost;\nand he is also argued, from the subject matter thereof, to be a divine\nPerson: thus the apostle Paul concludes his epistles with, _The grace of\nour Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen_; 1 Cor. xvi. 23. Phil. iv.\n23. 1 Thess. v. 28. 2 Thess. iii. 18. and, _The grace of our Lord Jesus\nChrist be with your spirit_; Philem. ver. 25. and, _The Lord Jesus\nChrist be with thy Spirit_; 2 Tim. iv. 22. which is a short and\ncomprehensive prayer directed to Christ, that he would bestow on them\nall those graces that are necessary to their salvation; and that this\ngrace may so govern and influence their spirits, as to fit them for his\nservice, which supposes him to be the God and Giver of all grace. And,\nin 2 Cor. x. iii. 14. he puts up a prayer to the three Persons in the\nGodhead expressly; _The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of\nGod, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all, Amen_;\ndesiring, that they would communicate those blessings, which accompany\nsalvation, by which the divine perfections, and in particular the\nPersonal glory of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are demonstrated; and\nherein the Son is as much considered as the object of prayer as the\nFather, and consequently hereby proved to be a divine Person.\n\nTo this we may add those doxologies whereby praise is given to Christ;\nand so he is farther considered as the object of divine worship; thus,\nin 2 Pet. iii, 18. speaking of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, he\nsays, _To him be glory, both now and for ever, Amen_; and, in Jude, ver.\n24, 25. _Unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present\nyou faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to\nthe only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power,\nboth now, and for ever, Amen_; where it is plain that he ascribes this\ndivine glory to Jesus Christ; for he is spoken of in ver. 21. _Looking\nfor the mercy of our Lord Jesus unto eternal life_, that is, for that\nmercy which shall preserve us unto eternal life, and then confer it upon\nus; which is the sense of those words, _Keeping us from falling, and\npresenting us faultless before the presence of his glory_, with a small\nvariation of the phrase; and the very same thing he is expressly said to\ndo elsewhere, in Eph. v. 27. to _present it to himself a glorious\nchurch, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it\nshould be holy, and without blemish_, that is, that he may present it to\nhis own view, as taking a survey of his workmanship, when brought to\nperfection; as God is said _to have taken a view of all things that he\nhad made at first_, when he pronounced _them good_ Gen. i. 31. and, when\nhe has thus taken a survey of his church, or presented it to himself,\nthen he presents it to the view of the whole world of angels and men,\nwhich, as it is said, is attended with exceeding joy; which plainly\nmakes it appear that our Saviour is the Person here spoken of; which is\nagreeable to what follows, where he is called, as he is elsewhere, _God\nour Saviour_, Tit. ii. 10, 13. which character agrees with the name by\nwhich he was most known, to wit, _Jesus_.\n\nAnother doxology we have in Rev. i. 4, 5, 6. _Grace be unto you, and\npeace from Jesus Christ_, &c. _Unto him that loved us, and washed us\nfrom our sins in his own blood; and hath made us kings and priests unto\nGod and his Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever,\nAmen._\n\nThere are also two places more, in which, to me, it seems more than\nprobable, that doxologies are directed to Christ, namely, in 1 Tim. vi.\n15, 16. _Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and\nLord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which\nno man can approach unto: whom no man hath seen, or can see; to whom be\nhonour and power everlasting, Amen_: All allow that nothing greater can\nbe said of God than is here spoken; therefore the only thing denied by\nthe Arians is, that this is applied to any but the Father; but to me, it\nseems very obvious that it is spoken of Christ, because he is mentioned\nimmediately before: thus, in ver. 13. it is said, _I give thee charge in\nthe sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ\nJesus[160]; who, before Pontius Pilate, witnessed a good confession;\nThat thou keep this commandment without spot, until the appearing of our\nLord Jesus Christ, which in his times he shall shew; Who is the blessed\nand only Potentate, &c._ where by _his times_ is meant that season in\nwhich his glory shall shine most brightly, when, what he witnessed\nbefore Pontius Pilate, to wit, that he was the Son of God, he will\ndemonstrate in the highest degree, and then will eminently appear to\nhave a right to that glory, which the apostle ascribes to him.\n\nAgain, there is another scripture, in which a glorious doxology is\nascribed to Christ, in 1 Tim. i. 17. _Now unto the King eternal,\nimmortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory, for ever\nand ever, Amen._ A late learned writer[161] puts this among those\nscriptures which he applies to the Father, without assigning any reason\nfor it; which he ought to have done, inasmuch as the context seems to\ndirect us to apply it to the Son, spoken of in the foregoing verses;\nthus, in ver. 12. _I thank Jesus Christ our Lord, who counted me\nfaithful, putting me into the ministry_; and, ver. 14. _The Grace of our\nLord was exceeding abundant_, &c. and ver. 15. _Christ Jesus came into\nthe world to save sinners_; and ver. 16. _Howbeit, for this cause I\nobtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all\nlong-suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on\nhim to life everlasting._ Thus having mentioned the great things which\nChrist did for him, it is natural to suppose that he would take\noccasion, from hence, to ascribe glory to him, which he does in the\nwords immediately following, _Now, unto the King, eternal, immortal_,\n&c.\n\nHaving considered the force of this argument, taken from divine worship\nbeing ascribed to Christ, to prove his deity, we shall now proceed to\nobserve the methods used by the Anti-trinitarians to evade it. Some of\nthe Socinians, as though there had been no scriptures that speak of him\nas the object of religious worship, have peremptorily denied that it is\ndue to him, and thought very hardly of their brethren, as though they\nwere involved in the common guilt of idolatry, which they suppose his\nworshippers to have been chargeable with. This occasioned warm debates\nin Transylvania and Poland, where Socinianism most prevailed towards the\nclose of the 16 century[162]; and, indeed, the method of reasoning, made\nuse of by those who denied that he was the object of worship, though it\ntended more to his dishonour, yet it carried in it a greater consistency\nwith that scheme of doctrines, which both sides maintained, who denied\nhis divinity.\n\nAs for the Arians, they do not expressly deny him to be the object of\nworship, but rather deviate from the true sense of the word, when they\nmaintain his right to it: they speak of great honours that are to be\nascribed to him, by which one would almost be ready to conclude that\nthey reckoned him a divine Person; but when these honours are compared\nwith those that are due to the Father, they very plainly discover that\nthey mean nothing more hereby, but what in consistency with their own\nscheme may be applied to a creature. Thus a late writer[163], in his\nexplication of that text, in John v. 23. _That all men should honour the\nSon, even as they honour the Father_, plainly discovers his sense of\ndivine worship, as due to our Saviour, to be very remote from that which\nis defended by those who maintain his proper deity. His explication of\nthis text is, \u201cThat the meaning is not that the Son\u2019s authority should,\nlike that of the Father, be looked upon as underived, absolute, supreme,\nand independent; but that as the Jews already believed in God, so they\nshould also believe in Christ: as they already honoured God the Father,\nso they should also for the future, honour the Son of God; honour him,\nas having all judgment committed unto him; honour him, to the honour of\nthe Father, which sent him; acknowledge him to be God, to the glory of\nthe Father.\u201d Which is a very low idea of divine honour; for it is as\nmuch as to say, that as the Father is to be honoured as God, so there is\na degree of honour, which he has conferred upon the Son, infinitely\nbelow that which is due to himself, but yet called divine, because it is\ngiven him by a divine warrant. Whether, in this sense, an angel might\nnot have had a warrant to receive divine honour, I leave any one to\njudge; and, indeed, nothing is contained in this sense, but what rather\ntends to depreciate, than advance the glory of Christ. But that we may\nbetter understand how far they allow that religious worship may be given\nto our Saviour, as well as that we may take occasion to defend that\nright to divine worship, which we have proved to be due to him, we shall\nbriefly consider, and endeavour to make some reply to the following\nobjections.\n\n_Object._ 1. To what has been said concerning a right to religious\nworship, being founded only in a person\u2019s having the perfections of the\ndivine nature; and accordingly that it is an argument that our Saviour\nis truly and properly God, equal with the Father, because as such, he\nhas a right to it, it is objected, that if God commands us to worship a\ncreature, we are bound to obey him; and accordingly, without considering\nany right that is founded in his nature, we are to give divine worship\nto Christ, by divine direction, or in obedience to a command given us to\nthat purpose; and that such a command was given, upon which Christ\u2019s\nright to receive divine worship is founded, appears from Heb. i. 6.\n_When he bringeth his first-begotten into the world, he saith, and let\nall the angels of God worship him_; which supposes that they did not\nworship him before, nor would they have done it afterwards, without this\ndivine intimation.\n\n_Answ._ 1. As to our yielding obedience to a divine command, provided\nGod should require us to give divine worship to a creature, it may be\nreplied, that we do not deny but that all the divine commands are to be\nobeyed; but yet this supposition is groundless, inasmuch as God cannot\ncommand us to worship a creature, any more than he can discharge us from\nan obligation to worship himself. This, therefore, is, in effect, to\nsuppose what can never be; therefore nothing can be inferred from such a\nsupposition; we might as well say, that if God should cease to exist, he\nwould cease to be the object of worship; or if a created being had\ndivine perfection, he would have a right to equal honour with God; which\nis to suppose a thing that is in itself impossible; and it is no less\nabsurd to suppose it warrantable for us to pay divine worship to a\ncreature. This will farther appear, from what has been said in\nexplaining the nature of religious worship. Adoration is a saying to a\nperson, who is the object thereof, thou hast divine perfections, and to\nsay this to a creature, is contrary to truth; and therefore, certainly\nthe God of truth can never give us a warrant to say that which is false,\nas this certainly would be. And if we consider worship, as it is our\naddressing ourselves to him, whom we worship, in such a way, as becomes\na God, he cannot give us a warrant so to do, for that would be for him\nto divest himself of his glory: and it would also disappoint our\nexpectations, by putting us on trusting one that cannot save us; and\nsuch are justly reproved, in Isa. xlv. 20. as _having no knowledge, who\npray unto a god that cannot save_. We must therefore conclude, that\nsince God cannot give his glory to another, he cannot give any warrant\nto us to pay divine worship to a creature, as is supposed in the\nobjection,\n\n2. As for that scripture, referred to, in which God commanded the angels\nto worship our Saviour, when he brought him into the world, it is not to\nbe supposed that he had no right to divine worship before his\nincarnation; for if he be a divine Person, as the scriptures assert him\nto be, the angels, doubtless adored him as such before; the only new\ndiscovery that was then made to them was, that the second Person in the\nGodhead was now God incarnate; and therefore this instance of infinite\ncondescension was to be considered as a motive to excite their\nadoration, but not the formal reason of it: thus we are sometimes\ncommanded to adore and magnify God for the visible displays of his\ndivine perfections in his works; as the Psalmist says, Psal. cvii. 8.\n_Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his\nwonderful works to the children of men!_ and, in many other scriptures,\nwhere the works of God are represented, as a means or motive to excite\nour worship or adoration; whereas the divine perfections, which are\ndisplayed or rendered visible therein, are the great foundation or\nreason thereof; we worship this God because he is infinitely perfect;\nthough we take occasion, from the visible display of his perfections, to\nworship him. In this sense we understand the worship given to Christ by\nthe angels, when brought into the world; they took occasion, from this\namazing instance of his condescension, to adore those perfections, which\ninduced the Son of God to take the human nature into union with his\ndivine; not that they supposed his right to worship was founded therein.\n\n_Object._ 2. Since our worshipping Christ includes in it ascribing all\nthat glory to him that is his due; it is enough for us, when we worship\nhim, to confess that he has an excellency above the angels, or that he\nis the best of all created beings, as well as the most honourable, and\nthe greatest blessing to mankind, as he was sent of God to instruct us\nin the way of salvation as a Prophet, to intercede for us as a Priest,\nand to give laws to us as a King, and that he has done all this\nfaithfully, and with great compassion to us. These things, and whatever\nelse he does for the advantage of mankind, may, and ought to be\nacknowledged to his praise, as a debt due to him, in which respect he is\nto be considered as the object of worship; nevertheless, we are not to\ngive him that glory which is due to the Father, as though he were a\nPerson truly and properly divine, in the same sense as he is.\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is agreed, on both sides, that that glory, which is due to\nhim, is to be ascribed; but we humbly conceive, that the ascribing to a\nperson that honour, which he has a right to, unless we suppose it to be\ndivine, is not religious worship; or, to confess that those works which\nhe has done, are wonderful, and of great advantage to mankind, is no\ninstance of adoration, unless we suppose that these works are such, as\nnone but a Person who has the divine nature can perform; whereas all\nthose works, which they ascribe to him, may, according to them, be\nperformed by a finite being, or else they must allow the arguments,\nwhich have been taken from thence, to prove his proper deity.\n\n2. If the works that are ascribed to him be considered as properly\ndivine, as they are represented to be in scripture, it must not be\nconcluded, from hence, that he is to be adored, as performing them; but\nwe are rather to take occasion from thence, as was observed in our last\nhead, to adore those divine perfections, which are evinced hereby, which\nrender him the object of worship; as the works of God are motives to\ninduce us to worship him, and not the formal reason of that worship; as\nwhen, in the first commandment, God lays claim to divine honour, or\nobliges the Israelites _to have no other gods before him, because he had\nbrought them out of the land of Egypt_, we are to consider their\ndeliverance from thence, indeed, as a motive to worship; but it is the\ndivine power that was exerted therein, that was properly the object\nthereof; so, in Psal. cxxxvi. 1. we are _to give thanks to the Lord,\nwhose mercy endureth for ever_; and, in the following verses, there is a\nparticular mention made of some glorious works which God had done, _who\nalone doth great wonders, who, in wisdom, made the heavens, stretched\nout the earth; made the sun to rule by day, and the moon by night_, &c.\nThese, and several other works there mentioned are all considered as\nmotives to excite our adoration; but his being _Jehovah, the God of\ngods, and Lord of lords_, as in the 1st, 2d, and 3d verses, is the great\nfoundation of his right to worship, since that is infinite; whereas his\nworks are only the effects of infinite power, and so a demonstration of\nhis right to divine glory. Now to apply this to those works which are\ndone by our Saviour, if we suppose them, as we ought, to be properly\ndivine, they are to be considered only as evincing his right to divine\nhonour, as they are a demonstration of his deity, which is the only\nthing that renders him the object of divine worship.\n\n_Object._ 3. But some will proceed a little farther, when they speak of\nChrist as the object of worship, and so will allow, that honours, truly\ndivine, may be given to him; yet that this does not prove him to be God\nequal with the Father, since he is herein only considered as the\nFather\u2019s Representative, on whom the worship, that is immediately\napplied to him, must be supposed to terminate; as when an ambassador,\nwho represents the prince that sent him, is considered as sustaining\nthat character, and so receives some honour, which otherwise he would\nhave no right to, or rather he is honoured as personating him whom he\nrepresents.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that whatever may be said to be done\nby an ambassador, as representing the prince that sent him, there is\nalways something contained in the manner of his address, or in the\nhonours ascribed to him, that denotes him to be more than a subject; and\nit would be ill represented, should he assume that honour to himself\nthat is due to his master. Therefore our Saviour, were he not a divine\nPerson, but only the Father\u2019s Representative, could not have a right to\nclaim that divine honour that is ascribed to him; neither have we any\nfoundation, in scripture, to distinguish concerning a supreme and a\nsubordinate worship, or a worship given to a person that does not\nterminate in him, but in another, whom he represents.\n\nIf there be any apparent foundation for this supposition, it must be\ntaken from those expressions in which Christ is represented, as\nMediator, as acting in the Father\u2019s name, and not seeking his own glory,\nbut the glory of him that sent him, or referring all the honour, that is\ngiven to him as such, to the Father. But to this it may be replied, that\nwhen our Saviour uses such a mode of speaking, he disclaims any right to\ndivine honour due to him as Man, in which respect he received a\ncommission from the Father, and acted in his name; but when the honour\nof a divine Person is given to him as God, though considered as\nMediator, he is not to be looked upon as representing the Father, or\ntransferring the divine glory that he receives, to the Father, but as\nhaving the same right to it as the Father has, inasmuch as he has the\nsame divine nature, otherwise we cannot account for those modes of\nspeaking, in which the glory of a divine Person is ascribed to him,\nwithout restriction or limitation, as it oftentimes is in scripture.\n\n_Object._ 4. To what has been said in defence of Christ\u2019s divinity, from\nour being baptized in his name, it is objected, that it does not follow,\nthat because we are baptized in the name of the Son, as well as of the\nFather, that therefore he is God equal with the Father; for though this\nordinance, as it respects the Father, contains, properly, an act of\ndivine worship, in which we consider him as the great Lord of all\nthings, to whom divine worship, in the highest sense is due; yet we\nconsider the Son, as well as the Holy Ghost, only as having a right to\nan inferior kind of worship, in proportion to the respective parts which\nthey sustain, by the will of the Father, in the work of our salvation;\nand, in particular, to be baptized in the name of Christ, implies in it\nnothing else but a declaration that we adhere to him, as the Father\u2019s\nMinister, delegated by him to reveal his mind and will to us, and to\nerect that gospel-dispensation, which we, in this ordinance, professedly\nsubmit to; and accordingly to be baptized in the name of Christ, is to\nbe taken in the same sense, as when, in 1 Cor. x. 2. the Israelites were\nsaid to _be baptized into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea_; as they\nsignified thereby their consent to be governed by those laws, which\nMoses was appointed, by God, to give them; upon which account, they were\ndenominated a particular church, separated from the world, and obliged\nto worship God in such a way, as was prescribed in the ceremonial law:\neven so, by baptism, we own ourselves Christians, under an obligation to\nadhere to Christ, as our Leader and Commander, who has revealed to us\nthe gospel, which, by subjecting ourselves to, we are denominated\nChristians; and to this they also add, especially the Socinians, that as\nbaptism was first practised as an ordinance, to initiate persons into\nthe Jewish church, and was afterwards applied by our Saviour, to signify\nthe initiating the heathen into the Christian church; so it was designed\nto be no longer in use among them, than till Christianity was generally\nembraced; and consequently we being a Christian nation, are not obliged\nto submit to it, since we are supposed to adhere to the doctrines of\nChristianity, and therefore it is needless to signify the same by this\nordinance. It was upon this account that Socinus, and some of his\nfollowers, not only denied the baptism of infants, but that of all\nothers, who were supposed to be Christians.\n\n_Answ._ 1. As to the first part of this objection, to wit, that baptism\ndoes not signify the same thing when it is administered in the name of\nChrist, as when administered in the name of the Father, this is founded\non a supposition, that the Son has not a right to the same honour that\nis due to the Father, which ought to be proved, and not taken for\ngranted; and it altogether sets aside the consideration of the Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost\u2019s being herein co-ordinately represented, as the\nobjects of this solemn dedication, which tends very much to derogate\nfrom the Father\u2019s glory. As it supposes the Son and Spirit to have a\nright to that glory which belongs to him, while they deny them to be\ndivine Persons; and according to this method of reasoning, God might as\nwell have ordained, that we should have been baptized in his name,\ntogether with the name of any of his prophets and apostles, which were\nappointed to be his ministers, in revealing his will to us, as in the\nname of the Son and Spirit, unless they were accounted worthy of having\nan honour infinitely superior to that which is given to any creature\ngiven to them herein.\n\n2. When it is supposed that our professed subjection to Christ in\nbaptism, is nothing else but our consent to be governed by those laws,\nwhich he has given us in the gospel, and so is compared with that\ndeclaration of subjection to the law of Moses, which was contained in\nthe baptism of the Israelites into Moses.\n\nTo this it may be replied; that this supposes Christ to be no other than\na Lawgiver; and that to be a Christian, is nothing else but to be\nprofessedly a member of that society, which goes under that\ndenomination; and that to put on Christ is not to consecrate or devote\nourselves to him as a divine Person; which is a very low idea of\nChristianity; and consequently the character of a Christian does not\nimply in it so much, when assumed by an Anti-trinitarian, as when\napplied to those who suppose that they are hereby obliged to honour him,\nas they honour the Father, or to submit to his government, as truly and\nproperly divine. A Christian is not barely one who is of Christ\u2019s party,\nin the same sense as a Mahometan, who adheres to the laws of Mahomet, is\nof his; for Christianity contains in it an obligation to perform those\nreligious duties, of trust, universal obedience, and love, that are due\nto Christ as a divine Person.\n\n3. As to the supposition, that baptism being an ordinance of Proselytism\nto the Christian faith, therefore a Christian nation is no longer\nobliged to submit to it, this is directly contrary to what our Saviour\nsays in the words immediately following the institution thereof, in\nMatt, xxviii. 20. _Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the\nworld_, that is, you may expect my presence with you in administering\nthis ordinance, as well as preaching the gospel, not only during the\nfirst age of the church, till Christianity shall obtain in the world,\nbut as long as there shall be a society of Christians in it. And,\nindeed, if Christianity were nothing more than a public declaration of\nour obligation, to adhere to the laws of Christ; it does not follow,\nthat because we are born in a Christian nation, therefore such a\nprofession is no longer necessary. But since more than this is contained\ntherein, as hath been before observed, namely, our professed subjection\nto Christ, in a religious way, as a divine Person, this extends the\nbaptismal obligation much farther than to our being called Christians,\nand argues the necessity of our engaging in this ordinance, as long as\nChrist is the object of faith, or to be acknowledged to be the Prophet,\nPriest, and King of his church, and, as such, the object of religious\nworship, namely, unto the end of the world.\n\n_Object._ 5. There is another objection against the argument in general,\nrelating to Christ\u2019s being the object of divine worship, taken from his\nhaving refused to have one of the divine perfections ascribed to him,\nand directing the Person that gave it, to ascribe it to the Father, in\nMatt. xix. 17. _He said unto him, Why callest thou me good, there is\nnone good but one, that is God_; _q. d._ there is but one Person who is\ngood, as goodness is properly a divine attribute, and that is the\nFather: therefore he alone is the object of that worship, which consists\nin the ascribing the perfections of the divine nature to him, in which\nsense we have before supposed religious worship to be understood.\n\n_Answ._ 1. As to what our Saviour says, concerning the divine unity,\nwhen he asserts, that there is none good but one, that is God; it is,\ndoubtless to be understood in the same sense with all other scriptures,\nthat deny a plurality of gods, in opposition to the principles and\npractice of idolaters; but it does not follow from hence, that the\nFather is the only Person who is God, or the object of divine worship.\nThis has been before considered[164], and therefore all that I shall\nreply to this part of the objection is, that the word God is sometimes\ntaken for the Godhead, without a particular restriction or limitation\nthereof, either to Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but may be equally\napplied to them all. In this sense it is to be taken, when the being of\na God is demonstrated by the light of nature; as from the effects of the\ndivine power, we argue, that there is a God, who is the Creator of all\nthings; but this cannot, if we have no other light to guide us herein\nbut that of nature, be applied to the Father, as a distinct Person in\nthe Godhead, for the distinction that there is between the divine\nPersons is a matter of pure revelation; therefore all that our Saviour\nintends by this expression is, that no one has a right to have divine\nperfections ascribed to him, but he that has a divine nature, which\nwhether it be meant of the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, he is denominated\n_the one only living and true God_.\n\nIt follows from hence, that when such modes of speaking are used in\nscripture, though the Father be called the one or only God, the Son is\nnot excluded, as a late judicious writer well observes.[165]\n\n2. As to that part of the objection, which concerns our Saviour\u2019s\nblaming the man for calling him good, there are two senses given of it;\none is taken from a different reading of the words, namely, _Why dost\nthou ask me concerning good_.[166] But it will not be much to our\npurpose either to defend or disprove this reading, since Mark and Luke\nread it, _Why callest thou me good_, &c. therefore, passing this over\nand supposing that it ought to be read, as we generally do; the common\nanswer that is given to this objection, which, I humbly conceive, may be\nwell acquiesced in, is; that our Saviour considers the man, as ascribing\na divine perfection to him, whom, at the same time, he concluded to be\nno more than a creature; and therefore it is as though he should say;\neither, first, acknowledge me to be a divine Person, or else do not\nascribe divine honours to me, for then by consequence, thou mightest as\nwell ascribe them to any other creature. And accordingly, by the same\nmethod of reasoning, had he conversed with any Anti-trinitarian, in his\nday, who had given divine worship to him, and yet denied his proper\ndeity, he would have reproved him for this mistake arising from an\nerroneous conscience, as much as he does the man, whom he reproves, in\nthe same sense, for styling him _good_.\n\nThat Christ does not exclude himself from having a right to this divine\nperfection, is not only evident, from those several scriptures, which\nhave been before referred to, that ascribe perfections to him that are\nequally divine, inasmuch as he that has a right to one divine\nperfection, has a right to all; but he also styles himself, in John x.\n14. _The good Shepherd_, which certainly imports as much as _good\nMaster_, which expression was used by the man before-mentioned; and that\nhis being the good Shepherd argues him to be the Fountain of\nblessedness, which is certainly a divine perfection, is evident, because\nhe speaks of himself, as communicatively good in the highest sense, ver.\n28. _I give unto them_, _viz._ my sheep, _eternal life_.[167]\n\n_Secondly_, Having proved the deity of the Son, we proceed to consider\nthat of the Holy Ghost, in which we are obliged to oppose the Socinians\nand Arians, though in different respects: As for the Socinians, they\nseem to be divided in their sentiments about this matter, some of them\nconsidering the Holy Ghost no otherwise than as a divine power; and\ntherefore they call him _Virtus Dei_, or the divine energy, or power of\nacting, seeming, by this account of it, to deny his distinct\nPersonality, as the Sabellians do that of the Son and Spirit; though\nothers of them, being convinced that there is sufficient proof of his\nPersonality in scripture, to deny his deity, supposing him to be no\nother than a created ministering Spirit.[174]\n\nAs for the Arians, though this controversy was not brought upon the\nstage in the council at Nice, which was so much employed in defending\nthe deity of our Saviour, by proving him to have the same essence with\nthe Father, that they had no opportunity to proceed in the defence of\nthe consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost; yet this is universally denied\nby all who give into the Arian scheme: It is true, that as they do not\nquestion his Personality, so they allow that he has many glories\nascribed to him, agreeing, in words, with the scripture account thereof;\nbut they are, notwithstanding, far from asserting his proper deity, any\nmore than that of the Son.\n\nWe have already proved him to be a distinct Person,[175] and therefore\nnothing remains, but that we consider him as having a divine nature.\nAnd, to make this appear, we shall proceed in the same method, in which\nwe have proved the divinity of the Son, namely, from those divine names,\nattributes, works, and worship, which are ascribed to him; though we\nhave no occasion here to insist on the proof of that proposition, that\nhe who is thus described is God, as having done that already under each\nof those distinct heads, in defence of our Saviour\u2019s deity; and\ntherefore we need only consider them as applied to the Holy Ghost. And,\n\n1. It appears that he is God, equal with the Father and Son, inasmuch as\nthe same divine names are given to him that are given to them;\nparticularly,\n\n(1.) He is called _God_, without any thing tending to detract, or\ndiminish, from the proper sense of the word, when applied to the Father\nor the Son: thus, in Acts v. 3, 4. _Peter said, Ananias, Why hath satan\nfilled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? thou hast not lied unto\nmen, but unto God_, where he is not only called _God_, but put in\nopposition to the creature; and it is as though the apostle should say,\nthou hast endeavoured to deceive him, by whom I am inspired, which is a\ngreater crime, than if thou hadst only lied to me.\n\n_Object._ It is objected, that it is not the Holy Ghost who is here\ncalled _God_, but the Father; in defence of which sense of the text it\nis supposed, that though the lie was immediately designed to deceive the\napostles, or the Holy Ghost, by whom they were known to be inspired, yet\nthis was interpreted by God the Father, as an attempt to impose upon\nhim, whose Minister the objectors suppose the Holy Spirit to be, as well\nas the apostles; and accordingly they thus argue; he that does any thing\nagainst God\u2019s ministers, to wit, the Father\u2019s, may be said to do the\nsame against him. And here they refer to some scriptures, which, they\nthink, give countenance to this argument namely, Exod. xvi. 8. where\nMoses tells the Israelites, when they murmured against him, _Your\nmurmurings are not against us, but against the Lord_; and, in 1 Sam.\nviii. 7. where God says to Samuel, speaking concerning the Israelites,\n_They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me_; and also our\nSaviour\u2019s words to his disciples, in Luke x. 16. _He that heareth you,\nheareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that\ndespiseth me, despiseth him that sent me_; and, in 1 Thes. iv. 8. _He\nthat despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us\nhis Holy Spirit._[176]\n\n_Answ._ How plausible soever this objection may seem to be, yet, if duly\nconsidered, it will not appear sufficient to overthrow the argument we\nare maintaining; it is true, indeed, that what is done against any one,\nwho acts by a commission, as a servant to another, is interpreted to be\ndone against him that gives him the commission; as he that affronts a\njudge, or an ambassador, in this respect, affronts the king, whom he\nrepresents; or if an inferior servant is ill treated, in delivering a\nmessage from his master, this is always supposed to contain a reflection\non him who sent him; But, I humbly conceive, this cannot be applied, as\nit is in the objection, to Ananias\u2019s _not lying unto men, but unto God_.\nAnd, to make this appear, let it be considered; that here are two terms\nof opposition; and these either respect God the Father and the apostles;\nor God the Father and the Holy Ghost; or else God the Holy Ghost and the\napostles.\n\n1. God the Father cannot be said here to be opposed to the apostles, so\nas to give countenance to this phrase, or mode of speaking used, _Thou\nhast not lied unto men, but unto God_, because it is said, in the\nforegoing verse, that _they had lied to the Holy Ghost_: if the Holy\nGhost had not been mentioned, indeed, then there might have been more\nground to conclude, that Peter opposed himself to God the Father, or\nintimated hereby, that Ananias, in attempting to deceive him, attempted\nto deceive God that sent him; but even then it would not have fully\ncorresponded with the sense of those scriptures but now referred to; for\nthough he that despises a servant, despises him that sent him; and,\naccordingly, he that despises a minister, when he is preaching the\ngospel, or despises the message that he brings, may be said to despise\nGod, whose message it is; yet it does not follow, that if a person\ndesigns to impose upon a minister, in other respects, that he imposes\nupon God that sent him; for he may not disown the divine authority, or\ncommission, which he has to preach the gospel, and yet may conclude that\nhe may deceive him, though he be sensible that he cannot deceive God,\nwho knoweth all things: But this I need not farther insist on, since it\nis not supposed, in the objection; but God the Father is therein opposed\nto the Holy Ghost, or else there would be no appearance of any argument\nin it; therefore,\n\n2. Let us consider God the Father as being here opposed to the Holy\nGhost; and then it is as much as to say, Thou hast lied to the Holy\nGhost, wherein thou hast not lied to man, but to God, to wit, the\nFather; to which we may answer,\n\nThat had the apostle designed to oppose the Holy Ghost to the Father,\nand thereby deny his deity, it ought to have been expressed thus; Thou\nhast not lied unto the Holy Ghost, but unto God; and this would\neffectually have determined him not to have been God, and removed any\numbrage or suspicion, as though, by the expression, _Thou hast not lied\nunto men_, we were to understand the apostles; or since it will be\nobjected, that this would have been contrary to matter of fact, for\nAnanias did lie both to the apostles and to the Holy Ghost; therefore it\nwould have been better understood, had it been said, Thou hast not lied\nto the Holy Ghost, or to men, that is, not to them only, but thou hast,\ninterpretatively, in lying to them, lied unto God, to wit, the Father.\nIf it had been so expressed, the sense would have been plain and\nobvious, in favour of the Anti-trinitarians, as well as agreeable to the\nscriptures before-mentioned, as giving countenance to it; but since it\nis not so expressed, we must conclude,\n\n3. That in this text there is no other opposition, but of God the Holy\nGhost to the apostles; and accordingly the sense is very plain and\nnatural, which is as though the apostle had said, Thou hast endeavoured\nto deceive me, who am under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost,\nwhich is a greater crime than if thou hadst only lied to me, at another\ntime, when this honour was not conferred upon me; for herein thou hast\ncommitted a double crime, inasmuch as thou hast not only lied to me,\nwhich thou oughtest not to have done, but thou hast lied to the Holy\nGhost, and, in so doing, hast not lied unto men, but unto God; or, as it\nis expressed, in ver. 9. that _Ananias and his wife had agreed together\nto tempt the Holy Ghost_. Which is called a _lying to him_, in one\nverse, is styled a _tempting him_ in the other; this therefore seems to\nbe a plain and easy sense of the words, which any unprejudiced reader\nwould be inclined to give into; and since the scripture is written to\ninstruct the most injudicious Christians, as well as others, I cannot\nconceive that such modes of speaking would have been made use of\ntherein, which have a tendency to lead persons out of the way, by\ndeviating from the common sense of words, (especially in a matter of so\ngreat importance as this is) whereby some, at least, would be inclined,\nas we are, by adhering to the most proper sense thereof, to acknowledge\nthe Holy Ghost to be God, if he were not so.\n\nThere is another scripture, in which the Holy Ghost is called _The God\nand the Rock of Israel_, in 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. Now it seems very evident,\nthat this is applied to him, by comparing it with the foregoing and\nfollowing words; in which it is said, the Spirit of the Lord spake by\nme, and his word was in my tongue; and then we have an account of what\nbe said, namely, _He that ruleth over man, must be just_, &c. It cannot,\nwith any colour of reason, be supposed that there is more than one\nPerson here intended, who imparted this to the prophet; and inasmuch as\nthis Person is not only called the God, but also the Rock of Israel,\nthat is a plain intimation that he is the almighty God of Israel, which\nis the sense of the metaphor, taken from a rock, when applied to God in\nother scriptures.\n\nAgain, it is said, in 1 Cor. iii. 16. _Know ye not that ye are the\ntemple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you._ Here it must\nbe observed, that their being called the temple of God, who is said to\ndwell in them, denotes the inhabitant to be a divine Person, since a\ntemple, according to the known acceptation of the word, always connotes\na deity; and so it is called the house of God. Now he that dwelt in\nthem, upon which account they are called his temple, is expressly said\nto be the Spirit of God, which is agreeable to what is said concerning\nhim elsewhere, in chap. vi. 19. _Know ye not that your body is the\ntemple of the Holy Ghost, which_, or who, _is in you?_\n\n(2.) He is called _Lord_; this seems very evident, from Isa. vi. 8, 9.\n_And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who\nwill go for us? Then said I, Here am I, send me. And he said, Go, and\ntell this people, Hear ye, indeed, but understand not_, &c. where we\nobserve, that the person sending speaks both in the singular number and\nthe plural, _Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?_ by the former\nexpression, _Whom shall I send_, he evinces his divinity, as having a\nright to give a commission to the prophets, to declare his mind and will\nto man, which, as will be observed under a fol-head, none but a divine\nPerson has a right to do; by the latter, _Who shall go for us_, he\nincludes himself among the Persons in the Godhead, as it has before been\nobserved[177]; _viz._ that when God is represented, as speaking in the\nplural number, a Trinity of Persons seems to be intended thereby.\n\nBut that which we shall principally consider is, that the Holy Ghost is\nhere called _Lord_, which appears from what the apostle says, in Acts\nxxviii. 25, 26. _Well spake the Holy Ghost, by Esaias the prophet, unto\nour fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing, ye shall\nhear, and shall not understand_, &c.\n\nIt cannot be reasonably objected to this, that the apostle only refers\nto the book of Isaiah, and not to this particular part thereof; for\nthough, indeed, these words, _Thus saith the Holy Ghost_, might be used,\nas a preface to any quotation from scripture, as all scripture is given\nby his inspiration; yet this message, referred to by the apostle, was\nnot only transmitted by Esaias to the church, but it is distinguished\nfrom all those other things, which the Spirit of the Lord spake by him;\nand therefore it cannot be supposed that the apostle means, when\nreferring to this scripture, any other than the Holy Ghost\u2019s giving him\nthis commission, when he says, _Well spake the Holy Ghost by him_; and\nconsequently he that gave this commission, or spake thus to him, is the\nHoly Ghost, who is, in the foregoing words, called _the Lord_.\n\nMoreover, there is another scripture, in 2 Cor. iii. 18. where it is\nsaid, _We are changed from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the\nLord_; or, as it is observed in the margin, _As by the Lord the Spirit_;\nwhich reading is certainly as proper as any other, and is preferred, by\nsome, to it; and therefore it contains, at least, a probable argument\nthat the Spirit is expressly called _Lord_.[178]\n\n2. The Holy Ghost appears to be God, from those divine attributes that\nare ascribed to him. Accordingly,\n\n(1.) He is said to be eternal, in Heb. ix. 24. Christ, _through the\neternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God_. I am sensible,\nmany think this eternal Spirit signifies Christ\u2019s eternal Godhead; which\nis so called, because of the spirituality of its nature; and that, in\nthis place, it is designed to set forth the infinite value, which the\noblation that he made of himself, in his human nature to God, received\nfrom the divine nature, to which it was united; which, though it be a\nvery great truth, yet there does not seem to be so great a propriety in\nthe expression, when we suppose the eternal Spirit is taken for the\ndivine nature, as if it be understood of the Holy Ghost: and Christ may\nbe said, by him, to have offered himself, without spot, to God, as\nimplying, that the unction, which he received from the Holy Ghost, was\nthe means to preserve him from all sinful defilement, upon which account\nhis oblation was without blemish; and, indeed, it was no less necessary,\nin order to its being accepted, that it should be spotless, than that it\nshould be of infinite value; therefore I must conclude, that it is the\nHoly Ghost who is here called the eternal Spirit.\n\nMoreover, his eternity may be evinced from his having created all\nthings, as he that made the world, and all finite things, wherewith time\nbegan, must be before them, and consequently from everlasting; by which\nthe eternity of Christ was proved, under a foregoing head; and that the\nHoly Ghost made all things, will be proved under our next argument.\n\n(2.) His immensity or omnipresence, is a farther proof of his deity; and\nthis seems to be plainly contained in Psal. cxxxix. 7. _Whither shall I\ngo from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?_ _q. d._\nthere is no place where the Spirit is not; and it is allowed by all,\nthat the divine immensity is here described in a very elegant manner;\nthough, it is true, it is objected, that one part of this verse is\nexegetical of the other, and therefore the Psalmist, by the _Spirit_,\nintends nothing else but the presence of God; but it is equally, if not\nmore probable, that the Spirit is distinguished from the presence of\nGod, and consequently that he is a distinct Person in the Godhead; and\nthis does not contain any strain upon the sense of the words, since the\nSpirit is so often spoken of in scripture as a Person, as has been\nbefore observed;[179] and therefore it is not strange that he should be\nmentioned as such in this text; and, if he be spoken of as a Person, it\nis beyond dispute that he is there proved to be a divine Person.\n\n(3.) He is said to be omniscient in 1 Cor. ii. 10. _The Spirit searcheth\nall things; yea, the deep things of God._ To search, indeed, is a word\nused in condescension to our common mode of speaking, as we arrive to\nthe knowledge of things by searching, or enquiry, though this idea is to\nbe abstracted from the word, when applied to God; for him to search, is\nto know all things; and, in this sense, it is used, in Psal. cxxxix. 23,\n24. _Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts;\nand see if there be any wicked way in me_, &c. It does not imply the\nmanner of his knowing, but the exquisiteness of his knowledge; and so we\nmust understand it in this scripture, when applied to the Spirit\u2019s\nsearching all things, in which we have an account of the objects of his\nknowledge, namely, _the deep things of God_: thus he knows all those\nthings, which were hid in the divine mind from all eternity, and the\ninfinite perfections of the divine nature, which are incomprehensible to\na creature, and which none can, _by searching, find out to perfection_,\nJob xi. 7. in which respect the highest creatures, _viz._ the angels,\nare said to _be charged with folly_, whose knowledge is comparatively\nimperfect, chap. iv. 18. Moreover, we may observe, that the manner of\nthe Spirit\u2019s knowing all things, is not like ours, that is by inferring\nconsequences from premises, in a way of reasoning; for it is said, in\nthe verse immediately following, that _he knows the things of God_, in\nsuch a way, as _a man knoweth the things of a man_, that is, his own\nthoughts, by an internal principle of knowledge, not by revelation, or\nany external discovery: thus the Spirit knows the divine nature, as\nhaving it; therefore his omniscience is a plain proof of his Deity.\n\n3. The Deity of the Holy Ghost may be farther evinced, from his\nperforming those works which are proper to God alone. And,\n\n(1.) He is said to have created all things: thus, in Gen. i. 2. _The\nSpirit of God moved upon the face of the waters_; where, by the _Spirit\nof God_, cannot be meant, as some suppose, the air or the wind; for that\nwas not created till the second day, when God made the firmament. Again,\nit is said, in Job xxvi. 13. _By his Spirit he hath garnished the\nheavens_; and, in chap. xxiii. 4. _The Spirit of God hath made me._ Some\nof the Arians are so sensible that the Spirit is represented as the\nCreator of all things as well as the Son; that they suppose him to be an\ninstrument to the Son in the creation thereof; which is as much as to\nsay, he is an instrument of an instrument; and, indeed, to say the Son\ncreated all things, as an instrument, has been considered as an\nindefensible notion;[180] but this is much more so.\n\n(2.) Extraordinary or miraculous works, which are equivalent to\ncreation, have been performed by the Spirit; thus the apostle, speaking\nconcerning extraordinary gifts, subservient to the propagation of the\ngospel, in the first preaching thereof, attributes them to the Spirit,\nwhich he largely insists on, in 1 Cor. xii. and when he says, ver. 4, 5,\n6. that _there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there\nare differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are\ndiversities of operations, but it is the same God, which worketh all in\nall_; which many who defend the doctrine of the Trinity, take for\ngranted, that it signifies all the Persons in the Godhead, that our\nSaviour is called Lord, and the father God, therein; and some of the\nAnti-trinitarians, from hence, would argue, that the Spirit is not God,\nbecause he is distinguished from the Father, whom they suppose to be\nthere called God, I cannot but from hence conclude, that the Holy Spirit\nis set forth under all these three names; and the works attributed to\nhim, notwithstanding the variety of expressions, are the same, and\nincluded in that general term of spiritual gifts. And so I take the\nmeaning of the text to be this, there are diversities of gifts, or\nextraordinary operations, which some were enabled to put forth in the\nexercise of their ministry, which are all from the same Spirit, who is\ncalled Lord and God, who has an infinite sovereignty, and bestows these\nblessings as he pleases, as becomes a divine Person; and this agrees\nvery well with what is said, in ver. 11. _All these worketh that one and\nthe self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will._\n\n(3.) The Spirit of God commissioned and qualified ministers to preach\nthe gospel, and thereby to gather and build up churches, determining\nthat their ministry should be exercised in one place, and not in\nanother; which is a peculiar branch of the divine glory, and no one has\na right to do it, but a divine Person. A creature may as well pretend to\ncommand the sun to shine, or stop its course in the heavens at his\npleasure, as he can commission a minister to preach the gospel, or\nrestrain the preaching thereof. And here we may observe, that the Holy\nGhost is plainly said to have called and appointed the apostles to\nexercise their ministry in the first preaching of the gospel, after he\nhad, by conferring extraordinary gifts upon them, qualified them for it;\nand accordingly he speaks in a style truly divine, in Acts xiii. 2. _The\nHoly Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I\nhave called them_; and, in Acts xx. 28. the apostle tells the elders, or\nministers of the church at Ephesus, that _the Holy Ghost had made them\noverseers._ We read also of the Spirit\u2019s determining where they should\nexercise their ministry; thus he commanded Philip to go and preach the\ngospel to the eunuch, in Acts viii. 29. _Then the Spirit said unto\nPhilip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot_; and, at another\ntime, the Spirit bade Peter to go and preach the gospel to Cornelius,\nwhen he doubted whether it were lawful for him to do it or no, in Acts\nx. 19, 20. _The Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee;\ntherefore get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have\nsent them_; and, at another time, it is said, in Acts xvi. 6, 7. _They\nwere forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia_; and that\n_they assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered them not_;\nand, in ver. 9, 10. the apostle Paul was ordered, in a vision, to go to\nMacedonia; which command he obeyed, _assuredly gathering that the Lord_,\nthat is, the Spirit, _had called him to preach the gospel unto them_.\nNothing can be a greater argument of the sovereignty of the Holy Ghost,\nin what respects this matter, which was of the highest importance;\ntherefore it is an evident proof of his divinity. But to this we may\nadd,\n\n(4.) That his divinity farther appears from the unction, which he\nconferred on our Saviour, to perform the work of a Mediator in his human\nnature: thus it is said, in Isa. lxi. 1. _The Spirit of the Lord God is\nupon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the\nmeek_, &c. And this is particularly referred to, as signifying our\nSaviour\u2019s unction by the Holy Ghost, in Luke iv. 18, 19. _The Spirit of\nthe Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me_, &c. And, indeed, it\nis not denied that this is spoken of the Holy Ghost, even by those who\ndo not infer his deity from it; accordingly it is inserted, by a late\nwriter, among those scriptures that speak particularly of the Holy\nGhost;[181] and it would be a great strain on the sense of the text, to\nsuppose that _he hath anointed me_, refers to the Father, and not to the\nSpirit. As to the meaning of the word _unction_, it is borrowed from the\nceremonial law, under which the prophets, priests, and kings were\npublickly anointed with oil, as used to signify the warrant, or\ncommission, they had received from God, to execute these offices,\ntogether with the qualifications which were to be expected for the\ndischarge thereof. In this sense our Saviour is said to have been\nanointed by the Holy Ghost, to wit, in his human nature, in which he was\nobliged to yield obedience and subjection to God, and accordingly he was\nauthorized and qualified to perform this obedience by the Holy Ghost; so\nthat, how difficult soever it was, it might be discharged by him,\nwithout the least failure or defect therein, as we observed before, that\nit was owing hereunto, that his oblation was without spot: the work was\ncertainly extraordinary, and consequently the glory redounding to the\nHoly Ghost from hence, is such as proves him to be a divine Person.\n\n(5.) He farther appears to be so, inasmuch as the work of grace, both as\nto the beginning, progress, and completing of it, in the souls of\nbelievers, is ascribed to him, as well as to the Father and the Son.\nThat this is a work of God\u2019s almighty power, and consequently too great\nto be performed by any creature; and that the Holy Ghost is, in\nparticular, the author thereof, we shall here take for granted, without\nattempting to prove it, which would not be a just method of reasoning,\nwere we not led to insist on this subject, under some following answers,\nin which this will be more particularly proved.[182] And if the work\nappears to be the effect of the exceeding greatness of the power of God,\nwhereby we are regenerate and sanctified, and enabled to overcome all\nthe opposition which attends it, till we are brought to glory, then he,\nwho is the author hereof, will evidently appear to be the God of all\ngrace; and therefore we shall proceed to consider,\n\n4. That the Holy Ghost appears to be God, inasmuch as he has a right to\ndivine worship. That none but a divine Person has a right hereunto, has\nbeen already proved; and that the Spirit has a right to it, might be\nevinced, from his having those divine perfections, which, as has been\nbefore observed, are ascribed to him in scripture; since he has the\nperfections of the divine nature, which are the objects of adoration,\nthen it follows, that he is to be adored; and if he has performed those\nworks, which argue him to be the proprietor of all things, this must be\nacknowledged; and if all that grace, which is necessary to make us meet\nfor the heavenly blessedness, be his work and gift, it follows from\nhence, that he is to be sought to for it, which is a great branch of\nreligious worship. But this being only an improvement of, or a deduction\nfrom those foregoing arguments, laid down to prove his Deity, we shall\nenquire whether we have not something that contains in it the obligation\nof a command, or whether there are not some examples, which are\nequivalent thereunto, which will farther warrant our giving divine\nworship to him. Some suppose, that that prayer is directed to the Holy\nGhost, which is mentioned in Acts i. 24, 25. _Thou, Lord, which knoweth\nthe hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that\nhe may take part of this ministry and apostleship_; and the reason of\nthis supposition is, because the designation of persons to the exercise\nof their ministry, as well as the extraordinary gifts with which they\nwere furnished, is peculiarly applied to the Holy Ghost in this book;\ntherefore, it is supposed, they prayed to the Holy Ghost, that he would\nsignify whom he had chosen to the apostleship, in the room of Judas, of\nthose two that were nominated by them; but this being, at most, but a\nprobable argument, I shall lay no stress upon it.\n\nBut, I humbly conceive, that we have a more evident example of prayer\nmade to the Holy Ghost, in 2 Thess. iii. 5. _The Lord direct your hearts\ninto the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ_; it seems\nmore than probable that the Holy Ghost, who is here called Lord, is\nprayed to; for he is distinguished from the Father and Son; and the\napostle prays to him that he would direct them into the love of the\nFather, and enable them patiently, to wait for the Son.\n\nAgain, there is another instance hereof, in 1 Thess. iii. 12, 13. _The\nLord make you to increase and abound in love one towards another, to the\nend, that he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before\nGod our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ_; where the Holy\nGhost seems to be the person prayed to; and is plainly distinguished\nfrom the Father and Son, inasmuch as what is prayed to him for, is their\nbeing holy before the Father, at the coming of the Son.\n\nThere is another scripture, in which it is still more evident, that the\napostle prays to the Holy Ghost, together with the Father and Son,\n_viz._ Cor. xiii. 14. _The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love\nof God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all, amen_;\nwhere, in that part of this prayer, which respects the Holy Ghost, is\ncontained an humble supplication, that he would be pleased to manifest\nhimself to them, or that he would communicate to them those graces which\nthey stood in need of; that so, as the church is said elsewhere, in John\ni. 3. to have _fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus\nChrist_; here the apostle prays that they may have fellowship with the\nHoly Ghost; and how can this blessing be prayed for, without supposing\nhim addressing himself herein to the Holy Ghost? Whenever any thing is\ndesired, or prayed for, that can be considered no otherwise than as an\neffect, produced by a free agent, this prayer, or desire, is supposed\nmore immediately to be directed to him: As suppose a person should use\nthis mode of speaking, in presence of a disobliged friend; Oh that he\nwould look upon me, that he would converse with me, or that he would\ndiscover his wonted love to me! though, according to the form of\nexpression, it seems not be directed to him, yet every one would suppose\nit to be equivalent to an immediate address made to him to that purpose;\nwherefore, for the apostle to desire that the Holy Ghost would have\ncommunion with, that is, converse with, and manifest himself to them, in\nperforming all those works, which were necessary for their edification\nand salvation, this desire cannot contain less than a prayer to him.\n\nWe shall now proceed to consider some objections, brought by the\nAnti-trinitarians, against the deity of the Holy Ghost.\n\n_Object._ A divine Person cannot be the gift of God, for that supposes\nhim to be at his disposal, and inferior to him; but the Spirit is said\nto be given by him, in Neh. ix. 20. _Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to\ninstruct them_; and, in Acts xi. 17. _God gave them the like gift_,\nmeaning the Spirit, _that he did unto us_; and, in Luke xi. 13. _God_,\nthe Father, is said _to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him_.\nAgain, the Spirit is said to be _sent_, and that either by the Father,\nas in John xiv. 26. _The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the\nFather will send in my name_; or by the Son, as in chap. xvi. 7. _If I\ndepart, I will send him unto you._ Again, he is said to receive what he\ncommunicates from another, in John xvi. 14. _He shall receive of mine,\nand shall shew it unto you_; which is inconsistent with the character of\na divine Person, who is never said to receive what he imparts to others,\nas the apostle speaks concerning God, in Rom. xi. 35. _Who hath first\ngiven to him?_ Again, he is said not to speak of himself, but what he\nhears, when he shews things to come, John xvi. 13. Accordingly he did\nnot know that which he was to communicate before he heard it. Again, he\nis said to have a mind distinct from God, unless we suppose that there\nare a plurality of gods, and so more distinct divine minds than one; for\nthis, they bring that scripture, in Rom. viii. 27. _He that searcheth\nthe heart, knoweth the mind of the Spirit._ Again, he is represented as\nmaking intercession, which is an act of worship, and consequently he\ncannot be the object thereof; ver. 26. _The Spirit itself maketh\nintercession for us_, &c. this also argues that he is not possessed of\nthe blessings which he intercedes for. Again, he is not only said to be\nresisted and grieved, which expressions, it is true, are sometimes\napplied to God, though in an improper sense, speaking after the manner\nof men; but the Spirit is said to be quenched, or extinguished: thus, 1\nThess. v. 19. this, together with what has been before said concerning\nhim, is not applicable to a divine Person. These are the most material\nobjections that are brought against the doctrine which we have been\nendeavouring to maintain, and the sum of them all is this; that it is\ninconsistent with the character of a divine Person to be thus dependent\non, and subjected to the will of another, as the Spirit is supposed, by\nthem, to be.\n\n_Answ._ That we may defend the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, against\nsuch-like objections as these, we shall first premise something relating\nto all those scriptures which speak of the Spirit, as given or sent by\nthe Father, and then apply it to the sense of those in particular which\nare brought to support the objections, as before-mentioned.\n\n1. It may be easily observed, that in several places of scripture,\nespecially in the New Testament, the Holy Ghost is often taken for the\ngifts or graces of the Spirit; and more particularly for that\nextraordinary dispensation, in which the apostles were endowed with\nthose spiritual gifts, which were necessary for the propagation and\nsuccess of the gospel: these, by a _Metonymy_, are called the _Spirit_;\nand, I humbly conceive, all those scriptures, which speak of the\nSpirit\u2019s _being poured forth_, as in Prov. i. 23. and Joel ii. 28.\ncompared with Acts ii. 17. and elsewhere, are to be understood in this\nsense; and thus it is explained, in Acts x. 44, 45. _The Holy Ghost fell\non all them which heard the word_; upon which occasion it is said, that\n_upon the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost_. Thus we\nare to understand that scripture, in Acts xix. 2. _We have not so much\nas heard whether there be any Holy Ghost_; and another in John vii. 39.\n_the Holy Ghost was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified_; the\nword _given_ is supplied by our translators, probably, to fence against\na weak argument of some Anti-trinitarians, taken from that text, to\noverthrow the eternity of the Spirit; but whether the word be supplied\nor no, the sense of the text is plainly this, that the gifts of the Holy\nGhost were not conferred before Christ\u2019s ascension into heaven; which is\na farther confirmation of this acceptation of the word, or of this\nfigurative way of speaking, being used in this, and several other places\nof scripture, to the same purpose.\n\n2. All those scriptures which seem to represent the Holy Ghost, as\ninferior to the Father and Son, some of which are contained in the\nobjection, may be understood as denoting the subserviency of the works\nof the Spirit, which are also called the _Holy Ghost_, to those works\nwhich are said to be performed by the Father and Son: Now it is certain\nthat the subserviency of one work unto another, performed by different\npersons, does not necessarily infer the inferiority of one person to the\nother: accordingly we must distinguish between the Spirit, as\nsubsisting, and as acting; in the former sense, he is a divine Person,\nequal with the Father and Son; in the latter, he may be said to be\nsubservient to them.\n\nBut now we shall proceed to consider the sense of those scriptures,\nbrought to support the objection, in consistency with what has been\npremised. The first scripture mentioned, is that in which it is said,\n_Thou gavest them thy good Spirit to instruct them_; where the Holy\nGhost is described with a personal character, and probably it is not to\nbe understood metonymically for his gifts and graces; accordingly the\nmeaning of it seems to be this; that the Spirit\u2019s efficiency, in guiding\nand instructing them, was a special gift of God conferred upon them;\nand, in this respect, though he was a sovereign Agent, yet he is said to\nact by the will of the Father, which is the same with his own will: for\nthough the Persons in the Godhead are distinct, yet they have not\ndistinct wills; and it is no improper way of speaking to say, that when\na divine Person displays his glory, and therein confers a blessing upon\nmen, that this is given; as when God is said to give himself to his\npeople, when he promises to be a God to them. There is, indeed, in this\nmode of speaking, a discriminating act of favour conferred on men, upon\nwhich account it is called a gift; but this does not militate against\nthe divinity of the Holy Ghost, though he is said to be given to them.\n\nAs for the other scripture, in which it is said, _God gave them the like\ngift, as he gave to us_, meaning the Holy Ghost, that is plainly taken\nfor the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, the conferring whereof is\ncalled, in the foregoing words, a being _baptized with the Holy Ghost_;\nas it is particularly explained in that scripture, referred to, in Acts\nx. 45, 46. where it is said, that _on the Gentiles was poured out the\ngift of the Holy Ghost_; what this gift is, we may learn from the\nfollowing words, _They spake with tongues, and magnified God_.\n\nAgain, when it is said, in Luke xi. 13. that _your heavenly Father shall\ngive the Holy Spirit to them that ask him_; this is explained by another\nevangelist, in Matt. vii. 11. where it is taken for good things in\ngeneral, and so includes the graces of the Spirit, that accompany\nsalvation, when it is said, your Father, that is in heaven, shall give\n_good things_ to them that ask him; so that here the Spirit is taken for\nall those blessings which he bestows upon his people, in answer of\nprayer.\n\nAs for those scriptures before mentioned, in which the Spirit is said to\nbe sent, either by the Father, or the Son, they are not, indeed, to be\nunderstood in the same sense, as when the Son is said to be sent in his\nhuman nature, appearing in the form of a servant, to fulfil the will of\nGod; but when God is said to send his Spirit, the word is to be taken in\na metaphorical sense; in which, sending imports as much as giving; and\nwhen the Spirit is said to be given, it has a peculiar reference to the\ngrace which he was to bestow upon them. If we enquire into the reason of\nthis metaphorical way of speaking, it may probably be this; that we may\nunderstand hereby that the Spirit, which was to produce these effects,\nwas a divine Person, and that the effects themselves were subservient to\nthose works which were performed, by which the Personal glories of the\nFather and Son were demonstrated.\n\nAgain, when it is farther said by our Saviour, in John xvi. 14. that\n_the Spirit shall receive of mine, and shew it unto you_; this plainly\nintends the Spirit\u2019s applying to them those blessings which Christ had\npurchased by his blood, which tended to his glory; and still it\nsignifies only the subserviency of the Spirit to the Son, in working, as\nthe application of redemption tends to render the purchase thereof\neffectual, to answer its designed end.\n\nAs to the next scripture, before mentioned, in John xvi. 13. where _the\nSpirit_ is said _not to speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear,\nthat shall he speak_; this does not argue, in the least, that the Spirit\nreceives what he communicates, as dependent on the Father, for the\nknowledge of those things he is to impart, or that he has ideas\nimpressed on his mind, as creatures are said to have; for that is\ninconsistent with what has been before proved from scripture, _viz._\n_That the Spirit knoweth the deep things of God, even as the spirit of a\nman knoweth the things of a man_; or, as an intelligent being, is\nconscious of his own thoughts, or actions, not by information, but by an\nimmediate internal perception. The sense therefore of this text is this;\nthat the Spirit shall communicate no other doctrines, or give no other\nlaws, but what Christ had before given in the gospel; or that what he\nrevealeth, is the same that Christ had given them ground to expect:\naccordingly, it is so far from militating against the Spirit\u2019s divinity,\nthat it proves the harmony and consent of what is suggested by one\ndivine Person, with what had been before delivered by another; and as to\nthe mode of expression here used, concerning the Spirit\u2019s speaking what\nhe had heard; this is spoken after the manner of men, and is no more\ninconsistent with his divine omniscience, or the independence thereof,\nthan when God is said, in other scriptures, to know things by searching\nthem, or, as it were, by enquiry, as hath been before observed, in\nconsidering omniscience, as attributed to the Holy Ghost. These, and\nsuchlike expressions, by which God is represented, by words,\naccommodated to our usual way of speaking, when applied to men, are to\nbe understood, notwithstanding, in a way agreeable to the divine\nperfections, by abstracting from them every thing that argues the least\nimperfection in him, when applied to the Holy Ghost; as when some\nexpressions, agreeable to human modes of speaking, are elsewhere used,\nwith a particular application to the Father, without detracting from his\ndivine glory.\n\nAgain, when it is objected, that the Spirit hath a distinct mind from\nGod, as when it is said, _God knoweth the mind of the Spirit_; and, as\nthough he were represented as engaged in an act of worship, he is, in\nthe following words, described, as _praying_, or, _making intercession\nfor us, according to the will of God_; as, in Rom. viii. 26, 27. it is\nplain, that, by the _mind of the Spirit_, we are to understand those\nsecret desires in prayer, which are wrought in believers by the Spirit,\nwhen they want words to express them; instead of which, they address\nthemselves to God, as it is said, _with groanings that cannot be\nuttered_, which are from the Spirit, as the Author of these secret\ndesires, which are only known to the heart-searching God, who knows the\nmeaning of them, what it is we want, in which respect, this is called\nthe mind of the Spirit, as the Author thereof, though it is subjectively\nour own mind or desires, which we want words to express; and when the\nSpirit is said to make intercession for us, it implies nothing else but\nhis enabling us, whether in more or less proper modes of speaking, to\nplead with God for ourselves.\n\n_Lastly_, As to those expressions, by which the Spirit is represented,\nas _quenched_, or _extinguished_, these are to be understood in the same\nsense as when by a _metonymy_, as before mentioned, the gifts of the\nSpirit; as when those extraordinary gifts were first promised, they were\nled to expect that they should be _baptized with the Holy Ghost, and\nwith fire_, that is, they should have the extraordinary gifts of the\nHoly Ghost conferred upon them, which were to be signified by the emblem\nof _fiery tongues, that sat on them_, in Acts ii. 3. the reason of which\nemblem might probably be this; that as a necessary qualification from\ntheir preaching the gospel, they should be filled with an holy flame of\nlove to God, and zeal for his glory, as well as with the gift of\ntongues, by which they might communicate his mind to the world. This\nprivilege, which they had received, the apostle exhorts them not to\nforfeit, abuse, or provoke the Holy Ghost to take from them, which is\ncalled a quenching the Spirit; therefore this metaphorical way of\nspeaking, accommodated hereunto, must not be supposed to be inconsistent\nwith his divinity.\n\nI shall conclude with some inferences, which more especially respect the\npractical improvement of the doctrine of the Trinity. And,\n\n1. We may take occasion, from hence, to observe the difference that\nthere is between natural and revealed religion. As the former respects\nthe knowledge of God so far, as it may be attained without the help of\ndivine revelation, and that worship, which the heathen, who have nothing\nelse to guide them but the light of nature, are obliged to give to the\ndivine Being; the latter, which is founded on scripture, contains a\ndisplay of the Personal glory of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which\nis necessary to be known and believed, as being the foundation of all\nrevealed religion; so that the sum of Christianity consists in our\nsubjection to, and adoring the Godhead, as subsisting in the Father,\nSon, and Holy Spirit.\n\n2. As this doctrine is eminently displayed in the work of redemption, it\nis necessary for us to consider how it is accommodated to, and\ndemonstrated by all the branches thereof. The price that was given, by\nour great Redeemer, has a value put upon it, in proportion to the\ndignity of his Person, and lays a sure foundation for our hope of being\naccepted in the sight of God, on account of his obedience and sacrifice,\nwhich was of infinite value: and the application of redemption being a\nwork which the Spirit, who is a divine Person, has undertaken to\nperform, encourages us to expect that it shall be brought to perfection;\nso that they, who are the objects of redeeming love and sanctifying\ngrace, shall, in the end, be completely saved.\n\n3. As it is necessary for us to adore and magnify the Father, Son, and\nHoly Ghost, for the hope which we have of this inestimable privilege in\nthe gospel; so we must observe the distinct glory that is to be given to\neach of these divine Persons for this work; to the Father, in that\nwhatever is done by the Mediator, to procure this privilege for us, is\nconsidered, in scripture, as taking its rise from him, 1 Cor. i. 30. _Of\nhim are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us, wisdom, and\nrighteousness, and sanctification, and redemption_: And whatever was\ndone in the human nature, or by God incarnate; that is, in a peculiar\nmanner, the work of the Son, and a revenue of glory is due to him for\nit, who gave his life a ransom for many, and herein expressed the\nhighest instance of condescension, which is enhanced by the infinite\ndignity of his Person. Moreover, whatever work is performed in\nsubserviency to the Mediator\u2019s glory, whereby the Spirit demonstrates\nhis distinct Personal glory; this gives us occasion to adore him, in all\nthe displays of his power, in beginning, carrying on, and completing the\nwork of grace in the souls of men.\n\n4. As to what respects that fellowship or communion, which believers\nhave with the Father, Son, and Spirit, this depends on the account we\nhave, in scripture, of the distinct methods, in which their Personal\nglory is set forth therein: Thus we have access to God the Father,\nthrough the Mediation of the Son, by the powerful influence of the Holy\nSpirit, as the apostle says, in Eph. ii. 18. _Through him we have an\naccess, by one Spirit unto the Father_; and our hope of blessedness\nproceeds this way, as it is the gift of the Father, who has prepared an\ninheritance for us, the purchase of the Son, on whose death it is\nfounded, and the work of the Holy Ghost, as bringing us to and putting\nus into the possession of it.\n\n5. This directs us as to the way of performing the great duty of\nself-dedication, to the Father, Son, and Spirit; to the Father, as our\ncovenant God in Christ; to the Son, as the Mediator, Head, and Surety of\nthis covenant; and to the Spirit, by whom we are made partakers of the\nblessings promised therein; in all these, and many other respects, we\nare to have a particular regard to the persons in the Godhead, in such a\nway, as their Personal glory is set forth in scripture.\n\n6. Since the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one, though we distinguish\nthem as Persons, yet we must consider them as having the same divine\nperfections, the same divine understanding and will, lest, while we give\nglory to each of the Persons in the Godhead, we should suppose that\nthere are more Gods than one; therefore, though the Person of the Father\nis distinct from that of the Son and the Holy Ghost, we are not to\nsuppose the power, wisdom, goodness, and faithfulness, or any other\ndivine perfections, belong, in a more or less proper sense, to one\nPerson than another.\n\n7. This doctrine is of use to direct us how we are to address ourselves\nto God in prayer: thus, when therein we call him our Father, we are not\nto consider him in the same sense, as when he is represented as the\nFather of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we address ourselves to him, as the\nAuthor of our being, the God of all grace, and the Fountain of\nblessedness; in which respect, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not to be\nexcluded, especially unless we consider him as our Father in Christ, and\nso express our faith with respect to his distinct Personality, from that\nof the Son and the Spirit. And though only one divine Person be\nparticularly mentioned in prayer, the blessed Trinity is to be adored;\nor whatever Personal glory we ascribe to one, as subsisting distinctly\nfrom the other, we must, notwithstanding, consider the Father, Son, and\nSpirit, as the one only living and true God.\n\nThus we have gone through this great and important subject, and therein\nhave taken occasion, particularly, to insist on the chief matters in\ncontroversy relating to the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, and\nconsider the various methods taken to oppose it both by the Socinians\nand Arians, and endeavoured, not only to defend the Deity of our\nSaviour, and the Holy Ghost by enquiring into the sense of those many\nscriptures, in which our faith therein is founded, but to answer the\nmost material objections that are brought against it; and our enlarging\nmore on it, than we shall do on several following answers, cannot be\nreckoned a needless work, inasmuch as a great deal hath been written in\nopposition to it, whereby the faith of some has not only been shaken,\nbut overthrown. I would never attempt to speak of this doctrine, or any\nof the divine perfections, without being sensible of the difficulty of\nthe subject, it being such as is not to be comprehended by a finite\nmind. I hope nothing will appear to have been suggested inconsistent\nwith the essential, or Personal glory of the Father, Son, or Spirit; and\nit may reasonably be expected that there should be allowances made for\ngreat defects, since it is but a little of God that can be known by us;\ntherefore, when we pretend to speak concerning him, it will not be\nthought strange if we give occasion to any to say, that we have the\ngreatest reason to acknowledge, that, in many instances, we cannot order\nour words, by reason of darkness.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  \u201cGod is One: a most pure, most simple, and most perfect Being.\n\n  \u201cThe absolute unity and simplicity of this glorious Being is strictly\n  exclusive of any division of perfections. Yet, as human knowledge is\n  not intuitive but discursive, we find it necessary to form and\n  communicate our conceptions, by referring them to distinct and\n  infinite attributes. Such are independence, spirituality, eternity,\n  immutability, power, knowledge, rectitude, and benevolence.\n\n  \u201cIt is absurd to say, that either the abstract essence, or any of the\n  infinite perfections of God, in themselves, or in their exercise, can\n  be grasped, included, or comprehended (or whatever equivalent term be\n  used) by a limited intellect. \u2018A _part_ of His ways, a _little\n  portion_ of Him,\u2019 we know; for He has unveiled it. The knowledge of\n  the best and greatest finite mind can only be, to immortality, an\n  approximation; and therefore must for ever be infinitely small. God\n  alone is CAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING His own nature, mode of existence,\n  and perfections.\n\n  \u201cThe only questions, therefore, that we have to ask, are, Has Deity,\n  in fact, communicated to man _any_ information concerning HIMSELF? And\n  _what_ has He communicated? Whatever such revelation may be, it is\n  impossible that it should be self-contradictory, or any other than\n  most becoming to infinite wisdom and purity.\n\n  \u201cThis revelation authorizes us, by a variety of inductive proofs, to\n  conclude, that, with regard to the mode of existence of the ONE Divine\n  Essence, the Unity of the Godhead includes a Trinity of Persons (so\n  denominated for want of any better terms) who are scripturally styled\n  the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: Distinct, not in essence or\n  in perfections, but only personally: One, not personally, but in the\n  common possession of the same identical nature and attributes.\n\n  \u201cNo contradiction or absurdity is involved in this doctrine, because\n  the unity refers to one respect, and the trinity to another. But we\n  make no difficulty in professing our incapacity to include in our\n  knowledge, or express by any possible terms, _the respect_ in which\n  the Trinity of persons subsists in the perfect Oneness of the Deity.\n  Such pretension would imply a contradiction.\u201d\n\n  SMITH\u2019S LETTERS TO BELSHAM.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  \u201cThat which is taught in the scriptures concerning the\n  incomprehensible and spiritual essence of God ought to suffice, not\n  only to overthrow the foolish errors of the common people, but also to\n  confute the fine subtilties of profane philosophy. One of the old\n  writers seemed to have said very well, \u2018That God is all that we do\n  see, and all that we do not see.\u2019 But by this means he hath imagined\n  the Godhead to be diffused into all the parts of the world. Although\n  God, to the intent to keep men in sober mind, speak but sparingly of\n  his own essence, yet, by those two names of addition that I have\n  rehearsed, he doth both take away all gross imaginations, and also\n  repress the presumptuous boldness of man\u2019s mind. For surely his\n  immeasurable greatness ought to make us afraid, that we attempt not to\n  measure him with our sense: and his spiritual nature forbiddeth us to\n  imagine any thing earthly or fleshly of him. For the same cause he\n  often assigneth his dwelling place to be in heaven. For though, as he\n  is incomprehensible, he filleth the earth also: yet because he seeth\n  our minds by reason of their dulness to lie still in the earth, for\n  good cause he lifteth us up above the world, to shake off our sloth\n  and sluggishness. And here falleth to ground the error of the\n  Manichees, which, in appointing two original beginnings, have made the\n  devil in a manner equal with God. Surely, this was as much as to break\n  the unity of God, and restrain his unmeasurableness. For where they\n  have presumed to abuse certain testimonies, that sheweth a foul\n  ignorance, as their error itself sheweth a detestable madness. And the\n  Anthropomorphites are also easily confuted, who have imagined God to\n  consist of a body, because oftentimes the scripture ascribeth unto him\n  a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet. For what man, yea, though he be\n  slenderly witted, doth not understand that God doth so with us speak\n  as it were childishly, as nurses do with their babes? therefore such\n  manner of speeches do not so plainly express what God is, as they do\n  apply the understanding of him to our slender capacities. Which to do,\n  it behoved of necessity that he descended a great way beneath his own\n  height.\n\n  \u201c2. But he also setteth out himself by another special mark, whereby\n  he may be more nearly known. For he so declareth himself to be but\n  one, that he yet giveth himself distinctly to be considered in three\n  persons: which, except we learn, a bare and empty name of God without\n  any true God fleeth in our brain. And that no man should think that he\n  is a threefold God, or that the one essence of God is divided in three\n  persons, we must here seek a short and easy definition, to deliver us\n  from all error. But because many do make much about this word Person,\n  as a thing invented by man, how justly they do so, it is best first to\n  see. The apostle naming the Son the engraved form of the hypostasis of\n  his Father, he undoubtedly meaneth, that the Father hath some being,\n  wherein he differeth from the Son. For to take it for essence (as some\n  expositors have done, as if Christ like a piece of wax printed with a\n  seal did represent the substance of the Father) were not only hard,\n  but also an absurdity. For since the essence of God is single or one,\n  and indivisible, he that in himself containeth it all, and not by\n  piece-meal, or by derivation, but in whole perfection, should very\n  improperly, yea, foolishly, be called the engraved form of him. But\n  because the Father, although he be in his own property distinct, hath\n  expressed himself wholly in his Son, it is for good cause said, that\n  he hath given his hypostasis to be seen in him. Wherewith aptly\n  agreeth that which by and by followeth, that he is the brightness of\n  his glory. Surely by the apostle\u2019s words we gather, that there is a\n  certain proper hypostasis in the Father, that shineth in the Son:\n  whereby also again is easily perceived the hypostasis of the Son, that\n  distinguisheth him from the Father. The like order is in the holy\n  Ghost. For we shall by and by prove him to be God, and yet he must\n  needs be other than the Father. Yet this distinction is not of the\n  essence, which it is unlawful to make manifold. Therefore, if the\n  apostle\u2019s testimony be credited, it followeth that there be in God\n  three hypostasis. This term seeing the Latins have expressed by the\n  name of Person, it were too much pride and frowardness to wangle about\n  so clear a matter. But if we list word for word to translate, we may\n  call it subsistance. Many in the same sense have called it substance.\n  And the name of Person hath not been in use among the Latins only, but\n  also the Grecians, perhaps to declare a consent, have taught that\n  there are three _Prosopa_, that is to say Persons, in God. But they,\n  whether they be Greeks or Latins that differ one from another in the\n  word, do very well agree in the sum of the matter.\n\n  \u201c3. Now howsoever the hereticks cry out against the name of Person, or\n  some overmuch precise men do carp that they like not the word feigned\n  by the device of men; since they cannot get of us to say, that there\n  be three, whereof every one is wholly God, nor yet that there be many\n  gods: what unreasonableness is this, to dislike words, which express\n  none other thing but that which is testified and approved by the\n  scriptures? It were better (say they) to restrain not only our\n  meanings but also our words within the bounds of scripture, than to\n  devise strange terms, that may be the beginnings of disagreement and\n  brawling: so do we tire ourselves with strife about words: so the\n  truth is lost in contending: so charity is broken by odiously brawling\n  together. If they call that a strange word, which cannot be shewed in\n  scripture, as it is written in number of syllables; then they bind us\n  to a hard law, whereby is condemned all exposition that is not pieced\n  together, with bare laying together of texts of scripture. But if they\n  mean that to be strange, which, being curiously devised, is\n  superstitiously defended, which maketh more for contention than\n  edification, which is either improperly, or to no profit, used, which\n  withdraweth from the simplicity of the word of God, then with all my\n  heart I embrace their sober mind. For I judge that we ought with no\n  less devout reverence to talk of God than to think of him, for as much\n  as whatsoever we do of ourselves think of him is foolish, and\n  whatsoever we speak is unsavoury. But there is a certain measure to be\n  kept. We ought to learn out of the scriptures a rule both to think and\n  speak, whereby to examine all the thoughts of our mind, and words of\n  our mouth. But what hindereth us, but that such as in scripture are to\n  our capacity doubtful and entangled, we may in plainer words express\n  them, being yet such words as do reverently and faithfully serve the\n  truth of the scripture, and be used sparingly, modestly, and not\n  without occasion? Of which sort there are examples enough. And whereas\n  it shall by proof appear that the church of great necessity was forced\n  to use the names of Trinity, and Persons, if any shall then find fault\n  with the newness of words, shall he not be justly thought to be\n  grieved at the light of the truth, as he that blameth only this, that\n  the truth is made so plain and clear to discern?\n\n  \u201c4. Such newness of words, if it be so called, cometh then chiefly in\n  use, when the truth is to be defended against wranglers that do mock\n  it out with cavils. Which thing we have at this day too much in\n  experience, who have great business in vanquishing the enemies of true\n  and sound doctrine. With such folding and crooked winding, these\n  slippery snakes do slide away, unless they be strongly gripped and\n  holden hard when they be taken. So the old fathers, being troubled\n  with contending against false doctrines, were compelled to shew their\n  meanings in exquisite plainness, lest they should leave any crooked\n  byeways to the wicked, to whom the doubtful constructions of words\n  were hiding-holes of errors. Arius confessed Christ to be God, and the\n  Son of God, because he could not gainsay the evident words of God,\n  and, as if he had been so sufficiently discharged, did feign a certain\n  consent with the rest. But in the meanwhile he ceased not to scatter\n  abroad that Christ was created, and had a beginning, as other\n  creatures. But to the end that they might draw forth his winding\n  subtilty out of his den, the ancient fathers went further, pronouncing\n  Christ to be the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial with\n  the Father. Hereat wickedness began to boil, when the Arians began to\n  hate and detest the name _Omoousion_, consubstantial. But if in the\n  beginning they had sincerely and with plain meaning confessed Christ\n  to be God, they would not now have denied him to be consubstantial\n  with the Father. Who dare now blame these good men as brawlers and\n  contentious, because, for one little word\u2019s sake, they were so keen in\n  disputation, and disturbed the peace of the church? But that little\n  word shewed the difference between the true believing Christians, and\n  the Arians, who were robbers of God. Afterwards rose up Sabellius, who\n  accounted in a manner for nothing the names of the Father, the Son,\n  and Holy Ghost, saying in disputation that they were not made to shew\n  any manner of distinction, but only were several additions of God, of\n  which sort there are many. If he came to disputation, he confessed\n  that he believed the Father God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God. But\n  afterwards he would readily slip away with saying, that he had in no\n  otherwise spoken than as if he had named God, a powerful God, just\n  God, and wise God: and so he sung another song, that the Father is the\n  Son, and the Holy Ghost is the Father, without any order, without any\n  distinction. The good doctors who then had care of godliness, to\n  subdue his wickedness, cried out on the other side, that there ought\n  to be acknowledged in one God three properties: and to the end to\n  fence themselves against the crooked winding subtilties with plain and\n  simple truth, they affirmed, that there did truly subsist in one God,\n  or (which is the same thing) that there did subsist in the unity of\n  God, a Trinity of Persons.\n\n  \u201c5. If then the names have not been without cause invented, we ought\n  to take heed, that in rejecting them we be not justly blamed of proud\n  presumptuousness. I would to God they were buried indeed, so that this\n  faith were agreed of all men, that the Father, and the Son, and the\n  Holy Ghost, be one God: and yet that the Father is not the Son, nor\n  the Holy Ghost the Son, but distinctly, by certain property. Yet I am\n  not so precise, that I can find in my heart to strive for bare words.\n  For I observe, that the ancient fathers, who otherwise spake very\n  religiously of such matters, did not every where agree one with\n  another, nor every one with himself. For what forms of speech used by\n  the councils doth Hillary excuse? To how great liberty doth Augustine\n  sometimes break forth? How unlike are the Greeks to the Latins? But of\n  this disagreement one example shall suffice for this time. When the\n  Latins wanted to express the word _Omoousion_, they called it\n  _Consubstantial_, declaring the substance of the Father and the Son to\n  be one, thus using the word substance for essence. Whereupon Hierom to\n  Damasus saith, it is sacrilege to say, that there are three substances\n  in God: and yet above a hundred times you shall find in Hillary, that\n  there are three substances in God. In the word _hypostasis_, how is\n  Hierom difficulted? for he suspecteth that there lurketh poison in\n  naming three hypostasis in God. And if a man do use this word in a\n  godly sense, yet he plainly saith that it is an improper speech, if he\n  spake unfeignedly, and did not rather wittingly and willingly seek to\n  charge the bishops of the East, whom he sought to charge with an\n  unjust slander. Sure this one thing he speaketh not very truly, that\n  in all profane schools, _Ousia_, essence, is nothing else but\n  hypostasis, which is proved false by the common and accustomed use.\n  Augustine is more modest and gentle, who, although he says, _De trint.\n  li. 5. cap. 8, 9._ that the word hypostasis in that sense is strange\n  to Latin ears, yet so far is it off, that he taketh from the Greeks\n  their usual manner of speaking, that he also gently beareth with the\n  Latins who had followed the Greek phrase. And that which Socrates\n  writeth in the fifth book of the Tripartite history tendeth to this\n  end, as though he meant that he had by unskilful men been wrongfully\n  applied unto this matter. Yea, and the same Hillary himself layeth it\n  as a great fault to the heretics charge, _De trin. li. 2._ that by\n  their frowardness he is compelled to put those things in peril of the\n  speech of men, which ought to have been kept in religiousness of\n  minds, plainly confessing that this is to do things unlawful, to speak\n  what ought not to be spoken, to attempt things not licensed. A little\n  after, he excuseth himself with many words, for that he was so bold to\n  utter new names. For after he had used the natural names, Father, Son,\n  and Holy Ghost, he addeth, that whatsoever is sought further is beyond\n  the compass of speech, beyond the reach of sense, and beyond the\n  capacity of understanding. And in another place he saith, that happy\n  are the bishops of Gallia, who had not received, nor knew any other\n  confession but that old and simple one, which from the time of the\n  apostles was received in all churches. And much like is the excuse of\n  Augustine, that this word was wrung out of necessity, by reason of the\n  imperfection of men\u2019s language in so great a matter: not to express\n  that which is, but that it should not be unspoken, how the Father, the\n  Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three. This modesty of the holy men ought\n  to warn us, that we do not forthwith so severely, like censors, brand\n  them with infamy, who refuse to subscribe and swear to such words as\n  we propound them: so that they do not of pride, or frowardness, or of\n  malicious craft. But let them again consider, by how great necessity\n  we are driven to speak so, that by little and little they may he\n  enured with that profitable manner of speech. Let them also learn to\n  beware, lest since we must meet on the one side with the Arians, on\n  the other side with the Sabellians, while they be offended that we cut\n  off occasion from them both to cavil, they bring themselves in\n  suspicion, that they be the disciples either of Arius or of Sabellius.\n  Arius saith that Christ is God, but he muttereth that he was created,\n  and had a beginning. He saith Christ is one with the Father, but\n  secretly he whispereth in the ears of his disciples, that he was made\n  one as the other faithful be, although by singular prerogative. Say\n  once that Christ is consubstantial with his Father, then pluck you off\n  his visor from the dissembler, and yet you add nothing to the\n  scripture. Sabellius saith, that the several names, Father, Son, and\n  Holy Ghost, signify nothing in God severally distinct. Say that they\n  are three, and he will cry out that you name three gods. Say that\n  there is in one essence a Trinity of persons, then shall you in one\n  word both say what the scripture speaketh, and stop their vain\n  babbling. Now if any be holden with so curious superstition, that they\n  cannot abide these names, yet is there no man, though he would never\n  so fain, that can deny but that when we hear of one, we must\n  understand an unity of substance: when we hear of three in one\n  essence, that, it is meant of the persons of the Trinity. Which thing\n  being without fraud confessed, we stay no longer upon words. But I\n  have long ago found, and that often, that whosoever do obstinately\n  quarrel about words, do keep within them a secret poison: so that it\n  is better willingly to provoke them, than for their pleasure to speak\n  darkly.\u201d\n\n  CALVIN.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  \u201cThere are some doctrines in the gospel the understanding could not\n  discover; but when they are revealed, it hath a clear apprehension of\n  them upon a rational account, and sees the characters of truth visibly\n  stampt on their forehead: as the doctrine of satisfaction to divine\n  justice, that pardon might be dispensed to repenting sinners. For our\n  natural conception of God includes his infinite purity and justice;\n  and when the design of the gospel is made known, whereby he hath\n  provided abundantly for the honour of those attributes, so that He\n  doth the greatest good without encouraging the least evil, reason\n  acquiesces, and acknowledges. This I sought, but could not find. Now,\n  although the primary obligation to believe such doctrines ariseth from\n  revelation, yet being ratified by reason, they are embraced with more\n  clearness by the mind.\n\n  \u201c2. There are some doctrines, which as reason by its light could not\n  discover; so when they are made known, it cannot comprehend; but they\n  are by a clear and necessary connexion joined with the other that\n  reason approves: as the mystery of the Trinity, and the Incarnation of\n  the Son of God, which are the foundations of the whole work of our\n  redemption. The nature of God is repugnant to plurality, there can be\n  but one essence; and the nature of satisfaction requires a distinction\n  of persons: For he that suffers as guilty, must be distinguished from\n  the person of the judge that exacts satisfaction; and no mere creature\n  is able by his obedient sufferings to repair the honour of God: So\n  that a divine person, assuming the nature of man, was alone capable to\n  make that satisfaction, which the gospel propounds, and reason\n  consents to. Now, according to the distinction of capacities in the\n  Trinity, the Father required an honourable reparation for the breach\n  of the divine law, and the Son bore the punishment in the sufferings\n  of the human nature; that is peculiarly his own. Besides, \u2019tis clear\n  that the doctrine of the Trinity, that is, of three glorious relations\n  in the Godhead, and of the Incarnation, are most firmly connected with\n  all the parts of the christian religion, left in the writings of the\n  apostles, which as they were confirmed by miracles, the divine\n  signatures of their certainty, so they contain such authentic marks of\n  their divinity, that right reason cannot reject them.\n\n  \u201c3. Whereas there are three principles by which we apprehend things,\n  Sense, Reason and Faith; these lights have their different objects\n  that must not be confounded. Sense is confined to things material;\n  Reason considers things abstracted from matter; Faith regards the\n  mysteries revealed from heaven: and these must not transgress their\n  order. Sense is an incompetent judge of things about which reason is\n  only conversant. It can only make a report of those objects, which by\n  their natural characters are exposed to it. And reason can only\n  discourse of things, within its sphere: supernatural things which\n  derive from revelation, and are purely the objects of faith, are not\n  within its territories and jurisdiction. Those superlative mysteries\n  exceed all our intellectual abilities. \u2019Tis true, the understanding is\n  a rational faculty, and every act of it is really or in appearance\n  grounded on reason. But there is a wide difference between the proving\n  a doctrine by reason, and the giving a reason why we believe the truth\n  of it. For instance, we cannot prove the Trinity by natural reason;\n  and the subtilty of the schoolmen, who affect to give some reason of\n  all things, is here more prejudicial than advantageous to the truth:\n  For he that pretends to maintain a point by reason, and is\n  unsuccessful, doth weaken the credit which the authority of revelation\n  gives. And \u2019tis considerable, that the scripture, in delivering\n  supernatural truths, produces God\u2019s authority as their only proof,\n  without using any other way of arguing: But although we cannot\n  demonstrate these mysteries by reason, yet we may give a rational\n  account why we believe them.\n\n  \u201cIs it not the highest reason to believe the discovery that God hath\n  made of himself, and his decrees? For he perfectly knows his own\n  nature and will; and \u2019tis impossible he should deceive us: this\n  natural principle is the foundation of faith. When God speaks, it\n  becomes man to hear with silence and submission. His naked word is as\n  certain as a demonstration.\n\n  \u201cAnd is it not most reasonable to believe that the Deity cannot be\n  fully understood by us? The sun may more easily be included in a spark\n  of fire, than the infinite perfections of God be comprehended by a\n  finite mind. The angels, who dwell so near the fountain of light,\n  _cover their faces_ in a holy confusion, not being able to comprehend\n  Him. How much less can man in this earthly state, distant from God,\n  and opprest with a burthen of flesh? Now from hence it follows;\n\n  \u201c1. That ignorance of the manner how divine mysteries exist is no\n  sufficient plea for infidelity, when the scripture reveals that they\n  are. For reason that is limited and restrained cannot frame a\n  conception that is commensurate to the essence and power of God. This\n  will appear more clearly by considering the mysterious excellencies of\n  the divine nature, the certainty of which we believe, but the manner\n  we cannot understand: As that his essence and attributes are the same,\n  without the least shadow of composition; yet his wisdom and power are\n  to our apprehensions distinct, and his mercy and justice in some\n  manner opposite.[79] That his essence is intire in all places, yet not\n  terminated in any. That he is above the heavens, and beneath the\n  earth, yet hath no relation of high or low, distant or near. That he\n  penetrates all substances, but is mixed with none. That he\n  understands, yet receives no ideas within himself: That he wills, yet\n  hath no motion that carries him out of himself. That in him time hath\n  no succession; that which is past is not gone, and that which is\n  future is not to come. That he loves without passion, is angry without\n  disturbance, repents without change. These perfections are above the\n  capacity of reason fully to understand; Yet essential to the deity.\n  Here we must exalt faith, and abase reason. Thus in the mystery of the\n  incarnation, (_1 Tim._ iii. 16.) that two such distant natures should\n  compose one person, without the confusion of properties, reason cannot\n  reach unto; but it is clearly revealed in the word: (_John_ i. 14.)\n  Here therefore we must obey, not enquire.\n\n  \u201cThe obedience of faith is, to embrace an obscure truth with a firm\n  assent, upon the account of a divine testimony. If reason will not\n  assent to revelation, till it understands the manner how divine things\n  are, it doth not obey it at all. The understanding then sincerely\n  submits, when it is inclined by those motives, which demonstrate that\n  such a belief is due to the authority of the revealer, and to the\n  quality of the object. To believe only in proportion to our narrow\n  conceptions is to disparage the divine truth, and debase the divine\n  power. We can\u2019t know what God can do; he is omnipotent, though we are\n  not omniscient: \u2019Tis just we should humble our ignorance to his\n  wisdom, _and that every lofty imagination, and high thing, that exalts\n  itself against the knowledge of God, should be cast down, and every\n  thought captivated into the obedience of Christ_; 2 Cor. x. 5. \u2019Tis\n  our wisdom to receive the great mysteries of the gospel in their\n  simplicity: for in attempting to give an exact and curious explication\n  of them, the understanding, as in an hedge of thorns, the more it\n  strives, the more \u2019tis wounded and entangled. _God\u2019s ways are far\n  above ours, and his thoughts above ours as heaven is above the earth._\n  To reject what we can\u2019t comprehend, is not only to sin against faith,\n  but against reason, which acknowledges itself finite, and unable _to\n  search out the Almighty to perfection_; Job xi. 7.\n\n  \u201c2. We are obliged to believe those mysteries that are plainly\n  delivered in scripture, notwithstanding those seeming contradictions\n  wherewith they may be charged. In the objects of sense, the\n  contrariety of appearances doth not lessen the certainty of things.\n  The stars to our sight seem but glittering sparks, yet they are\n  immense bodies. And it is one thing to be assured of a truth, another\n  to answer to all the difficulties that encounter it: a mean\n  understanding is capable of the first; the second is so difficult,\n  that in clear things the profoundest philosophers may not be able to\n  untie all the intricate and knotty objections which may be urged\n  against them. \u2019Tis sufficient the belief of supernatural mysteries is\n  built on the veracity and power of God; this makes them prudently\n  credible: this resolves all doubts, and produces such a stability of\n  spirit, as nothing can shake. A sincere believer is assured, that all\n  opposition against revealed truths is fallacious, though he cannot\n  discover the fallacy. Now the transcendent mysteries of the Christian\n  religion, the Trinity of persons in the divine nature, the incarnation\n  of the Son of God, are clearly set down in the scripture. And although\n  subtile and obstinate opponents have used many guilty arts to dispirit\n  and enervate those texts by an inferior sense, and have rackt them\n  with violence to make them speak according to their prejudices, yet\n  all is vain, the evidence of truth is victorious. A heathen, who\n  considers not the gospel as a divine revelation, but merely as a\n  doctrine delivered in writings, and judges of its sense by natural\n  light, will acknowledge that those things are delivered in it: And\n  notwithstanding those who usurp a sovereign authority to themselves,\n  to judge of divine mysteries according to their own apprehensions,\n  deny them as mere contradictions, yet they can never conclude them\n  impossible: for no certain argument can be alledged against the being\n  of a thing without a clear knowledge of its nature: Now, although we\n  may understand the nature of man, we do not the nature of God, the\n  \u0153conomy of the persons, and his power to unite himself to a nature\n  below him.\n\n  \u201cIt is true, no article of faith is really repugnant to reason; for\n  God is the author of natural, as well as of supernatural, light, and\n  he cannot contradict himself: They are emanations from him, and though\n  different, yet not destructive of each other. But we must distinguish\n  between those things that are above reason and incomprehensible, and\n  things that are against reason and utterly inconceivable: Some things\n  are above reason in regard of their transcendent excellency, or\n  distance from us; the divine essence, the eternal decrees, the\n  hypostatical union, are such high and glorious objects, that it is an\n  impossible enterprise to comprehend them: the intellectual eye is\n  dazzled with their overpowering light. We can have but an imperfect\n  knowledge of them; and there is no just cause of wonder that\n  supernatural revelation should speak incomprehensible things of God.\n  For he is a singular and admirable Being, infinitely above the\n  ordinary course of nature. The maxims of philosophy are not to be\n  extended to him. We must adore what we cannot fully understand. But\n  those things are against reason, and utterly inconceivable, that\n  involve a contradiction, and have a natural repugnancy to our\n  understandings, which cannot conceive any thing that is formally\n  impossible: and there is no such doctrine in the Christian religion.\n\n  \u201c3. We must distinguish between reason corrupted, and right reason.\n  Since the fall, the clearness of the human understanding is lost, and\n  the light that remains is eclipsed by the interposition of sensual\n  lust. The carnal mind cannot, out of ignorance, and will not from\n  pride and other malignant habits, receive things spiritual. And from\n  hence arises many suspicions and doubts, (concerning supernatural\n  verities) the shadows of darkened reason, and of dying faith. If any\n  divine mystery seems incredible, it is from the corruption of our\n  reason, not from reason itself; from its darkness, not its light. And\n  as reason is obliged to correct the errors of sense, when it is\n  deceived either by some vicious quality in the organ, or by the\n  distance of the object, or by the falseness of the medium, that\n  corrupts the image in conveying of it. So it is the office of faith to\n  reform the judgment of reason, when either from its own weakness, or\n  the height of things spiritual, it is mistaken about them. For this\n  end supernatural revelation was given, not to extinguish reason, but\n  to redress it, and enrich it with the discovery of heavenly things.\n  Faith is called wisdom and knowledge: it doth not quench the vigour of\n  the faculty wherein it is seated, but elevates it, and gives it a\n  spiritual perception of those things that are most distant from its\n  commerce. It doth not lead us through a mist to the inheritance of the\n  saints in light.\u201d\n\n  BATES.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  Infinitus, immensus & soli sibi tantus, quantus est notus, nobis vero\n  ad intellectum pectus angustum est, & ide\u00f2 sic cum dign\u00e8 estimamus,\n  c\u00f9m inaestimabilem dicimus. _Min. Fel._\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  He who has marked the differences between truth and error, good and\n  evil, made them discoverable, and formed human minds susceptible of\n  their impressions, thereby discovers his will that we should attend to\n  them, and has made it our duty to do so. With this sentiment sacred\n  revelation is expressly accordant; \u201cprove all things, hold fast that\n  which is good.\u201d The Gospel requires not faith without evidence, it\n  demands no more assent than is proportioned to the weight of\n  probability, and charges as a crime only our refusing to attend to the\n  evidence, or our coming to it with hearts prejudiced against, and\n  therefore insensible to, its evidence. The exercise of reason is\n  essential to faith, for how sudden soever our convictions, still it is\n  the judgment which is convinced.\n\n  Yet reason has her due province; she may and ought to ascertain the\n  genuineness, authenticity, and divine authority of the scriptures.\n  When this is done, she cannot correctly delay her assent, because she\n  may not fully comprehend the promises or works of God, for this would\n  require wisdom no less than Divine. But suppose she should presume to\n  try them, by what balances shall she weigh them? To what shall she\n  compare them? To the reasons and fitness of things? what are these but\n  circumstances and relations springing from the works of God? His\n  creation originated from his wisdom and power, and is ever dependent\n  on them. This is therefore to circumscribe infinite wisdom by what has\n  been already discovered of it; it is to limit infinite power from\n  effecting any thing which it has not hitherto accomplished. Such\n  judgment is not the work of reason, it is irrational. Reason can only\n  make an induction, where there exists premises from which a conclusion\n  can be drawn; but here her limits are exceeded, she has no standard by\n  which she can measure infinity. By reasoning we justly infer from the\n  works of God, many of his glorious moral, as well as natural,\n  perfections; we gather that he is holy, just, true, and good, and we\n  may fairly say that he will never depart from such rectitude, but that\n  all his works will be conformed to such principles. We can go no\n  farther than unto generals, we have no right to question any word or\n  act of his, and say it is not conformed to such perfections, because\n  this would suppose that we possess infinite wisdom. He may have ways\n  of solving our difficulties and objections, with which we are not\n  acquainted. Such judgment is not only irrational, but arrogant, as it\n  is an extension of the claims of reason beyond her just limits. Our\n  duty in such case is exemplified in the father of the faithful. At\n  God\u2019s command we must, like him, sacrifice our Isaacs, and leave to\n  him both to accomplish his promises and to justify the action. It is\n  evident that the doctrine of the Trinity is but partially revealed to\n  man, but sufficiently to let him into a competent knowledge of the\n  plan of redemption.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  _Vid. Epist. 2. ad Dionys._\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  _Vid. Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Evang. Lib. XIII. cap. 12._\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  _Vid. Huet. Concord. Ration. & Fid. Lib. II. cap. 3._\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  _See Dr. Berriman\u2019s Historical account, &c. page 94._\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  \u201cPhilo uses not the name for his derivative Being in the Godhead,\n  which we see the other Jews of the time using in the Gospels. He\n  speaks not of him, by his natural appellation of the Son of God. No!\n  He takes up another title for him, which indeed was known equally to\n  other Jews, or Philo could not possibly have adopted it; which was\n  known equally to the Gentiles, as I shall show hereafter; but which\n  was known only to the scholars of either. He calls him \u2018the LOGOS of\n  God.\u2019 This is a name, that can be borrowed, together with the idea\n  annexed to it, only from the Jews, or from the common ancestors of\n  them and of the Gentiles; that answers exactly to the _Dabar_ of\n  Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures, and to the _Memra_ of Jehovah in the\n  Chaldee paraphrasts upon them; and signifies merely \u2018the WORD of God.\u2019\n  This name has been since introduced into our religion, by one of the\n  inspired teachers of it. And notwithstanding the ductility of the\n  Greek language in this instance, which would allow it to be rendered\n  either the _Word_ or the _Reason_ of God; yet the English Bible, with\n  a strict adherence to propriety, and in full conformity to the ancient\n  Christians and ancient Jews, has rejected the accidental\n  signification, and embraced only the immediate and the genuine. Yet,\n  even now, the name is confined in its use to the more improved\n  intellects among us. And it must therefore have peculiarly been, in\n  the days of Philo, the _philosophical_ denomination of Him, who was\n  _popularly_ called the Son of God.\n\n  \u201cThe use of the name of Logos, or Word, by Philo and by St. John in\n  concurrence, sufficiently marks the knowledge of the name among the\n  Jews. But the total silence concerning it, by the Jewish writers of\n  the three first Gospels; the equal silence of the introduced Jews\n  concerning it, in all the four; and the _acknowledged_ use of it\n  through all the Jewish records of our religion, merely by St. John\n  himself; prove it to have been familiar to a few only. It is indeed\n  too mysterious in its allusion, and too reducible into metaphor in its\n  import, to have ever been the common and ordinary appellation for the\n  Son of God. Originating from the _spiritual_ principle of connexion,\n  betwixt the first and the second Being in the Godhead; marking this,\n  by a _spiritual_ idea of connexion; and considering it to be as close\n  and as necessary as the _Word_ is to the energetick _Mind_ of God,\n  which cannot bury its intellectual energies in silence, but must put\n  them forth in speech; it is too _spiritual_ in itself, to be addressed\n  to the faith of the multitude. If with so full a reference to our\n  _bodily_ ideas, and so positive a _filiation_ of the Second Being to\n  the First, we have seen the grossness of Arian criticism endeavouring\n  to resolve the doctrine into the mere dust of a figure; how much more\n  ready would it have been to do so, if we had only such a _spiritual_\n  denomination as this, for the second? This would certainly have been\n  considered by it, as too unsubstantial for distinct personality, and\n  therefore too evanescent for equal divinity.\n\n  \u201cSt. John indeed adopted this philosophical title, for the\n  denomination of the Son of God; only in one solemn and prefatory\n  passage of his Gospel, in two slight and incidental passages of his\n  Epistles, and in one of his Book of revelations. Even there, the use\n  of the popular instead of the philosophical name, in the three Gospels\n  antecedent to his, precluded all probability of misconstruction. Yet,\n  not content with this, he formed an additional barrier. At the same\n  instant in which he speaks of the Logos, he asserts him to be distinct\n  from God the Father, and yet to be equally God with him. \u2018In the\n  beginning,\u2019 he says, \u2018was THE WORD; and THE WORD was _with_ God; and\n  THE WORD was GOD.\u2019 Having thus secured the two grand points relating\n  to the Logos, he can have nothing more to say upon the subject, than\n  to repeat what he has stated, for impressing the deeper conviction. He\n  accordingly repeats it. His personality he impresses again, thus; \u2018THE\n  SAME was in the beginning _with_ God.\u2019 His divinity also he again\n  inculcates, thus: \u2018ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM, and WITHOUT HIM WAS\n  NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE.\u2019 Here the very repetition itself, of\n  enforcing his claim to divinity, by ascribing the creation to him; is\n  plainly an union of two clauses, each announcing him as the Creator of\n  the universe, and one doubling over the other. And the uncreated\n  nature of his own existence is the more strongly enforced upon the\n  mind, by being contrasted with the created nature of all other\n  existences. These were MADE, but he himself WAS; _made_ by Him, who\n  _was_ with God, and _was_ God. Nor would all this precaution suffice,\n  in the opinion of St. John. He must place still stronger fences\n  against the dangerous spirit of error. He therefore goes on to say, in\n  confirmation of his personality and divinity, and in application of\n  all to our Saviour: \u2018HE was in the world, and THE WORLD WAS MADE BY\n  HIM, and the world knew him not; HE came unto HIS OWN [PROPER\n  DOMAINS,] and HIS OWN [PROPER DOMESTICKS] received him not.\u2019 And he\n  closes all, with judiciously drawing the several parts of his\n  assertions before into one full point; and with additionally\n  explaining his philosophical term, by a direct reference of it to that\n  popular one which he uses ever afterwards: \u2018and THE WORD was made\n  flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of\n  THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, full of grace and truth.\u2019\n\n  \u201cYet, when such guards were requisite, what induced St. John to use\n  this philosophical title at all? The reason was assuredly this. The\n  title was in high repute, and in familiar use, among the refined\n  spirits of the age; and his Gospel was peculiarly calculated for the\n  service of _such_. The almost perpetual recurrence of the appellation\n  in Philo\u2019s works shows evidently the use and the repute in which it\n  was, among the more spiritualized of the Jews. St. John therefore\n  adopted it himself, for the more easy access to _their_ conviction. It\n  was also congenial, probably, of itself to the spiritualized state of\n  St. John\u2019s mind. He, who has dwelt so much more than the other\n  Evangelists upon the _doctrines_ of our Saviour; and who has drawn out\n  so many of them, in all their spiritual refinement of ideas; would\n  naturally prefer the _spiritual_ term of relationship for God the Son\n  and God the Father, before the _bodily_, whenever the intellect was\n  raised enough to receive it, and whenever the use of it was\n  sufficiently guarded from danger. These were two reasons, I suppose,\n  that induced St. John to use it a _few_ times. And these were equally\n  (I suppose) the reasons, that induced him, with all his guards, to use\n  it only a few.\n\n  \u201cNor let us be told, in the rashness of Arian absurdity, that we\n  misunderstand St. John in this interpretation of his words. If reason\n  is capable of explaining words, and if St. John was capable of\n  conveying his meaning in words to the ear of reason; then we may\n  boldly appeal to the common sense of mankind, and insist upon the\n  truth of our interpretation. Common sense indeed hath _already_\n  determined the point, in an impartial person, in an enemy, in a\n  Heathen. I allude to that extraordinary approbation, which was given\n  by a Heathen of the third century to this passage of St. John. \u2018Of\n  modern philosophers,\u2019 says Eusebius, \u2018_Amelius_ is an eminent one,\n  being himself, if ever there was one, a zealot for the philosophy of\n  Plato; and he called the Divine of the Hebrews _a Barbarian_, as if he\n  would not condescend to make mention of the Evangelist John by name.\u2019\n  Such is Eusebius\u2019s account of our referee. But what are the terms of\n  his award? They are these. \u2018And such indeed was the Logos,\u2019 he says,\n  \u2018by whom, a perpetual existence, the things created were created, as\n  also Heraclitus has said; and who by Jupiter, _the Barbarian_ says,\n  being constituted in the rank and dignity of a Principle, is with God\n  and is God, by whom all things absolutely were created; in whom the\n  created living thing, and life, and existence, had a birth, and fell\n  into a body, and putting on flesh appeared a man; and, after showing\n  the greatness of his nature, and being wholly dissolved, is again\n  deified and is God, such as he was before he was brought down into the\n  body and the flesh and a man. These things, if translated out of _the\n  Barbarian\u2019s_ theology, not as shaded over there, but on the contrary\n  as placed in full view, would be plain.\u2019 In this very singular and\n  very valuable comment upon St. John\u2019s Gospel in general, and upon his\n  preface in particular, we may see, through the harsh and obscure\n  language of the whole, some circumstances of great moment. The bold\n  air of arrogance in the blinded Heathen over the illuminated Divine\n  must strike at once upon every eye. But the Logos appears, from him,\n  to have been known to the _philosophers_ of antiquity _later_ than the\n  Gospel; and known too as a perpetual Existence, and the Maker of the\n  world. St. John also is witnessed by a Heathen, and by one who put him\n  down for a Barbarian, to have represented the Logos as THE MAKER OF\n  ALL THINGS, as WITH GOD, and as GOD; as one likewise, \u2018_in whom_ the\n  created living Thing,\u2019 or the human soul of our Saviour, \u2018and\u2019 even\n  \u2018Life and Existence\u2019 themselves, those primogenial principles of\n  Deity, \u2018had _a birth_, and _fell into a body_, and _putting on flesh\n  appeared a man_,\u2019 who was therefore man and God in one; who\n  accordingly \u2018showed the greatness of his nature\u2019 by his miracles, was\n  \u2018wholly dissolved,\u2019 and then \u2018was _again_ DEIFIED, and IS GOD,\u2019 even\n  \u2018SUCH AS HE WAS, before he was _brought down into the body_ and _the\n  flesh_ and _a man_.\u2019 And St. John is attested to have declared this,\n  \u2018not even as _shaded over_,\u2019 but \u2018on the contrary as _placed in full\n  view_.\u2019 We have thus a testimony to _the plain meaning_ of St. John,\n  and to the _evident Godhead_ of his Logos, a _Godhead_ equally\n  _before_ and _after_ his death; most unquestionable in its nature,\n  very early in its age, and peculiarly forcible in its import. St.\n  John, we see, is referred to in a language, that shows him to have\n  been well known to the Grecian cotemporaries of Amelius, as a writer,\n  as a foreigner, and as a marked assertor of _Divinity_ for his Logos.\u201d\n\n  WHITAKER.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  _Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Hist. Theol. Lib. I. cap. 2 \u00a7. 8._\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  _Vid. Curcell in Quattern. Dissert. de Voc. Trinit. person\u00e6 ge._\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  _Vid. Calv. Institut. Lib. I. cap. 13. \u00a7. 5._\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  \u201cThe doctrine of a plurality appears in the very first words of\n  inspiration. God would not record the history of _creation_, without\n  informing the Church that the character of Creator was by no means to\n  be confined to one person. It has often been observed, that this is\n  taught in the words rendered _God created_, where we have a noun in\n  the plural joined with a verb in the singular number, plainly\n  expressing a plurality in unity. That this is the genuine sense of the\n  passage appears from the work ascribed, in the next verse, to the\n  Spirit of God, who is said to have \u2018moved on the face of the waters.\u2019\n  By modern Jews, whom some Christians have followed, this expression\n  has been rendered, \u2018a wind of God,\u2019 or \u2018a mighty wind.\u2019 But the\n  firmament, or expanse, was not created till the second day. This\n  includes the atmosphere which surrounds our earth: for the fowl is\n  said to \u2018fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.\u2019 Now, it\n  cannot reasonably be supposed that there could be a mighty wind, or\n  any wind at all, before the existence of an atmosphere.\n\n  \u201cIf we turn to the gospel-history, we find a third person mentioned as\n  engaged in the work of creation. \u2018All things were made by\u2019 that Word,\n  who \u2018in the beginning existed with God.\u2019\n\n  \u201cThis plurality appears still more expressly, when the sacred\n  historian gives an account of the creation of man: \u2018And God said, Let\n  _us_ make man in _our_ image, after _our_ likeness.\u2019 But it is a\n  plurality in unity: \u2018So God created man in _his_ own image.\u2019 It has\n  been justly observed, that to this the language of Elihu, and of the\n  royal Preacher, agrees: \u2018None saith, Where is God my _Makers_;\u2019 and,\n  \u2018Remember now thy _Creators_.\u2019 Nothing can be more absurd than the\n  various attempts which have been made to shew, that this language may\n  be otherwise understood. God could never speak in this manner to\n  angels, or to any second causes. For to whomsoever these words were\n  addressed, they must have been co-operators with God in this divine\n  work. They must have assisted him in making man. Philo the Jew\n  expressly says that these words, _Let us make_, declare a plurality.\n  That the Jewish writers in general view this language as including a\n  mystery, not to be made known to the vulgar, and indeed studiously\n  concealed by them, from their abhorrence of Christianity, has been\n  elsewhere demonstrated. It is therefore unnecessary to enlarge here. I\n  shall only add, that the modern Jews are so fully convinced that the\n  doctrine of a plurality is contained in these words, as to wish to\n  alter the reading. Instead of _Let us make man_, they incline to read,\n  _Let man be made_; although the Samaritan text, the Septuagint, the\n  Talmudists, and all their translations, whether ancient or modern,\n  express the language in the same manner with our version.\n\n  \u201cThe same important doctrine is introduced in the history of the\n  _Fall_. That three-one God, who said, \u2018Let us make man after our\n  image,\u2019 in the same character laments the loss of this image. \u2018JEHOVAH\n  God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us;\u2019 or, as some read\n  the passage, \u2018Behold the man, who was as one of us!\u2019 Here Philo\n  observes; \u2018These words, _as one of us_, are not put for one, but for\n  more than one.\u2019 The learned Allix has remarked that the ancient Jewish\n  writers maintain, that God \u2018speaks not this to the angels, who had no\n  common likeness to the unity or essence of God, but to Him who was the\n  celestial Adam, who is one with God.\u2019 To whom this character applies,\n  we learn from the Targum of Jonathan on the place, who here speaks of\n  \u2018the only begotten in heaven.\u2019\n\n  \u201cThis doctrine is also taught in the history of the _Confusion of\n  Tongues_. \u2018JEHOVAH said,\u2014Go to, let us go down, and there confound\n  their language.\u2019 Here the Jews repeat their contemptible subterfuge,\n  that God addresses his \u2018house of judgment,\u2019 that is, created angels.\n  For it is an established doctrine with them, that \u2018God does nothing\n  without previously consulting with his family above.\u2019 But it has\n  justly been observed, that these words, if spoken to angels, would\n  imply that God were one of them, or that he descended in the same\n  manner with them, by a real change of place. Besides, in a moment to\n  change one language into many, and to infuse these into the minds of\n  men, who were utter strangers to them before, so that they should\n  entirely forget their former modes of speech, is a work that far\n  surpasses the power of angels, and can be accomplished by no being but\n  that God, with whom to will and to do is the same.\n\n  \u201cIt must be evident to every one, who reads the history of the Old\n  Testament with any degree of attention, that an _Angel_ is often\n  introduced as speaking the language, performing the works, and\n  accepting the worship, which exclusively belong to the Supreme Being.\n  In other words, one, who is undoubtedly a divine person, often appears\n  in a delegated character. Now, while it was the will of God in this\n  manner constantly to remind his Church of the economy of redemption,\n  he at the same time taught her a distinction of persons in the divine\n  essence. It was this Angel who appeared to Abraham on different\n  occasions, to Hagar, to Jacob, to Moses, to Joshua, to the Israelites\n  at Bochim, to Gideon, to Manoah and his wife. But I enter not into a\n  particular consideration of these appearances, having endeavoured to\n  illustrate the character of this divine Messenger in another place.\n  There it has also been proved, that the law was given to the\n  Israelites at Mount Sinai by the second person of the adorable\n  Trinity, in the character of the Angel of JEHOVAH. It deserves\n  particular attention, that at the very time that the God of Israel\n  gave his people a law, by which they were to be distinguished from all\n  the idolatrous nations around, one special design of which was to\n  preserve the doctrine of the divine unity;\u2014at the very time that he\n  pronounced that leading precept, \u2018Thou shalt have no other gods before\n  me;\u2019 he, according to the Sacred History, viewed in its connexion,\n  sustained the character of an Angel, and was pleased to communicate\n  the knowledge of this fact to his people. How can these apparent\n  contradictions be reconciled, but by admitting that it was the will of\n  God to reveal himself to his church, as at the same time possessing\n  essential unity and personal plurality?\n\n  \u201cThe more ancient Jewish writers declare, that two persons were\n  engaged in promulgating the law. They say; \u2018The two first precepts\n  were spoken by the Supreme Spirit, but he spoke all the rest by his\n  Glory, who is called _El Shaddai_, known to the fathers; by whom the\n  prophets foretold future events; who is called _Jah_: in whom the Name\n  of God is; the Beloved of God who dwelt in the temple; and the Mouth\n  of the LORD; and the Face of the LORD; and the Rock; and that Goodness\n  which Moses saw, when he could not see God.\u2019 Elsewhere they call him\n  \u2018the _Schechinah_, by whom we draw near to God, and present our\n  supplications to him; who is that Angel in whom the name of God is,\n  who is himself called God and JEHOVAH.\u2019 The change of person, in the\n  promulgation of the law, asserted by these writers, is evidently a\n  mere fancy. But their language deserves attention; as it shews how\n  fully they were convinced of the doctrine of a plurality in unity,\n  when they introduced it in this manner.\n\n  \u201cIt has been universally admitted by the friends of revelation, that\n  the great end which God hath in view in the work of _Redemption_ is\n  the display of his own adorable perfections. But there is doubtless\n  another, although less attended to, nowise incompatible with this,\n  nay, itself an eminent branch of the supreme end. This is the\n  manifestation of the mystery of the Trinity, and of the mode of\n  subsistence peculiar to each person in the divine essence. This must\n  undoubtedly be viewed as included in the one great design of the\n  all-wise God in our redemption; and it is evident that he hath still\n  kept it in eye, in the revelation given to the Church, and especially\n  in the history of that work, as it is recorded in the gospels. We may\n  trace the doctrine of a Trinity in the accounts given of the old\n  creation; but it appears with far superior evidence in the history of\n  the new. This corresponds to the superior greatness of the work, and\n  to the brighter and more extensive display of divine perfection.\n\n  \u201cSuch was the state of the Church, as to admit of a more full\n  manifestation of this mystery. It was more obscurely revealed to the\n  patriarchs, and under the Mosaic economy. This was analogous to the\n  general character of the revelation then made; as well as to the state\n  of the Church, yet in her infancy, and exposed to constant temptations\n  to polytheism, from the situation of all the surrounding nations. But\n  \u2018when the fulness of the time was come,\u2019 that the gospel should be\n  preached to every creature, and the kingdom of Satan fall as lightning\n  from heaven, in the overthrow of heathen darkness; there were no such\n  impediments to the more clear revelation of this mysterious doctrine.\n  The rest of the divine conduct indeed rendered this necessary. God had\n  now \u2018sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to\n  redeem them that were under the law.\u2019 The ends of this mission could\n  not be accomplished, without a full revelation of the character of\n  this illustrious Messenger. He could not otherwise receive that homage\n  from the Church, which he merited as her Redeemer, and which was\n  necessary, in order to her salvation. Now, his character, as\n  essentially the Son of God, and at the same time a divine Messenger,\n  could not be properly unfolded, without a declaration both of the\n  paternity of the First Person, and of that wonderful dispensation,\n  according to which the Second, although equal in power and glory,\n  voluntarily \u2018emptied himself.\u2019 Nor could the unity of the work of\n  redemption, as pervading all the dispensations given to the Church,\n  and the beautiful harmony of the law and the gospel, be otherwise\n  displayed. Without a full revelation of this mystery, how could it\n  have been known that he, who appeared in the end of ages as sent of\n  God, was the very same person who had formerly led the Church, as the\n  Angel of his face; that He, who now brought spiritual redemption to\n  his folk, was no other than that Angel-Redeemer, who had already so\n  frequently delivered them from temporal calamities?\n\n  \u201cIf this mystery be unknown or disbelieved, there can be no faith in\n  Christ as the Mediator between God and men. For he who believes not\n  that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, as to\n  identity of essence, while at the same time there is a distinction of\n  persons, denies the voluntary subjection of the Son to the Father in\n  the eternal covenant, and thus the whole foundation of his merit and\n  of our salvation. In relation to the work of our redemption, and in\n  the history given of it, are revealed various internal actings of the\n  divine persons towards each other, as well as those of an external\n  nature. The Father appoints, gives, sends, prepares a human nature for\n  his Son; the Son undertakes, gives himself, comes, assumes this\n  nature.\n\n  \u201cFrom the history given of the conception of Christ, we find that\n  three divine persons were engaged in the creation of this \u2018new thing\n  in the earth.\u2019 The Father appears in the character of \u2018the Highest;\u2019\n  the Third Person, as \u2018the Holy Ghost,\u2019 and \u2018the Power of the Highest;\u2019\n  and the Second, as \u2018the Son of God.\u2019 When this wonderful Person, the\n  incarnate Word, was to be manifested to Israel at his baptism, each\n  divine Person concurred in the work. The Father testified his presence\n  and approbation by a voice from the excellent glory, announcing Jesus\n  as his beloved Son; and the Holy Ghost descended like a dove, and\n  rested on him. The history of his death, viewed in its connexion,\n  affords a proof of a similar kind. As \u2018it pleased JEHOVAH,\u2019 in the\n  person of the Father, sustaining the character of Judge, to bruise the\n  Son as our Surety; and as he, having power over his own life,\n  commended his spirit into the hands of his Father, thus presenting\n  unto him a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour; he did so \u2018through\n  the Eternal Spirit.\u2019 The same thing appears from the resurrection of\n  Jesus. He was \u2018powerfully declared to be the Son of God in his\n  resurrection from the dead;\u2019 for he had \u2018power to take again\u2019 that\n  which no one could take from him. This work is frequently ascribed to\n  God, where the term evidently denotes the First Person. \u2018God hath\n  raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou\n  art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.\u2019 As he was \u2018put to death in\n  the flesh, he was quickened by the Spirit,\u2019 by that Spirit of\n  holiness, \u2018by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in\n  prison.\u2019 Nor is this less evident from the account given of the\n  effusion of the Spirit. This is undoubtedly a divine work; and it is\n  described as belonging to each adorable Person. Jesus had foretold\n  that the Comforter should come, that himself should send him, and that\n  he should at the same time be sent by the Father. Accordingly, from\n  the account given of this wonderful event by the apostle Peter, which\n  is left on record for the instruction of the Church, we find that each\n  divine Person was engaged in accomplishing it: \u2018Jesus, having received\n  of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this\n  which ye now see and hear.\u2019\n\n  \u201cIt is undeniable, that one special end, which Christ had in view in\n  his miraculous works, was to confirm his doctrine with respect to his\n  equality with the Father. When he gave thanks at the tomb of Lazarus,\n  before raising him from the dead, it was because of the people who\n  stood by, that they might believe that the Father had sent him; and\n  sent him as a Messenger invested with divine power, because\n  essentially possessing divine perfection. For he had previously said\n  to his disciples: \u2018This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory\n  of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby;\u2019 and taught\n  Martha, that if she \u2018would believe, she would see the glory of God,\u2019\n  in seeing the manifestation of that power which essentially belonged\n  to himself, as \u2018the Resurrection and the Life.\u2019 When he cured the man\n  sick of the palsy, it was in order to prove that he had \u2018power on\n  earth to forgive sin;\u2019 while he admitted the principle held by the\n  scribes, that no one could forgive sins but God only. On different\n  occasions he refers to his miraculous works, as irrefragable evidences\n  of his having the same essence with the Father; and of the mutual\n  inexistence, as some have expressed it, of the Father in the Son, and\n  of the Son in the Father, in respect of this essential unity, while\n  there is at the same time a real distinction of persons. When his\n  enemies accused him of blasphemy, because he said, \u2018I am the Son of\n  God,\u2019 \u2018making himself God;\u2019 he replied, \u2018If I do not the works of my\n  Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe\n  the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and\n  I in him.\u2019 To Philip, when desiring to see the Father, he said,\n  \u2018Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else\n  believe me for the very work\u2019s sake.\u2019 The Evangelist John, when\n  referring to the signs recorded in the preceding history, subjoins\n  this declaration; \u2018These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus\n  is the Son of God.\u2019 That he appropriates this character to Jesus, as\n  expressive of supreme deity, is evident from the uniform tenor of the\n  gospel which bears his name.\n\n  \u201cThe doctrine of the Trinity is peculiarly elucidated by the history\n  of redemption; as it does not merely exhibit all the adorable Persons\n  as engaged in this work, but ascribes a peculiar operation to each\n  Person. The contrivance of our redemption is ascribed to the Father;\n  the purchase of it to the Son; and the effectual application of this\n  purchased redemption to the Holy Spirit. The Father sends his Son as\n  our Surety; the Son cheerfully comes in this character; and the Holy\n  Spirit is sent by both. The purpose of election is more immediately\n  ascribed to the Father; the objects of his love are all chosen in\n  Christ; and they, who were thus chosen from eternity, are in time\n  chosen out of the world, and separated for himself, by the renewing\n  and sanctifying work of the Spirit.\n\n  \u201cNor is this all. The peculiar operation of each Person, in the work\n  of our salvation, is perfectly analagous to the order of subsistence\n  in the Holy Trinity; and thus beautifully illustrates the mutual\n  relations of the divine Persons. All the external works of God,\n  indeed, are common to each Person; as the divine nature is the same\n  indivisible principle of operation. Yet these works are distinctly\n  ascribed to the three Persons, because each Person operates according\n  to the order of subsistence. In the old creation, the Father called\n  all things into being by his co-essential Word, communicating life\n  immediately by the Spirit, as exercising a generating power on the\n  unformed mass. When God created man, the First Person formed him by\n  the Second, as his essential Image, giving him life, both natural and\n  moral, by the Third, as \u2018the Spirit of life.\u2019 Yet this implies no\n  inferiority, or mere instrumentality, in any of the adorable Persons;\n  but only the most perfect order and harmony. The case is the same in\n  the new creation. It seems most consistent with divine wisdom, that he\n  who is first in the order of subsistence should rather _send_ than be\n  _sent_; that the Son, who is \u2018the image of the invisible God,\u2019 should\n  procure the restoration of that blessed image lost by sin; and that\n  he, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, should be sent by both,\n  to quicken those who are spiritually dead. This distinct operation\n  indeed, as it corresponds with the order of subsistence, beautifully\n  harmonizes with the distinguishing character belonging to each Person.\n  He, who is essentially the Father, assumes the character of paternity,\n  in a federal respect, towards those who are orphans and aliens. The\n  only begotten Son of God is sent forth, made under the law, that they\n  may \u2018receive the adoption of sons,\u2019 and appears as \u2018the first-born\n  among many brethren.\u2019 The adorable Spirit, \u2018the breath of JEHOVAH,\u2019\n  breathes on the slain, that they may live; giving them a new heart and\n  a right spirit. He, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, unites\n  the sinner to both.\n\n  \u201cIs it \u2018life eternal to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom\n  he hath sent?\u2019 Hath no one the Father, who \u2018denieth the Son?\u2019 Can no\n  one honour the Father, \u2018who honoureth not the Son?\u2019 Is it the Spirit\n  alone who quickeneth, and who teacheth us to \u2018know the things that are\n  freely given us of God?\u2019 Can no man \u2018say that Jesus is the Lord, but\n  by the Holy Ghost?\u2019 Is it through Christ that \u2018we have access by one\n  Spirit unto the Father?\u2019 Let us bless God for the revelation of the\n  mystery of a Trinity in unity; and especially because he hath revealed\n  it so clearly in the history of our redemption, in relation to that\n  work in which a peculiar operation belongs to each adorable Person, in\n  which the love of a three-one God is so wonderfully displayed, in\n  which we discern so blessed a harmony, not only of divine perfections,\n  but of divine Persons! In all our worship, let us view God according\n  to this revelation, ascribing glory to him \u2018who is, and who was, and\n  who is to come, and to the Seven Spirits which are before his throne,\n  and to Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the\n  first-begotten from the dead, and the prince of the kings of the\n  earth.\u2019 Let us earnestly desire communion with this three-one God;\n  with the Father, in his love as the spring of our salvation; with the\n  Son, in all that grace which he hath purchased by his blood; and with\n  the Holy Ghost, in the whole extent of his efficacious operation. In\n  order to this, let us press after union with Christ, that in him we\n  may be united to the Father by that one Spirit who proceeds from both,\n  and who is conferred by both as the Spirit of adoption. Let us\n  cultivate love to the brethren, as members of the same mystical body,\n  desiring to be \u2018one heart and one soul;\u2019 that although many, we may be\n  one, and thus be assimilated, in our weak measure, to the blessed\n  Trinity in respect of unity; as Jesus prays in behalf of his\n  Church;\u2014\u2018That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I\n  in thee; that they also may be one in us.\u2014I in them, and thou in me,\n  that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that\n  thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.\u2019\u201d\n\n  JAMIESON.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  _See Le Clerc\u2019s Supplement to Dr. Hammond on the New Testament,\n  preface to John i._\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  _See Biddle\u2019s Confession of Faith, touching the holy Trinity, Article\n  VI._\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  _Some have thought, that_ \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 _being of the masculine gender,\n  because it refers immediately to_ \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1, _which is of the neuter,\n  implies, that the Spirit is taken personally, which is the reason of\n  this grammatical construction; but if it be said that the reason why\n  it is masculine is, because it agrees with_ \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _it,\n  notwithstanding, proves the Personality of the Holy Ghost, since a\n  Comforter is a personal character. The same thing is observed in the\n  grammatical construction of that scripture, Eph. i. 13, 14. speaking\n  concerning the Holy Spirit of promise_, \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2; _it\n  is said_, \u1f41\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, _which denotes the personal character of\n  the Spirit, otherwise it would have been_ \u1f41 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, _unless you\n  suppose_ \u1f41\u03c2 _agrees with_ \u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, _which seems to be a more strained\n  sense of the grammatical construction than the other, which proves his\n  personality._\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  \u201cTHAT the Holy Scriptures make mention of _Three_ by way of great\n  _eminence_ and _distinction_ may appear from many passages, out of\n  which I shall only produce some. At the Prediction of the blessed\n  Virgin\u2019s conception, which was to be without the concurrence of a man,\n  the divine message is delivered in these words: _The Holy Ghost shall\n  come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee;\n  Therefore, also that Holy Thing, that shall be born of thee, shall be\n  called the Son of God_. Here are plainly distinguished from each\n  other, the _Holy Ghost_, or _Power_ overshadowing; the _Highest_,\n  whose Power that Spirit is; and the _Holy Thing_, or _Person_, who is\n  _called the Son of God_, because born of a mother, impregnated by that\n  Divine Power. At our Blessed Lord\u2019s Baptism, _the Spirit of God_, we\n  read, _descended like a dove and rested upon him, and a voice from\n  Heaven_ declared him to _be the Son of God_: Nothing can be plainer\n  than three _Personalities_ in this transaction; the _Father_ speaking\n  from Heaven, the _Son_ coming out of _Jordan_, and the _Spirit_\n  descending from above. In the Promise, which our blessed Saviour makes\n  his disciples, to comfort their hearts against what was coming upon\n  them, _I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another\n  comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of\n  Truth_; and _when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you\n  from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the\n  Father, he shall testify of me_, there are manifestly Acts, and\n  Persons, and capacities, different. The _Father_, from whom the Spirit\n  _proceeds_, whom the Son _prays_, and by whom, at the Son\u2019s Request,\n  the _Comforter was given_: The _Son, praying_ the Father; _sending_\n  the Comforter from the Father, and _testified_ of by the _Spirit_ so\n  sent: And the _Spirit, given_ by the Father, _sent_ by the Son,\n  _testifying_ of the Son, and, upon the Son\u2019s Departure, _abiding_ for\n  ever with the Disciples.\n\n  \u201cThe great Apostle of the Gentiles, to enforce the Doctrine of the\n  resurrection, tells the _Romans, that if the Spirit of him, who raised\n  Jesus from the dead, dwelt in them, he that raised Christ from the\n  dead would also quicken their mortal bodies by his Spirit, that\n  dwelled in them_; where he evidently refers to _Jesus_, the Son of\n  God; raised from the Dead; to the _Spirit_ of God, by which he was\n  raised; and to _him_ that raised _Jesus_, and at the last great day\n  shall raise all others, in whom his Spirit dwells. The same apostle,\n  to satisfy the _Corinthians_ of the benefits of their _conversion_,\n  after having enumerated several ranks of sinners, _and_ such _were\n  some of you_, says he, _but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but\n  ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the\n  Spirit of our God_, _i. e._ God the Father. It cannot be denied that\n  _Sanctification_ and _Justification_ are the gifts of God alone; for\n  none can absolve us from the Guilt and pollution of sin, but he only:\n  But then the Apostle tells the _Corinthians_, that this benefit they\n  received not only from God the _Father_, but from the _Lord Jesus_\n  likewise, and from the Holy Spirit: Analogous to which is that other\n  Passage in the same epistle; _There are diversities of gifts, but the\n  same Spirit_, (there is the _third_ Person in the Trinity) _there are\n  differences of Administration, but the same Lord_, (there is the\n  _second_ Person) _and there are diversities of operations, but it is\n  the same God_, (or _first_ person in the _Trinity_) _that worketh all\n  in all_. Once more, the same Apostle, in his prayer for the\n  _Thessalonians_, directs his devotion to the ever blessed Trinity:\n  _Now God himself, even our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct\n  our way unto you, and the Lord_, (_i. e._ the Holy Ghost) _make you to\n  increase and abound in love one towards another_: For that by the\n  _Lord_ we are here to understand the Holy Ghost, I think is very plain\n  from the next verse; \u2018_to the end, that he may establish your hearts\n  unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of\n  our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints_;\u2019 since he is the\n  _Sanctifier_, and to _establish our hearts in holiness_ is his proper\n  work and office: And if so, then is there a plain _enumeration_ of the\n  three Persons of the _Trinity_ in this passage.\n\n  \u201cThe great Apostle of the _Jews_ begins his first Epistle _general_ to\n  his _dispersed_ Brethren with a declaration of the same article, when\n  he calls them _elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,\n  through Sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling\n  of the blood of Jesus_; for there we may observe, that the three\n  _Persons_ are not only expressly _named_, but their distinct\n  _employments_, with reference to man\u2019s salvation, are particularly\n  _specified_, while the Father is said to _elect_, the Spirit to\n  _sanctify_, and the holy Jesus to _shed his blood_. The beloved\n  Apostle _St. John_, in his _Salutation_ to the Churches, _Grace, and\n  Peace from him, which is, and which was, and which is to come, and\n  from the seven spirits which are before his Throne, and from Jesus\n  Christ_ has given us a distinct enumeration of the three Persons in\n  the Deity, if we will but admit, (as most interpreters have done) that\n  by the _Seven Spirits_, which was a _sacred_ number among the _Jews_,\n  that _one_ Person (_viz._ the Holy Ghost) is to be understood, from\n  whom all that variety of gifts and operations, which were then\n  conspicuous in the Christian Church, did proceed. But however this be,\n  \u2019tis certain, that the passage in his Epistle of the _Three which bear\n  record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost_, are as\n  full and plain a _Testimony_ and declaration of this _Mystery_, as can\n  be cited in words; and though some have endeavoured to invalidate the\n  authority of this passage, as not extant in some ancient copies, and\n  seldom appealed to by the first defenders of the catholick faith\n  against the _Arians_ and _Macedonians_, yet the contrary to this is\n  most evident. _Tertullian_, _St. Cyprian_, and _Fulgentius_ quote it\n  in their writings: _Athanasius_ made use of it in the council of\n  _Nice_ against _Arius_; and the reason why it was left out in some\n  ancient copies _Socrates_ acquaints us with in his _Ecclesiastical_\n  history, when he tells us, \u2018That the _Christian_ Church had all along\n  complained, that the Epistle of _St. John_ had been corrupted by the\n  first adversaries of the doctrine of Christ\u2019s divinity.\u2019 \u2019Twas by\n  their artifice therefore that it was omitted; for several learned\n  pens, both of our own and other churches, have made it very manifest,\n  that it was[94] _originally_ in the text, and that the most and\n  ancientest _copies_ always had it.\n\n  \u201cBut we need not be so tenacious of one _text_, when, besides these\n  already mentioned, and many more that might be produced upon a farther\n  enquiry, the very form of our _admission_ into the Christian covenant\n  is _in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_;\n  the form of our _prayers_ is thus directed, that _through the Son we\n  have an access by one Spirit to the Father_; and the form of our\n  _dismission_ from them is, every day, with this _benediction_, _The\n  grace of the Lord Jesus, and the love of God, and the fellowship of\n  the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore_; as if the Wisdom of God had\n  intended to inculcate this notion of the _Trinity_, and, in every act\n  of our religious worship, to remind us of the manner of his\n  _subsistence_.\n\n  \u201cThus it appears that there are _Three_, very often occurring in\n  scripture, under the different appellations of _Father_, _Son_, and\n  _Holy Ghost_: and that these three are not _one_ and the _same Being_,\n  under _different respects_ and considerations, but _three_ real and\n  distinct _persons_, with a _peculiar_ manner of _subsisting_, is plain\n  from the very names of _Father_, _Son_, and _Holy Ghost_, if we\n  understand them in a proper and natural sense; because these are\n  opposite _relations_, which can never meet in the same _subject_: for\n  a _Father_ cannot be Father to himself, but to his _Son_; nor can a\n  _Son_ be Son to himself, but to his _Father_; nor can the Holy Ghost\n  _proceed_ from himself, or (in this sense) be his own _Spirit_, but\n  the Spirit of the Father, and Son, from whom he proceeds: and\n  therefore the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit; nor the Son\n  the Father, or Holy Spirit; nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son.\n  The only question is, whether these _names_, when spoken of the\n  Trinity have a _proper_ and _natural_, or only an _allusive_ and\n  _metaphorical_ signification.\n\n  \u201cThe divine nature and perfections indeed, (as they are far exalted\n  above our conception) may be brought down by _metaphors_, taken from\n  some things, that are _analagous_ in creatures; in which sense we may\n  allow _Father_ and _Son_ to be _metaphorical_ names, when applied to\n  God: not that God the Father is not, in the highest and most perfect\n  sense, a Father, and his Son a most proper, natural, and genuine Son;\n  but because the _divine generation_ is so perfect a communication of\n  the divine nature and being from Father to Son, that _human\n  generations_ are but obscure and imperfect _images_ and resemblances\n  of it. The truth is, when any thing is spoken _metaphorically_ of God,\n  the metaphor and image are always in the _creatures_; the truth,\n  perfection, and reality of all, in _God_: and if so, then if God be a\n  Father, and have a Son, an only-begotten Son, begotten eternally of\n  himself; though this eternal generation be infinitely above what we\n  can imagine or conceive, yet it is evident, that God the Father is\n  more _properly_ and _perfectly_ a Father, and God the Son more\n  properly and perfectly a Son, than any earthly fathers or sons ever\n  were. And if God the Father and his Son be truly and perfectly Father\n  and Son, they must be truly and perfectly _distinct_ beings; for the\n  Father cannot be the Son whom he _begets_; nor the Son the Father that\n  _begat_ him; nor the Holy Ghost either the Father or the Son, from\n  whom he _proceeds_: consequently, they must be distinct, and real, and\n  proper _persons_; for he that _begets_, and he that is _begotten_, and\n  he that _proceeds_ from both, cannot be one and the same person.\n\n  \u201cAnd as this _difference_ of _relations_ makes a manifest distinction\n  between the three persons; so the different _offices_ and\n  _employments_, that are ascribed to them in scripture, is a farther\n  _note_ of discrimination. For who sees not, that the work of\n  _creation_ of all things at first, and ever since the just, and wise,\n  and merciful _disposal_ of them, are attributed to the _Father_; that\n  the great undertaking of our _redemption_ is the care and employment\n  of the _Son_; and the business of _enlightening_ and _sanctifying_\n  those, whom the Son redeemeth, the particular province of the _Holy\n  Ghost_? Without supposing them to be three distinct persons, I say, no\n  satisfactory solution can be given, why, in the great work of man\u2019s\n  salvation, a distinct office and operation should be proper to each of\n  them; why the Father only should be said to _elect_; the Son only to\n  _have shed and sprinkled his blood_; and the Holy Ghost only to\n  _sanctify_ us unto obedience. So far then as a diversity of names,\n  offices, and operations, distinguishes one being from another, there\n  is plainly a distinction of persons subsisting in the Godhead. But\n  this is not all. Those, who pretend to state[95] the true notion of a\n  _person_ as a term made use of in this argument, tell us, that it is\n  _a being, which has understanding, and is a distinct, entire substance\n  of itself; an individual substance of a rationed nature, or a complete\n  intelligent substance, with a peculiar manner of subsistence_: so that\n  there is a _common_ nature, which must be joined by a _peculiar_\n  manner of subsisting, to make a person, otherwise it would be a mere\n  _mode_; for _we never conceive a person without the essence in\n  conjunction with it_. And this notion may haply be of use, not only to\n  _state_ the true _distinction_ of the Persons in the Godhead, but to\n  account likewise for some _dubious_ passages in the fathers, and\n  reconcile the different parties that contend about them: only we must\n  take care (as I said before) that, when we discourse of the sacred\n  _Trinity_, the word _person_ be not conceived in the same sense as\n  among men. The _persons_ of men are _distinct_ men, as well as\n  distinct persons; but this is no ground for us to affirm, that the\n  _persons_ in the divine nature are distinct _Gods_. The distinction of\n  the persons of men is founded in a _separate_ and divided subsistence;\n  but this cannot be the foundation of the _distinction_ of the _divine_\n  persons, because _separation_ and _division_ cannot belong to an\n  _infinite_ Being. In a word, three human _persons_ are three _men_,\n  because, though they have the same _specific_ nature, yet they have\n  not the same _numerical_ nature: but the three Persons in the Godhead\n  are not three _Gods_, because they have the same _numerical_ essence,\n  which belongs in common to them all: and since it is confessed on all\n  hands, that _nature_ and _subsistence_ go to the making up of a\n  _person_, why may not the way of their subsistence be as different as\n  the _human_ and _Divine_ natures (one _finite_, and the other\n  _infinite_) are confessed to be? Though therefore in things _created_\n  it is necessary for one single essence to subsist in one single\n  person, and no more; yet this does not at all prove that the same must\n  be necessary in _him_, whose _nature_ is wholly different from\n  _theirs_, and, consequently, may differ as much in the _manner_ of his\n  subsistence. For \u2019tis a thing agreeable even to the notions of bare\n  reason to imagine, that the _divine_ nature has a way of subsisting\n  very _different_ from the subsistence of any _created_ being, and\n  consequently, may have one and the same nature diffused into three\n  distinct persons: but _how_, and in what manner _this_ is effected;\n  how one substance in the Deity is communicated to more, and becomes\n  theirs; how of one and the same _essence_, there can be three persons\n  _numerically_ different; this is the _difficulty_, and what made the\n  holy father (writing upon the argument) confess, \u2018That the _mystery_\n  of the Trinity is _immense_ and incomprehensible, beyond the\n  expression of words, or reach of sense; that it blinds our sight, and\n  exceeds the capacity of our understanding: I understand it not, says\n  he; nevertheless I will comfort myself in this, that angels are\n  ignorant of it, nor do ages apprehend it; that neither the apostles\n  enquired after it, nor the Son himself has thought fit to declare it.\u2019\n\n  \u201cThe only valid objection (and to which all others are reducible)\n  against these _personalities_, so often occurring in scripture, is\n  taken from the _simplicity_ of the divine nature, which, in the\n  opinion of some, will not admit of any _distinction_. But though the\n  simplicity of God excludes all _mixture_, _i. e._ all composition of\n  things _heterogeneous_ in the Godhead, (there being nothing in God but\n  what is God) yet, notwithstanding this, there may be a distinction of\n  _hypostases_ in the Godhead, provided they are _homogeneous_, and of\n  the same nature. Nay, the simplicity of the divine nature, if rightly\n  considered, is so far from excluding, that it necessarily infers a\n  distinction of _hypostases_ in the Godhead: for, since the simplicity\n  of the Godhead consists chiefly in this, that God is a pure eternal\n  Mind, free from the mixture of all kind of matter whatever; an eternal\n  Mind must needs have in it, from all eternity, _a notion or conception\n  of itself_, which the schools call _verbum mentis_; nor can it, at any\n  time, be conceived without it. Now this _word_ cannot be in God, what\n  it is in us, a _transient vanishing_ accident; for then the divine\n  nature would be compounded of _substance_ and _accident_, which would\n  be repugnant to its _simplicity_; and therefore must be a _substantial\n  subsisting word_, and though not divided, yet distinct from the\n  eternal Mind, from whence it proceeds. This is no _novel subtlety_ of\n  the _schools_, but a notion, that[96] runs through all the Fathers of\n  the first ages, and is not destitute of a sufficient foundation in\n  scripture. It proves indeed only two Persons in the Godhead, not a\n  _Trinity_; but then it proves, that a _distinction_ of persons in the\n  Godhead is very consistent with its _simplicity_; nay, that from the\n  true nature of the simplicity of the Godhead, such a distinction\n  necessarily follows; and if there is a distinction of _two_, there may\n  be of _three_; and that there is of _three_, the full evidence of\n  scripture (as I have already shewn) abundantly assures us.\u201d\n\n  STACKHOUSE.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  To confirm this we may add, that, if the difference of copies happened\n  by the negligence of transcribers, such a mistake is much more easily\n  made by _omitting_ a clause, than by _inserting one_, especially when\n  the same words occur twice very near together, which is the present\n  case: and that, without this clause, the next verse is maimed, and\n  hardly good sense, the words, _in earth_, standing disjointed by\n  themselves; whereas the words, _in heaven_, (as we now read them) make\n  a clear, strong, and elegant antithesis: and for these reasons, those\n  copies, in which this passage is found, are more likely to be true,\n  than those in which it is wanting.\u2014_Trapp\u2019s Doctrine of the Trinity._\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  A late learned author has given us this definition of a _single\n  person_, \u201cThat it is an intelligent agent, having the distinctive\n  characters of _I_, _thou_, and _he_, and not divided or distinguished\n  into more intelligent agents, capable of the same characters.\u201d\n  [_Waterland\u2019s_ second Defence,] and thereupon he thus argues in\n  another place, \u201cOur ideas of person are plainly taken from our\n  conceptions of human persons, and from them transferred to other\n  subjects, though they do not strictly answer in every circumstance.\n  Properly speaking, _he_ and _him_, are no more applicable to a divine\n  person, than _she_ or _her_;\u201d but we have no third way of denoting a\n  person, and so, of the two, we choose the best, and custom\n  familiarizes it.\u2014_His Sermons at Lady Moyer\u2019s Lectures._\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  It has, with good reason, been supposed by the _Catholick_ writers,\n  that the design of the word \u039b\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 was to intimate, that the relation\n  of Father and Son hears some resemblance and analogy to that of\n  _thought_, _viz._ that as thought is _co-eval_ with the mind, so the\n  Son is co-eval with the Father; and that as thought is closely united\n  to, proceeds from, and yet remains in the mind, so also may we\n  understand that the Son is in the bosom of the Father, proceeding from\n  him, and yet never divided or separate, but remaining in him and with\n  him.\u2014_Waterland\u2019s Sermons at Lady Moyer\u2019s Lectures._\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  _Some, who take delight in darkening this matter, by pretending to\n  explain it, call the former a_ \u03c4\u03bf \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd, stans; _the latter_, fluens.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  \u201cIn the Saviour\u2019s exalted relation to his Father, the name Son of God\n  comes chiefly under observation. It is known that in the sacred word,\n  rational creatures are often dignified with the honorary title of Sons\n  or Children of God; and that in various respects, and for obvious\n  reasons. But certainly that name in Christ signifies something higher.\n  John x. 35-38. He is not only _a_ Son of God, but _the_ Son, by way of\n  eminence above all \u03bf \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2: So that he is by this, as a peculiar and\n  proper denomination, distinguished from other subjects. We know, that\n  the Son of God is come. 1 John v. 20. John viii. 36.\u2014He is God\u2019s\n  only-begotten Son. John i. 14, 18. iii. 16. God\u2019s own Son. Rom. viii.\n  32. \u2018To which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this\n  day have I begotten thee?\u2019 Heb. i. 5. When Christ spoke to his\n  disciples concerning the Father, he never said, _our Father_, (as he\n  had taught them to pray;) but always with an express distinction _my\n  Father_. Luke ii. 48, 49. John ii. 16. chiefly John xx. 17.\u2014\u2014From the\n  prophetic doctrine, that name was known in Israel, as in its full\n  force applicable to the Messias; which can be clearly evinced from\n  various passages. Mat. xvi. 15, 16. xxvi. 63. Mark iii. 11. John vi.\n  69. xi. 27. x. 36. Amidst all the confusion of their apprehensions,\n  they found so much emphasis in it, that the acknowledgment of it was\n  among them a ground of _adoration_, Mat. xiv. 33. John ix. 35-38.; so\n  that when Jesus, with the distinction and appropriation of the divine\n  works, called God _his Father_, they thence concluded, which the\n  Saviour did not contradict, that he held God for his own Father, and\n  thus made himself equal to God. John v. 18. x. 33-36. Indeed, however\n  intimate the connexion is betwixt being the Messias, the Christ, and\n  being the Son of God, this last signifies still something different,\n  something more original. For Paul preached Christ, that he was the Son\n  of God[99]. In the love of the truth, let us observe the divine\n  testimony, he did not become the Son of God by or after his coming in\n  the flesh, by or after the execution of his ministry; but herein is\n  God\u2019s great mercy celebrated, that \u2018he sent him who was his Son, made\n  him under the law, and delivered him up for us all.\u2019 This is evident,\n  from a variety of passages. Gal. iv. 4. Rom. viii. 32. Heb. v. 8. 1\n  John iv. 9, 10. It is plainly supposed in the parable, the lord of the\n  vineyard sent to the husbandmen many servants, some of whom they beat,\n  and others they slew. Having therefore yet one son who was dear to\n  him, he sent him last of all to them, saying, \u2018they will surely\n  reverence my son.\u2019 Mark xii. 6.\u2014\u2014In his supreme excellence, as the Son\n  of God, lies the reason of punishing unbelief. As the Son of God, \u2018he\n  is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.\u2019\n  Heb. i. 3. On the self-same account, he is, according to the language\n  of men, his heir, that is, has a natural right to all the works of\n  God, especially to his church; which are also made by him, in\n  communion with the Father. See this described in a lofty strain by the\n  apostle, Heb. i. 1-3. iii. 3-6. Col. i. 15-17. and also by Jesus\n  himself. Mark xii. 6, 7.\u2014\u2014Though, therefore, a further theological\n  illustration of Christ\u2019s divine sonship should best be preceded by the\n  proof of his true Deity, yet in the meantime, the name Son of God, as\n  ascribed to him, points us not only to his distinguished elevation\n  above all creatures, which Arius acknowledged, but also to his unity\n  of nature with the Father,[100] and to the ground of his existence in\n  the eternal and necessary existence of the Father.\u201d\n\n  WYNPERSSE.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  Acts ix. 20.; see also chap. viii. 37. In both these places, however,\n  there is a different reading in the Greek. But compare Jesus\u2019 first\n  accusation before Pilate, that he said he was the Christ. (Luke xxiii.\n  2.) with a new and a later, that he made himself the Son of God. (John\n  xix. 7.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  _Unity of nature with the Father._ In the original it is equality of\n  his nature. But apprehending that, by an error of the press, gelykheid\n  is put for eenigheyd, I have adventured to translate the passage as\n  above; and that in the fullest consistency with the design of the\n  worthy author, in the whole of this treatise, and with his express\n  words in the close of the second paragraph of this very section, where\n  he says, \u201cwe dare not esteem Christ less than \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, that is, of\n  the _same nature_ or essence with God.\u201d\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  \u201cThe meaning of the terms, _Son of God_, _only-begotten Son of God_,\n  must needs be of importance, inasmuch as the belief of the idea\n  signified by them was made a leading article in the primitive\n  professions of faith. John vi. 69. iii. 18. xx. 31. Acts xviii. 37. 1\n  John iv. 15. Whatever disputes have arisen of late among christians,\n  there seems to have been none on this subject in the times of the\n  apostles. Both Jews and Christians appear to have agreed in this: the\n  only question that divided them was, whether Christ was the Son of\n  God, or not? If there had been any ambiguity in the term, it would\n  have been very unfit to express the first article of the christian\n  faith.\n\n  \u201cIt has been frequently suggested, that the ground of Christ\u2019s sonship\n  is given us in Luke i. 35, and is no other than his miraculous\n  conception: _The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the\n  Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which\n  shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God_.\n\n  \u201cIt is true that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Holy\n  Spirit, and that such a conception was peculiar to him; but it does\n  not follow that by this he became the _Son_, or _only-begotten Son of\n  God_. Nor does the passage in question prove any such thing. It has\n  been thought that the phrase _Son of God_, in this place, is used in a\n  peculiar sense, or that it respects the origin of Christ\u2019s human\n  nature, as not being by ordinary generation of man, but by the\n  extraordinary influence of God; and that he is here called the Son of\n  God in the same sense as Adam is so called, (Luke iii. 38.) as being\n  produced by his immediate power. If this be the meaning of the term in\n  the passage in question, I should think it will be allowed to be\n  peculiar, and therefore that no general conclusion can be drawn from\n  it, as to the meaning of the term in other passages. But granting that\n  the sonship of Christ, in this place, is to be understood in the same\n  sense as it is commonly to be taken in the new testament, still it\n  does not follow that the miraculous conception is the origin of it. It\n  may be a reason given why Christ is _called_ the Son of God; but not\n  why he _is_ so. Christ is called the Son of God as raised from the\n  dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God. Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i.\n  4, 5. Did he then become the Son of God by these events? This is\n  impossible; for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from\n  his miraculous conception, it could not for that reason arise from his\n  resurrection, or exaltation: and so on the other hand, if it arose\n  from his resurrection, or exaltation, it could not proceed from his\n  miraculous conception. But if each be understood of his being hereby\n  _proved_, _acknowledged_, or, as the scriptures express it, _declared_\n  to be the Son of God with power, all is easy and consistent.\n\n  \u201cWhether the terms, _Son of God_, and _only-begotten Son of God_, be\n  not expressive of his divine personality, antecedent to all\n  consideration of his being conceived of the holy Spirit, in the womb\n  of the Virgin, let the following things determine.\n\n  \u201c_First_: The glory of the _only-begotten of the Father_, and the\n  glory of the _Word_, are used as convertible terms, as being the same:\n  but the latter is allowed to denote the divine person of Christ,\n  antecedent to his being made flesh; the same therefore must be true of\n  the former. _The Word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory_; that\n  is, the glory of the Word, _the glory as of the only-begotten of the\n  Father, full of grace and truth_. John i. 14. It is true, it was by\n  the Word being _made flesh, and dwelling amongst us_, that his glory\n  became _apparent_; but the glory itself was that of the eternal Word,\n  and this is the same as _the glory of the only-begotten of the\n  Father_.\n\n  \u201c_Secondly_: The Son of God is said to _dwell in the bosom of the\n  Father_; that is, he is intimately acquainted with his character and\n  designs, and therefore fit to be employed in making them known to men.\n  _The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath\n  declared him._ John i. 18. If this be applied to his divine person, or\n  _that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to\n  us_, 1 John i. 2. it is natural and proper; it assigns his omniscience\n  as qualifying him for making known the mind of God: but if he became\n  the only-begotten of the Father by his miraculous conception, or by\n  any other means, the beauty of the passage vanishes.\n\n  \u201c_Thirdly_: God is frequently said to have _sent_ his Son into the\n  world: John vii. 17. x. 36. 1 John iv. 9, 10. but this implies that he\n  was his Son antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise, is no\n  less absurd than supposing that when Christ is said to have sent forth\n  his twelve disciples, they were not disciples, but in consequence of\n  his sending them, or of some preparation pertaining to their mission.\n\n  \u201c_Fourthly_: Christ is called the Son of God antecedently to his\n  miraculous conception, and consequently he did not become such by\n  it.\u2014_In the fulness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,\n  made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the\n  law\u2014God sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh._ Gal. iv.\n  4. Rom. viii. 3.\u2014The terms, _made of a woman_, _made under the law_,\n  are a parenthesis. The position affirmed is, that God sent forth his\n  Son to redeem the transgressors of the law. His being made of a woman,\n  and made under the law, or covenant of works, which man had broken,\n  expressed the necessary means for the accomplishment of this great\n  end; which means, though preceding our redemption, yet follow the\n  sonship of the Redeemer. There is equal proof that Christ was the _Son\n  of God_ before he was _made of a woman_, as that he was _the Word_\n  before he was _made flesh_. The phraseology is the same in the one\n  case as in the other. If it be alleged that Christ is here called the\n  Son of God _on account_ of his being made of a woman, I answer, If so,\n  it is also on account of his being _made under the law_, which is too\n  absurd to admit of a question.\u2014Moreover: To say that _God sent his own\n  Son in the likeness of sinful flesh_, is equal to saying that the Son\n  of God assumed human nature: he must therefore have been the Son of\n  God before his incarnation.\n\n  \u201c_Fifthly_: Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his being\n  _manifested to destroy the works of the devil_: but he was manifested\n  to destroy the works of the devil by taking upon him human nature;\n  consequently, he was the Son of God antecedent to the human nature\n  being assumed. There is equal proof from the phraseology of 1 John\n  iii. 8. that he was the _Son of God_ antecedent to his being\n  _manifested to destroy the works of the devil_, as there is from that\n  of 1 Tim. iii. 16. that he was _God_ antecedent to his being\n  _manifested in the flesh_; or from 1 John i. 2, that _that eternal\n  life, which was with the Father_, was such antecedent to his being\n  _manifested to us_.\n\n  \u201c_Sixthly_: The ordinance of baptism is commanded to be administered\n  _in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit_.\n  Matt. xxviii. 19. The terms, _Father_ and _Holy Spirit_, will be\n  allowed to denote divine persons; and what good reasons can be given\n  for another idea being fixed to the term _Son_?\n\n  \u201c_Seventhly_: The proper deity of Christ precedes his office of\n  Mediator, or High Priest of our profession, and renders it an exercise\n  of _condescension_. But the same is true of his sonship: _He maketh\n  the Son a High Priest\u2014Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience_.\n  Heb. vii. 28. v. 8. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to\n  the same thing as his being a divine person.\n\n  \u201c_Eighthly_: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives _dignity_ to\n  his office of Mediator: but this dignity is ascribed to his being the\n  _Son of God_. _We have a_ GREAT _High Priest; Jesus, the_ SON _of_\n  GOD. Heb. iv. 14. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the\n  same thing as his being a divine person.\n\n  \u201c_Lastly_: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives _efficacy_ to\n  his sufferings\u2014_By_ HIMSELF _he purges our sins_. Heb. i. 3. But this\n  efficacy is ascribed to his being the _Son of God_\u2014_The blood of Jesus\n  Christ_, HIS SON, _cleanseth us from all sin_. 1 John i. 7. His being\n  the Son of God therefore amounts to the same thing as his being a\n  divine person.\n\n  \u201cThose who attribute Christ\u2019s sonship to his miraculous conception,\n  (those however to whom I refer,) are nevertheless constrained to allow\n  that the term _implies_ proper divinity. Indeed this is evident from\n  John v. 18, where his saying that _God was his own Father_ is supposed\n  to be _making himself equal with God_. But if the miraculous\n  conception be the proper foundation of his sonship, why should it\n  contain such an implication? A holy creature might be produced by the\n  over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit, which yet should be merely a\n  creature; _i. e._ he might, on this hypothesis, profess to be the Son\n  of God, and yet be so far from making himself equal with God, as to\n  pretend to be nothing more than a man.\n\n  \u201cIt has been objected, that Christ, when called the Son of God, is\n  commonly spoken of as engaged in the work of mediation, and not simply\n  as a divine person antecedent to it. I answer; In a history of the\n  rebellion in the year 1745, the name of his Royal Highness, the\n  commander in chief, would often be mentioned in connexion with his\n  equipage and exploits; but none would infer from hence that he thereby\n  became the king\u2019s son.\n\n  \u201cIt is further objected, that sonship implies _inferiority_, and\n  therefore cannot be attributed to the divine person of Christ.\u2014But,\n  whatever inferiority may be attached to the idea of Sonship, it is not\n  an inferiority of _nature_, which is the point in question: and if any\n  regard be paid to the Scriptures, the very contrary is true. Christ\u2019s\n  claiming to be the Son of God was _making himself_, not inferior, but\n  _as God_, or _equal with God_.\n\n  \u201cOnce more: Sonship, it is said, implies _posteriority_, or that\n  Christ, as Son, could not have existed till after the Father. To\n  attribute no other divinity to him, therefore, than what is denoted by\n  sonship, is attributing none to him; as nothing can be divine which is\n  not eternal. But if this reasoning be just, it will prove that the\n  divine purposes are not eternal, or that there was once a point in\n  duration, in which God was without thought, purpose or design. For it\n  is as true, and may as well be said, that God must exist before he\n  could purpose, as that the Father must exist before he had a Son: but\n  if God must exist before he could purpose, there must have been a\n  point in duration in which he existed without purpose, thought, or\n  design; that is, in which he was not God! The truth is, the whole of\n  this apparent difficulty arises from the want of distinguishing\n  between the order of nature and the order of time. In the order of\n  nature, the sun must have existed before it could shine; but in the\n  order of time, the sun and its rays are coeval: it never existed a\n  single instant without them. In the order of nature, God must have\n  existed before he could purpose; but in the order of time, or\n  duration, he never existed without his purpose: for a God, without\n  thought or purpose, were no God. And thus in the order of nature, the\n  Father must have existed before the Son; but, in that of duration, he\n  never existed without the Son, The Father and the Son therefore are\n  properly eternal.\u201d\n\n  FULLER.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 _is used six times in the New Testament; in two or three of\n  which places it might be rendered, without deviating from the sense of\n  the respective texts,_ & quidem, _as well as_ quamvis; _and I see no\n  reason why the enclitic particle_ \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1, _being added to_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9, _should\n  always, without exception, alter the sense thereof, any more than when\n  it is joined to_ \u03c9\u03c2, \u03b5\u03b1\u03bd, _or_ \u03b5\u03b9. _And whereas I render_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9, _in\n  ver. 9._ But, _instead of_ And, _that may be justified by several\n  scriptures, where it is so rendered; as Luke vii. 35. Matth. xii. 39.\n  Acts x. 28. 1 Cor. xvi. 12._\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  Dr. Ridgley differs from the most of his brethren on the Sonship of\n  Christ as Mediator. The following note, and the two preceding,\n  represent, it is presumed, the orthodox doctrine on this important\n  head.\n\n  \u201cThe Redeemer is the Son of God, in a peculiar and appropriated sense,\n  and by which he is distinguished from every other person in the\n  universe. He is therefore called the _first begotten_, or first born\n  son of God: his _only begotten son_, _his own son_; and eminently _The\n  Son_, and _The Son of the Father_. His _dear Son_; or, as it is in the\n  original, _The Son of his love_; His _beloved Son, in whom he is well\n  pleased_. \u2018For he received from God the Father, honour and glory, when\n  there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my\n  beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.\u2019 2 Pet. i. 17. He is \u2018The only\n  begotten Son, _which is in the bosom of the Father_.\u2019 John i. 18. Who\n  only knows the Father; and none does or can reveal and make him known\n  but the Son. Matt. xi. 27. John i. 18. He being the brightness of his\n  glory, and the express image of his person; he that hath seen the Son,\n  hath seen the Father, John xiv. 9. Heb. i. 3. Which epithets and\n  declarations distinguish him from all other sons; as much as his\n  Father is distinguished from all other fathers. He is mentioned as the\n  Son of God above _an hundred times_ in the New Testament; and fifty\n  times by the apostle John. And the Father of Jesus Christ, the Son, is\n  mentioned above _two hundred and twenty times_; and more than one\n  hundred and thirty times in the gospel and epistles of St. John. Jesus\n  Christ often makes use of the epithets, _The Father_, _My Father_, &c.\n  This character is represented as essential to the Redeemer and\n  peculiar to him, and is an essential article of the Christian faith.\n  This confession Peter made as the common faith of the disciples of\n  Christ. \u2018We believe, and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son\n  of the living God,\u2019 John vi. 69. Matt. xvi. 16. This was the Eunuch\u2019s\n  faith, required in order to his being baptized. \u2018I believe that Jesus\n  Christ _is the Son of God_.\u2019 And he who believes with all his heart,\n  that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, hath the Son, and with him\n  eternal life. When Peter made this confession, \u2018Thou art Christ, the\n  Son of the living God,\u2019 Christ said to him, \u2018Blessed art thou; for\n  flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is\n  in heaven.\u2019 Matt. xvi. 16, 17. \u2018He that believeth on the Son, hath\n  everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see\n  life.\u2019 John iii. 36. And John says, \u2018Whosoever shall confess that\n  Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. Who is he\n  that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son\n  of God! He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son\n  of God, hath not life. These things have I written unto you _that\n  believe on the name of the Son of God_: that ye may know ye have\n  eternal life, and that ye may _believe on the name of the Son of\n  God_.\u2019 1 John iv. 15. v. 5, 12, 13.\n\n  \u201cIt must be farther observed, that this title, the Son of God, is the\n  _highest title_ that is given to the Redeemer, and denotes his\n  divinity, or that he is himself God, and therefore equal with the\n  Father, if his divinity be any where expressed in the Bible; and that\n  it is there abundantly declared, we have before shewed. He styles\n  himself, and is called _The Son of Man_, more than _eighty times_ in\n  the New Testament, by which epithet his humanity is more especially\n  denoted, but not excluding his divinity. And, on the contrary, he is\n  called the Son of God, more particularly to express his infinitely\n  superior character, his divinity or godhead. In this view, let the\n  following passages be considered. When the angel, who declared to the\n  virgin Mary that she should be the mother of the Messiah, expressed to\n  her the greatness of this her Son, he does it by saying that he should\n  be called _the Son of the Highest_, _the Son of God_. \u2018He shall be\n  great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest. Therefore also that\n  holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of\n  God.\u2019 Luke i. 32, 35. If this were not his greatest, his highest title\n  and character, he most certainly would have given him a higher, and\n  one that did fully express divinity. This, therefore, did express it\n  in the fullest and strongest manner. And no one, who believes in the\n  divinity of Christ, can, consistently, have any doubt of it. And when\n  the Father gives him the highest encomium, and recommends him to men,\n  as worthy of their highest regards, implicit obedience, and unlimited\n  trust and confidence, and commands them thus to regard, love, trust\n  in, and obey him, this is the highest character he gives him, by which\n  his divinity is expressed, \u2018This is _my beloved_ SON, in whom I am\n  well pleased: Hear ye him.\u2019 If this does not express his divinity, we\n  may be sure divinity is no part of his character; and that he is not\n  God. So, when Peter undertakes to express the idea he had of the high\n  and glorious character of his Lord and Master, he does it in the\n  following words, \u2018Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.\u2019 If\n  Peter believed the divinity of Christ, he certainly expressed this in\n  these words; for he did not conceive of any higher character, that\n  could be given in any other words. This also appears by Nathaniel\u2019s\n  using this epithet, when he was struck with wonder and surprise at the\n  omniscience of Christ. \u2018Rabbi, thou art _the_ SON _of God_, thou art\n  the King of Israel.\u2019 John i. 49. When our Lord Jesus Christ proposed\n  himself to the man whom he had restored to sight, as the proper object\n  of his faith and trust, he said to him, \u2018Dost thou believe on the Son\n  of God?\u2019 And when he told the man that he himself was the person, he\n  said, \u2018Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.\u2019 John ix. 35, 38. It\n  appears from this, that _Son of God_ was the highest title which Jesus\n  assumed, and that this had special reference to, and expressed his\n  divinity; and therefore in this character, and as the Son of God, this\n  pious man paid him divine honour, and worshipped him. When the\n  disciples of our Lord, and all that were in the ship with them, had\n  seen him walking upon the sea, in the midst of a terrible storm, and\n  reducing the boisterous winds, and raging waves, to a calm, by his\n  word and presence, they were struck with a fresh and affecting\n  conviction of his divinity, that he was God, and expressed it by\n  coming to him, falling down and worshiping him, \u2018saying, of a truth,\n  thou art the Son of God.\u2019 Matt. xiv. 33. In which words they expressed\n  his divinity, and gave a reason for their worshipping him, as their\n  Lord and their God, _viz._ that they were sure from clear and abundant\n  evidence, that he was the Son of God. The apostle John, when he would\n  represent Jesus Christ in his highest and most glorious character,\n  gives him this title, and adds, \u2018This is the true God.\u2019 He says, \u2018We\n  know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding,\n  that we may know him that is true: And we are in him that is true,\n  _even_ in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal\n  life.\u2019 1 John v. 20.\n\n  \u201cIt is to be farther observed, that when our Lord said to the Jews,\n  \u2018My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,\u2019 the Jews, therefore sought\n  the more to kill him, _because he said that God was his Father_, (_his\n  own proper Father_, as it is in the original) \u2018MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL\n  WITH GOD.\u2019 This is to be understood as the sense which St. John the\n  Evangelist puts upon the words of Christ, \u2018My Father worketh hitherto,\n  and I work.\u2019 For this was making himself equal with God the Father, as\n  doing the same work with him: And this is represented as implied in\n  God\u2019s being _his own Father_; or in his being the Father\u2019s own Son,\n  the Son of God. But if we understand it as the sense which the Jews\n  put upon the words of Christ, and that they said this was making\n  himself equal with God, it amounts to the same thing; for it appears\n  that their inference was just; and our Saviour is so far from denying\n  it to be true, that in his reply to them, he confirms it, and asserts\n  that whatsoever the Father does, the Son does the same; and instances\n  in his raising the dead, and judging the world, and having all things,\n  and all power in his hands. \u2018That all men should honour the Son, even\n  as they honour the Father.\u2019 John v. 13-17. Thus he makes the Son equal\n  with the Father. Hence it appears that to be the Son of God, and God\u2019s\n  own Son, is the same with a divine person, and denotes one who is\n  truly God; and that this title is used to express the divinity, rather\n  than the humanity of Jesus Christ.\n\n  \u201cThe same appears from what passed between our Lord and the Jews at\n  another time. He said to them, \u2018I and my Father are One.\u2019 This, they\n  said, was blasphemy, because being a man, he made himself God. It is\n  plain from the answer which he makes to them that they considered him\n  as a blasphemer, because he claimed to be the Son of God, by calling\n  God his Father. \u2018Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and\n  sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, _I am the Son\n  of God_?\u2019 This was the blasphemy with which they charged him; because\n  they considered his saying, that he was the Son of God, by calling God\n  his Father, as an assertion that he was God. John x. 30, 33, 36. And\n  it appears, not only from this passage, but from others, that the\n  Jews, and others, did affix the idea of divinity to the Son of God,\n  and considered this title as expressing a character infinitely above a\n  mere creature. When Jesus was arraigned before the Jewish council, the\n  High Priest charged him with the solemnity of an oath, saying, \u2018I\n  adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the\n  Christ, the Son of the living God.\u2019 And when Jesus answered in the\n  affirmative, he with all the members of the council, charged him with\n  blasphemy; and pronounced him worthy of death for making this claim.\n  Matt. xxvi. 64, 65, 66. And they brought this accusation against him\n  to Pilate, \u2018We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he\n  made himself the Son of God. When, therefore, Pilate heard that\n  saying, he was the more afraid.\u2019 John xix. 7, 8. By this, it is\n  evident that Pilate considered the Son of God, to imply divinity. When\n  the Centurion, and the guard who were with him, saw the earthquake and\n  the other supernatural events which attended the crucifixion of Jesus\n  Christ, \u2018they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.\u2019\n  Matt, xxvii. 54. From this, it is evident that they considered the Son\n  of God to be more than a man, at least, if not really God.\n\n  \u201cThere was some idea and belief propagated among other nations, as\n  well as the Jews, of an extraordinary personage, a divinity, who was\n  denominated _The Son of God_, and who was to make his appearance in\n  the world. To this, Nebuchadnezzar doubtless had reference, when he\n  said, that in a vision, he saw a fourth person, walking in the midst\n  of the fire of the furnace into which he had cast three men; and that\n  none of them had been hurt by the fire; and the form of the fourth was\n  _like the Son of God_. Dan iii. 25. And who but this divine person can\n  be meant by Agur, when he says, \u2018Who hath ascended up into heaven, or\n  descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the\n  waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth?\n  What is his name, _and what is his Son\u2019s name_, if thou canst tell?\u2019\n  Prov. xxx. 4.\n\n  \u201cThis epithet and character we find expressly mentioned by David, the\n  divinely inspired king of Israel, in the second Psalm. And he is there\n  introduced and described, as a divinity, who claims divine homage,\n  trust, and worship, as the Omnipotent heir, possessor and ruler of the\n  world. \u2018I will declare the decree. The Lord hath said unto me, Thou\n  art MY SON, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give\n  thee the heathen for thine inheritance, _and the uttermost parts of\n  the earth for thy possession_. Thou shalt break them with a rod of\n  iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter\u2019s vessel. Be wise\n  now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth.\n  Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. _Kiss the Son_,\n  lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is\n  kindled but a little. _Blessed are all they that put their trust in\n  him._\u2019[104] From this ancient oracle in Israel, and from a revelation\n  which was made upon the first apostacy, and handed down by tradition,\n  not only the Jews, but also those of other nations who had any\n  particular connexion with them, were taught to consider the expected\n  Messiah as the Son of God in a peculiar and appropriated sense; and as\n  implying real divinity. Therefore, it was supposed on all hands, that\n  this person, the Son of God, the King of Israel, the King of the Jews,\n  was to be worshipped as worthy to receive divine honours. Hence the\n  wise men from the East, being admonished of the birth of this glorious\n  personage, came to worship him, to pay him divine honours; for which\n  they had a particular warrant, having had him pointed out to them by a\n  STAR, which was a known symbol, or hieroglyphic of the Divinity, or a\n  God. And Herod took it for granted, that this person was to be\n  worshipped, and receive divine honours. For he said to the wise men,\n  \u2018When ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come _and\n  worship him also_.\u2019\n\n  \u201cAll this will be of no weight, indeed, and as nothing with the\n  Anti-trinitarians, the Sabellians; and with all those who deny the\n  divinity of Jesus Christ, the Arians and Socinians. But they who\n  believe in a Trinity of persons in the Deity, and that Jesus Christ is\n  God, the second person of the Trinity, must be sensible that he is\n  called the Son of God, the Son of the Father, with a special reference\n  to his divine nature, and to denote his Godhead, as the second person\n  in the Triune God.\u2014The Arians and Socinians hold that he is the Son of\n  God, considered as a mere creature, being by this distinguished from\n  all other creatures; and consequently that there was no Son of God\n  before this creature did exist. The latter, or Trinitarians, believe\n  that the sonship of Jesus Christ, necessarily includes his divinity;\n  but are not all agreed as to the foundation of his sonship, and in\n  what it consists. It has been generally believed, and the common\n  doctrine of the church of Christ, from the beginning of the fourth\n  century, and so far as appears from the days of the apostles to this\n  time, that Jesus Christ is the _eternal_ Son of God: That his Sonship\n  is essential to him, as the second person in the Trinity, and that _in\n  this sense_, he is _the only begotten Son of the Father_, antecedent\n  to his incarnation, and independent on it, even from eternity. But\n  there are some who think that the Sonship of the Redeemer consists in\n  an union of the second person of the Trinity, or the Word, with the\n  human nature; and that he became the Son of God by becoming man; and\n  therefore before the incarnation, there was no Son of God, though\n  there were a Trinity of persons in the GODHEAD. This opinion seems to\n  be rather gaining ground, and spreading, of late.\n\n  \u201cThose on each side of this question differ in their opinion of the\n  importance of it, and of the bad tendency of either of these opposite\n  sentiments. Some suppose that the difference is of little or no\n  importance, as both believe the Redeemer to be God and man, in one\n  person, and that he is the Son of God, and that this implies his\n  divinity, though they differ in opinion respecting the time and manner\n  of his filiation. Others think this is a difference so great and\n  important, and attended with such consequences; and that those who are\n  opposed to them on this point embrace such a great and dangerous\n  error, that they ought to be strenuously opposed: and consequently do\n  not desire an accommodation, or think it possible.\n\n  \u201cThough it be needless and improper here to undertake the labour of\n  entering into all the arguments which have been produced, or may be\n  mentioned in support of each side of this question; yet the following\n  observations may not be altogether useless; but may be of some help to\n  form a judgment upon this point, agreeable to the scriptures.\n\n  \u201c1. As this question respects the character of the Redeemer, it may\n  justly be considered as an important one; as every thing relating to\n  his character is very important and interesting. Who would be willing\n  to be found at last taking the wrong side of this question; and always\n  to have entertained so unbecoming ideas and conceptions of the\n  Redeemer, which his must be, if on this point he embraces and contends\n  for that which is directly contrary to the truth? Though such an error\n  should not be fatal to him who embraces it, but be consistent with his\n  being a real Christian; yet it must be a very criminal mistake, and\n  dishonourable to Jesus Christ; as every idea of him must be, which is\n  contrary to his true character: For that is so perfect and glorious,\n  that nothing can be taken from it, or added to it, which will not mar\n  and dishonour it. His character, as it respects the question before\n  us, is without doubt properly and clearly stated in divine revelation,\n  and if we embrace that which is contrary to the truth, it must be\n  wholly our own fault, and a very criminal abuse of the advantages\n  which we enjoy, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ his Son,\n  whom he has sent. Those considerations ought to awaken our attention\n  to this subject, and excite a concern and earnest desire to know and\n  embrace the truth; which will be attended with a modest, humble,\n  diligent enquiry, sensible of the danger in which we are, through\n  prejudice, or from other causes, of embracing error; and earnestly\n  looking to the great Prophet to lead us into the truth.\n\n  \u201c2. What has been observed above, and, it is believed, made evident,\n  _viz._ that the term, Son of God, so often given to Christ, is used to\n  denote his divine nature, and to express his divinity, rather than his\n  humanity, seems naturally, if not necessarily, to lead us to consider\n  this character as belonging to him independent of his union to the\n  human nature, and antecedent to his becoming man; and therefore, that\n  it belongs to him as God, the second person in the Trinity. For if his\n  sonship consists in his union to the human nature, and he became a\n  son, only by becoming a man; then this character depends wholly upon\n  this union, and is derived from his being made flesh: Therefore this\n  epithet could not be properly used to denote his divinity, independent\n  of his humanity, or what he is as a divine person, antecedent to his\n  incarnation; or to express his divine, rather than his human nature.\n  And Son of God, would be no higher a character, and express no more\n  than Son of man; which is contrary to the idea which the scripture\n  gives us on this head, as has been shown.\n\n  \u201cThis may, perhaps, be in some measure illustrated by the following\n  instance. The son of a nobleman of the first honour and dignity, came\n  from Europe, and married the daughter of a plebian in America, by\n  which he became his son: But as his honour and dignity did not consist\n  in his marrying this woman, or in his being the son of the plebian, by\n  this union with his daughter, but in his original character; no man\n  thought of expressing his highest and most dignified character by\n  which he was worthy of the greatest respect, by using an epithet which\n  denoted only his union to that woman, and which was not applicable to\n  him in any other view; or by calling him _son_, as expressing this new\n  relation: But the highest title which they gave him, was that which\n  had a special respect to, and expressed his original character, which\n  he sustained antecedent to this union; and in which his highest\n  dignity consisted. And he being the son of a nobleman and a lord, in\n  which all his honour and dignity did consist, they used this phrase,\n  My noble Lord, to express their highest respect, and his most worthy\n  character. This epithet was always used to express his original and\n  highest character and relation, and could not, with propriety, be used\n  to express any thing else. He was often called, indeed, the son of the\n  plebian, when they designed particularly to express his union to his\n  wife, and speak of him as standing in this relation.\n\n  \u201c3. The Son of God is spoken of in many instances, if not in every one\n  where this term is used, so as will naturally lead the reader to\n  consider him as sustaining this character and relation antecedent to\n  his incarnation, and independent of it. \u2018God so loved the World _that\n  he gave his only begotten Son_.\u2019 John iii. 16. Do not these words seem\n  to express this idea, _viz._ that there existed an only begotten son,\n  antecedent to his being given; that God gave this his Son to the world\n  by his becoming flesh, and being united to the human nature; and not\n  that he became his Son by this union? \u2018In this was manifested the love\n  of God towards us, because that God _sent his only begotten Son into\n  the world_, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that\n  we loved God, but that he loved us, _and sent his Son_ to be a\n  propitiation for our sins.\u2019 1 John iv. 9, 10. If God _sent_ his only\n  begotten Son into the world, does not this suppose he had a Son to\n  send, antecedent to his sending him; and that he did not become his\n  Son by his sending him into the world, or only in consequence of this!\n  This is expressed in the same manner by St. Paul. \u2018But when the\n  fulness of time was come God _sent forth his Son_, made of a woman,\n  made under the law.\u2019 Gal. iv. 4. The Son was _sent forth_. Does not\n  this seem at least to imply that there was a Son to be sent forth\n  antecedent to his being made of a woman, and that he was not made a\n  Son, by being made of a woman or becoming man? \u2018No man hath seen God\n  at any time: _The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the\n  Father_, he hath declared him.\u2019 John i. 18. Do not these words\n  naturally lead us to conceive of the only begotten Son as existing in\n  the nearest union with the Father as his Son, independent of the human\n  nature?\n\n  \u201cIt is said, \u2018God _was manifested in the flesh_.\u2019 1 Tim. iii. 16. It\n  would be unnatural and absurd to suppose, from this expression, that\n  Jesus Christ was not God, antecedent to his being manifested in the\n  flesh, and that by his becoming man, he became a God. Directly the\n  contrary to this is asserted, _viz._ that he who is God from eternity,\n  did in time appear in the human nature, and manifested himself to be\n  God, independent of the flesh, in which he appeared. It is also said,\n  \u2018For this purpose, the Son of God _was manifested_, that he might\n  destroy the works of the devil.\u2019 1 John iii. 8. These two passages\n  appear to be parallel. God manifested in the flesh, and the Son of God\n  manifested, are two expressions of the same thing. From this it may be\n  inferred, that the Son of God, and God, are synonymous here, and of\n  the same import. This serves to confirm what has been said above of\n  the use and meaning of the term, Son of God. And may it not with equal\n  certainty be inferred from these two passages, compared together, that\n  the Son of God existed in this character as the Son of God, antecedent\n  to his manifestation in the flesh, and independent of it; and that he\n  did not become the Son of God by being made flesh? If God be\n  manifested in the flesh, there must be a God to be manifested\n  antecedent to such a manifestation, and independent of it. And is it\n  not equally certain that if the Son of God be manifested, he must have\n  existed the Son of God, antecedent to such manifestation, and\n  independent of it? Consequently he did not become the Son of God by\n  his being manifested in the flesh: His Sonship does not consist in the\n  union of the divine and human natures in one person. His personality\n  existed before this union with the human nature; and he was the Son of\n  God before this: This same Son of God, this same person who existed\n  without beginning, assumed the human nature, not a human person, into\n  a union with himself, his own person, and so appeared, was manifested\n  in the flesh.\n\n  \u201cWhen David speaks of the Son of God, and represents the Father as\n  saying, \u2018Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,\u2019 so long\n  before his incarnation, the idea which most naturally arises in the\n  mind from this is, that there was then such a person as the Son, who\n  did at that time declare the decree, by the mouth of David; and not,\n  that there should in some future time be a Son begotten, who should\n  _then_ declare the decree. \u2018I will declare the decree: The Lord said\n  unto me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.\u2019 It is very\n  unnatural, and contrary to all propriety of speech to suppose, \u2018this\n  day have I begotten thee,\u2019 means I will beget thee in some future\n  time; and that the Son should be made to declare the decree, long\n  before any such person existed; and when there was in fact no such\n  Son. The decree which the Son declares is not that declaration, \u2018Thou\n  art my son, this day have I begotten thee;\u2019 but what follows, \u2018ask of\n  me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the\n  uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them\n  with a rod of iron, &c.\u2019 \u2018_This day_,\u2019 that is, _now_, not in time\n  which is passed, or which is to come; for with God there is no\n  succession, no time passed or to come; but he exists, as we may say,\n  in one eternal, unsuccessive NOW. Therefore, when we speak of an\n  eternal, immanent act, it is most properly expressed thus, \u2018This day,\n  or NOW, have I begotten thee.\u2019 This therefore is the sense in which\n  the best divines have generally understood it.\n\n  \u201cSt. Paul cites this passage as being illustrated and verified in the\n  resurrection of Jesus Christ. Acts xiii. 33. But he cannot mean that\n  he by the resurrection became the Son of God, and was then begotten:\n  for he had this title before that. His meaning is explained by himself\n  in his epistle to the Romans. \u2018_Declared_ to be the Son of God by the\n  resurrection from the dead.\u2019 Rom. i. 4. That is, this was a fresh and\n  open manifestation and declaration that he was indeed what had been\n  often asserted of him, and what he always was: The only begotten Son\n  of God.\n\n  \u201cWhat the angel said to the virgin Mary, \u2018He shall be great, and shall\n  he called the Son of the Highest\u2014The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,\n  and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also\n  that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son\n  of God,\u2019 cannot reasonably be understood as a declaration that his\n  sonship consisted in his miraculous conception, or in the union of the\n  second person of the Trinity with the human nature, thus conceived:\n  But that this child, conceived in this manner, and born of a virgin,\n  should appear, and be known to be the Son of God, that very person who\n  had been spoken of and known in all past ages by this title; of whom\n  Isaiah had particularly spoken, when he said, \u2018Behold, a virgin shall\n  conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL. Unto us a\n  Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder: And his\n  name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God:\u2019 Isaiah\n  vii. 14. ix. 6. That this Son was now to be born of the virgin Mary:\n  the long expected Messiah, who is considered and spoken of by the\n  people of God, by the title of the Son of God, which title he shall\n  bear, as he is indeed the mighty God.\n\n  \u201cWe are naturally lead to consider the Son of God as existing in this\n  character before his incarnation, and the same with the Word, by what\n  is said of him in the first chapter of John. \u2018The Word was made flesh,\n  and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of\n  the Father. No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,\n  which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John bare\n  witness of him, and cried, saying, this was he of whom I spake, he\n  that cometh after me, is preferred before me: _For he was before me_.\n  And I saw, and bear record that this is the Son of God.\u2019 Here John is\n  represented as asserting that the Son of God, concerning whom he bore\n  witness, did exist _before him_, which therefore must be _before his\n  incarnation_; for John was conceived before the incarnation of Jesus.\n  But how can this be true, if there were no Son of God, before John\n  existed? But if we consider the Word and the Son of God as synonymous,\n  who was in the beginning with God, and who was God, and created all\n  things, this whole chapter will be plain and easy to be understood;\n  and we shall see John bearing witness to the Son of God, who existed\n  before him in this character, and was now come in the flesh.\n\n  \u201cWe find the same representation made in the epistle to the Hebrews.\n  \u2018God, who spake in time past unto the fathers, by the prophets, hath\n  in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed\n  heir of all things; _by whom also he made the worlds_. Who being the\n  brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, _and\n  upholding all things by the word of his power_,\u2019 &c. How could God\n  make the worlds _by his Son_, four thousand years before he had a Son;\n  and on this supposition, where is the propriety or truth of this\n  assertion? And how could the Son be said to uphold all things by the\n  word of his power, thousands of years before any Son existed? \u2018And\n  again, _when he bringeth the first begotten into the world_, he saith,\n  And let all the angels of God worship him.\u2019 This expression naturally\n  suggests the idea that God the Father had a first-begotten Son to\n  bring into the world, whom he commanded the angels to worship. How can\n  he be said to _bring_ his first begotten Son _into the world_, when he\n  had no such Son to bring into the world; and indeed never did bring\n  this his Son into the world, if he was begotten and received his\n  sonship _in this world_, when he took the human nature in the womb of\n  the virgin, and was not a son before?\n\n  \u201cAgain, speaking of Melchisedec, he says, he was \u2018Without father,\n  without mother, without descent, _having neither beginning of days_,\n  nor end of life; _but made like unto the Son of God_.\u2019 Heb. vii. 3. If\n  there were no Son of God till the human nature of Christ existed, then\n  the Son of God did _begin to exist_; consequently there was a\n  beginning of his days; and Melchisedec was not made like him, but\n  _unlike_ to him, by having no beginning of days.\n\n  \u201cSince there are so many passages of scripture, (and there are many\n  more than have now been mentioned) which seem to represent the\n  Redeemer as the Son of God, antecedent to his incarnation, and\n  independent of it, which will naturally lead those who attend to them\n  to this idea of him; and some of them cannot be easily reconciled to\n  the contrary opinion; this will fully account for the generally\n  received doctrine in the Christian world from the earliest ages to\n  this time, _viz._ That the Redeemer of man is the second person in the\n  Trinity, the eternal Son of God, who in the fulness of time was made\n  flesh, by a personal union with the human nature.\n\n  \u201c4. It is worthy of consideration, whether the contrary opinion,\n  _viz._ That the Redeemer is the Son of God, only by the second person\n  in the Trinity being united to human nature, and becoming man, does\n  not naturally lead to dangerous and evil consequences; and what good\n  end is to be answered by it? If it be not agreeable to scripture, we\n  know it must be dangerous and hurtful in a greater or less degree, (as\n  all errors respecting the person and character of the Redeemer are)\n  and naturally tends to lead into other mistakes, still greater, and of\n  worse consequence. And if it be agreeable to scripture, it certainly\n  has no bad tendency. If, therefore, it does appear from reasoning upon\n  it, or from fact and experience, that this opinion tends to evil\n  consequences, and has a bad effect; we may safely conclude that it is\n  wrong, and contrary to divine revelation.\n\n  \u201c1. Does not this sentiment tend to lower our ideas of the Redeemer,\n  and lead into a way of thinking less honourably of him? It has been\n  observed that it appears from scripture, that this title, Son of God,\n  was used to express the highest and most honourable idea which his\n  friends had of his person and character. But if we understand by it,\n  nothing but what takes place by his union to man, by taking flesh upon\n  him, and consider it as signifying nothing but what took place by his\n  becoming man, nothing is expressed by it more than by _Son of man_:\n  And we are left without any epithet or common scripture phrase,\n  whereby to express the divinity, the Godhead of the Redeemer, and his\n  equality with the Father. Thus, instead of raising our conceptions of\n  the Redeemer, does it not tend to sink them? Does not the sonship of\n  Christ become an infinitely less and more inconsiderable matter, upon\n  this plan, than that which has always been esteemed the orthodox\n  sentiment on this point, which considers his sonship, as wholly\n  independent of the whole creation, as eternal, and altogether divine?\n\n  \u201cWe live in an age when the enemies of the Redeemer lift up their\n  heads, and are suffered to multiply and prevail. The deists attempt to\n  cast him out as an impostor. Arians and Socinians strip him of his\n  divinity: And the careless, ignorant, immoral and profane, treat him\n  with contempt, or neglect. This is agreeable to his great enemy,\n  Satan; who seems now to be let loose in an unusual degree, and has\n  uncommon power among men, to lead them into gross errors, and those\n  especially which are dishonourable to Christ, and injurious to his\n  character. And if this sentiment now under consideration, concerning\n  the Sonship of the Redeemer, should spread and prevail _now_, this\n  would be no evidence in favour of it; but, considering what has been\n  now observed, concerning it, would it not give reason to suspect, at\n  least, that it is dishonourable to the Son of God, and leads to other\n  errors yet more dishonourable to him?\n\n  \u201cThis leads to observe,\n\n  \u201c2. It is worthy of consideration, whether this doctrine of the\n  filiation of Jesus Christ, does not tend to reject the doctrine of the\n  Trinity, as it has been held by those who have been called the\n  orthodox in the christian church, and leads to what is called\n  Sabellianism; which considers the Deity as but one person, and to be\n  three only out of respect to the different manner or kind of his\n  operations.\n\n  \u201cThis notion of the Sonship of Christ, leads to suppose that the Deity\n  is the Father of the Mediator, without distinction of persons; and\n  that by Father so often mentioned in the New Testament, and generally\n  in relation to the Son is commonly, if not always, meant Deity,\n  without distinction of persons. If this be so, it tends to exclude all\n  distinction of persons in God, and to make the personality of the\n  Redeemer to consist wholly in the human nature; and finally, to make\n  his union with Deity no more, but the same which Arians and Socinians\n  admit, _viz._ the same which takes place between God and good men in\n  general; but in a higher and peculiar degree. But if there be no\n  tendency in this doctrine of the sonship of Christ, to the\n  consequences which have been now mentioned; and it can be made evident\n  that none of those supposed evils do attend it, or can follow from it;\n  yet it remains to be considered _what advantage attends it_, and the\n  good ends it will answer, if it were admitted to be true. None will\n  say, it is presumed, that it is more agreeable to the general\n  expressions of scripture relating to this point, than the opposite\n  doctrine; who well considers what has been observed above. The most\n  that any one can with justice say with respect to this is, that the\n  scripture may be so construed and understood, as to be consistent with\n  the sonship of Christ, commencing at the incarnation, however\n  inconsistent with it some passages may appear at first view.\n\n  \u201cIt may be thought, perhaps, that this notion of the sonship of the\n  Redeemer is attended with two advantages, if not with more, _viz._ It\n  frees the doctrine of the Trinity from that which is perfectly\n  incomprehensible, and appears a real contradiction and absurdity; that\n  the second person should be Son of the first, who is the Father; the\n  Son being begotten by the Father from eternity; than which nothing can\n  be more inconceivable, and seemingly absurd. And this appears\n  inconsistent with the second person being equal with the first; for a\n  son begotten of a father, implies inferiority, and that he exists\n  after his father, and consequently begins to exist, and is dependent.\n  Both these difficulties are wholly avoided, it is thought, by\n  supposing that the second person in the Trinity became a son by being\n  united to the human nature, and begotten in the womb of the virgin.\n  And it is probable that these supposed advantages have recommended\n  this scheme of the Sonship of Christ, to chose who embrace it, and led\n  them to reject the commonly received opinion; and not a previous\n  conviction that the former is most agreeable to the scripture. This\n  therefore demands our serious and candid attention. And the following\n  things may be observed upon it.\n\n  \u201c1. If we exclude every thing from our creed, concerning God, his\n  existence, and the manner of his existence, which to us is\n  incomprehensible and unaccountable, we must reject the doctrine of the\n  Trinity in unity, and even of the existence of a God. The doctrine of\n  three persons in one God is wholly inconceivable by us, and Unitarians\n  consider it as the greatest contradiction and absurdity imaginable.\n  And those Trinitarians, who have undertaken to explain it, and make it\n  more intelligible, have generally failed of giving any light; but have\n  really made it absurd and even ridiculous, by \u2018darkening counsel by\n  words without knowledge.\u2019 If we reasoned properly on the matter, we\n  should expect to find in a revelation which God has made of himself,\n  his being and manner of subsistence, mysteries which we can by no\n  means understand, which are to creatures wonderful, and wholly\n  unaccountable. For the being of God, and the manner of his existence,\n  and of his subsisting, must be infinitely above our comprehension: God\n  is infinitely great, and we know him not. And if we attempt to search\n  out these mysteries by reason, we are prone to think they are\n  contradictions and absurdities, merely because our reason cannot\n  fathom them; and they appear more unintelligible, the more we try to\n  understand them. \u2018Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou\n  find out the ALMIGHTY to perfection? It is as high as heaven, what\n  canst thou do? Deeper than hell, what canst thou know? The measure\n  thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.\u2019 Job ii.\n  7, 8, 9. \u2018Teach us what we shall say unto him, (and what we shall say\n  concerning him;) for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness.\n  Shall it be told him that _I speak_?\u2019 and attempt to comprehend and\n  explain the mysteries that relate to his existence? \u2018If a man speak,\n  surely he shall be swallowed up.\u2019 Job xxxvii. 19, 20. If a man\n  undertake thus to speak, instead of giving any light, he will be\n  involved and overwhelmed in impenetrable darkness.\n\n  \u201cThey, therefore, who do not believe the eternal sonship of Jesus\n  Christ, because it is mysterious and incomprehensible, and to some it\n  appears to be full of contradiction, will, if they be consistent with\n  themselves, for the same reason, reject the doctrine of a Trinity of\n  persons in one God.[105]\n\n  \u201c2. If the doctrine of the eternal generation and sonship of the\n  second person in the Trinity be soberly and modestly considered in the\n  light of the foregoing observation, and with a proper sense of our own\n  darkness and infinite inferiority to the divine Being, and how little\n  we can know of him; we shall not be forward to pronounce it\n  inconsistent with reason, and absurd; but be convinced, that to do\n  thus, is very bold and assuming; and that it may be consistent and\n  true, notwithstanding any thing we may know; though it be mysterious\n  and incomprehensible. This is a _divine generation_, infinitely above\n  any thing that takes place among creatures, and infinitely different.\n  It is that of which we can have no adequate idea, and is infinitely\n  out of our reach. What incompetent judges are we then of this matter?\n  What right or ability have we to pronounce it absurd or inconsistent,\n  when we have no capacity to know or determine what is true,\n  consistent, or inconsistent in this high point, any farther than God\n  has been pleased to reveal it to us? There may be innumerable\n  mysteries in the existence and manner of subsistence of the infinite\n  Being, which are, and must be, incomprehensible, by a finite\n  understanding. God has been pleased, for wise ends, to reveal that of\n  the Trinity, and this of the eternal generation and sonship of the\n  second person: And he has done it in a manner, and in words best\n  suited to convey those ideas of it to men, which it is necessary they\n  should have: And we ought to receive it with meekness and implicit\n  submission, using our reason in excluding every thing which is\n  contrary to, or below infinite perfection, and absolute independence;\n  without pretending to comprehend it, or to be able to judge of that\n  which is infinitely high and divine, by that which takes place among\n  creatures, with respect to generation, and father and son.\n\n  \u201cGod is said in scripture, to repent and be grieved at his heart; to\n  be angry, and to have his fury to come up in his face; and hands,\n  feet, eyes, mouth, lips and tongue, &c. are ascribed to him. These\n  words are designed and suited to convey useful ideas, and important\n  instruction to men. But if we should understand these expression as\n  meaning the same thing in the Divine Being, that they do when applied\n  to men; we must entertain very unworthy, and most absurd notions of\n  God, and wholly inconsistent with other declarations in the sacred\n  Oracles. But if we exclude every thing that is human, or that implies\n  any change or imperfection from these expressions when applied to the\n  Deity, they will convey nothing absurd or inconsistent, or that is\n  unworthy of God. And it will doubtless be equally so in the case\n  before us; if it be constantly kept in mind that the only begotten Son\n  of God denotes nothing human, but is infinitely above any thing which\n  relates to natural, or creature generation, and does not include any\n  beginning, change, dependence, inferiority, or imperfection. This will\n  effectually exclude all real absurdity and contradiction.\n\n  \u201cIt will be asked, perhaps, when all this is excluded from our ideas\n  of generation, of Father and Son, what idea will remain in our minds,\n  which is conveyed by these words? Will they not be without any\n  signification to us, and altogether useless? To this, the following\n  answer may be given: From what is revealed concerning this high and\n  incomprehensible mystery, we learn, that in the existence of the\n  Deity, there is that which is high above our thoughts, as the heavens\n  are above the earth, infinitely beyond our conception, and different\n  from any thing which takes place among creatures, which is a\n  foundation of a personal distinction, as real and great as that\n  between father and son among men, and infinitely more perfect: which\n  distinction may be in the best manner conveyed to us by Father and\n  Son, to express the most perfect union and equality; that the Son is\n  the brightness of the Father\u2019s glory, and the express image of his\n  person, and that there is infinite love and endearment between them;\n  and that in the economy of the work of redemption, the Son is obedient\n  to the Father, &c. All this, and much more, our minds are capable of\n  conceiving from what is revealed on this high and important subject;\n  which is suited to impress our hearts with a sense of the\n  incomprehensible, infinite, adorable perfection and glory of the\n  Father and the Son; and is necessary in order to give us a right\n  understanding of the gospel; of the true character of the Redeemer,\n  and of the work of redemption.\n\n  \u201cWhat has been now said under this second particular, may serve to\n  remove the other supposed difficulty in admitting the eternal\n  filiation of the second person in the Trinity, _viz._ that it\n  represents the Son as inferior to the Father, and as existing _after\n  him_, and therefore his existence had a beginning. This is obviated by\n  the above observations; and particularly by this, that it is a _divine\n  filiation_, and therefore infinitely unlike that which is human; and\n  above our comprehension. Besides, to suppose eternal generation admits\n  of _before_ or _after_, or of a beginning, is inconsistent. It may be\n  further observed,\n\n  \u201c3. That the opinion that Jesus Christ is the first and only begotten\n  Son of God, by the second person in the Trinity becoming incarnate,\n  and united to the human nature, is, perhaps, attended with as great\n  difficulties as the other which has been considered, if not greater.\n  If so, the inducement to embrace it, and reject the other, which we\n  are examining, wholly ceases.\n\n  \u201cIf the Son was begotten by the miraculous formation of the human\n  nature; then the Holy Ghost begot the Son and is the Father, as much\n  as the first person in the Trinity. For the angel said to the virgin,\n  \u2018The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest\n  shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be\n  born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.\u2019 If we take these words\n  as referring only to the production of the human nature, and if it be\n  granted that by the highest, is meant the first person in the Trinity,\n  of which there does not appear to be any evidence, yet the third\n  person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as doing as much, and being as\n  active in this production as the first person. But if this were no\n  difficulty, and the first person of the Trinity be supposed to produce\n  the human nature, and in this sense to be the Father of Jesus Christ;\n  yet this will make him his Father in no other and higher sense than he\n  is the Father of angels, and of Adam; and Jesus Christ will be the Son\n  of God in no other, or higher sense than they; for they were created\n  and formed in an extraordinary, miraculous way.\n\n  \u201cIf the Son was begotten by uniting the second person of the Trinity\n  with the human nature, and the filiation of the Son is supposed to\n  consist wholly in being thus united to man; this is attended with the\n  following difficulties, as great, perhaps, if not greater, than those\n  which attend the eternal Sonship of the second person.\n\n  \u201c1. This is as different in nature and kind from natural or creature\n  generation, as eternal divine generation; and the one bears no analogy\n  or likeness to the other.\n\n  \u201c2. This union of God with the creature so as to become one person, is\n  as mysterious and incomprehensible, as the eternal Sonship of the\n  second person of the Trinity; and as inexplicable: so that nothing is\n  gained with respect to this, by embracing this scheme.\n\n  \u201c3. It is not agreeable to scripture to suppose that the first person\n  of the Trinity only, united the second person to the human nature, and\n  so became a Father by thus begetting a Son. The third person, the Holy\n  Ghost, is represented as doing this, or at least, being active in it;\n  and there is nothing expressly said of the first person doing any\n  thing respecting it as such. \u2018The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and\n  the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also, that\n  holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of\n  God.\u2019 \u2018Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When his\n  mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, _she\n  was found with child of the Holy Ghost_.\u2019 And the angel of the Lord\n  said unto Joseph, \u2018Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: _For that\n  which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost_.\u2019 Matt. i. 18, 20. And\n  this uniting the divine nature with the human, is expressly ascribed,\n  not to the first, but to the second person. \u2018For as much as the\n  children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part\n  of the same. For verily _he took not on him_ the nature of angels;\n  _but he took on him the seed of Abraham_.\u2019 Heb. ii. 14, 16. Do not\n  they speak not only _without scripture_, but _contrary to it_, who say\n  that the first person of the Trinity became a Father by uniting the\n  second person to the human nature, in the womb of the virgin Mary; by\n  which the latter became the only begotten Son of the Father? That the\n  relation of Father and Son began in the incarnation of Christ, and\n  consists wholly in this? And do they by this supposition avoid any\n  difficulty, and render the filiation of the Redeemer more consistent,\n  intelligible, or honourable to him? Let the thoughtful, candid\n  discerning reader judge.\u201d\n\n  HOPKINS.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  This is an incontestable proof that the Son is God, even JEHOVAH. The\n  Psalmist often says, \u201cBlessed are they, blessed is the man who\n  trusteth in the Lord.\u201d And here he says, Blessed are all they who\n  trust in the Son of God, and yet forbids us to put our trust in any\n  but God. \u201cPut not your trust in princes, or in the son of man, in whom\n  there is no help. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help,\n  whose hope is in the Lord his God.\u201d Psalm cxlvi. 3, 5. And he says,\n  \u201cMy soul, wait thou _only_ upon God; for my expectation is from him.\u201d\n  Psalm lxii. 5. They _only_ are blessed, who trust in God; and all\n  others are cursed. \u201cThus saith the Lord, Cursed be the man that\n  trusteth in man. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and\n  whose hope the Lord is.\u201d Jer. xvii. 5, 7. They are blessed, who trust\n  in the Son of God. Therefore he is the Lord.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  It has been before observed, that the denial of the eternal sonship of\n  Christ seemed to have a tendency to a rejection of the doctrine of the\n  Trinity; and in what way. But what is here observed, shews how the\n  denial of the former tends, _another way_, to the rejection of the\n  latter. For if the former be rejected, because it is incomprehensible,\n  and appears inconsistent, it may be expected that when the doctrine of\n  the Trinity is more particularly considered, it will appear equally\n  unintelligible; and therefore be rejected, for the same reason. Is it\n  not probable, that Sabellius, the ancient Anti-trinitarian, was in\n  this way led to give up the doctrine of the Trinity?\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  _See Dr. Owen against Biddle, p. 362._\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  \u039f\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  _Antiq. Lib. III. Cap. 5._\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  _This the Holy Ghost has condescended, for what reason I know not, to\n  give countenance to, in all those quotations in the New Testament,\n  where the name_ JEHOVAH, _is referred to from the Old._\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  _In two places, indeed, it is rendered by_ \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, _God, Gen. iv. 1. and\n  Isa. liv. 13. And there is one place in which some think they attempt\n  a literal translation of it, 2 Sam. i. 11. where, instead of the\n  people of the Lord, they translate the text_, \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03bd \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1, _in\n  which, some think_, \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1, _is put for_ \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b1, _or_ \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2\u03b1, _through the\n  mistake of some amanuensis; but it seems rather to be an explication\n  than a literal translation of the words; and whereas some think, the\n  reason of this method used by them in their translation, is, because\n  the Hebrew letters, of which that name consists, cannot well be\n  expressed by the letters of the Greek alphabet, so as to compose a\n  word like it, that does not seem to be the reason of it, inasmuch as\n  they attempt to translate other names equally difficult; as in Gen. x.\n  2._ \u0399\u03c9\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd, _for Javan; and 2 Kings xii. 2._ \u0399\u03c9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b5 _for Jehoiada._\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  See Dr. Allix\u2019s judgment of the Jewish church against the Unitarians,\n  chap. xiii. to xvi.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  _Vid. Catech. Racov. ad Quest. lix._\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  _It is elsewhere said concerning him, 1 John iii. 5. that he was\n  manifested, &c._ \u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b7, _as also in ver. 8. And as for what is\n  said in the last clause of the verse we are considering, that_ he was\n  received up into glory, _it is a very great strain on the sense of\n  these words, to apply it to a mystery, or to the gospel, since the\n  words_, \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b7, _plainly intimate a person\u2019s meeting with a\n  glorious reception when ascending into heaven_; \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n  _signifies_ sursum recipere, _therefore we render it, received up; and\n  so it is often applied to our Saviour, Acts i. 2, 11, 22. and his\n  ascension is called, Luke ix. 51._ \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, _the time in\n  which he should be received up._\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  _See Whitby in loc._\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s reply to Nelson, page 86._\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  _Thus they are four times, Luke i. 68. 2 Cor. i. 5. Eph. i. 3. and 1\n  Pet. i. 3. wherein_ \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 _is put before_ \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  _Dr. Owen against Biddle, page 256._\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s reply to Nelson, page 97._\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  _See Page 307._\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  _It is certain, that_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 _is oftentimes exegetical, as well as\n  copulative; and it appears to be so, by a great many instances in the\n  New Testament; when it is put between two nouns, the first whereof has\n  an article, and the other none; thus it will be acknowledged by all,\n  that it is taken, in 2 Cor._ i. 3. Blessed be God, even the Father of\n  our Lord Jesus Christ, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1; _so in_ Eph. i. 3. 2 Thes.\n  ii. 16. 1. Pet. i. 3. Rom. xv. 6. Phil. iv. 20. 2 Cor. xi. 31. _and\n  in_ Col. ii. 2. _In these scriptures, and others of the like nature,\n  the Arians themselves allow that this rule holds good, though they\n  will not allow it, when it proves our Saviour\u2019s Deity, because it\n  militates against their own scheme; as in_ Eph. v. 5. _where the\n  apostle speaks of the_ kingdom of Christ, and of God, _as we render\n  it; but, I think, it ought to be rendered_, even of God; _for it is_,\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 _so in_ 2 Thess. i. 12. The grace of our God,\n  and, _or even_, of the Lord Jesus Christ, _the words are_, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u1f21\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. _See among many other scriptures to the\n  like purpose_, 1 Tim. v. 21. _and_ chap. vi. 13. 2 Pet. i. 2. _It is\n  true there are several exceptions to this rule, though they are\n  generally in such instances, in which it is impossible for the latter\n  word to contain an explication of the former, though, in other\n  instances, it, for the most part, holds good; and therefore it will,\n  at least, amount to a probable argument, that the words in this text_,\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 _ought to be\n  rendered_, of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ. _Vide\n  Granville Sharp on the Greek article, and Middleton on the same\n  subject._\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  _See Dr. Clark\u2019s reply to Nelson, page 85._\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  _The words_, \u1f41 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 _are in the nominative case, which\n  denotes that they are not spoken in a way of exclamation._\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  _See reply to Nelson, page 67._\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  _Acts vii. 43. chap. xiv. 11._\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  _See Matt. xix. 26. compared with Mark x. 27._\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  _See Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 67, 68, and in many other places._\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  _This is the sense of Dr. Clarke\u2019s first section in Part 2, on which\n  the whole scheme seems to be founded; and he speaks to the same\n  purpose in several other places; and, in particular, in his reply to\n  Nelson, page 67, 68, he concludes the word_ \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, _God, absolutely\n  taken to import the same, as_ \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 or \u1f41 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, _by\n  which he always intends the Father._\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  _See Scripture-doctrine, page 3._\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  _See page 120._\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture Doctrine, page 176._\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  _Whitby is very particular in laying down this sense of the text, with\n  the defence thereof, in his annotations on this scripture, from\n  Heliodorus, where he finds the words_, \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _which he\n  renders_, to snatch at; _and_ \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _which, he supposes,\n  signifies to pursue, or covet, a thing that is desirable, but,\n  however, the words going before, or following, in that author, may\n  determine that to be his sense thereof, as the sense of particular\n  words is oftentimes greatly varied thereby; yet this will not justify\n  the rendering them in the same sense, in other instances, very foreign\n  thereunto, as certainly the text we are explaining must be reckoned to\n  be; besides, the word is not the same, for it is_ \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, _which\n  properly signifies a prey, or the thing stolen; and therefore though_\n  \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd _may signify_, to catch an opportunity, _as a\n  person catches at what he thinks for his advantage, yet if the word_\n  \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd _had been used instead of it, it would very much have altered\n  the sense thereof; also though_ \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 _signifies_, to\n  esteem a thing worthy to be pursued, or catched at, as a prey, _yet_\n  \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _which are the words in the text we are\n  considering, signify no such thing, but rather_ to reckon a thing\n  unlawful to be pursued, as what he has no right to; _and that is the\n  sense thereof in our text_, q. d. _He did not think it unlawful to\n  pursue, or lay claim to that divine honour, of being equal with God,\n  or, as we render it_, thought it not robbery, _&c. For the justifying\n  of this sense, every one, that observes the acceptation of the Greek\n  words, will find that_ \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _signifies_, the action of robbing,\n  _and_ \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 _the thing stolen, as may be observed in many other\n  words, where the former construction signifies the act; the latter the\n  effect: as in_ \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, _and_ \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1,\n  \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f41\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u1f41\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f41\u03c0\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u1f41\u03c0\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1,\n  \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1; _and, in the New Testament_, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n  _signifies the_ action of baptizing, _and_ \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 _the ordinance in\n  which it is performed. See Mark vii. 8. compared with Matt. iii. 7.\n  and chap. xxi. 25. Multitudes of instances might have been given, but\n  these are sufficient._\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  _Grotius in loc._\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  \u201cIt may readily be granted that any tract published by an apostolick\n  man, in the early Christian church, would be circulated among the\n  Christians of those times, with great dispatch, _immediately_ on its\n  publication. This is a natural and indefeasible position, since it\n  arises from a principle in human nature itself. It is natural, too,\n  that, in those times, it should be copied without delay in such\n  churches as were then extant. And this _first_ edition would be\n  circulated to the widest extent, of course. Churches that were\n  established afterwards were more likely to receive the _second_\n  edition of such a writer\u2019s works; especially, if they had intercourse\n  with the town where he resided in his latter days, and drew their\n  copies from thence, immediately. But I think we may say, that for one\n  copy of the second edition that was circulated, there would be 20, or\n  50, or 100 copies of the first edition; since not only would it have\n  the advantage of priority, but not one reader in a hundred would think\n  of the second as different from the first. And this has led our\n  translators to mark, as _doubtful_, the first quotation which I\n  selected from the first Epistle of John, in my last; chap. ii. 23. I\n  have no doubt of the genuineness of the _addition_; but possibly there\n  may be 50 copies without it to _one_ which contains it.\n\n  \u201cAdmitting, then, the residence of St. John be at Ephesus, or any part\n  of Asia Minor, for the last thirty years of his life, for which we\n  have the testimony of ancient history, we may date his first epistle,\n  early in that period: or even before he came to live there. This would\n  spread _first_, among the neighbouring churches in Asia Minor:\n  _secondly_, eastward, to those countries which professed Christianity,\n  Antioch, for certain: Syria, Cilicia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia,\n  Babylonia, &c. Toward these countries, there are caravans which go\n  every month, or six weeks, from Asia Minor: there is a regular\n  intercourse maintained, between Smyrna, and the internal parts of Asia\n  Minor, and on through Tarsus to Antioch:\u2014from Ephesus to Smyrna was\n  easy. We have every reason to affirm, that it was the same anciently,\n  and therefore, there was an _immediate_ conveyance of such addresses\n  as the apostle John published for the general use of all Christians,\n  from Ephesus, eastward to the oriental provinces of the Roman empire,\n  where Christianity was settled and flourished. In these churches his\n  writings would be in request. Moreover, these churches would be the\n  first to translate his writings into their current language, for the\n  use of the natives of these provinces, who did not understand Greek\n  (which, however prevalent the Greek language was, must have been many)\n  because here was a great number of professing Christians, who desired\n  to be acquainted with their contents.\n\n  \u201cIt is evident, therefore, that these translations, having for their\n  basis the _first_ edition, can be no evidences of what the apostle\n  thought proper to add in his _second_ addition. The Syriac version,\n  for instance, if we suppose that to be the earliest of all, would\n  represent the _first_ edition, as would also, all versions made from\n  it, and all copies made from those, at that time, received in those\n  parts. Whereas, the Armenian version, because it is much later, would\n  at least stand the chance of obtaining (and being made from) the\n  _second_ edition. The Syriac version, therefore, is no evidence\n  against an _addition_. The Armenian version is an evidence _for_ it.\n  This version contains 1 John v. 7.\n\n  \u201cAlso, the churches in Africa were not planted till many years _after_\n  those of Asia; their intercourse with Ephesus, being by sea, was\n  irregular, and could only take place, occasionally, if it was direct.\n  If we suppose it to be, on the subject before us, through Italy, then\n  it was subject to the same circumstances as attended the intercourse\n  between Ephesus and Rome. I say Rome, because we have no reason to\n  think that there was any number of Christians, worth mentioning, in\n  any other city of Italy. The apostle Paul, when travelling from Rhegio\n  upward was met by brethren _from Rome_; which when he saw, he thanked\n  God, and _took courage_. Certainly, then, he had not met with many\n  friends in places that he passed through, and his courage had been\n  somewhat cast down, for that reason. We find no trace of Christianity\n  in Herculaneum, one of the cities of Italy, of the second size, which\n  was destroyed A. D. 79, though we meet with traces of Judaism there;\n  and in short, it must be admitted, that, compared with Asia, the\n  western provinces had but few Christians. We have no reason to think\n  that Rome sent out missionaries early. The south of France was\n  christianized from Asia, though so much further off than Rome. The\n  natural inference is, that these parts would receive _later_ copies of\n  any apostolick writing, published in Asia Minor, than those parts\n  which had a regular intercourse, half a dozen times in a year, at\n  least, but probably much oftener, with Ephesus. And whatever versions\n  were extant in the west, would represent the second edition with its\n  variations, whatever they might be.\n\n  \u201cAs to Rome itself, I infer, that that capital of the empire had, if\n  any place had, _both_ editions. Suppose, for a moment, that the\n  _first_ edition had reached Rome, when Aristobulus quitted that city\n  for Britain, or that it was sent to Aristobulus, in Britain, from\n  Rome, it will follow, that the ancient British copies would _not_\n  contain those additions which the apostle John inserted in the\n  _second_ edition. And to this agrees the fact: for Pelagianism could\n  hardly have been repressed by any text more effectually than by the\n  one in question. Yet that errour rose in Britain, and it was not so\n  decidedly opposed then, as it is now, _minus_ the testimony of this\n  text. Moreover, the text is not quoted by the venerable Bede, in a\n  passage of his works, where we should expect to find it, at least,\n  alluded to. He, therefore, might have the first edition.\n\n  \u201cIn short, almost all the arguments employed against the authenticity\n  of the text may be admitted. They cease to have any great force, after\n  it is once conceded to those who use them, that the _first_ edition,\n  together with all its representatives, in the first century, suppose,\n  had not the words in debate. They are reduced to the infirmity of a\n  negative argument, at best.\n\n  \u201cI must now observe, that the African churches being planted long\n  after the Asiatick, they, no doubt, would obtain the best transcripts\n  of the works of any inspired writer, which could be procured about the\n  time of their being founded; _i. e._ the _second_ edition of the\n  letter under consideration. To this agrees the fact; _the African\n  bishops quote the passage_. Tertullian, Cyprian, Eucherius, Eugenius,\n  with his consistory of 400 bishops, Vigilius, Fulgentius, &c. &c. so\n  that it was undeniably extant in their copies from the second century\n  downwards. The argument, then, is reduced to a point: either these\n  divines _found_ the passage in their copies, or they _put_ it there.\n  The latter alternative is so dishonourable to Christians and to\n  Christianity, that one is willing to accept of any hypothesis which\n  may vindicate professors and teachers from such enormous guilt.\u2014But\n  further:\n\n  \u201cI have said, that Rome might be expected to procure whatever was most\n  excellent in Christian literature, as well as in other studies. It\n  had, then, the _first_ edition, because that was the _earliest_ which\n  could be procured; and the _second_ because the influx of persons to\n  Rome from all parts was so great, that every thing which was portable\n  of a literary nature, might be expected to be brought there. Rome had\n  an ancient version of the scriptures, known under the name of the old\n  _Italic version_. It is not of any consequence to our argument,\n  whether this version contained the text of the _heavenly witnesses_,\n  since it was made very early; but if the _revised_ Roman version of\n  the New Testament contained it, we are reduced to the same dilemma as\n  before, in reference to the African bishops\u2014The reviser of this\n  edition (Jerom) either _found_ it, or _forged_ it. The same arguments\n  that relieve the characters of the African bishops, relieve the\n  character of this father. The accusation is incredible. It is loading\n  the party with a crime so far beyond ordinary culpability, that the\n  mind revolts at the charge. It is admitted, then, that the Latin\n  version reads this verse; that St. Jerome adopted it; that it was\n  adopted by the learned after him; as by our own famous Alkwin, at the\n  time, and in the court of Charlemagne, and has so continued ever\n  since. The inference is, that St. Jerome preferred the authority and\n  text of the second edition, and followed it.\n\n  \u201cThese, moreover, are _independent_ witnesses; for, the African\n  bishops, who wrote before Jerom, could not receive this passage from\n  his revised version: or, if any choose to affirm that the African\n  bishops received this passage from the old _Italic_ version, then the\n  authenticity of the passage follows of course, in proportion to\n  whatever importance is attached to this increased antiquity.\u201d\n\n  SELECT REVIEWS.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  _Mr. Abraham Taylor, in his true Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity,\n  Part. I. chap. 2. in which we have his own method of reasoning in\n  defence thereof, which is, at least, sufficient to remove the boasts\n  and insults of those who wonder that we should not give up the cause\n  entirely to them._\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  _See Histoire Crit. du. Nouv. Testam. chap. 18. page 204._\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  _See this conjecture of Father Simon learnedly opposed in Smith.\n  Miscellan. contra Simon._\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  _Vid. Epist. lxxiii. ad Jubaianum, & de Unitate Eccl. \u00a7 v._\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  _See true Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 53._\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  _Contra Praxeam, cap. 25._\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  _See the Author before referred to, in the true scripture-doctrine,\n  &c. as also Trigland de tribus in c\u00e6lo testibus._\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  Vide Abbadie on the Divinity of Christ, per totum.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  _See Quest._ vii.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture doctrine, page 127._\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  _Reply to Nelson, page 169._\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  _See a parallel scripture, Prov._ xxx. 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  \u1f41 \u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9, is admitted by Griesback into his text.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  By the wisdom of God seems here to be meant the wisdom of God\n  essentially considered. But see Matt. xxiii. 34.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture Doctrine, page 63._\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  _See page_ 344, 345, ante.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  _Dr. Waterland, Serm. III. in defence of Christ, page 106._\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  \u201cThat Christ was not a _mere instrument_ which God used in the work of\n  creation, as the _Arians_ pretend, is plain from this, that the\n  Scriptures not only teach, that Christ was the very supreme God\n  himself that created all things; Psal. cii. 25. Heb. i. 10. but also\n  that _no instrument was used_ in that work. It was wrought immediately\n  by _God himself_. As it is written, \u2018God himself formed the earth and\n  made it.\u2019 Isa. xlv. 18. (This, all grant, was the supreme God: And\n  this God was Jesus Christ.) \u2018He alone spread out the heavens.\u2019 Job ix.\n  8. Not by an instrument, but by _himself alone_, Isa. xliv. 24. with\n  _his own hands_. Isa. xlv. 12.\u201d\n\n  BELLAMY.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 are omitted by Griesbach.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  _Vid. Bez. in loc. Unus Deus omnes populos condidit, sic etiam nunc\n  omnes ad se vocat; condidit autem per Christum, sic per Christum\n  instaurat._\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  _See_ Matt. xii. 32. 1 Cor. x. 11. Eph. i. 21. _and_ chap. ii. 7. Heb.\n  vi. 5. _and_ chap. ix. 26. _the apostle speaking of_ the foundation of\n  the world, _meaning the first creation, uses the word_ \u039a\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2; _but\n  when, in the following words, he speaks of_ Christ\u2019s appearing in the\n  end of the world, to put away sin, &c. _he uses the words_ \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  _See page 304._\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  _See Quest._ lxvii. _and_ lxxv.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  \u201cThe Father, saith he, is greater than I. John xiv. 28. As Christ is\n  the head of the church, so the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. iii. 23.\n  xi. 3. He calleth the Father his God. Matt, xxvii. 46. John xx.\n  17.\u2014The Father raised him to Israel; Acts xiii. 23. anointed him with\n  the Holy Ghost and with power; Acts x. 38. spared him not, but\n  delivered him up for us all; Rom. viii. 32. and raised him from the\n  dead. Acts ii. 24.\u2014God had appointed him to execute his saving\n  designs, sent him into this world, and gave him commandments. John\n  iii. 16, 17. vi. 38-40. The work given him he finished, and in it he\n  was faithful to the Father. John iv. 34. xvii. 4. Heb. iii. 2. x.\n  9.\u2014Therefore, God hath also exalted him above measure; Phil. ii. 9.\n  set him at his own right hand in heaven; Eph. i. 20. and gave him all\n  power. Matt, xxviii. 18. He hath made him Lord and Christ; Acts ii.\n  36. exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give to Israel\n  repentance and remission of sins. Acts v. 31. He hath also ordained\n  him to judge the world in righteousness; Acts xviii. 31. and to him,\n  Christ shall then be subject, and deliver up the kingdom. 1 Cor. xv.\n  24-28.\n\n  \u201cTo be the true God, and to be under God, to be the Infinite, and to\n  be the subject, are, according to all reason, and the scripture\n  itself, inconsistent properties. By undeniable authority, however,\n  they are ascribed to the same subject; and therefore, there must be a\n  way to solve the difficulty. How often do we meet with particulars in\n  the system of truth, which seem to oppose one another; but when well\n  considered, agree, and even support one another. The human\n  constitution itself, exhibits a clear instance. The grand inquiry is,\n  upon what foundation every different truth is established, and how to\n  reconcile seeming contradictions. Now, while they who attack the\n  Godhead of Jesus, can never in our opinion, answer the multitude of\n  proofs in its favour; there is on the contrary, for the confessors of\n  that doctrine, the greatest store of solutions, as often as something\n  not divine, something beneath the nature and authority of his Father,\n  and something finite are testified concerning him. \u2018He who was in the\n  form of God, and counted it not robbery to be equal with God, took\n  upon him the form of a servant.\u2019 Phil. ii. 6, 7. \u2018The Word who was\n  with God, and who was God, became flesh; but in that flesh, manifested\n  a glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and\n  truth.\u2019 John i. 1, 14.\u2014According to the infallible testimony, he is\n  therefore true God and true man; and his saving mediatory performances\n  are inseparably founded on both natures. While the value of these, the\n  power to save his people forever, and to direct all things in heaven\n  and on earth to that end, as also the fitness to be the object of\n  their grateful confidence, and his capacity for conducting the general\n  judgment, are founded on, and give an invincible proof of his divine\n  perfection; it is at the same time his finite nature, wherein he\n  finished the human ministrations of his teaching office, and of his\n  priestly sacrifice.\u2014And thus it is intelligible, how the glory and\n  majesty with which he governs the kingdom of God, to the mighty\n  ingathering and defence of his people, and to the destruction of all\n  opposition, occur as an _exaltation_; in as far as the human nature,\n  according to its capacity shared therein, obtained the fruit and\n  reward of its labour, and the Lamb that was slain, deserves and\n  receives everlasting honour, because of the works of salvation in both\n  natures. This appears, because every where, his obedience and deepest\n  humiliation are assigned as the reason of his exaltation.\u2014\u2018I was dead\n  and behold I am alive for evermore, Amen! and have the keys of hell\n  and of death.\u2019 Rev. i. 18. \u2018To this end Christ died, and rose, and\n  revived, that he might be Lord over the dead and the living.\u2019 Rom,\n  xiv. 9. See also Phil. ii. 7-10. Heb. i. 3. John v. 27. Rev. i. 5, 6.\n  v. 12-14.\u201d\n\n  WYNPERSSE.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  _See Quest._ vii.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  _Creatures are said to be believed, as our Saviour speaking concerning\n  John the Baptist, in Mark_ xi. 31. _says_, Why did ye not believe him?\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9; _and, in Acts_ viii. 12. _the\n  Samaritans believed Philip_, \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03c9; _and, in John_ v.\n  46. _Moses is described as a person who ought to be believed_; Had ye\n  believed Moses, _&c. says our Saviour_, \u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u03b7; _but\n  it is never said that a creature is_ believed in. _This was Augustin\u2019s\n  observation; upon which occasion he says_, In Exposit. Evangel. Johan.\n  Tract. 29. \u201c_Though we may be said to believe Paul and Peter, yet we\n  are never said to believe_ in them.\u201d _But as for our Saviour, we are\n  not only to believe him, namely, what he has spoken, but_ \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, _to believe in him._\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  _The words are_, \u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b6\u03c3\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bf \u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5; _where_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 _seems to be exegetical, according to the\n  rule laid down, page 318. and therefore I would render the words_,\n  God, who quickeneth all things even Jesus Christ; _and, if this be a\n  just rendering, then the Father is not mentioned in the context; and\n  therefore this doxology is not ascribed to him but to our Saviour_.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture Doctrine, page 58, 77._\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  _The chief opposers of Christ\u2019s being the object of worship, were\n  Jacobus Pal\u00e6ologus, Franciscus Davidus, Christianus Franken, Simon\n  Budu\u00e6us; and, on the other hand, it was defended by Socinus, and\n  several others, though not in the same sense in which we maintain it._\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture Doctrine, page 132._\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  _See page_ 322, 323. ante.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  _See Dr. Waterland\u2019s defence of the divinity of Christ, serm._ iv.\n  _pag._ 127. & seq. _where he proves, that the exclusive terms of_ One,\n  only, _&c. do not except the Son, so as to deny him to have the same\n  Godhead with the Father: this he proves from several scriptures_,\n  _viz._ _Mat._ xi. 27. No one knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor any\n  one the Father, save the Son; _it does not follow from hence, that the\n  Father does not know himself nor the Son himself: and when it is said,\n  in 1 Cor._ ii. 11. The things of God knoweth no one, but the Spirit of\n  God; _this does not exclude the Son, for that would contradict the\n  scripture but now mentioned; no more than the Son\u2019s only knowing the\n  Father excludes the Holy Ghost, which would be contrary to this\n  scripture; so in Rev._ xix. 12. _it is said, that the Son had_ a name\n  written which no one knew but he himself: _none ever thought that the\n  Father was excluded by this exclusive term; so when God the Father\n  saith, in Isa._ xliv. 24. I am he that maketh all things, that\n  stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by\n  myself: _this would contradict many other scriptures, which speak of\n  the Son as the Creator of all things, if he were to be excluded by it.\n  Again, when the Psalmist saith, concerning the Father, in Psal._\n  lxxxiii. 18. _that_ his name alone is Jehovah, _we must set aside all\n  those scriptures in which our Saviour is called Jehovah, if he is\n  contained in this exclusive term. See more to this purpose in the said\n  sermon, in which this argument is managed with a great deal of\n  judgment. I shall only take leave farther to cite what is well\n  observed in page 33. \u201cThat, perhaps the word God in those places,\n  namely, such in which there are these exclusive terms, is to be\n  understood in the indefinite sense, abstracting from the particular\n  consideration of this or that person, in like manner as the word_ man\n  _often stands not for any particular human person, but the whole\n  species, or human nature; as when we say_, man is frail; man is\n  mortal, _or the like.\u201d_\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  \u03a4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5. _Beza speaks of two or three of the most\n  ancient copies in which this reading is found; and Grotius also\n  adheres to it, from the credit, as he says, of the most ancient and\n  correct copies; and it is also observed, that the vulgar Latin version\n  renders it so; and Augustin read it so in the copy that he made use\n  of: and whereas the evangelists, Mark and Luke, read it_, Why callest\n  thou me good, _he endeavours to reconcile this different reading\n  therewith as supposing there was a seeming contradiction between them\n  which he might better have done, by referring to some copies which had\n  it, as we read it_, why callest thou me good; _from whence, it is\n  probable, he saw none that so rendered it in his time._ Vid. Agust. de\n  Consensu. Evan. _lib._ ii. _cap. 63. It is also thus translated in the\n  ancient Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew._\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  \u201cIf Dr. Priestley, in his celebrated efforts to establish the\n  Unitarianism of the primitive church against Dr. Horsley, fell so\n  short of \u2018complete victory;\u2019 it may be presumed, that the failure\n  would, in some degree, affect his greater work, The History of Early\n  Opinions concerning Jesus Christ. Many parts of that elaborate\n  performance are merely a republication of the Letters, excluding the\n  personalities. Their merits and their fate must, therefore, be\n  closely, interwoven.\n\n  \u201cThis large and capital work was given to the world under\n  circumstances which appeared very promising for bringing the\n  controversy to a satisfactory issue. With great and long continued\n  diligence the indefatigable author collected his materials. He\n  digested and arranged them, with that lucid perspicuity for which he\n  was so justly distinguished. He tried every method to call forth into\n  the field of preparatory discussion, some learned and able\n  Trinitarians and Arians. He waited for some years after the\n  publication of the work; and then renewed his public challenge,\n  affording an additional period for the fate of the question. It was,\n  of course, implied, and the obligation was frankly avowed by the\n  Doctor; that he would in proper time duly notice what any fair and\n  candid opponents should produce.\n\n  \u201cIt is to be lamented, however that the expectations thus excited have\n  not been completely answered; and the decease of Dr. Priestly excludes\n  every hope that they will be so.\n\n  \u201cEarly in the year 1790, a mild and amiable writer, Dr. Williams,[168]\n  addressed to Dr. Priestley his objections to the whole structure of\n  the argument built on the History of Early Opinions. He offered\n  reasons to shew, that the appeal to the fathers was a method\n  calculated to increase difficulties, and to render the controversy\n  almost interminable; that it has been experimentally proved an\n  insufficient mode of argument; that it has been long ago solidly\n  refuted;[169] that it was plainly reprehended by Jesus Christ; that it\n  is highly untheological in its just consequences; and that it is\n  illogical and inconclusive. This letter breathed the sincere spirit of\n  amicable controversy; and I cannot but think that it deserved the very\n  candid and serious attention of your learned friend. But I believe it\n  was never noticed in any other way than that of private compliment.\n\n  \u201cIn 1794, Dr. Jamieson published a professed and minute examination of\n  the History of Early Opinions. This elaborate and learned work was the\n  very performance which Dr. Priestley had so long desired and\n  challenged. It surely, then, had a just claim on his particular and\n  public notice. At the time of this work\u2019s appearance, Dr. Priestley\n  was occupied in the important measure of emigration to America. But\n  when that step was accomplished, he enjoyed, for the remaining years\n  of life, a calm and undisturbed retreat. We have, however, yet to be\n  informed of the reason why his former pledge was not fulfilled.\n\n  \u201cAs the controversy has been thus left open, it cannot be deemed\n  illiberal in me to mention the result of personal observation in\n  reading this large work of Dr. Priestley\u2019s. I am the more inclined to\n  do so, since what I have remarked may be of use in answering a\n  question of some importance; What degree of reliance can be placed on\n  Dr. Priestley\u2019s care and accuracy in his citations of the fathers?\n\n  \u201cYou, Sir, are well aware of the importance which Dr. Priestley\n  attaches to the position, that the doctrines of the pre-existence and\n  divinity of Christ were acknowledged by the orthodox fathers to have\n  been most cautiously concealed, in the earlier preaching of the\n  apostles, and not to have been clearly divulged, till John taught them\n  at the close of the apostolic age.\n\n  \u201cDr. Jamieson appears to me to have solidly refuted this\n  assertion.[170] But he has, by no means, proceeded so far as he might\n  easily have done, in shewing Dr. Priestley\u2019s remarkable inattention to\n  rigid accuracy in the allegation of his authorities.\n\n  \u201cThe instances of this kind which I have observed have given me much\n  astonishment. If they concerned merely the literary reputation of this\n  truly eminent character, to drag them into public notice could only be\n  the work of a petulant and little mind. But they become cases of a\n  very different nature, when conclusions of prime importance on a very\n  interesting subject are inferred from egregious misconstructions of an\n  author\u2019s meaning. In such cases regard to truth must supersede\n  personal delicacies.\n\n  \u201cThis duty becomes the more urgent when we are told, from high and\n  respectable authority, that, \u2018in all the most important controversies\n  in which\u2019 Dr. Priestley \u2018was engaged, he had studied the subject\n  thoroughly, and was a complete master of the whole question:\u2019 and\n  that, in his reasoning, \u2018there was nothing artificial and ambiguous;\n  no design to slur over difficulties and objections, or to lay greater\n  stress upon a topic than it would well bear.\u2019[171]\n\n  \u201cThe doctor has selected Chrysostom as the father whose evidence is\n  most ample in support of the opinion, that John first taught the\n  divinity of Christ. \u2018Chrysostom,\u2019 says Dr. Priestley, \u2018represents all\n  the preceding writers of the New Testament as children, who heard, but\n  did not understand things, and who were busy about cheese-cakes and\n  childish sports, but John,\u2019 he says, \u2018taught what the angels\n  themselves did not know before he declared it.\u2019[172]\n\n  \u201cAt the bottom of the page, Dr. Priestley faithfully transcribes the\n  Greek of this passage, and no one can say that his translation is\n  materially unfair, so far as it goes. The sentence is exactly thus:\n  \u2018All the rest, like little children, hear indeed, yet do not\n  understand what they hear, but are captivated with cakes and childish\n  sports.\u2019 The omission of the clause \u2018all the rest,\u2019 (\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) does not _appear_ of much consequence. The insertion of it\n  would only have led the reader to inquire for the antecedent, and Dr.\n  Priestley has provided a ready answer: \u2018all the preceding writers of\n  the New Testament.\u2019\n\n  \u201cDo me the favour, my dear Sir, to take down the volume of Chrysostom,\n  and turn to the passage. Will you find the antecedent to this relative\n  clause to be any \u2018writers of the New Testament,\u2019 or any persons at all\n  connected with the New Testament? No, Sir. You will find it to be _the\n  effeminate and dissipated spectators of athletic games, and the\n  auditors of musicians and oratorial sophists!_[173]\u201d\n\n  SMITH\u2019S LETTERS TO BELSHAM.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  Letter to Dr. Priestley, in vol. i. of Dr. Williams\u2019 edition of Owen\n  on the Hebrews.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  Dr. Williams refers only to Chillingworth by name. I would take the\n  liberty of adding, that M. Daille\u2019s admirable work _On the Use of the\n  Fathers in Determining Religious Controversies_, is deserving of the\n  most careful perusal with reference to this subject.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  See his valuable work, Vindication of the Primitive Faith, &c. in\n  Reply to Dr. Priestley\u2019s Hist. of Early Opinions: vol. i. p. 284-313.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  Mr. Belsham\u2019s Disc. p. 24, 25.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  Hist. of Early Op. vol. iii. p. 128, 129.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  Mr. Belsham denies that these characters are the antecedent to the\n  exceptive clause in question, and conceives that it refers to the mass\n  of unlearned Christians, who are placed in opposition to \u201cthe\n  spectators and auditors of John, men that are become angels, or are\n  desirous of becoming such.\u201d But the Greek fathers give some additional\n  features of their character. \u201cThese,\u201d he says, \u201care devoted to\n  merriment and luxuriousness, living in riches, honours, and gluttony.\u201d\n  The candid reader will judge whether this description be more\n  applicable to plain and honest christians, than to the gay and\n  dissipated persons mentioned in a preceding part of the discourse.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  _In this they agree with those who were formerly called Macedonians,\n  from Macidonius, bishop of Constantinople, who lived about the middle\n  of the fourth century, who entertained such sentiments of the Holy\n  Ghost, and had a considerable party that adhered to him, who were also\n  called Pneumatomachi._\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  _See page 249, 250._\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  _See Woltzogen, and other Socinian writers_, in loc. _and Dr. Clarke\u2019s\n  Scripture-doctrine, page 13. where he inserts this among those\n  scriptures; in all which he supposes that the word_ God _is applied to\n  the Father_.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  _See page 358._\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  _Several of the Post Nicene Fathers have taken the words_, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _in the same sense as by the Lord, the Spirit; and, in\n  particular, Basil. de Spirit. Sanct. ad Amphiloc. Cap. 21. & Chrysost.\n  in loc._\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  _See page 249, 250, 251._\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  _See page 359, 360._\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture-doctrine, page 198._\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  _See Quest._ lix. lxvii. lxxii. lxxv.\n\n\n\n\n                           Quest. XII., XIII.\n\n\n    QUEST. XII. _What are the decrees of God?_\n\n    ANSW. God\u2019s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel\n    of his will; whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory,\n    unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass in time;\n    especially concerning angels and men.\n\n    QUEST. XIII. _What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and\n    men?_\n\n    ANSW. God, by an eternal and immutable decree out of his mere love,\n    for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time,\n    hath elected some angels to glory, and, in Christ, hath chosen some\n    men to eternal life, and the means thereof; and also, according to\n    his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will\n    (whereby he extendeth, or with-holdeth favour, as he pleaseth) hath\n    passed by, and fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be\n    for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.\n\n\nHaving considered the perfections of the divine nature, and the Personal\nglories of the Father, Son, and Spirit, the next thing to be insisted on\nis, what God has purposed to do from eternity, or does, or will do, in\npursuance thereof; the former we call his decrees; the latter, the\nexecution of them. The object of his decree is whatever comes to pass,\nwhich is the most large and comprehensive sense of his purpose: but\nwhereas his determinations, in a particular manner, respect angels and\nmen, or the intelligent part of the creation, and more especially the\neternal happiness of some, or the display of his righteous judgments\nagainst others; in these respects, they being taken in a more limited\nsense, are called as relating to the former, election, and, with respect\nto the latter, reprobation, which is the subject matter of these two\nanswers. And, before we proceed to insist on this sublime and difficult\nsubject, it may not be inexpedient for us to premise some things\nconcerning it in general.\n\n1. It is well known that there is no doctrine, contained in scripture,\nwhich is more contested than this, which lies before us; and it is not\nonly denied by some, but treated with the utmost dislike or detestation,\nand that to such a degree, that we must either wholly forbear to mention\nit in public discourses, or writings, or else must be liable to the hard\nfate of being censured by those who will not do that justice to the\nargument, to consider what may be advanced in defence thereof, as though\nit were to be taken for granted that we are maintaining a doctrine that\nis not only indefensible, but injurious to mankind, and subversive of\nall religion.\n\n2. If there be any who give just occasion to these prejudices, by the\nmethods which they have used in explaining, as well as the weakness of\ntheir arguments in defending it, or by laying themselves open to those\npopular objections, which are usually brought against it, we cannot but\nconclude that they are highly to blame; and therefore we are far from\napproving of any unguarded expressions, which are to be met with in some\nwritings, whereby a stumbling-block is laid in the way of those who are\ndisposed to make men offenders for a word, rather than to judge\nimpartially of the main drift of their discourse: it is to be owned,\nthat this has done dis-service to the cause, which might have been\nbetter defended.\n\n3. If these prejudices against this doctrine are ill grounded, and the\nobjections only founded on the popular cry, by which it is endeavoured\nto be run down, and condemned with reproach and censure; and if persons\nknow not, nor desire to know what may be said in defence thereof, how\nsuch-like objections may be answered; the disgust and opposition is both\nunreasonable and uncharitable, and contains a capricious resolution not\nto be undeceived, and consequently renders the person thus prejudiced,\nhighly culpable in the sight of God, especially if there be any ground\nto conclude that his cause is therein maintained.\n\n4. Let it be farther considered, that it is not a new doctrine, or such\nas was altogether unheard of in the world before; nor has it been only\ndefended by the more ignorant or licentious part of mankind, or those\nwho have been bold and presumptuous in affirming that for truth, which\nthey had not duly weighed, or been convinced of, from the strongest\nevidence. Whether it be as ancient as scripture, and, indeed, founded\nupon it, we shall leave others to judge, when we have considered what\nmay be said from it in defence thereof.\n\n5. It was generally asserted, and publicly owned in most of the\nconfessions of faith of the reformed churches in the last age, and, in\nparticular, in the church of England, as contained in one of the\narticles thereof, and there is no apparent ambiguity in the words\nthemselves, however, some have endeavoured, of late, to strain the sense\nthereof, and put such a meaning on them, as is very different from the\nwritings of those who compiled them, which might serve as a comment on\nthem.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that it was maintained by far the greatest\nnumber of divines, in their public discourses and writings in the last\ncentury, how much soever the contrary doctrines are maintained at this\nday: however, we do not insist on this as a proof of the truth thereof,\nas though it needed to be supported by numbers of advocates for it, or\nwere founded thereon; nor do we suppose, that when it has been most\nstrenuously, and almost universally defended, there were not at the same\ntime, others who opposed it. This I only mention, that I may, if\npossible, remove those prejudices that are inconsistent with persons\njudging impartially of it.\n\nSince we are considering the head of prejudices against this doctrine,\nwe think it necessary to add, that we shall endeavour to vindicate it,\nfrom the reproach that is generally cast on it, by those who suppose\nthat it cannot be defended, without asserting God to be the author of\nsin, or supposing him to be severe, cruel, and unjust to his creatures,\nas some conclude we represent him to be, by unjust consequences deduced\nfrom it. We are far from asserting, as will hereafter appear, that God\nfrom all eternity, purposed to damn a great part of the world, as the\nresult of his mere sovereign will, without the foresight of sin, which\nwould render them liable to that condemnation.\n\nMoreover, we shall endeavour to make it appear, in opposition to the\ncalumnies of some, that the decree of God does not destroy, or take\naway, the liberty of man\u2019s will, with respect to things, within its own\nsphere; or that considered in itself, it doth not lay a natural\nnecessity on him, to rush into inevitable damnation, as though the\ndestruction of sinners were only to be resolved into the divine purpose,\nand not their own wickedness. In considering which, we shall maintain,\nthat the decree of God does not lay any force on the will of man, nor\npreclude the means of grace, as ordained by him, for the salvation of\nthem that do, or shall hereafter, believe unto life everlasting; nor\ndoes it obstruct the preaching of the gospel, and therein proclaiming\nthe glad tidings of salvation, to those who set under the sound thereof,\nas an ordinance for their faith.\n\nAnd inasmuch as many are prejudiced against this doctrine, as being\ninfluenced by that popular out-cry, which is made by some, as though it\nwere of a very pernicious tendency, either, on the one hand, to lead men\nto presumption, as giving occasion to persons to conclude that they may\nbe saved as being elected though they live as they list; or, on the\nother hand, that it leads to despair, as supposing, that if there be\nsuch a decree, as that of reprobation, they must necessarily be included\nin it, and, by this means, instead of promoting holiness of life, it is\ninconsistent therewith: if we cannot maintain this doctrine, without\ngiving just ground for such exceptions, we shall not only think our\nlabour lost, but condemn it as pernicious and unscriptural, as much as\nthey do, as it must of necessity be, if it cannot be defended from\nsuch-like exceptions; which, I hope, we shall be able to do, and at the\nsame time, make it appear, that it is not only consistent with, but a\nvery great motive and inducement to practical godliness: and, if this\ncan be made to appear, the greatest part of the censorious prejudices,\nthat are entertained against it, will be removed, and persons will be\nbetter able to judge whether truth lies on that side of the question,\nwhich we shall endeavour to defend, or the contrary.\n\nI could not but premise these things in our entrance on this subject, as\nbeing sensible that such-like reproaches, as these we have mentioned,\nare brought by many, without duly weighing whether they are well\ngrounded or no; so that this doctrine is often opposed, in such a way of\nreasoning, that the premises, as well as the conclusions drawn from\nthem, are rather their own than ours; or, at least, if some ideas\nthereof may be found in the writings, or taken from the unguarded\nexpressions, which some who have defended this doctrine, have made use\nof; yet they have appeared in such a dress that even they, who are\nsupposed to have advanced them, would have disowned and rejected them.\nIf persons who are in another way of thinking, resolve not to lay aside\nthese misrepresentations, it plainly appears that they are not disposed\nto lie open to conviction, and then all attempts to defend this doctrine\nwill be to no purpose; the preventing whereof has rendered these\nprefatory cautions needful.\n\nWe shall only add, to what has been said, some rules, by which we desire\nthat the truth, either of this or the opposite doctrine, may be judged\nof.\n\n1. If we do not confirm what we assert, by proofs taken from scripture,\nlet it not be received; but if we do, whatever may be said of our method\nof managing this controversy, the greatest deference ought to be paid to\nthe sacred oracles: But since it is very common for persons to answer\nthe arguments taken from one scripture, by producing other scriptures,\nwhich seems to assert the contrary, as desirous to shift aside in the\ndispute, and put us upon solving the difficulties which they suppose to\nbe contained in them; though this is not to be declined, yet a more\ndirect answer must be given before the doctrine itself is overthrown.\nWhether our explication of those scriptures, on which our faith therein\nis founded, be just, we shall leave others to judge; and also whether\nthe sense we give of other scriptures that are brought as objections\nagainst it, be not equally probable with that of those that bring them;\nwhich is all that need be insisted on in such cases.\n\n2. Let that doctrine be received, and the contrary rejected, on which\nside of the question soever it lies, that is most agreeable to the\ndivine perfections, and explains those scriptures, brought in defence of\nit, most consistently therewith; which is a fair proposal; and such as\nought not only to be applied to this particular head of doctrine, but to\nthe whole of religion, as founded on scripture, which is far from\noverthrowing the divine glory, the advancement whereof is the great end\nof it.\n\n3. Let that doctrine be rejected, as inconsistent with itself, and not\nworthy to be believed or embraced, whether it be ours, or the contrary\nthereunto, that shall detract from the harmony of the divine perfection,\nor pretend to set up, or plead for one, and, at the same time militate\nagainst the glory of another; and I desire nothing more than that our\nwhole method of reasoning on this subject may be tried by these rules,\nand be deemed true or false, agreeably to what is contained therein.\n\nIn considering this subject, relating to the decrees of God, as in the\ntwo answers, which we are explaining, we shall proceed in the following\nmethod; and shew,\n\nI. What we are to understand, by God\u2019s fore-ordaining whatever comes to\npass, according to the counsel of his own will; wherein we shall compare\nthe decree with the execution thereof, and observe how one exactly\nanswers to the other, and is to be a rule for our judging concerning it.\n\nII. We shall prove the truth of that proposition, that God hath\nfore-ordained whatever shall come to pass, either in time, or to\neternity.\n\nIII. We shall then particularly consider intelligent creatures, such as\nangels and men, and that both good and bad, with respect to their\npresent, or future state, as the objects of God\u2019s eternal decree or\npurpose, and so shall proceed to speak concerning the decree of\nelection, and reprobation, as contained in the latter of these answers.\n\nIV. We shall lay down some propositions concerning each of these,\ntending to explain and prove them, and that more especially as to what\nrespects the election and reprobation of men.\n\nV. We shall consider the properties thereof, and how the divine\nperfections are displayed therein, and endeavour to make it appear, in\nvarious instances, that the account we shall give thereof is agreeable\nthereunto, as well as founded on scripture.\n\nVI. We shall enquire whether the contrary doctrine defended by those who\ndeny election and reprobation, be not derogatory to, and subversive of\nthe divine perfections, or, at least, inconsistent with the harmony\nthereof; or whether it doth not, in many respects, make God altogether\nsuch an one as ourselves.\n\nVII. We shall endeavour to prove that their reasoning from scripture,\nwho maintain the contrary doctrine, is not sufficiently conclusive; and\nthat the sense they give of those scriptures, generally brought to\nsupport it, does not so well agree with the divine perfections, as it\nought to do, but that they may be explained in a different way, more\nconsistent therewith.\n\nVIII. We shall endeavour to answer the most material objections that are\nusually brought against the doctrine that we are maintaining. And,\n\nIX. Shew how it is practically to be improved by us, to the glory of\nGod, and our spiritual good and advantage.\n\nI. What we are to understand by God\u2019s fore-ordaining whatever comes to\npass, according to the counsel of his own will.\n\n1. By God\u2019s fore-ordaining whatever comes to pass, we do not understand\nbarely his fore-knowledge of all things, that are, or shall be done in\ntime, and to eternity, although this be included in, and inseparably\nconnected with his eternal purpose, since no one can purpose to act\nwithout the foreknowledge thereof; yet more than this is certainly\ncontained therein; therefore,\n\n2. God\u2019s pre-determining, or fore-ordaining whatsoever comes to pass,\nincludes not only an act of the divine understanding, but an act of his\nsovereign will: It is not only his knowing what shall come to pass, but\nhis determining, by his own agency, or efficiency, what he will produce\nin time, or to eternity. Accordingly, some call the decrees of God his\neternal providence, and the execution thereof his actual providence; by\nthe former, he determines what he will do; by the latter, he brings his\ndeterminations to pass, or effects what he before designed to do. It\nfollows therefore,\n\n3. That God\u2019s fore-ordaining whatsoever shall come to pass, is vastly\ndifferent from his bringing things to pass: the one is an internal act\nof his will; the other, an external act of his almighty power: He\nfore-ordained that they should come to pass, and therefore, till then,\nthey are considered as future; though this determination necessarily\nsecures the event, unless we suppose it possible for his eternal purpose\nto be defeated, which is disagreeable to the divine perfections, as will\nfarther appear under some following heads. And, on the other hand, when\nwe consider him, as bringing all things to pass, or producing them by\nhis power, this renders what was before future, present. With respect to\nthe former, he decrees what shall be; and, with respect to the latter,\nhis decree takes effect, and is executed accordingly.\n\nThey who treat of this matter, generally consider things, either as\npossible or future. Things are said to be possible, with respect to the\npower of God, as every thing that he can do, is possible to be done,\nthough some things, which he could have done, he never will do. As for\ninstance: He could have made more worlds, had he pleased; or have\nproduced more men upon earth, or more species of creatures; or have\ngiven a greater degree of perfection to creatures, than he has done, or\nwill do; for it is certain, that he never acted to the utmost of his\npower, accordingly he could have done many things that he will never do;\nand those things are said to be possible, but not future.\n\nMoreover, things future are rendered so, by the will of God, or his\nhaving fore-ordained, or determined to produce them; this is what we\ncall the decree of God, which respects the event, or determines whatever\nshall come to pass.\n\nWe are now to consider, what we are to understand by God\u2019s\nfore-ordaining all things, according to the counsel of his will; which\nis a mode of speaking used in scripture, in Eph. i. 11. _Being\npredestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things\nafter the counsel of his own will._\n\n1. We are not hereby to understand that the decrees of God are the\nresult of deliberation, or his debating matters within himself, as\nreasoning in his own mind about the expediency, or inexpediency of\nthings, or calling in the advice of others, as creatures are said to do,\nwhen acting with counsel; for he must not be supposed to determine\nthings in such a way, since that would argue an imperfection in the\ndivine mind; _With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and\ntaught him in the paths of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and\nshewed to him the way of understanding?_ Isa. xl. 14. But,\n\n2. It implies, that his decrees are infinitely wise. As what is done\nwith counsel is said, according to human modes of speaking, to be done\nadvisedly, in opposition to its being done rashly, or with\nprecipitation; accordingly all the works of God are done with wisdom,\ntherefore all his purposes and determinations to do what is done in\ntime, are infinitely wise, which, according to our way of speaking, is\ncalled the counsel of his will: thus it is said, _He is wonderful in\ncounsel, and excellent in working_, chap. xxviii. 29.\n\nWe are now to consider the object of God\u2019s decree; This, as has been\nbefore observed, is every thing that has, or shall come to pass, and it\nmay be considered in different respects. There are some things which he\nhas determined to effect, namely, such as are the objects of his power;\nor all things, which have a natural or moral goodness in them, which are\nbecoming an infinitely holy God to produce: and this includes in it\nevery thing but sin, which God does not produce, it not being the object\nof power: Nevertheless, this must be supposed to be committed by his\npermission, and therefore it is the consequence of his decree to permit,\nthough not, as other things, of his decree to effect; it is one thing to\nsuffer sin to be committed in the world, and another thing to be the\nauthor of it. But this we shall have occasion to enlarge on, under a\nfollowing head.\n\nII. We shall now proceed to prove the truth of what is laid down in this\nanswer, namely, that God hath fore-ordained whatever comes to pass. This\nwill evidently appear, if we consider the five following propositions in\ntheir due connexion.\n\n1. Nothing comes to pass by chance, with respect to God, but by the\ndirection of his providence, which we are bound to assert against the\nDeists, who speak of God, as though he were not the Governor of the\nworld. This cannot be denied by any, who think, with any degree of\nmodesty, concerning, or pay a due deference to the divine perfections,\nsince God may as well be denied to be the Creator as the Governor of the\nworld.[183]\n\n2. It follows from hence, that nothing is done without the divine\ninfluence, or permission. The former (as was before observed) respects\nthings that are good, which are the effects of his power; the latter,\nsin. That nothing comes to pass without the divine influence, or\npermission, is evident; for if any thing came to pass, which is the\nobject of power, without the divine influence, then the creature would\nbe said to exist, or act independently on the power of God; and, if so,\nthen it would follow, that it would exist, or act necessarily; but\nnecessary existence is a perfection appropriate to God.\n\nAs to what respects the latter, namely, sins being committed by divine\npermission, it is evident, that if it might be committed without the\ndivine permission, it could not be restrained by God: and to suppose\nthat he could not hinder the commission of sin, is to suppose that sin\nmight proceed to the greatest height, without any possible check or\ncontroul, which would argue a great defect in the divine government of\nthe world, as it is also contrary to daily experience, as well as\nscripture. Certainly he who sets bounds to the sea, and says to its\nproud waves, _Hitherto shall ye come, and no farther_, must be supposed\nto set bounds to the corrupt passions of wicked men: thus the Psalmist\nsays, _Surely the wrath of men shall praise thee; the remainder of wrath\nshalt thou restrain_, Psal. lxxvi. 10.\n\nNotwithstanding, this does not argue his approbation of sin, or that he\nis the author of it; since it is one thing to suffer, or not to hinder,\nand another thing to be the author of any thing. Thus it is said, _These\nthings hast thou done, and I kept silence_, Psal. l. 21. that is, I did\nnot restrain thee from doing them, as I could have done; so it is said,\n_in times past he suffered all nations to walk in their own ways_. Acts\nxiv. 16.\n\n3. God never acts or suffers any thing to be done, but he knows,\nbeforehand, what he will do or suffer. This an intelligent creature,\nacting as such, is said do, therefore it must not be denied of him, who\nis omniscient, and infinitely wise: He who knows all things that others\nwill do, cannot but know what himself will do, or what others will do by\nthe interposition of his providence, or what he will suffer to be done,\nbefore it is acted.\n\n4. Whatever God does, and consequently knows before-hand that he will do\nit, that he must be supposed to have before determined to do: This must\nbe allowed, or else it argues him defective in wisdom. As no wise man\nacts precipitantly or without judgment, much less must the wise God be\nsupposed to do so; concerning whom it is said, that _all his ways are\njudgment_, Deut. xxxii. 4.\n\n5. It therefore appears, even to a demonstration, that God before\ndetermined, or fore-ordained, whatever comes to pass, which was the\nthing to be proved.\n\nAnd inasmuch, as he never began to determine, as he never began to\nexist, or as he never was without purposes of what he would do;\ntherefore it is evident, that he before ordained, from eternity,\nwhatever should come to pass, either in time, or to eternity.\n\nIt farther appears, that God fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass,\notherwise he did not determine to create all things before he gave being\nto them; and then it could not be said, _O Lord, how manifold are thy\nworks! in wisdom hast thou made them all_, Psal. civ. 24. There are,\nindeed, many admirable discoveries of wisdom, as well as power, in the\neffects produced; but to suppose that all this was done without\nfore-thought, or that there was no eternal purpose relating thereunto,\nwould be such a reflection on the glory of this perfection, as is\ninconsistent with the idea of a God. Moreover, if herein he designed his\nown glory, as he certainly did, since every intelligent being designs\nsome end, and the highest and most excellent end must be designed by a\nGod of infinite wisdom; and, if he did all this for his own glory, then\nit must be allowed, that it was the result of an eternal purpose: all\nwhich, I am persuaded, will not be denied by those on the other side of\nthe question, who defend their own cause with any measure of judgment.\n\nTo this we may farther add, that to deny that God fore-ordained whatever\ncomes to pass, is, in effect, to deny a providence, or, at least, that\nGod governs the world in such a way, as that what he does therein was\npre-concerted. And herein we expect to meet with no opposition from any\nbut the Deists, or those who deny a God; and if it be taken for granted\nthat there is a providence, or that God is the Governor of the world, we\ncannot but conclude from hence, that all the displays of his glory\ntherein, are the result of his eternal purpose. This is also agreeable\nto what is said concerning him, that _he doth according to his will in\nthe army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth_, Dan. iv.\n35. the meaning of which is not barely this, (which is a great truth)\nthat he acts without controul, inasmuch as his power is infinite: But\nthat all he does is pursuant to his will; and, indeed, it cannot be\notherwise, if we suppose that the divine power, and will, are so\ninseparably connected, that he cannot be said to produce any thing, but\nby the word of his power; or when he willeth that any thing should come\nto pass, it is not in an efficacious will, as ours is, for want of\npower, to effect what we have done. Therefore for God to will the\npresent existence of things, is to effect them, which seems to be the\nreason of that mode of speaking, which was used when he produced all\nthings at first; he said, let them exist in that form, or perfection,\nwhich he had before designed to give them, and the effect immediately\nfollowed, Gen. i. 3, 6, 9, &c.\n\nHitherto, I presume, our argument will not be much contested; for the\nmain thing in controversy is what relates to the divine determination\nrespecting intelligent creatures, which will be considered under a\nfollowing head: What I have hitherto attempted to prove is, the\nproposition in general, namely, that whatever God brings to pass, or is\nthe effect of power, is the result of his determinate purpose. And\nherein, I think, I have carefully distinguished between God\u2019s will to\neffect, and his will to permit; but that will be farther explained, when\nwe speak of the decrees of God, with a particular application to angels\nand men, under the head of election.\n\nHaving endeavoured to prove that God hath fore-ordained whatever comes\nto pass, we shall lay down the following propositions relating to his\nend and design in all his purposes, together with the nature of things,\nas coming to pass pursuant thereunto, and the method in which we are to\nconceive of the decree, when compared with the execution thereof.\n\n1. God cannot design any thing, in his eternal purpose, as the highest\nend, but his own glory, which is here assigned, as the end of his\ndecrees. As this is the principal motive, or reason, inducing him to\nproduce whatever comes to pass; so it must be considered as the end of\nhis purpose relating thereunto: This is very evident; for since the\ndivine glory is the most excellent of all things, he cannot, as an\ninfinitely wise God, design any thing short of it, as the great motive\nor inducement for him to act; therefore, whatever lower ends are\ndesigned by him, they are all resolved into this as the principal, to\nwit, the advancement of his divine perfections. Though God designs his\nown glory as the highest end, yet he has purposed not only that this\nshould be brought about, by means conducive thereunto, but that there\nshould be a subserviency of one thing to another, all which are the\nobjects of his decree, as well as the highest end, namely, his own\nglory. As, for instance, he determines that the life and health of man\nshall be maintained by the use of proper means and medicine, or that\ngrace shall be wrought instrumentally by those means, which he has\nordained, in order thereunto: thus his purpose respects the end and\nmeans, together with the connexion that there is between them.\n\n2. According to the natural order of things, the divine purpose is\nantecedent to the execution thereof. Therefore it seems very absurd to\ndistinguish the decree of God, as some do, into antecedent and\nconsequent, one going before the use of means, the other following, of\nwhich more hereafter: It is certain, that every intelligent being first\ndetermines to act, and then executes his determinations; so that nothing\ncan be more absurd, than to say, that a person determines to do a thing\nwhich is already done. Therefore we conclude, that God first decreed\nwhat shall come to pass, and then brings it to pass: Accordingly he\nfirst determined to create the world, and then created it; he first\ndetermined to bestow the means of grace on men, and to render them\neffectual to the salvation of all who shall be saved, and then he does\nthis accordingly; so, with respect to his judicial actings, he first\ndetermined by a permissive decree, not to prevent the commission of sin,\nthough infinitely opposite to his holiness, and then, knowing the\nconsequence of this permissive decree, or that men, through the\nmutability or corruption of their nature, would rebel against him, he\ndetermined to punish sin after it should be committed. Thus the decree\nof God is, in all respects, antecedent to the execution of it; or his\neternal providence, as his decrees are sometimes called, is antecedent\nto, and the ground and reason of, his actual providence.\n\n3. Though the purpose of God be before the execution thereof, yet the\nexecution of it is first known by us; and so it is by this that we are\nto judge of his decree and purpose, which is altogether secret, with\nrespect to us, till he reveals it; therefore we first observe the\ndiscoveries thereof, as contained in his word, or made visible in his\nactual providence, and from thence we infer his eternal purpose relating\nthereunto. Every thing that is first in the order of nature, is not\nfirst with respect to the order of our knowing it: thus the cause is\nbefore the effect, but the effect is often known before the cause; the\nsun is, in the order of nature, before the enlightening the world by it;\nbut we first see the light, and then we know there is a sun, which is\nthe fountain thereof: or, to illustrate it by another similitude, which\ncomes nearer the matter before us; A legislator determines first to make\na law, which determination is antecedent to the making, and that to the\npromulgation of it, whereby his subjects come to the knowledge thereof,\nand act in conformity thereunto; but, according to our method of judging\nconcerning it, we must first know that there is such a law, and from\nthence we conclude, that there was a purpose relating to it, in him that\ngave it; Thus we conclude, that though the decree of God be the ground\nand reason of the execution thereof, yet we know that there was such a\ndecree by its execution, or, at least, by some other way designed to\ndiscover this to us.\n\nThese things being duly considered, may obviate an objection, which is\nno other than a misrepresentation of the doctrine we are maintaining, as\nthough we asserted, that our conduct of life, and the judgment we are to\npass concerning ourselves, relating to our hope of future blessedness,\nwere to be principally, if not altogether regulated, by God\u2019s secret\npurpose or decree; as though we were first to consider him as\ndetermining the event, that is, as having chosen or rejected us, and,\nfrom this supposition, to encourage ourselves to attend upon the means\nof grace; or otherwise that we should take occasion to neglect them;\nsince it is a preposterous thing for a man, who considers himself as\nreprobated, to attend on any of those means, which are ordained to\nsalvation.\n\nWhat has been said under the foregoing heads, is sufficient to take away\nthe force of this objection; but this will be more particularly\nconsidered, when we come to answer several objections against the\ndoctrine of election: Therefore all I shall add at present is, that\nsince our conduct and hope is to be governed by the appearances of\nthings, and not by God\u2019s secret purpose relating to the event thereof,\nwe are to act as those who have not, nor can have, any knowlege of what\nis decreed, with relation thereunto, till it is evinced by the execution\nthereof; or, at least, those graces wrought in us, which are the objects\nof God\u2019s purpose, as well as our future blessedness; and our right to\none is to be judged of by the other.\n\nThis leads us to consider the properties of these decrees of God, as\nmentioned in the former of the answers we are now considering; in which\nit is said, they are _wise_, _free_, and _holy_. This is very evident,\nfrom the wisdom, sovereignty, and holiness, which appear in the\nexecution of them; for whatever perfections are demonstrated in the\ndispensations of providence, or grace, these God designed to glorify in\nhis eternal purpose; therefore if his works, in time, are wise, free,\nsovereign, and holy, his decree, with respect thereunto, which is\nfulfilled thereby, must be said to be so likewise. These things we shall\nhave occasion to speak more particularly to, under a following head,\nwhen we consider the properties of election, and particularly that it is\nwise, sovereign, and holy; I shall therefore, at present, only add, that\nwhatever perfections belong to the nature of God, they are demonstrated\nby his works, since he cannot act unbecoming himself; for that would\ngive occasion to the world to deny him to be infinitely perfect, that\nis, to be God. If we pass a judgment on creatures by what they do, and\nso determine him to be a wise man, who acts wisely, or a holy man, who\nacts holily, or a free and sovereign agent, who acts without constraint,\ncertainly the same must be said of the divine Majesty; and consequently,\nsince whatever he does has the marks of infinite wisdom, holiness, and\nsovereignty, impressed upon it, it is evident that these properties, or\nperfections, belong to all his purposes. If all his works are performed\nin wisdom, as the Psalmist observes, Psal. civ. 24. then we have reason\nto admire that wisdom which appears, from hence, to be contained in all\nhis purposes relating thereunto, as the apostle doth, Rom. xi. 33. _O\nthe depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How\nunsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!_ If he be\n_righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works_, Psal. cxlv. 17.\nand therein demonstrates a divine sovereignty, as acting without any\nobligation, or constraint laid upon him to bestow the favours he confers\non mankind; then we must certainly conclude, that his eternal purpose\nwhich is executed hereby, is free and sovereign. This leads us to\nconsider,\n\nIII. That intelligent creatures, such as angels and men, with respect to\ntheir present or future state, are the objects of God\u2019s eternal decree,\nor purpose, which is generally called _predestination_. And this, as it\nrelates to the happiness of some, or misery of others, is distinguished\ninto election or reprobation, which is a very awful subject, and ought\nnever to be thought of, or mentioned, but with the utmost caution and\nreverence, lest we speak those things that are not right concerning God,\nand thereby dishonour him, or give just occasion to any to deny or\nreproach this doctrine, as though it were not founded on scripture.\n\nHitherto we have considered the purpose of God, as including in it all\nthings future, as the objects thereof; and now we are to speak of it in\nparticular, as it relates to angels and men. When we confine the objects\nof God\u2019s purpose to those things that come to pass, which have no\ndependence on the free-will of angels or men, we do not meet with much\nopposition from those, who are in other respects, in the contrary scheme\nof doctrine; for most of them, who are masters of their own argument,\nand consider what may be allowed without weakening their cause, do not\ndeny that God fore-ordained whatever comes to pass, nor that he did this\nfrom all eternity, if we except what respects the actions of free\nagents. Thus they will grant that God, from all eternity, determined to\ncreate the world, and then to govern it, and to give laws to men, as the\nrule of government, and a free-will, or power to yield obedience\nthereunto: but when we consider men\u2019s free actions, as the objects of a\ndivine decree, and the final state of men, as being determined by it,\nhere we are like to meet with the greatest opposition, and therefore\nmust endeavour to maintain our ground in the following part of this\nargument.\n\nThe decree of God, respecting intelligent creatures, is to be considered\nas containing in it two branches, namely, _election_ and _reprobation_:\nthe former of which is contained in those words, that God, out of his\nmere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, hath elected some to\nglory in Christ, and also to the means thereof; and as for reprobation,\nthat is described in the following words; that according to his\nsovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, he hath\npassed by, and fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be, for\ntheir sin, inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice. Both\nthese are to be considered; and,\n\n_First_, What respects the doctrine of election. To elect, or choose,\naccording to the common use, or acceptation of the word, signifies the\ntaking a small number out of a greater, or a part out of the whole; and\nthis is applied, either to things or persons.\n\n(1.) To things. As when a person has a great many things to choose out\nof, he sets aside some of them for his own use, and rejects the others,\nas refuse, that he will have nothing to do with.\n\n(2.) To persons. As when a king chooses, out of his subjects, some whom\nhe will advance to great honours; or when a master chooses, out of a\nnumber of servants offered to him, one, or more, whom he will employ in\nhis service; this from the nature of the thing, implies, that all are\nnot chosen, but only a part, in which there is a discrimination, or a\ndifference put between one and another.\n\nBut we are more particularly to consider the meaning of the word\n_election_, as we find it in scripture, wherein it is used in several\nsenses.\n\nTo elect or choose, according to the acceptation of the word, does not\nconnote the particular thing that a person is chosen to, but that is to\nbe understood by what is farther added to determine the sense thereof;\nas sometimes we read of persons being chosen to partake of some\nprivileges, short of salvation; at other times, of their being chosen to\nsalvation; sometimes it is to be understood as signifying their being\nchosen to things of a lower nature, at other times their being chosen to\nperform those duties, and exercise those graces that accompany\nsalvation; and we may, very easily, understand the sense of it by the\ncontext.\n\nAgain, it is sometimes taken for the execution of God\u2019s purpose, or for\nhis actual providence, making choice of persons to fulfil his pleasure,\nin their various capacities; at other times, as we are here to\nunderstand it, for his fixing his love upon his people, and purposing to\nbring them to glory, making choice of some out of the rest of mankind,\nas the monuments of his discriminating grace; we have instances of all\nthese senses of the word in scripture; and,\n\n1. It is sometimes taken for God\u2019s actual separation of persons, for\nsome peculiar instances of service, which is a branch of his\nprovidential dispensation, in time: thus we sometimes read in scripture,\nof persons being chosen, or set apart, by God, to an office, and that\neither civil or sacred: thus, upon the occasion of Saul\u2019s being made\nking, by God\u2019s special appointment, Samuel says, _See ye him whom the\nLord hath chosen_, 1 Sam. x. 24. so it is said elsewhere, _He chose\nDavid also his servant, and took him from the sheep-fold; from following\nthe ewes great with young, he brought him to feed Jacob, his people, and\nIsrael his inheritance_. Psal. lxxviii. 70, 71.\n\nIt also signifies his actual appointment of persons to perform some\nsacred office: thus it is said, concerning the Levites, that _the Lord\nhad chosen them to carry the ark, and to minister unto him_, 1 Chron.\nxv. 2. and our Saviour says, to his disciples, _Have not I chosen you_,\nnamely, to be my disciples, and as such to be employed in preaching the\ngospel, _and one of you is a devil_, John vi. 70.\n\n2. It is sometimes taken for God\u2019s providential designation of a people,\nto be made partakers of those external privileges of the covenant of\ngrace, which belong to them as a church, which, as such, is the peculiar\nobject of the divine regard: thus the people of Israel are said to have\nbeen chosen, or separated, from the world, to enjoy the external\nblessings of the covenant of grace, as Moses tells them, _Because the\nLord loved your fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them_,\nDeut. iv. 37. and elsewhere, _Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy\nGod; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto\nhimself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth_, chap.\nvii. 6, 7. And, in many other places in the Old Testament, the word\n_election_ is taken in this sense, though something more than this seems\nto be included in some particular scriptures in the prophetic writings,\nin which the Jews are described, as God\u2019s chosen people, as we shall\nendeavour to shew under a following head.\n\n3. It also signifies God\u2019s bestowing special grace on some, who are\nhighly favoured by him, above others, as having called, or set them\napart for himself, to have communion with him, to bear a testimony to\nhim, and to be employed in eminent service, for his name and glory in\nthe world. Thus it seems to be taken, in 1 Cor. i. 26, 27. where the\napostle speaks of their _calling_, which imports some special\nprivileges, that they were made partakers of, as the objects of divine\npower, and grace, to whom Christ was _made wisdom, righteousness,\nsanctification, and redemption_; which therefore signifies the powerful,\ninternal, effectual call, and not barely the external call of the\nGospel, as appears, by the foregoing and following verses, ver. 24.\ncompared with 30. and they, whose calling he speaks of, are said to be\nchosen: _You see your calling, how that not many wise men_, &c. _are\ncalled_, but _God hath chosen the foolish things of this world_, &c. so\nthat to be chosen, and effectually called there, seem to import the same\nthing.\n\nAnd sometimes it is taken, for some peculiar excellency, which one\nChristian has above another; as that hospitable, or public-spirited\nperson, to whom the apostle John directs his second epistle, is called\nby him, _The elect lady_, ver. 1. as an excellent person is sometimes\nstyled a choice person.\n\nBut, though the word is taken, in scripture, in these various senses\nabove mentioned, yet it is not confined to any, or all of them; for we\nshall endeavour to make it appear, that it is often taken, in scripture,\nas it is expressed in this answer; for God\u2019s having fore-ordained\nparticular persons, as monuments of his special love, to be made\npartakers of grace here, and glory hereafter, as it is styled, their\nbeing chosen to eternal life, and the means thereof. This is what we\nshall endeavour to prove, and accordingly shall consider the objects\nthereof, namely, angels and men, and that it is only a part of mankind\nthat is chosen to salvation, to wit, that remnant which shall be\neventually saved; and that these are chosen to the means thereof, as\nwell as the end; and how this is said to be in Christ.\n\nThe objects of election are _angels_ and _men_. A few words may be said\nconcerning the election of angels, as being particularly mentioned in\nthis answer; we have not, indeed, much delivered concerning this matter\nin scripture, though the apostle calls those who remain in their state\nof holiness and happiness, in which they were created, _elect angels_, 1\nTim. v. 21. But, had we no mention of their election in scripture, their\nbeing confirmed in their present state of blessedness, must, from the\nforegoing method of reasoning, be supposed to be the result of a divine\npurpose, or the execution of a decree relating thereunto; though there\nis this difference between their election, and that of men, in that the\nlatter are chosen unto salvation, which the angels are not subjects\ncapable of, inasmuch as they were never in a lost, undone state; neither\nare they said to be chosen in Christ, as men are.\n\nBut we shall proceed, to that which more immediately concerns us, to\nconsider men as the objects of election. This is variously expressed in\nscripture; sometimes it is called their being _appointed to attain\nsalvation_, or being _ordained to eternal life_ or their _names_ being\n_written in the book of life_; and it is also called, _the purpose of\nGod, according to election_, or his having _loved them before the\nfoundation of the world_, or his having _predestinated_ them, (who have\nbeen blessed with all spiritual blessings, in heavenly places in Christ)\n_unto the adoption of children_, by him, according to the good pleasure\nof his will. That the scriptures speak of persons as elect, and that\nthis is always represented as a great instance of divine favour and\ngoodness, is not denied: But the main thing in controversy is, whether\nthis relates to the purpose of God, or his providence; and whether it\nrespects particular persons, or the church of God in general, as\ndistinguished from the world; and, if it be supposed to relate to\nparticular persons, how these are considered in God\u2019s purpose, or what\nis the order and reason of his determination to save them.\n\nThat election sometimes respects the disposing providence of God, in\ntime, has been already considered, and some particular instances\nthereof, in scripture, referred to; but when they, on the other side of\nthe question, maintain, that this is the only, or principal sense in\nwhich it is used therein, we must take leave to differ from them. There\nis a late writer[185], who sometimes misrepresents, and at other times,\nopposes this doctrine, with more assurance and insult, than the strength\nof his reasoning will well allow of; and his performance on this head,\nand others, that have some affinity with it, is concluded, by many of\nhis admirers, to be unanswerable; and the sense that he has given of\nseveral scriptures therein, as well as in his paraphrase on the New\nTestament, in which he studiously endeavours to explain every text, in\nconformity to his own scheme, has tended to prejudice many in favour\nthereof; and therefore we shall take occasion sometimes to consider what\nhe advances against the doctrine that we are maintaining; and\nparticularly, as to this head of election, he supposes, \u201c1. That the\nelection, mentioned, in scripture, is not of particular persons, but\nonly that of churches and nations, or their being chosen to the\nenjoyment of the means of grace, rather than a certainty of their being\nsaved by those means; that it does not contain any absolute assurance of\ntheir salvation, or of any such grace, as shall infallibly, and without\nany possibility of frustration, procure their salvation. 2. That the\nelection to salvation, mentioned in scripture, is only conditional, upon\nour perseverance in a life of holiness[186]; and he attempts to prove,\nthat election, in the Old Testament, belongs not to the righteous and\nobedient persons only, but the whole nation of the Jews, good and bad;\nand that, in the New Testament, it is applied to those who embrace the\nChristian faith, without any regard had to their eternal happiness.\u201d\nThese things, ought to be particularly considered, and therefore we\nshall endeavour to prove,\n\n1. That though election oftentimes, in the Old Testament, respects the\nchurch of the Jews, as enjoying the external means of grace, yet it does\nnot sufficiently appear that it is never to be taken in any other sense;\nespecially when, there are some of those privileges which accompany\nsalvation mentioned in the context, and applied to some of them, who are\nthus described; or when there are some promises made to them, which\nrespect more than the external means of grace; therefore if there were\nbut one scripture that is to be taken in this sense, it would be a\nsufficient answer to the universal negative, in which it is supposed,\nthat the Old Testament never intends by it, any privilege, but such as\nis external, and has no immediate reference to salvation. Here I might\nrefer to some places in the evangelical prophecy of Isaiah, which are\nnot foreign to our purpose; as when it is said, _Thou Israel, art my\nservant, Jacob, whom I have chosen_; and _I have chosen thee, and not\ncast thee away_, Isa. xli. 8, 9. that this respects more than the\ncontinuance of their political and religious state, as enjoying the\nexternal means of grace, seems to be implied in those promises that are\nmade to them, in the following words, which not only speak of their\ndeliverance from captivity, after they had continued sometime therein,\nbut their being made partakers of Gods special love, which had an\nimmediate reference to their salvation: thus it is said, in the\nfollowing, _Fear not, for I am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy\nGod; I will strengthen thee, yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold\nthee with the right hand of my righteousness_; and elsewhere God,\nspeaking to the Jews, says, _I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy\ntransgressions for mine own sake, and I will not remember thy sins_,\nchap. xliii. 25. and, _Israel shall be saved in the Lord, with an\neverlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded, world\nwithout end_, chap. xlv. 17. There are also many other promises, which\nseem to import a great deal more than the external privileges of the\ncovenant of grace, which many very excellent Christians have applied to\nthemselves, as supposing that they contain those blessings which have a\nmore immediate reference to salvation; and it would detract very much\nfrom the spirituality and usefulness of such-like scriptures, to say\nthat they have no relation to us, as having nothing to do with the\nJewish nation, to whom these promises were made.\n\n_Object._ To this it may be objected, that these promises are directed\nto the church of the Jews, as a chosen people; and therefore to suppose\nthat there were a number elected out of them to eternal salvation, is to\nextend the sense of the word beyond the design of the context, to\ndestroy the determinate sense thereof, and to suppose an election out of\nan election.\n\n_Answ._ Since the word _election_, denotes persons being chosen to enjoy\nthe external means of grace, and to attain salvation by and under them,\nit may, without any impropriety of expression, be applied in these\ndifferent senses, in the same text; so that Israel may be described as a\nchosen people in the former sense, and yet there might be a number\nelected out of them, who were chosen to eternal life, to whom this\npromise of salvation more especially belonged, who are distinguished\nfrom the general body of the Jewish nation, who are called, in the other\nsense, God\u2019s elect; as when it is said, _I will leave in the midst of\nthee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of\nthe Lord; the remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies_,\n&c. Zeph. iii. 12, 13. So that as Israel was an elect people, chosen out\nof the world to enjoy the external privileges conferred upon them, as a\nchurch, which they are supposed to have mis-improved, for which they\nwere to be carried captive into Babylon; there was a remnant chosen out\nof them to be made partakers of the blessings that accompany salvation,\nsuch as are here promised; these are not considered as a church,\ngoverned by distinct laws, from those that Israel was governed by; and\ntherefore not as a church selected out of that church, but as a number\nof people among them whom God had kept faithful, as having chosen them\nto enjoy better privileges than those which they had as a professing\npeople; or as a number elected to be made partakers of special grace,\nout of those which had been made partakers of common grace, which they\nhad miserably abused, and were punished for it.\n\n2. Our Saviour speaking concerning the final destruction of Jerusalem by\nthe Roman army, and a great time of distress that should ensue hereupon,\ntells them, in Matt. xxiv. 22. that those days should be shortened _for\nthe elect\u2019s sake_, that is, those who were chosen to eternal life, and\naccordingly should be converted to the Christian faith, not from among\nthe heathen, but out of the Jewish nation; for it is to them that he\nmore particularly directs his discourse, forewarning them of this\ndesolating judgment; and he advises them to pray that their _flight be\nnot on the Sabbath-day_, ver. 20. intimating thereby, that that nation\ndeemed it unlawful to defend themselves from the assaults of an enemy on\nthe Sabbath-day, though their immediate death would be the consequence\nthereof; therefore this advice was suited to the temper of the Jews, and\nnone else: No people in the world, except them, entertained this\nsuperstitious opinion concerning the prohibition of self-defence on the\nSabbath-day; from whence it may therefore be inferred, that our Saviour\nspeaks of them in particular, and not of the Christians, which were\namongst them; upon which account it seems probable, that these are not\nintended by _the elect_, namely, that small number for whose sake those\ndays of distress and tribulation were to be shortened;[187] therefore\nthere were an elect people whom God had a peculiar regard to, who should\nafterwards be converted to Christianity, namely, a number elected to\neternal life out of that people, who were elected to the external\nprivileges of the covenant of grace. And this farther appears from what\nfollows, where our Saviour speaks concerning _false Christs, and false\nprophets, that should shew great signs, and wonders, insomuch that, if\nit were possible, they should deceive the very elect_, Matt. xxiv. 24.\nNow it cannot be supposed of them that are called false Christs, that\nthey would attempt to pervert the Christians, by pretending to be the\nMessiah; for that would be impracticable, inasmuch as they did not\nexpect any other to come with that character since our Saviour; whereas\nthe Jews did, and many of them were perverted thereby to their own ruin;\nbut it is intimated here, that the elect people, which was among them,\nshould be kept from being deceived by them, inasmuch as they were chosen\nto obtain salvation, and therefore should believe in Christ by the\ngospel.\n\nThere is also another scripture, which seems to give countenance\nhereunto, where the apostle shews, that _God had not cast away his\npeople_, Rom. xi. 2. to wit, the Jews, that is, he had not rejected the\nwhole nation, but had made a reserve of some who were the objects of his\nspecial love, as chosen to salvation; and these are called, _A remnant\naccording to the election of grace_, ver. 5. and this seems still more\nplain from what follows, ver. 7. _What then? Israel hath not obtained\nthat which he seeketh for_, that is, righteousness and life, which they\n_sought after, as it were, by the works of the law_, which, as is\nmentioned in the foregoing verse, is inconsistent with the attaining it\nby grace; _but the election_, that is, the elect among that people _have\nobtained it_; for they sought after it in another way, _and the rest\nwere blinded_, that is, the other part of the Jewish nation, which were\nnot interested in this privilege, were left to the blindness of their\nown minds, which was their ruin.\n\nTo this let me add one scripture more, Rom. ix. 6, 7. where the apostle,\nspeaking concerning the nation of the Jews, distinguishes between the\nnatural and spiritual seed of Abraham, when he says, _All are not Israel\nthat are of Israel_, that is, there was a remnant according to the\nelection of grace, who were chosen to eternal life out of that people,\nwho were in other respects, chosen to be made partakers of the external\nprivileges that belonged to them, as God\u2019s peculiar people. The sum of\nthis argument is, that though, it is true, there are some scriptures\nthat speak of the church of the Jews, as separated from the world, by\nthe peculiar hand of divine providence, and favoured with the external\nmeans of grace, yet there are others in which they are said to be chosen\nto partake of privileges of an higher nature, even those which accompany\nsalvation; therefore election, in the Old Testament, sometimes signifies\nGod\u2019s purpose, relating to the salvation of his people.\n\n2. We shall proceed to consider how _election_ is taken in the New\nTestament, in opposition to those who suppose that it is there used only\nto signify God\u2019s bringing persons to be members of the Christian church,\nas being instructed in the doctrines relating thereunto by the\napostles:[188] The principal ground of this opinion is, because\nsometimes whole churches are said to be elected, as the apostle speaks\nof the church at Babylon, as elected together with them, to whom he\ndirects his epistle, 1 Pet. i. 2. compared with chap. v. 13. by which it\nis supposed that nothing is intended, but that they were both of them\nChristian churches. If this be the sense of every scripture in the New\nTestament, that treats of election, then we must not pretend that the\ndoctrine we are maintaining is founded on it: But on the other hand, we\nthink we have reason to conclude, that when we meet with the word in the\nNew Testament, it is to be understood, in most places, for God\u2019s eternal\npurpose relating to the salvation of his people. I will not pretend to\nprove an universal negative, _viz._ that it is never taken otherwise,\nbut shall refer to some scriptures, in which it is plainly understood\nso, and endeavour to defend this sense thereof.\n\nThe first scripture that we shall refer to, is in Eph. i. 4. _He hath\nchosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be\nholy, and without blame before him in love_; and, in ver. 5. he speaks\nof their being _predestinated to the adoption of children by Jesus\nChrist_; that this respects not the external dispensation of God\u2019s\nprovidence, in constituting them a Christian church, or giving them the\nknowledge of those doctrines, on which it was founded; but their being\nchosen to salvation and grace, as the means thereof, according to God\u2019s\neternal purpose, will very evidently appear from the context, if we\nconsider that they who are thus chosen, are called _faithful in Christ\nJesus_, which implies much more than barely to be in him by external\nprofession: they are farther described, as _blessed with all spiritual\nblessings in Christ_, in ver. 3. or blessed with all those blessings\nwhich respect heavenly things; grace, which they had in possession, and\nglory, which they had in expectation; and they are farther described, as\nhaving _obtained redemption through the blood of Christ, and forgiveness\nof sins_; and all this is said to be done, _according to the riches of\nhis grace_, and _the good pleasure of his will, who worketh all things\nafter the counsel thereof_; and certainly all this must contain much\nmore than the external dispensation of providence relating to this\nprivilege, which they enjoyed as a church of Christ.\n\nAgain, in 1 Thess. i. 4. the apostle says concerning them, to whom he\nwrites, that _he knew their election of God_. That this is to be\nunderstood of their election to eternal life, is very evident; and,\nindeed, he explains it in this sense, when he says, _God hath, from the\nbeginning, chosen you unto salvation, through sanctification of the\nSpirit, and the belief of the truth, Whereunto he called you by our\ngospel, to the obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ_, 2 Thess.\nii. 13, 14. the gospel is considered as the means of their attaining\nthat salvation, which they are said to be chosen to; so that their\nelection contains more than their professed subjection thereunto as a\nchurch of Christ: Besides, the apostle gives those marks and evidences\nof this matter, which plainly discover that it is their election to\nsalvation that he intends; accordingly he speaks of their _work of\nfaith, labour of love, and patience of hope, in our Lord Jesus Christ_,\nand of _the gospel\u2019s coming not in word only, but_ also _in power_, 1\nThess. i. 3, 5. by which he means not the power that was exerted in\nworking miracles, for that would be no evidence of their being a church,\nor of their adhering to the doctrines that were confirmed thereby, since\nevery one, who saw miracles wrought, did not believe; therefore he\nmeans, that by the powerful internal influence of the Holy Ghost, they\nwere persuaded to become followers of the apostles, and the Lord, and\nwere ensamples to others, and public-spirited, in endeavouring to\npropagate the gospel in the world. Certainly this argues that they were\neffectually called by the grace of God, and so proves that they were\nchosen to be made partakers of this grace, and of that salvation, that\nis the consequence thereof.\n\nThere is another scripture, in which it is very plain that the apostle\nspeaks of election to eternal life inasmuch as there are several\nprivileges connected with it, which the Christian church, as such,\ncannot lay claim to: thus, in Rom. viii. 33. _Who shall lay any thing to\nthe charge of God\u2019s elect? It is God that justifieth._ Now if\njustification or freedom from condemnation, accompanied with their being\neffectually called here, which shall end in their being glorified\nhereafter, be the result of their election, as. in ver. 30. then\ncertainly this includes in it more than the external privileges of the\ncovenant of grace, which all who adhere to the Christian faith are\npossessed of, and consequently it is an election to salvation that the\napostle here intends.\n\n_Object._ It is objected, that it is more than probable, when we find,\nas we sometimes do, whole churches styled elect in the New testament,\nthat some among them were hypocrites; particularly those to whom the\napostle Peter writes, who were converted from Judaism to Christianity,\nwhom he calls elect, _according to the fore-knowledge of God the\nFather_: notwithstanding they had some in communion with them,\nconcerning whom it might be said, that they had only a name to live, but\nyet were dead; and he advises them, _to lay aside all malice, guile, and\nhypocrisy, envies, and evil speaking, and, as new born babes, to receive\nthe word, if so be they had tasted that the Lord is gracious_, 1 Pet.\nii. 1. which makes it more than probable, that there were some among\nthem who had not, in reality, experienced the grace of God; so when he\nsays, that there should _be false teachers among them_, whose practice\nshould be as vile as their doctrine, and that many amongst them _should\nfollow their pernicious ways_. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2. it seems to argue that\nthe whole church he writes to, were not chosen to salvation; therefore\ntheir election only signifies their being chosen to enjoy the\nprivileges, which they had, as a professing society of Christians.\n\n_Answ._ It is certain that there was a very considerable number among\nthem who were not only Christians in name; but they were very eminent\nfor the exercise of those graces, which evinced their election to\neternal life; and particularly he says concerning them, _Whom having not\nseen, ye love_; and _in whom believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable,\nand full of glory; receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation\nof your souls_, 1 Pet. i. 8, 9. which agrees very well with the other\ncharacter given them of their _being elect, through sanctification of\nthe Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ_,\nver. 2. Therefore the only thing that seems to affect our argument is,\nthat this character did not belong to every individual. But supposing\nthis should be allowed, might not the church be here described as chosen\nto salvation, inasmuch as the far greater number of them were so?\nNothing is more common, in scripture, than for a whole body of men to be\ndenominated from the greatest part of them, whether their character be\ngood or bad; thus when the greatest part of the Jewish church were\nrevolted from God, and guilty of the most notorious crimes, they are\ndescribed as though their apostacy had been universal, _They are all\ngrievous revolters, walking with slanders_, Jer. vi. 28. whereas it is\ncertain, there were some who had not apostatized: some of them were\nslandered and reproached for the sake of God, and therefore were not\nincluded in the number of them that walked with slanders, though their\nnumber were very small; as God says by the prophet Ezekiel, _I sought\nfor a man among them that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap\nbefore me for the land that I should not destroy it, but I found none_,\nEzek. xxii. 30. whereas at that time, in which the people were most\ndegenerate, there were found some who _sighed and cryed for all the\nabomination that were done in the midst of them_, chap. ix. 4. So on the\nother hand, when the greater number of them kept their integrity, and\nwalked before God in holiness of life, the whole church is thus\ncharacterized, _I remember the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine\nespousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness; Israel was\nholiness to the Lord_, Jer. ii. 2, 3. whereas it is certain, that, at\nthat time, there were a great many who rebelled, murmured, and revolted\nfrom God, and were plagued for their iniquities; yet because the greater\nnumber of them were upright and sincere, this character is given in\ngeneral terms, as if there had been no exception. And the prophet looked\nback to some age of the church, in which a great number of them were\nfaithful; and therefore he speaks of the people in general, at that\ntime, as such, and accordingly calls them, _The faithful city_, Isa. i.\n21. and the prophet Jeremiah calls them, _The precious sons of Zion,\ncomparable to fine gold_, Lam. iv. 2. yet there never was a time when\nthere were none among them that rebelled against God. Therefore may not\nthis be supposed concerning the first gospel churches that were planted\nby the apostles; and accordingly, when they are styled elect, to whom\nthe apostle Peter writes, 1 Pet. v. 13. as well as the church at\nBabylon, why may not this be supposed to signify, that the greatest part\nof them were really sanctified, and therefore chosen to sanctification?\nAnd consequently their character, as elect, does not barely signify\ntheir being chosen to be made partakers of the external privileges of\nthe gospel. We might also consider, that it is very agreeable to our\ncommon mode of speaking, to denominate a city, or a kingdom, from the\ngreater number thereof, whether we call them a rich, or a wise or a\nvaliant people, we never suppose there are no exceptions to this\ncharacter; therefore why may we not, in this instance, conclude, that\nthe apostle Peter, when he describes this church as elected, intends\ntheir election to salvation? Thus we have endeavoured to prove that\nelection, in scripture, is not always taken, in the Old Testament, for\nthe external privileges which the Jewish nation had, as a church; nor in\nthe New Testament for those who belonged to the churches, namely, such\nas professed the Christian faith. And probably that learned author,\nbefore mentioned, was apprehensive that this observation of his would\nnot hold universally true; and therefore he has another provisionary\nobjection against the doctrine of particular election of persons to\neternal life, and says, as Arminius and his contemporaries before did,\nthat all those scriptures, which speak of this doctrine, contain nothing\nmore than God\u2019s conditional purpose, that if a person believes, he shall\nbe saved. It is necessary for us to consider what may be said in answer\nhereunto; but inasmuch as we shall have occasion to speak to this when\nwe consider the properties of election, under a following head, we shall\nrather chuse to reserve to that place, than be obliged to repeat what\nmight be here said concerning it.\n\nThus having premised something concerning election in general, and the\nsense in which it is to be understood, in scripture, we shall briefly\nmention a matter in dispute, among divines relating to the objects\nthereof, as they are considered in God\u2019s eternal purpose: and here we\nshall take notice of some different opinions relating thereunto, without\nmaking use of those scholastic modes of speaking, which render this\nsubject much more difficult, than otherwise it would be: and shall take\noccasion to avoid, and fence against those extremes, which have only had\na tendency to prejudice persons against the doctrine in general.\n\nThe object of election is variously considered by divines, who treat of\nthis subject.\n\n1. There are some who, though they agree in the most material things in\ntheir defence of this doctrine yet they are divided in their sentiments\nabout some nice metaphysical speculations, relating to the manner how\nman is to be considered, as the object of predestination: accordingly\nsome, who are generally styled Supralapsarians, seem to proceed in this\nway of explaining it, namely that God from all eternity, designed to\nglorify his divine perfections, in some objects out of himself, which he\ncould not then be said to have done, inasmuch as they did not exist; and\nthe perfections, which he designed to glorify, were, more especially,\nhis sovereignty and absolute dominion, as having a right to do what he\nwill with the work of his hands; and also his goodness, whereby he would\nrender himself the object of their delight; and, as a means conducive to\nthis end, he designed to create man an intelligent creature, in whom he\nmight be glorified; and since a creature, as such, could not be the\nobject of the display of his mercy, or justice, he farther designed to\npermit man to fall into a state of sin and misery, that so, when fallen,\nhe might recover some out of that state, and leave others to perish in\nit: the former of which are said to be loved, the other hated; and when\nsome extend the absoluteness of God\u2019s purpose, not only to election but\nreprobation, and do not take care to guard their modes of speaking, as\nthey ought to do, but conclude reprobation, at least predamnation, to\nbe, not an act of justice, but rather of sovereignty; they lay\nthemselves open to exception, and give occasion to those, who oppose\nthis doctrine, to conclude, that they represent God as delighting in the\nmisery of his creatures, and with that view giving being to them. It is\ntrue, several, who have given into this way of thinking, have\nendeavoured to extricate themselves out of this difficulty, and denied\nthis and other consequences of the like nature, which many have thought\nto be necessary deductions from this scheme; whether they have done this\neffectually, or no, may be judged of by those who are conversant in\ntheir writings[189]. I cannot but profess myself to set a very high\nvalue on them in other respects, yet I am not bound to give into some\nnice speculations, contained in their method of treating this subject,\nwhich renders it exceptionable; particularly, I cannot approve of any\nthing advanced by them, which seems to represent God as purposing to\ncreate man, and then to suffer him to fall, as a means by which he\ndesigned to demonstrate the glory of his vindictive justice, which hath\ngiven occasion to many to entertain rooted prejudices against the\ndoctrine of predestination, as though it necessarily involved in it this\nsupposition, that God made man to damn him.\n\nThere are others, who are generally styled Sublapsarians[190], who\nsuppose, that God considered men as made and fallen, and then designed\nto glorify his grace in the recovery of those who were chosen, by him,\nto eternal life; and his justice in them, whom he designed to condemn,\nas a punishment for their sins, which he foreknew that they would\ncommit, and purposed not to hinder; and he designed to glorify his\nsovereignty, in that one should be an object of grace, rather than\nanother, whereas he might have left the whole world in that state of\nmisery, into which he foresaw they would plunge themselves.\n\nThat which is principally objected, by those who are in the other way of\nthinking, against this scheme, is, that the Sublapsarians suppose that\nGod\u2019s creating men, and permitting them to fall, was not the object of\nhis eternal purpose. But this they universally deny, and distinguish\nbetween God\u2019s purpose to create and suffer men to fall; and his purposes\nbeing considered as a means to advance his sovereignty, grace, and\njustice, in which the principal difference between them consists. We\nshall enter no farther into this controversy, but shall only add, that\nwhatever may be considered, in God\u2019s eternal purpose, as a means to\nbring about other ends; yet it seems evident, from the nature of the\nthing, that God cannot be said to choose men to salvation, without\nherein considering them as fallen; for as no one is a subject capable of\nsalvation, but one who is fallen into a state of sin and misery; so when\nGod purposed to save such, they could not be considered as to be\ncreated, or created and not fallen, but as sinners.\n\n2. There are others who deny particular election of persons to eternal\nlife, and explain those scriptures, which speak of it, in a very\ndifferent way: these suppose, that God designed, from all eternity, to\ncreate man, and foreknew that he would fall, and, that, pursuant to this\neternal foreknowledge, he designed to give him sufficient means for his\nrecovery, which, by the use of his free will, he might improve, or not,\nto the best purposes; and also, fore-knowing who would improve, and who\nwould reject, the means of grace, which he purposed to bestow, he\ndetermined, as the consequence thereof, to save some, and condemn\nothers. This method of explaining God\u2019s eternal purpose is\nexceptionable, as will farther appear, in the method we shall take, in\nprosecuting this subject, in two respects.\n\n(1.) As they suppose that the salvation of men depends on their own\nconduct, or the right use of their free will, without giving the glory\nwhich is due to God, for that powerful, efficacious grace, which enables\nthem to improve the means of grace, and brings them into a state of\nsalvation,\n\n(2.) As the result of the former, they suppose that nothing absolute is\ncontained in the decree of God, but his fore-knowledge, which is rather\nan act of his understanding, than his will; and therefore it seems to\nmilitate against his sovereignty and grace, and, to make his decrees\ndepend on some conditions, founded in the free-will of man, which,\naccording to them, are not the object of a peremptory decree. Thus\nhaving considered intelligent creatures, and more particularly men, as\nthe objects of predestination.\n\nIV. We proceed to the farther proof and explication of this doctrine;\nand, in order thereto, shall insist on the following propositions.\n\n1. That it is only a part of mankind that were chosen to salvation.\n\n2. That they who were chosen to it, as the end, were also chosen to\nsanctification, as the means thereof, And,\n\n3. That they were chosen in Christ; which propositions are contained in\nthat part of this answer, in which it is said, that God has chosen some\nmen to eternal life, and the means thereof.\n\n1. That some were chosen to salvation; not the whole race of mankind,\nbut only those that shall be eventually saved: that the whole world is\nnot the object of election appears from the known acceptation of the\nword, both in scripture, and in our common modes of speaking; since to\nchoose, as has been before observed, is to take, prefer, or esteem, one\nthing before another, or to separate a part from the whole, for our own\nproper use, and what remains is treated with neglect and disregard:\naccordingly it is not a proper way of speaking, to say that the whole is\nchosen; and therefore it follows, that if all mankind had been\nfore-ordained to eternal life, which God might have done if he had\npleased, this would not have been called a purpose, according to\nelection.\n\nBut there are other arguments more conclusive, than what results barely\nfrom the known sense of the word, which we shall proceed to consider,\nand therein make use of the same method of reasoning, which we observed,\nin proving that God fore-ordained whatever comes to pass, with a\nparticular application thereof to the eternal state of believers. As we\nbefore observed, that the decree of God is to be judged of by the\nexecution of it, in time; so it will appear, that those whom God in his\nactual providence and grace, prepares for, and brings to glory, he also\nbefore designed for it. Were I only to treat of those particular points\nin controversy, between us and the Pelagians, I would first consider the\nmethod which God takes in saving his people, and prove that salvation is\nof grace, or that it is the effect of the power of God, and not to be\nascribed to the free-will of man, as separate from the divine influence;\nand then I would proceed to speak concerning the decree of God relating\nhereunto, which might then, without much difficulty, be proved: but\nbeing obliged to pursue the same method in which things are laid down,\nin their respective connexion, we must sometimes defer the more\nparticular proof of some doctrines, on which our arguments depend, to a\nfollowing head, to avoid the repetition of things; therefore, inasmuch\nas the execution of God\u2019s decree, and his power and grace manifested\ntherein, will be insisted on in some following answers, we shall, at\npresent, take this for granted, or shall speak but very briefly to it.\n\n(1.) It appears that it is only a part of mankind that are chosen to be\nmade partakers of grace and glory, inasmuch as these invaluable\nprivileges are conferred upon, or applied to no more than a part of\nmankind: if all shall not be saved, then all were not chosen to\nsalvation; for we are not to suppose that God\u2019s purpose, relating\nhereunto, can be frustrated, or not take effect; or if there be a\nmanifest display of discriminating grace in the execution of God\u2019s\ndecree relating thereunto, there is, doubtless, a discrimination in his\npurpose, and that is what we call election. This farther appears from\nsome scriptures, which represent those who are saved as a remnant: thus\nwhen the apostle is speaking of God\u2019s casting away the greatest part of\nthe Jewish nation, he says of some of them notwithstanding, that _at\nthis present time also there is a remnant according to the election of\ngrace_, Rom. xi. 5. that is, there are some among them who are brought\nto embrace the faith of the gospel, and to be made partakers of the\nprivileges that accompany salvation: these are called a remnant; as when\nit is said, in Rom. ix. 27. _Though the number of the children of Israel\nbe as the sand of the sea_, it is no more than _a remnant_ of them that\n_shall be saved_. He doubtless speaks in this and other scriptures,\nconcerning the eternal salvation of those who are described as a\nremnant, according to the election of grace.\n\nHere it will be necessary for us to consider, that this remnant\nsignifies only a small part of the Jewish church, selected, by divine\ngrace, out of that nation, of whom the greater number were rejected by\nGod; and that the salvation, here spoken of, is to be taken not for any\ntemporal deliverance, but for that salvation which the believing Jews\nshould be made partakers of in the gospel day, when the rejection of the\nothers had its full accomplishment. That this may appear, we shall not\nonly compare this scripture with the context, but with that in Hosea,\nfrom whence it is taken: as to what respects the context, the apostle,\nin ver. 2. expresses his _great heaviness, and continual sorrow of\nheart_, for the rejection of that nation in general, which they had\nbrought upon themselves; but yet he encourages himself, in ver. 6. with\nthis thought, that _the word of God_, that is, the promise made to\nAbraham relating to his spiritual seed, who were given to expect greater\nblessings, than those which were contained in the external dispensation\nof the covenant of grace, should not _take none effect_, since, though\nthe whole nation of the Jews, who were of Israel, that is, Abraham\u2019s\nnatural seed, did not attain those privileges; yet a part of them, who\nare here called Israel, and elsewhere a remnant, chosen out of that\nnation, should be made partakers thereof; the former are called _The\nchildren of the flesh_, in ver. 8. the latter, by way of eminence, _The\nchildren of the promise_; these are styled, in ver. 23, 24. _The vessels\nof mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, to whom he designed to\nmake known the riches of his glory_, namely, those _whom he had called;\nnot of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles_, which he intends by\nthat remnant, which were chosen out of each of them, for so the word\nproperly signifies.[191] And this sense is farther confirmed, by the\nquotation out of the prophecy of Hosea, chap. i. 10. compared with\nanother taken out of the prophecy of Isaiah, chap. x. 22. both which\nspeak only of a remnant that shall be saved, when the righteous\njudgments of God were poured forth, on that nation in general; and the\nprophet Hosea adds another promise relating to them, which the apostle\ntakes notice of, namely, that _in the place where it was said unto them,\nYe are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons\nof the living God_, which plainly respects this remnant; for he had\nbefore prophesied concerning the nation in general, _Ye are not_, that\nis, ye shall not be my people, and _I will not be your God_; so that\nhere is a great salvation foretold, which, they, among the Jews, should\nbe made partakers of, who were fore-ordained to eternal life, when the\nrest were rejected.\n\n_Object._ The prophet seems to speak, in this scripture, of a temporal\nsalvation, inasmuch as it is said, in the words immediately following,\n_Then shall the children of Judah, and the children of Israel, be\ngathered together, and shall appoint themselves one head, and they shall\ncome up out of the land_, _viz._ of Babylon, _for great shall be the day\nof Jezreel_. Therefore this remnant, here spoken of, which should be\ncalled the sons of the living God, respects only such as should return\nout of captivity, and consequently not the election of a part, to wit,\nthe believing Jews, to eternal life: for it is plain, that, when this\nprediction was fulfilled, they were to _appoint themselves one head_, or\ngovernor, namely, Zerubbabel, or some other, that should be at the head\nof affairs, and help forward their flourishing state, in, or after their\nreturn from captivity.\n\n_Answ._ It seems very evident, that part of this prophecy, _viz._ chap.\niii. 5. respects the happiness of Israel, at that time, when _they\nshould seek the Lord their God, and David their King, and should fear\nthe Lord and his goodness, in the latter days_; therefore why may not\nthis verse also, in chap. i. in which it is said, that they shall be\ncalled the sons of the living God, have its accomplishment in the\ngospel-day, when they should adhere to Christ, who is called, _David\ntheir King_? The only difficulty which affects this sense of the text\nis, its being said, that they shall return to their own land, under the\nconduct of a _Head_, or governor, whom they should _appoint over them_,\nwhich seems to favour the sense contained in the objection: but the\nsense of the words would be more plain, if we render the text, instead\nof [THEN] _And the children of Judah_, &c. as it is rendered in most\ntranslations, and is most agreeable to the sense of the Hebrew\nword.[192] According to our translation, it seems to intimate, that the\nprophet is speaking of something mentioned in the foregoing verse; and\ninasmuch as the latter respects their return from the captivity,\ntherefore the former must do so; whereas if we put _and_, instead of\n_then_, the meaning of both verses together is this: there are two\nblessings which God promised, namely, that a part of the Jewish nation\nshould be made partakers of the saving blessings of the covenant of\ngrace, which was to have its accomplishment when they were brought to\nbelieve in Christ, by the gospel, or when this remnant, taken out from\nthem, should be saved; and there is also another blessing promised to\nthe whole nation, which should be conferred upon them, when they\nreturned from the Babylonish captivity.\n\nIf it be objected, to this sense of the text, that their return from\ncaptivity is mentioned after that promise, of their being called the\n_sons of the living God_, therefore it cannot be supposed to relate to a\nprovidence that should happen before it; I need only reply to this, that\nit is very usual, in scripture, for the Holy Ghost, when speaking\nconcerning the privileges which the church should be made partakers of,\nnot to lay them down in the same order in which they were to be\naccomplished; and therefore, why may we not suppose, that this rule may\nbe applied to this text? And accordingly the sense is this: the prophet\nhad been speaking, in the tenth verse, of that great salvation, which\nthis remnant of the Jews, converted to Christianity, should be made\npartakers of in the gospel-day; and then he obviates an objection, as\nthough it should be said, How can this be, since the Jews are to be\ncarried into captivity, and there broken, scattered, and, as it were\nruined? In answer to this, the prophet adds, that the Jews should not be\ndestroyed in the captivity, but should be delivered, and return to their\nown land, and so should remain a people, till this remnant was gathered\nout of them, who were to be made partakers of these spiritual privileges\nunder the gospel-dispensation, as mentioned in the foregoing words.\n\nThus having endeavoured to prove, that this remnant, spoken of in Rom.\nxi. are such as should be made partakers of eternal salvation, we may\nnow apply this to our present argument. If that salvation, which this\nremnant was to be made partakers of, be the effect of divine power, as\nthe apostle says, in Rom. ix. 16. _It is not of him that willeth, nor of\nhim that runneth, but of God, that sheweth mercy_; and if it be the gift\nof divine grace, as he says elsewhere, in Eph. ii. 8. _By grace are ye\nsaved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of\nGod_; then it follows from hence, that God designed, before-hand, to\ngive them these blessings; and if he designed them only for this\nremnant, then it is not all, but a part of mankind, to wit, those that\nshall be eventually saved, that were chosen to salvation.\n\n(2.) The doctrine of election may be farther proved, from God\u2019s having\nforeknown whom he will sanctify and save. It will be allowed, that God\nknows all things, and consequently that he knows all things that are\nfuture, and so not only those whom he has saved, but whom he will save.\nWe need not prove that God fore-knew all things, for that is not denied\nby those who are on the other side of the question, or, at least, by\nvery few of them; and, indeed, if this were not an undoubted truth, we\ncould not depend on those predictions, which respect things that shall\ncome to pass; and these not only such as are the effects of necessary\ncauses, or things produced according to the common course, or laws of\nnature, but those which are contingent, or the result of the free-will\nof man, which have been foretold, and consequently were fore-known by\nGod; and if it be allowed that he fore-knew whatever men would be, and\ndo, let me farther add, that this foreknowledge is not barely an act of\nthe divine mind, taking a fore-view of, or observing what others will\nbe, or do, without determining that his actual providence should\ninterest itself therein; therefore it follows, that if he fore-knew the\nsalvation of those who shall be eventually saved, he fore-knew what he\nwould do for them, as a means conducive thereunto; and if so, then he\ndetermined, before-hand, that he would bring them to glory; but this\nrespects only a part of mankind, who were chosen by him to eternal life.\n\nIn this sense we are to understand those scriptures that set forth God\u2019s\neternal purpose to save his people, as an act of fore-knowledge: thus,\nin Rom. xi. 2. _God hath not cast away his people, whom he fore-knew_,\nthat is, he hath not cast them all away, but has reserved to himself a\n_remnant, according to the election of grace_. That he either had, or\nsoon designed, to cast away the greatest number of the Jewish nation,\nseems very plain, from several passages in this chapter: thus, in verses\n17, 19. he speaks of _some of the branches being broken off_, and ver.\n22. of God\u2019s _severity_, by which we are to understand his vindictive\njustice in this dispensation: But yet we are not to suppose, says the\napostle, that God has cast them all away, as in ver. 1. and so he\nmentions himself, as an instance of the contrary, as though he should\nsay, I am called, and sanctified, and chosen, though I am an Israelite.\n\nMoreover, God\u2019s not casting away his remnant of the Israelites, being\nthe result of his fore-knowledge, does not barely respect his knowing\nwhat they should be, or do, whom he had chosen to eternal life, for it\nis represented as a discriminating act of favour; whereas, in other\nrespects, they, who are rejected by him, are as much the objects of his\nknowledge, as any others, since the omniscience of God is not the result\nof his will; but it is a perfection founded in his nature, and therefore\nnot arbitrary, but necessary.\n\nAgain, the apostle, in 1 Pet. i. 2. speaks of some who were _elected,\naccording to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto obedience_, &c.\nthat is, not chosen, because of any obedience performed by them, which\nGod foreknew; for this is considered, as the result of his\nfore-knowledge, not the cause of it; and this word is yet farther\nexplained in another place, where it is used, when the apostle says, in\n2 Tim. ii. 19. _The Lord knoweth them that are his._ He had before been\nspeaking of the faith of some, who professed the gospel, being\noverthrown; nevertheless, says he, that _foundation_ of hope, which God\nhas laid in the gospel, is not hereby shaken, but _stands sure_; the\nfaithful shall not be overthrown, for _the Lord knoweth them that are\nhis_, that is, he knows who are the objects of his love, who shall be\nkept by his power, through faith, unto salvation; so that God\u2019s\nfore-knowledge, considered as a distinguishing privilege, is not to be\nunderstood barely of his knowing how men will behave themselves, and so,\ntaking his measures from thence, as though he first knew what they would\ndo, and then resolved to bestow his grace; but he knows whom he has set\napart for himself, or designed to save, and, with respect to them, his\nprovidence will influence their conduct, and prevent their apostasy.\n\nGod\u2019s knowledge, in scripture, is sometimes taken for his approving, or\nloving, those who are the objects thereof: thus he says unto Moses, in\nExod. xxxiii. 17. _Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by\nname_, where one expression explains the other, and so it imports a\nknowledge of approbation; and, on the other hand, when our Saviour says\nto some, in Matt. vii. 23. _I will profess unto you, I never knew you_,\nit is not to be supposed that he did not know they would behave\nthemselves, or what they would do against his name and interest in the\nworld; but _I never knew you_, that is, I never approved of you, and\naccordingly, it follows, _Depart from me, ye that work iniquity_; and\nwhen it is said concerning knowledge, as applied to man, in John xvii.\n3. _This is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God_;\nno one supposes that a speculative knowledge of divine truths will give\nany one ground to conclude his right to eternal life; therefore to know\nGod, is to love, to delight in him: and the same is applied, by the\napostle, to God\u2019s loving man, when he says, in 1 Cor. viii. 3. _If any\nman love God, the same is known of him_, that is, beloved by him. Now if\nGod\u2019s knowing his people signifies his loving them, then his\nfore-knowing them must signify his determining to do them good, and to\nbestow grace and glory upon them, which is the same as to choose them to\neternal life: he fore-knew what he designed to confer upon them; for he\n_prepared a kingdom for them, from the foundation of the world_, Matt.\nxxv. 34. which is the same with his having, from the beginning, chosen\nthem to salvation.\n\n_Object._ As all actions, performed by intelligent creatures, as such,\nsuppose knowledge, so their determinations are the result of\nfore-knowledge, for the will follows the dictates of the understanding;\ntherefore we must suppose God\u2019s fore-knowledge, to be antecedent to, and\nthe ground and reason of his determinations. This the apostle seems to\nintimate, when he says, in Rom. viii. 29. _Whom he did fore-know, he did\npredestinate_, that is, he had a perfect knowledge of their future\nconduct, and therefore determined to save them.\n\n_Answ._ I do not deny that, according to the nature of things, we first\nconsider God as knowing, and then as willing: but this does not hold\ngood, with respect to his knowing all things future; for we are not to\nsuppose that he first knows that a thing shall come to pass, and then\nwills that it shall. It is true, he first knows what he will do, and\nthen does it; but, to speak of a knowledge in God, as conversant about\nthe future state, or actions of his people, without considering them as\nconnected with his power and providence, (which is the immediate cause\nthereof) I cannot think consistent with the divine perfections.\n\nAs for this scripture, _Whom he did fore-know, them he did\npredestinate_, we are not to suppose, that the meaning is, that God\nfore-knew that they, whom he speaks of, would be conformed to the image\nof his Son, and then as the result hereof, determined that they should;\nfor their being conformed to Christ\u2019s image, consists in their\nexercising those graces which are agreeable to the temper and\ndisposition of his children, or brethren, as they are here called; and\nthis conformity to his image is certainly the result of their being\ncalled: but their calling as well as justification and glorification, is\nthe consequence of their being fore-known; therefore God\u2019s fore-knowing\nhere, must be taken in the same sense as it is in the scriptures, but\nnow referred to; for his having loved them before the foundation of the\nworld, or chosen them to enjoy those privileges which are here\nmentioned.\n\n(3.) It farther appears, that there is a number chosen out of the world\nto eternal life, from the means which God has ordained for the gathering\na people out of it, to be made partakers of the blessings which he has\nreserved for them in heaven. This is what we generally call the means of\ngrace; and from hence it appears, that there is a chosen people, whose\nadvantage is designed hereby. For the making out of this argument, let\nit be considered,\n\n_1st._ That there always has been a number of persons, whom God, by his\ndistinguishing providence, has separated from the world, who have\nenjoyed the ordinances, or means of grace, and to whom the promises of\neternal life have been made. We do not say that these are all chosen to\neternal life; but it appears, from the design of providence herein, that\nthere have been some, among them who were ordained to eternal life. If\nGod gives the means of grace to the church, it is an evident token that\nsome are designed to have grace bestowed upon them, and consequently\nbrought to glory.\n\n_2dly._ They who have been favoured with these means of grace, have had\nsome peculiar marks of the divine regard to them. Thus we read, in the\nearly ages of the world, of the distinction between those, who had the\nspecial presence of God among them, and others, who were deprived of it;\nas Cain is said, _to go out from the presence of the Lord_, Gen. iv. 16.\nas one, who, together with his posterity, was deprived of the means of\ngrace, and also of God\u2019s covenant, in which he promised to be a God to\nsome, from which privilege others were excluded: thus he was called the\n_God of Shem_, chap. ix. 16. and afterwards of _Abraham_, _Isaac_, _and\nJacob_, Exod. iii. 6. whose descendants were hereby given to expect the\nordinances and means of grace, and many instances of that special grace,\nwhich a part of them should be made partakers of: and would he have made\nthis provision, for a peculiar people, in so discriminating a way, if\nthere had not been a remnant among them, according to the election of\ngrace, to whom he designed to manifest himself here, and bring to glory\nhereafter? No, he would have neglected, or over-looked them as he did\nthe world; whereas both they and their seed had the promises of the\ncovenant of grace made to them which argues, that there was a remnant\namong them, whom God designed hereby to bring into a state of grace and\nsalvation, and, in this respect, they are said to be the objects of\ndivine love.\n\nThis leads us to consider the meaning of that text, which is generally\ninsisted on, as a very plain proof of this doctrine, in Rom. ix. 11, 12,\n13. _The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or\nevil, that the purpose of God according to election, might stand; not of\nworks, but of him that calleth: It was said unto her, the elder shall\nserve the younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I\nhated._ Here is an express mention of the purpose of God, according to\nelection, and Jacob is, pursuant thereunto, said to be the object of\ndivine love. For the understanding of which, let us consider the sense\nthat is given of it, by those on the other side of the question; and how\nfar it may be allowed of, and what there is in the words to prove this\ndoctrine, and wherein our sense of them differs from their\u2019s.\n\nIt is supposed, by those who deny particular election, that Jacob and\nEsau are not here considered in a personal capacity, but that the\napostle speaks of their respective descendants, as referring to two\ndivine predictions; in one of which, Gen. xxv. 23. God told Rebekah,\nbefore her two sons were born, that _two nations were in her womb; and\nthe elder_, that is, the posterity of Esau, _should serve the younger_,\nnamely, that of Jacob; and in the other, Mai. i. 2, 3. he says, _I loved\nJacob, and hated Esau, and laid his mountains waste_; so that if, in\nboth these scriptures, referred to by the apostle, nothing else be\nintended but the difference that should be put between them as to the\nexternal dispensations of providence, or that Jacob\u2019s family, in future\nages should be in a more flourishing state than that of Esau, we must\nnot suppose that he designed thereby to represent them as chosen to, or\nexcluded from eternal life.\n\nThis seems a very plausible sense of the text; but yet the apostle\u2019s\nwords may very well be reconciled with those two scriptures, cited to\nenervate the force of the argument taken from it; and at the same time,\nit will not follow from thence, that there is no reference had to the\ndoctrine of eternal election therein. Therefore,\n\n1. We will not deny, when it is said, _Jacob have I loved, and Esau have\nI hated_, that their respective descendants were intended in this\nprediction, yet it will not follow from hence, that Jacob and Esau,\npersonally considered, were not also included. Whoever reads their\nhistory, in the book of Genesis, will evidently find in one the marks\nand characters of a person chosen to eternal life; whereas, in the\nother, we have no account of any regard which he expressed to God or\nreligion, therefore he appears to have been rejected; yet,\n\n2. So far as it respects the posterity of Jacob and Esau we are not to\nsuppose that God\u2019s having loved the one, and rejected the other, implies\nnothing else, but that Jacob\u2019s posterity had a better country allotted\nfor them, or exceeded Esau\u2019s in those secular advantages, or honours,\nwhich were conferred upon them. This seems to be the principal sense,\nwhich they, on the other side of the question, give of the apostle\u2019s\nwords; when comparing them with those of the prophet Malachi, who,\nspeaking concerning Esau\u2019s being hated, explains it, as relating _to his\nlands being laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness_. This had been\nforetold by some other prophets, Jer. xlix. 17, 18. Ezek. xxxv. 7, 9.\nObed. ver. 10. and had its accomplishment soon after the Jews were\ncarried captive into Babylon, from which time they ceased to be a\nnation; but, certainly, though this be that particular instance of\nhatred, which the prophet Malachi refers to, yet there is more contained\nin the word, as applied to them by the apostle Paul. It is true, the\nprophet designs, in particular to obviate an objection which the Jews\nare represented as making, against the divine dispensations towards\nthem, as though they had not such an appearance of love, as he supposes\nthem to have had, therefore they are brought in as speaking to this\npurpose: how canst thou say, that God has loved us, who have continued\nseventy years captives in Babylon, and since our return from thence,\nhave been exposed to many adverse dispensations of providence? The\nprophet\u2019s reply is to this effect: that, notwithstanding, they still\nremained a nation, and therefore were in this respect, more the objects\nof the divine regard, than the posterity of Esau were, which is\nrepresented as hated, for they never returned unto their former state;\nor what attempts soever they made to recover it, they were all to no\npurpose. This the prophet alleges, as a sufficient answer to the Jews\u2019\nobjection, in the same sense in which they understood the words, _love_\nor _hatred_; but, doubtless more than this was contained in the\nprediction before Jacob and Esau were born, and in the apostle\u2019s\napplication of it, in the text before-mentioned. If nothing were\nintended but outward prosperity, or their vying with each other in\nworldly grandeur, Esau\u2019s posterity, in this respect, might be concluded\nto have been preferable to Jacob\u2019s; thus when they are reckoned, by\ntheir genealogies, Gen. xxxvi. they are many of them described as dukes\nand kings who made a considerable figure in the world. When Jacob\u2019s\nposterity were few in number, and bondmen in the land of Egypt, and when\nthe Israelites were carried captive into Babylon, the Edomites are\nrepresented by the prophet, as looking on, and rejoicing in their\ndestruction, as being, at that time, in all appearance, secure, and\nenjoying their former liberty.\n\nNeither could this love or hatred signify nothing else but the\ndescendants of Jacob being planted in a more fruitful soil; for there is\nlittle difference put between them, in this respect, in the patriarchal\nbenediction pronounced by their father, who tells Jacob, that God _would\ngive him the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of\ncorn and wine_; and to Esau he says, _Thy dwelling shall be the fatness\nof the earth, and the dew of heaven from above_, chap. xxvii. 28,\ncompared with 39. therefore, when one is described, in the prediction,\nas loved, and the other as hated, we are not to suppose, that outward\nprosperity on the one hand, or adversity on the other, are, principally\nintended thereby, for that might be said of both of them by turns;\ntherefore let me add,\n\n3. That God\u2019s loving or hating, as applied to the posterity of Jacob or\nEsau, principally respects his determining to give or deny the external\nblessings of the covenant of grace, or the means of grace, and therewith\nmany special tokens of his favour. In Jacob\u2019s line the church was\nestablished, out of which, as has been before observed, there was a\nremnant chosen, and brought to eternal life; how far this may be said of\nEsau\u2019s, is hard to determine.\n\n_Object._ 1. But to this it will be objected, that Job and his friends\nwere of Esau\u2019s posterity, as is more than probable; but these were far\nfrom being rejected of God.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that a few single instances are not\nsufficient to overthrow the sense we have given of this divine oracle,\nsince the rejection of Esau\u2019s posterity may take its denomination from\nthe far greater number thereof, without including in it every\nindividual, as it is very agreeable to the sense of many scriptures.\nMoreover, we may consider, that these lived, as we have sufficient\nground to conclude, before the seed of Jacob were increased, and\nadvanced to be a distinct nation, as they were after their deliverance\nfrom the Egyptian bondage; as also before that idolatry, which first\noverspread the land of Chaldea, in Abraham\u2019s time, had universally\nextended itself over the country of Idumea, where Esau\u2019s family was\nsituate; so that it doth not follow from hence, because this prediction\ndid not take place in a very considerable degree, in the first\ndescendants from him, that therefore it does not respect their\nrejection, as to what concerns the spiritual privileges of that people\nafterwards. And, indeed, idolatry seems to have had some footing in the\ncountry where Job lived, even in his time, which gave him occasion to\nexculpate himself from the charge thereof, when he signifies, that _he\nhad not beheld the sun when it shineth, or the moon walking in\nbrightness, and his heart had not been secretly enticed, or his mouth\nkissed his hand_, Job xxxi. 26, 27. alluding to some modes of worship,\npractised by idolaters in his day, who gave divine honour to the sun and\nmoon; and, soon after his time, before Israel had taken possession of\nCanaan, there seems to have been an universal defection of the Edomites\nfrom the true religion, otherwise, doubtless, Moses might, without any\ndifficulty, have got leave to have passed through their country, in his\nway to the land of Canaan, which he requested in a most friendly and\nobliging manner, but to no purpose, Numb. xx. 14-21. especially\nconsidering they had no reason to fear that they would do any thing\nagainst them in a hostile manner; therefore the unfriendly treatment\nthey met with from them, proceeded from the same spring with that of the\nAmalekites, and other bordering nations, namely, they had all revolted\nfrom the God and religion of their father Abraham; so that this\nprediction seems to have been fulfilled, before the promise, respecting\nJacob\u2019s posterity, in any considerable degree, began to take place.\n\nHaving briefly considered this objection, we return to the argument,\nnamely, that God\u2019s loving or hating, in this scripture, as it has a\nrelation to the distinct nations that descended from Jacob and Esau,\nincludes in it his determining to give or deny the external privileges\nof the covenant of grace, which we generally call the ordinances, or\nmeans of grace. These were the spiritual and more distinguishing\ninstances of divine favour, which Jacob was given to expect, when he\nobtained the blessing. As for the double portion, or the greatest part\nof the paternal estate, that descended with it, together with the honour\nof having dominion over their brethren, or a right (as it is probable\nthey had) to act as civil magistrates in their respective families,\nthese were all small things, if compared with those spiritual\nprivileges, wherein God\u2019s love to Jacob, and his posterity, was\nprincipally expressed; it was this which is so often signified by God\u2019s\nbeing the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: In other respects, Esau was\nblessed as well as Jacob; for the apostle, speaking concerning that part\nof Isaac\u2019s prediction, which respected the temporal advantage of their\nposterity, says, that _he blessed Jacob and Esau, concerning things to\ncome_, Heb. xi. 20. yet Esau was rejected, as to what concerns the\nspiritual part of the blessing, which was his birth-right, that he is\nsaid to have _despised_, Gen. xxv. 34. and, for this reason, he is\nstyled, by the apostle, a _profane person_, Heb. xii. 16. If it had been\nonly a temporal privilege that he contemned, it might have been a sin;\nbut it could not then have been properly said to have been an instance\nof profaneness, for that has respect only to things sacred; therefore it\nevidently appears, that the blessings which Esau despised, and God had\nbefore designed to confer on Jacob, and his seed, as a peculiar instance\nof his love, were of a spiritual nature.\n\n_Object._ 2. It will be farther objected, that men\u2019s enjoying the\nexternal privileges of the covenant of grace, has no immediate reference\nto their salvation, or election to it.\n\n_Answ._ Since salvation is not to be attained, but by and under these\nmeans of grace, we must conclude, that whenever God bestows and\ncontinues them, to a church or nation, he has a farther view therein,\nnamely, the calling some, by his grace, to partake of those privileges\nthat accompany salvation. If there were no such blessings to be\nconferred on the world, there would be no means of grace, and\nconsequently no external dispensation of the covenant of grace; for it\nis absurd to suppose that any thing can be called a means, where all are\nexcluded from the end which they refer to; therefore the sum of this\nargument is, that God had a peculiar love to the posterity of Jacob, and\naccordingly he designed to give them those privileges which were denied\nto others, namely, the means of grace, which he would not have done, had\nhe not intended to make them effectual to the salvation of some of them;\nand this purpose, relating hereunto, is what is called election, which,\nthough it be not applicable to all the seed of Jacob; for all, as the\napostle says elsewhere, are not Israel who are of Israel; yet, inasmuch\nas there was a remnant of them, to whom it was applied, they are that\nhappy seed, who are represented, by the apostle, as the objects of God\u2019s\ncompassion, or _vessels unto honour, in whom he designed to make known\nthe riches of his glory, having_, in this respect, _afore prepared them\nunto glory_, Rom. ix. 15, 21, 23.\n\nThus having considered that God has chosen a part of mankind to\nsalvation, we may, without being charged with a vain curiosity, enquire\nwhether this privilege belongs to the greater or smaller part of\nmankind, since the scripture goes before us in this matter. If we judge\nof the purpose of God by the execution thereof, it must be observed,\nthat hitherto the number of those, who have been made partakers of the\nspecial privileges of the gospel, has been comparatively small. If we\nlook back to those ages before our Saviour\u2019s incarnation, what a very\ninconsiderable proportion did Israel bear to the rest of the world, who\nwere left in darkness and ignorance! And, after this, our Saviour\nobserves, that _many were called_, in his time, _but few were chosen_,\nMatt. xx. 16. and he advises to _enter in at the strait gate_, chap.\nvii. 13, 14. by which he means the way to eternal life, concerning which\nhe says, that _there are_, comparatively, _few that find it_. And when\nthe gospel had a greater spread, and wonderful success attended the\npreaching thereof, by the apostles, and many nations embraced the\nChristian faith, in the most flourishing ages of the church, the number\nof Christians, and much more of those who were converted, and\neffectually called, was comparatively small. Whether the number of true\nbelievers shall be greater, when there is a greater spread of the\ngospel, and a more plentiful effusion of the Spirit, to render it more\nsuccessful, as we hope and pray for that time, and that not altogether\nwithout scripture-warrant; I say, whether then the fewness of those who\nhave hitherto been chosen and sanctified, shall not be compensated, by a\nfar greater number, who shall live in that happy age of the church, it\nis not for us to be over-curious in our enquiries about: However, we may\ndetermine this from scripture, that, in the great day, when all the\nelect shall be gathered together, their number shall be exceeding great,\nif what the apostle says refers to this matter, as some suppose it does,\nwhen he speaks of a _great multitude, which no man could number, of all\nnations, and kindreds, and people and tongues, who stood before the\nthrone, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in\ntheir hands_, Rev. vii. 9. But these things are no farther to be\nsearched into, than as we may take occasion, from thence, to enquire\nwhether we are of that number; and, if we are, we ought to bless God for\nhis discriminating grace, which he has magnified therein. And this leads\nus to consider,\n\n2. That they who are chosen to salvation, are also chosen to\nsanctification, as the means thereof: As the end and means are not to be\nseparated in the execution of God\u2019s decree, so they are not to be\nseparated in our conception of the decree itself; for, since God brings\nnone to glory, but in a way of holiness, the same he determined to do\nfrom all eternity, that is, to make his people holy, as well as happy;\nor first to give them faith and repentance, and then, the end of their\nfaith, the salvation of their souls.\n\nThere are many scriptures, in which the purpose of God, relating\nhereunto, is plainly intended; as when it is said, _He hath chosen us\nthat we should be holy, and without blame, before him in love_, Eph. i.\n4. and elsewhere the apostle tells others, that _God had, from the\nbeginning, chosen them unto salvation, through sanctification of the\nSpirit, and belief of the truth_, 2 Thes. ii. 13. and the apostle James\nsaith, that _God hath chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and\nheirs of the kingdom_, James ii. 5. and elsewhere the apostle Paul\nspeaks of persons being _predestinated to be conformed to the image of\nhis Son_, which he explains of their being _called_, _justified_, and\n_glorified_, Rom. viii. 29. and it is also said, speaking of those who\nwere converted under the apostle Paul\u2019s ministry, _as many as were\nordained unto eternal life believed_, Acts xiii. 48. accordingly they\nwere ordained to one as well as the other.\n\nThe argument, which seems very plainly contained in these, and such-like\nscriptures, is, that God\u2019s eternal purpose respects the grace that his\npeople are made partakers of here, as well as the glory that they expect\nhereafter, which are inseparably connected; this cannot reasonably be\ndenied by those who are not willing to give into the doctrine of\nelection: But if the inseparable connexion between faith and salvation\nbe allowed, as having respect to the execution of God\u2019s purpose, it will\nbe no difficult matter to prove that this was determined by him, or that\nhis purpose respects faith, as well as salvation. Therefore the main\nthing in controversy between us is, whether this grace, that accompanies\nsalvation, is wrought by the power of God, or whether it depends on the\nfree-will of man. That which induces them to deny that God has chosen\npersons to faith, is this supposition; that that which is the result of\nman\u2019s free-will, cannot be the object of God\u2019s unchangeable purpose, and\nconsequently that God has not chosen men to it. This is the hinge on\nwhich the whole controversy turns, and if the doctrine of special\nefficacious grace be maintained, all the prejudices against that of\nelection would soon be removed; but this we must refer to its proper\nplace, being obliged to insist on that subject in some following\nanswers;[193] and, what may be farther considered, concerning the\nabsoluteness of election, as one of the properties that belong to it,\nunder a following head, will add some strength to our present argument.\nAll that we shall do, at present, shall be to defend our sense of the\nscriptures, but now referred to, to prove that election respects\nsanctification, as well as salvation; and that it does so, is plain from\nthe first of them, in Eph. i. 4. which proves that holiness is the end\nof election, or the thing that persons are chosen to, as appears from\nthe grammatical construction of the words: It is not said he had chosen\nus, considered as holy, and without blame, but that we should be\nholy;[194] that which is plainly intended, as the result of election,\ncannot be the cause and reason of it.\n\nAs to what the apostle says, in 2 Thess. ii. 13. _God hath, from the\nbeginning, chosen you unto salvation, through sanctification of the\nSpirit, and belief of the truth_, that plainly intimates, that\nsanctification is the end of election; and therefore the principal\nanswer that some give to it, which appears to be an evasion, is, that\nthe apostle does not speak of eternal election, because God is said to\nhave done this from the beginning, that is, as one explains the words,\nfrom the beginning of the apostle\u2019s preaching to them: But if we can\nprove that there is such a thing as a purpose to save, it will be no\ndifficult matter to prove the eternity of the divine purpose; and this\nis not disagreeable to the sense, in which the words, _From the\nbeginning_, are elsewhere used.[195]\n\nAs for that other scripture, in James ii. 5. where it is said, _God hath\nchosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom_;\nhere the words, _That they may be_,[196] (which are inserted by the\napostle, in the scripture but now mentioned) may, without any strain on\nthe sense thereof, be supplied, and so the meaning is, God hath chosen\nthem, _that they might be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom_: But\nif it will not be allowed, that these words ought to be supplied, the\nsense is the same, as though they were these, \u201cGod has chosen the poor\nof this world, who are described as rich in faith, to be heirs of the\nkingdom;\u201d and so we distinguish between election\u2019s being founded upon\nfaith, and faith\u2019s being a character by which the elect are described;\nand, if faith be a character by which they are described, then he who\nenabled them to believe, purposed to give them this grace, that is, he\nchose them to faith, as well as to be heirs of the kingdom.\n\nAs for that other text, in Rom. viii. 29. _He hath predestinated us to\nbe conformed to the image of his Son_; these words, _to be_, are\nsupplied by our translators, as I apprehend they ought, for the reason\nbut now mentioned, taken from the parallel scripture, in Eph. i. 4. But,\nto evade the force of the argument, to prove that we are predestinated\nto grace, as well as to glory, they who deny this doctrine, give a very\ndifferent turn to the sense of this text, as though the apostle only\nintended hereby, that the persons, whom he speaks of, were predestinated\nto an afflicted state in this life, a state of persecution, in which\nthey are said to be conformed to the image of Christ;[197] But though it\nis true that believers are said to be made partakers of the sufferings\nof Christ, and, by consequence, are predestinated thereunto, yet that\ndoes not appear to be the sense of this text, as not well agreeing with\nthe context; for the apostle had been describing those, whom he speaks\nof, as loving God, and called according to his purpose, and then\nconsiders them as predestinated, to be conformed to the image of his\nSon, which must be meant of their being made partakers of those graces,\nin which their conformity to Christ consists, as well as in sufferings;\nand then he considers them, in the following verse, as _called_,\n_justified_, and _glorified_; and all this is the result of their being\npredestinated.\n\nAs for that scripture, in Acts xiii. 48. _As many as were ordained to\neternal life believed_; their faith is here considered as the result of\ntheir being ordained to eternal life, or they are represented as\npredestinated to the means, as well as the end.\n\n_Object._ 1. But it will be objected by some, that this is not agreeable\nto the sense of the Greek word here used;[198] partly, because it is not\nsaid they were fore-ordained to eternal life, but _ordained_; and the\ngenuine sense thereof is, that they were disposed to eternal life, and\nconsequently to faith, as the means thereof. And this is also taken in a\ndifferent sense; some suppose that it imports a being disposed, by the\nprovidence of God, or set in order, or prepared for eternal life;\nothers, agreeably to the exposition which Socinus, and some of his\nfollowers, give of the text, (which sense a late learned writer falls in\nwith[199]) understand the words, as signifying their having an internal\ndisposition, or being well inclined, as having an earnest desire after\neternal life, for which reason they believed; or were fitted and\nprepared for eternal life, by the temper of their minds, and accordingly\nthey believed.\n\n_Answ._ 1. If the word, which we render _ordained_, be justly\ntranslated, the thing which they were ordained to, being something that\nwas future, it is, in effect, the same, as though it were said they were\nfore-ordained to it, as Beza observes.[200]\n\n2. Suppose the word ought rather to be translated, they were disposed\nunto eternal life; that seems to contain in it a metaphor, taken from a\ngeneral\u2019s disposing, or ordering his soldiers to their respective posts,\nor employments, to which he appoints them, and so it is as though he\nshould say, as many as God had, in his providence, or antecedent\npurpose, intended for salvation, believed, inasmuch as faith is the\nmeans and way to attain it; and that amounts to the same thing with our\ntranslation. But,\n\n3. As to that other sense given of it, _viz._ their being internally\ndisposed for eternal life, it seems very disagreeable to the import of\nthe Greek word; and those texts, that are generally brought to justify\nthis application thereof, appear to be very much strained and forced by\nthem, to serve their purpose;[201] and, indeed, if the word would bear\nsuch a sense, the doctrine contained therein, namely, that there are\nsome internal dispositions in men, antecedent to the grace of God,\nwhereby they are fitted and prepared for it, does not well agree with\nthe sense of those scriptures, which set forth man\u2019s natural opposition\nto the grace of God, before he is regenerate and converted, and his\nenmity against him; and others that assert the absolute necessity of the\nprevious work of the Spirit, to prepare for, as well as excite the acts\nof faith.\n\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected, that it cannot respect their being\nordained, or chosen to eternal life, who believed, inasmuch as none that\nplead for that doctrine suppose that all, who are elected in one place,\nbelieve at the same time; had it been said, that all, who believed at\nthat time, were ordained to eternal life, that would be agreeable to\nwhat is maintained by those who defend the doctrine of election; but to\nsay, that all, who are elected to eternal life, in any particular city,\nare persuaded to believe at the same time, this is what they will not\nallow of: besides, it is not usual for God to discover this to, or by,\nthe inspired writers, that, in any particular place, there are no more\nelected than those who are, at any one time, converted; and, indeed, it\nis contrary to the method of God\u2019s providence, to bring in all his elect\nat one time, therefore we cannot suppose that this was revealed to the\ninspired writer, and consequently something else must be intended, and\nnot eternal election, namely, that all those that were prepared for\neternal life, or who were disposed to pursue after it, believed.[202]\n\n_Answ._ When the apostle says, as many as were ordained to eternal life\nbelieved, we are not hereby led into this hidden mystery of the divine\nwill, so as to be able to judge, whether more than they that then\nbelieved, were ordained to it in that place; but the meaning is, that\nthere were many that believed, and that all of them were ordained to\neternal life; and so it is as though he should say, that God has a\npeople in this place, whom he has ordained to eternal life, who were to\nbe converted, some at one time, others at another: some of them were\nconverted at this time, to wit, a part of those who were ordained to\neternal life, if more were ordained to it; so that the objection\nsupposes that the words, which we render, _as many as_, imports the\nwhole number of the elect in that place; whereas, we think that the\nmeaning is, that there were many who believed, and these were only such\nwho were ordained to eternal life, of which there might be many more,\nwho then did not believe, but hereafter should; but this remained a\nsecret, which the inspired writer was not led into, nor we by him.\n\n_Object._ 3. There is another objection, which the learned author,[203]\n(whose paraphrase on the New Testament, and discourse on election, I am\nsometimes obliged to refer to in considering the objections that are\nmade against this doctrine) proposes with a great deal of warmth; and if\nno reply can be given to it, it will be no wonder to find many\nprejudiced against it; his words are these: \u201cIf the reason why these men\nbelieved be only this, that they were men ordained to eternal life, the\nreason why the rest believed not, can be this only, that they were not\nordained by God to eternal life: and, if so, what necessity could there\nbe that the word of God should be first preached to them, as we read,\nver. 46. was it only that their damnation might be the greater? This\nseems to charge that Lover of souls, whose tender mercies are over all\nhis works, with the greatest cruelty, seeing it makes him determine,\nfrom all eternity, not only that so many souls as capable of salvation\nas any other, shall perish everlastingly; but also to determine, that\nthe dispensations of his providence shall be such towards them, as\nnecessarily tends to the aggravation, of their condemnation; and what\ncould, even their most malicious and enraged enemy, do more? What is it\nthe very devil aims at, by all his temptations, but this very end,\n_viz._ the aggravation of our future punishment? And therefore to assert\nthat God had determined that his word should be spoken to these Jews,\nfor this very end, is to make God as instrumental to their ruin, as the\nvery devil, and seemeth wholly irreconcileable with his declarations,\nthat he would have all men to be saved, and would not that any man\nshould perish.\u201d\n\n_Answ._ According to this author, we must either quit the doctrine we\nare maintaining, provided it be the same as he represents it to be, or\nelse must be charged by all mankind, with such horrid blasphemy, as is\nshocking to any one that reads it, as charging the Lover of souls with\nthe greatest cruelty, and with acting in such a way, as their greatest\nenemy is said to do; determining, that the dispensations of his\nprovidence should tend to aggravate their condemnation, and that the\ngospel should be preached for this end, and no other. But let the\nblasphemy rest on his misrepresentation, and far be it from us to\nadvance any such doctrine; therefore that which may be considered, in\nanswer to it, is,\n\n1. The immediate reason why men believe to eternal life, is, because God\nexerts the exceeding greatness of his power, whereby he works faith; and\nthe reason of his exerting this power, is, because he determined to do\nit, as it is the execution of his purpose.\n\n2. It does not follow, from hence, that the only reason why others do\nnot believe, is, because they were not ordained to eternal life. It is\ntrue, indeed, that their not having been ordained to eternal life, or\nGod\u2019s not having purposed to save them, is the reason why he does not\nexert that power that is necessary to work faith: and unbelief will\ncertainly be the consequence thereof, unless man could believe without\nthe divine energy; yet the immediate spring and cause of unbelief, is\nthe corruption and perverseness of human nature which is chargeable on\nnone else but man himself. We must certainly distinguish between\nunbelief\u2019s being the consequence of God\u2019s not working faith, whereby\ncorrupt nature takes occasion to exert itself, as being destitute of\npreventing grace; and its being the effect hereof. Is God\u2019s denying the\nrevengeful person, or the murderer, that grace, which would prevent his\nexecuting his bloody designs, the cause thereof? Or his denying to\nothers the necessary supply of their present exigencies, the cause of\ntheir making use of unlawful means, by plundering others to subsist\nthemselves? No more is his denying special grace, which he was not\nobliged to give to any, the cause of men\u2019s unbelief and impenitency; for\nthat is to be assigned only to that wicked propensity of nature, which\ninclines us to sin, and not to the divine efficiency; and how farsoever\nthis may be the result of God\u2019s determining to deny his grace, it is not\nto be reckoned the effect of that determination.\n\n3. The design of the word\u2019s being preached, is not to aggravate the\ndamnation of those that shall not believe, according to this vile\nsuggestion; but that men might be hereby led to know their duty and that\nthe sovereignty of God, and the holiness of his law, which requires\nfaith and repentance, as well as man\u2019s obligation hereunto might be made\nknown to the world. I do not deny, but that unbelief, and the\ncondemnation consequent thereupon, is aggravated by the giving of the\ngospel, for that appears from many scriptures, Matt. xi. 21. Luke x. 13.\nas when our Saviour upbraids Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, and other\nplaces, amongst whom he was conversant, with their unbelief, and\nrepresents their condemnation as greater than, that of others, who were\ndestitute of those privileges: But yet it is a malicious insinuation, to\nsuppose we conclude that the gospel was given for this end; and we must\nstill distinguish between the greater aggravation of condemnation\u2019s\nbeing the result of giving the gospel, or the remote consequence\nthereof, and its being the effect of it in those that reject the gospel,\nand much less the design of God in giving it.\n\n4. God\u2019s denying that grace, which would have enabled men to believe, is\nnot to be charged as an instance of cruelty, any more than his denying\nit to fallen angels, but it is rather a display of his justice. He was\nnot obliged to give grace to any of the apostate race of man; shall\ntherefore his denying the grace of faith be reckoned an instance of\ncruelty, when we consider the forfeiture that was before made thereof,\nand man\u2019s propensity to sin, which is chargeable only on himself?\n\n5. God\u2019s purpose to deny the grace of faith to those whom he has not\nordained to eternal life, is not inconsistent with that scripture, 1\nTim. ii. 4. in which it is said, that _he will have all men to be\nsaved_; so that, as will be farther observed elsewhere,[204] it respects\neither God\u2019s determining that salvation should be applied to all sorts\nof men, or else his declaring by his revealed will, that it is the duty\nof all men to believe, and to acknowledge the truth, as made known to\nthem in the gospel.\n\n6. They who are elected to salvation, are chosen in Christ: thus it is\nexpressly said, in Eph. i. 4. _He hath chosen us in him, before the\nfoundations of the world._ We are not to suppose that the apostle\nintends hereby, that we are chosen for the sake of Christ, as though any\nof his mediatorial acts were the ground and reason thereof; for election\nis an act of sovereign grace, or is resolved into the good pleasure of\nthe will of God, and is not to be accounted a purchased blessing;\ntherefore when we speak of the concern of the Mediator, with relation\nhereunto, this is to be considered as a means ordained by God, to bring\nhis elect to salvation rather than the foundation of their election.\nThis proposition necessarily follows from the former; for if they, who\nare chosen to the end, are chosen to the means, then Christ\u2019s\nmediatorial acts being the highest and first means of salvation, God\u2019s\neternal purpose respects this, as subservient thereunto.\n\nThere are some very considerable divines,[205] who distinguish between\nour being chosen in Christ, as an Head, and being chosen in him as a\nRedeemer; and accordingly, they conclude, that there are two distinct\nrelations, in which the elect are said to stand to Christ, both which\nare mentioned by the apostle, when he says, _Christ is the Head of the\nchurch, and the Saviour of the body_, Eph. v. 23. and they are also\nmentioned distinctly elsewhere, _He is the Head of the body, the\nchurch_, and then it follows, that he _made peace through the blood of\nthe cross_, Col. i. 18, 19, 20. and they add, that the elect are\nconsidered as his members, without any regard had to their fallen state;\nand that the blessings contained therein, are such as render their\ncondition more honourable and glorious, than otherwise it would have\nbeen, had they been only considered as creatures, without any relation\nto him as their Head; and this Headship of Christ they extend not only\nto men, but to the holy angels, whom they suppose to be chosen, in this\nrespect, in Christ, as well as men, and that it is owing hereunto that\nthey have the grace of confirmation conferred upon them; and it also\nfollows, from hence, that Christ would have been the Head of the\nelection of grace, though man had not fallen, and that our fallen state\nrendered that other relation of Christ to his elect necessary; so that\nas they are chosen to salvation, they are chosen in him as a Redeemer,\ndesigned to bring about his great work for them, and, for this end, set\nup, as it is expressed, _from everlasting_, Prov. viii. 23.\n\nThis distinction of Christ\u2019s double relation to the elect, is,\ndoubtless, designed by those who thus explain this doctrine to advance\nhis glory; notwithstanding it remains still a matter of doubt to me,\nwhether Christ\u2019s Headship over his church be not a branch of his\nMediatorial glory; and, if so, it will be very difficult to prove that a\nMediator respects any other than man, and him more particularly\nconsidered as fallen; and accordingly, God did not design hereby to\nadvance him to an higher condition, than what was barely the result of\nhis being a creature, but to deliver him from that state of sin and\nmisery, into which he foresaw that he would plunge himself. Therefore,\nin considering the order of God\u2019s eternal purpose, relating to the\nsalvation of his people, we must suppose that he first designed to\nglorify all his perfections in their redemption and salvation; and, in\norder hereunto, he fore-ordained, or appointed Christ to be their great\nMediator, in whom he would be glorified, and by whom this work was to be\nbrought about: He appointed him to be their Head, Surety, and Redeemer;\nfirst, to purchase salvation for them; and then, to make them meet for\nit, in the same order in which it is brought about by him in the\nexecution thereof; so that, as the glory of God, in the salvation of the\nelect, was the end, Christ\u2019s redemption was the means more immediately\nconducive thereunto, and, as such, he is said to be fore-ordained, to\nwit, to perform those offices that he executes as Mediator, 1 Pet. i.\n20. and as Christ, when he was manifested in the flesh, did all things\nfor his people, that were necessary to bring them to glory, he is, in\nGod\u2019s purpose, considered as the great Mediator, by whom he designed\nthis work should be brought about: thus he is set forth in the gospel,\nas a propitiation for sin; and the apostle seems to speak of it, as what\nwas the result of God\u2019s purpose, in Rom. iii. 25. whom God hath _set\nforth_ to be a propitiation; the Greek word[206] properly signifies, as\nit is observed in the marginal reference, _fore-ordained_ so to be; and\naccordingly, we must consider him as from all eternity in God\u2019s purpose,\nappointed to be the federal Head of those who are said to be chosen in\nhim, and to have all the concerns of the divine glory, relating to their\nsalvation, committed to his management.\n\nV. We shall now consider the properties of election, and how the divine\nperfections are displayed therein, agreeably to what is said concerning\nit in scripture.\n\n1. As it is taken for the purpose of God, relating to the sanctification\nor salvation of men, as distinguished from the execution thereof, it is\neternal: This is evident, because God is eternal, his purposes must be\nconcluded to be of equal duration with his existence; for we cannot\nsuppose that an infinitely wise and sovereign Being existed from all\neternity, without any fore-thought, or resolution what to do, for that\nwould be to suppose him to have been undetermined, or unresolved, when\nhe first gave being to all things; nor is it to be supposed that there\nare any new determinations in the divine will, for that would argue him\nto be imperfect, since this would be an instance of mutability in him,\nas much as it would be for him to alter his purpose; but neither of\nthese are agreeable to the idea of an infinitely perfect Being.\n\nMoreover, if God\u2019s purpose, with respect to the salvation of men were\nnot eternal, then it must be considered as a new after-thought arising\nin the divine mind, which, as to its first rise, is but, as it were, of\nyesterday, and consequently he would have something in him that is\nfinite. If it be contrary to his omniscience to have new ideas of\nthings, it is equally contrary to the sovereignty of his will to have\nnew determinations, therefore all his purposes were eternal.\n\n2. God\u2019s purpose relating to election, is infinitely wise and holy. This\nappears from the footsteps of infinite wisdom, and holiness, which are\nvisible in the execution thereof, namely, in bringing men to grace and\nglory; nothing is more conspicuous than the glory of these perfections\nin the work of redemption, and the application thereof; as hereby the\nsalvation of man is brought about in such a way, that the glory of all\nthe divine perfections is secured, and the means made use of, as\nconducive thereunto, the most proper that could have been used,\ntherefore it is a work of infinite wisdom. And inasmuch as herein God\ndiscovers the infinite opposition of his nature to sin, and thereby\nadvances the glory of his holiness, it follows from hence, that these\nperfections of the divine nature had their respective concern, if we may\nso express it, in the purpose relating hereunto; for whatever glory is\ndemonstrated in the execution of his purpose, that was certainly before\nincluded in the purpose itself.\n\n3. The purpose of God, relating to the final state of man, is secret, or\ncannot be known, till he is pleased to discover it. Nothing is more\nobvious than this; for even the purposes or resolutions of creatures are\nsecret, till they are made known by them: thus the apostle says, _What\nman knoweth the things of a man_, that is, what he designs to do, _save\nthe spirit of a man, which is in him_? and infers, in the following\nwords, _so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God_, 1\nCor. ii. 12. and elsewhere he says, _Who hath known the mind of the\nLord? or who hath been his councellor?_ Rom. xi. 34. And, for this\nreason, it is called, _The mystery of his will_, Eph. i. 9. and this\nalso follows from its being eternal, therefore it was hid in God, from\nbefore the foundation of the world, and consequently would for ever have\nbeen so, had he not, by his works, or word, made some discoveries\nthereof, to those whom he first brought into being, and then gave some\nintimations of his purpose to them.\n\nTherefore it could not have been known that God had purposed to save\nany, had he not revealed this in the gospel: much less have any\nparticular persons ground to conclude themselves to be elected, without\nfirst observing those intimations which God has given, whereby they may\narrive at the knowledge thereof. This head ought to be duly considered,\nby those who deny, and are prejudiced against this doctrine, though it\nbe generally neglected in the methods they take to oppose it; for they\nwill not consider the distinction we make between God\u2019s having chosen a\nperson to eternal life, and a person\u2019s having a right to conclude that\nhe is thus chosen; but take it for granted, that if there be such a\nthing as election, that we must necessarily determine ourselves to be\nthe objects thereof, and ought to regulate our future conduct\naccordingly. It is from thence they conclude, that the doctrine of\nelection leads men to presumption, or gives them occasion to say, that\nthey may live as they list; whereas we suppose that it is an instance of\npresumption in any one to determine that he is elected, unless there be\nsome discovery hereof made to him; and this discovery cannot take its\nrise from God, unless it be accompanied with that holiness, which is,\nfrom the nature of the thing, inconsistent with our being led hereby to\nlicentiousness. And here we take occasion to consider, that God does not\nmake known his secret purpose, relating to this matter, to any, by\ninspiration, especially since that extraordinary dispensation of\nprovidence is ceased; and, indeed, it never was his ordinary way to\ndiscover it hereby to those, who, in other instances, were favoured with\nthe gift of inspiration. The means therefore by which we come to the\nknowledge hereof, is, by God\u2019s giving certain marks, or evidences of\ngrace, or by shewing us the effects of the divine power, in calling and\nsanctifying us, whereby we have a warrant to conclude that we were\nchosen to eternal life; and, whilst we make a right improvement thereof,\nand conclude that our judgment, concerning our state, is rightly\nfounded, or not, by the holiness of our lives, we are in no danger of\nabusing this great and important doctrine, to the dishonour of God, or\nour own destruction.\n\nThis leads us to consider a distinction, which we are often obliged to\nmake use of, when we speak concerning the will of God, as secret or\nrevealed, by which we account for the sense of many scriptures, and take\noccasion from it to answer several objections that are brought against\nthis doctrine. I am sensible that there is nothing advanced in defence\nthereof, which they, who are in the other way of thinking, are more\nprejudiced against, than this distinction, which they suppose to contain\na reproachful idea of the divine Majesty, and is the foundation of many\npopular prejudices against the doctrine we are defending, as though we\nhereby intended that God has a secret meaning, different from what he\nreveals; or that we are not to judge of his intentions by those\ndiscoveries which he makes thereof, which it would be the highest\nreproach to charge any creature with, and contrary to that sincerity\nwhich he cannot be destitute of, but he is hereby rendered the object of\ndetestation; therefore no one, who conceives of an holy God, in such a\nway as he ought to do, can entertain a thought, as though the least\nappearance thereof were applicable to him. However, this is the common\nmisrepresentation that is made of this distinction. Whether it arises\nfrom its being not sufficiently explained by some; or a fixed resolution\nto decry the doctrine of election, and render it odious, as it must\ncertainly be, if supported by a distinction, understood in so vile a\nsense, I will not determine. However, that we may remove this prejudice,\nand consider how it is to be understood, in a sense more agreeable to\nthe divine perfections, we shall proceed to explain it; and here we may\nobserve,\n\n_First_, That the will of God is sometimes taken, in scripture, for that\nwhich he has, from all eternity, determined, which is unchangeable, and\nshall certainly come to pass, which is impossible for any creature to\ndisannul, resist, or render ineffectual; and it is such a branch of\ndivine sovereignty, that to deny it, would be, in effect, to deny him to\nbe God. This the apostle intends, when he represents the malicious and\nobstinate sinner as replying against God, and defending himself in his\nbold crimes, by saying, _Why doth he yet find fault; for who hath\nresisted his will?_ Rom. ix. 19, 20, 21, 22. In answer to which, he\nasserts the sovereignty of God, and that he is not accountable to any\nfor what he does, nor to be controuled by them; and this is also\nintended in another scripture, in Eph. i. 11. where it is said, that\n_God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will_; and\nelsewhere he says, _My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my\npleasure_, Isa. xlvi. 10. This will of God is the rule of his own\nacting, and, as it determines the event of things, it is impossible for\nhim to act contrary to it; and it is equally disagreeable to his\nperfections, to signify to his creatures, that he determines to do one\nthing, but will do another; therefore, in this sense, we are far from\nasserting that there is a revealed will of God, which contradicts his\nsecret.\n\n_Secondly_, We often read, in scripture, of the will of God, as taken\nfor what he has prescribed to us, as a rule of duty; and also of our\njudging concerning the apparent event of things.\n\n(1.) The will of God may be considered as a rule of duty, which is a\nwell-known and proper sense of his revealed will: thus our Saviour\nteaches us to pray, _Let thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven_;\nby which he principally intends his revealed will, _or law_. Enable us\nto yield obedience to thy law, in our measure, as thou art perfectly\nobeyed in heaven. So our Saviour says, _Whosoever shall do the will of\nGod, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother_, Mark iii. 35.\nwhich can be meant of no other than his revealed will, or of his law, in\nwhich it is contained; because no one can act contrary to God\u2019s\ndetermination, which is that sense of his will, contained in the\nforegoing head; and, consequently, a doing his will, in that sense,\nwould not have been laid down as a distinguishing character of those\nwhom Christ preferred above all, who were related to him in the bonds of\nnature.\n\nAgain the apostle understands the will of God in this sense, when he\nsays, _Thou knowest his will_, Rom. ii. 18. where he speaks to the Jews,\nwho were instructed out of the law, in which it is contained; and\nelsewhere, Eph. vi. 6. he speaks of his will, as what is to be obeyed,\nand therefore gives this description of faithful servants, that they _do\nthe will of God_, namely, what he has commanded, _from the heart_. And\nthere are many other scriptures thus to be understood; and this we call\nhis revealed will, as it is the rule of duty and obedience.\n\n(2.) The revealed will of God may be considered as a rule which he has\ngiven us, whereby we are to judge of the apparent event of things. I\nmake this a branch of God\u2019s revealed will, inasmuch as sometimes he\ncondescends to discover future events to his creatures, which otherwise\nthey could never have known; but yet there is a difference, as to the\nmanner of their judging thereof, pursuant to the intimations which he\nhas given them. Accordingly, when God has told us expressly, that this\nor that particular thing shall come to pass, then we are infallibly sure\nconcerning the event, and need no other rule to judge of it, but by\nconsidering it as revealed: As when God has said, that there shall be a\ngeneral resurrection of the dead, and that Christ shall come to\njudgment, and receive his redeemed, and sanctified ones, to heaven, to\nbehold his glory, we are infallibly assured of these events, because\nthey are expressly revealed; and, when we speak of the secret and\nrevealed will of God, as applicable to things of this nature, we intend\nnothing else hereby but what all will allow of, _viz._ that what would\nhave been for ever a secret, had it not been discovered, is now\nrevealed, and therefore ceases to be so; and in that sense, the revealed\nwill of God, in all respects, agrees with his secret; in this case, we\nsuppose that God expressly revealed the event.\n\nBut there are other instances, in which the event of things is not\nexpressly revealed; as when God has only discovered to us what is the\nrule of our duty. Nevertheless, since it is natural for man, when any\nduty is commanded, to pass some judgment concerning the event thereof;\nand, inasmuch as we suppose the event not expressly revealed, it\nfollows, that the judgment, which we pass concerning it, is only what\nappears to us, or what, according to our rule of judging, seems to be\nthe probable event of things. In this case we are not infallibly assured\nconcerning it; and when we pass a judgment relating thereunto, we may\nconclude that some consequences may attend our present duty, which,\nperhaps, will never come to pass. As if a general of an army gives forth\na command to his soldiers, to march towards the enemy, they will readily\nconclude, that he designs, by this command, that they should enter on\nsome action, which, had he expressly told them, he must either change\nhis purpose, or else the event must certainly happen; but, inasmuch as\nhe has not discovered this to them, all the judgment that they can form,\nat present, concerning it, is only such, as is founded on the appearance\nof things, and the event might probably afterwards shew, without any\nimpeachment of his veracity or conduct herein, that his only design was\nto try whether his soldiers would obey the word of command, or not. Or\nif a king should order a number of malefactors to the place of\nexecution, without discovering the event thereof, the apparent event is\ntheir immediate death; but if, pursuant to his secret purpose, he\nresolved, there to give forth a pardon to them, it cannot be supposed\nthat he changed his purpose; but the event makes it appear, that his\npurpose was not then known; whatever the apparent event might be, his\nreal design was to humble them for their crimes, and afterwards to\npardon them.\n\nIt is only in such-like instances as these, that we apply this\ndistinction to the doctrine that we are maintaining; and therefore it\nmust be a very great stretch, of malicious insinuation, for any one to\nsuppose, that hereby we charge God with insincerity in those\ndeclarations of his revealed will, by which we pass a probable judgment\nconcerning the event of things. But to apply this to particular\ninstances. God commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac, Gen. xxii.\n2. whereas it is certain, unless we suppose that he altered his purpose,\nthat he intended, not that he should lay his hand upon him, but, when\nIsaac was upon the altar, to forbid him to do it. Here was a great and a\ndifficult duty, which Abraham was to perform pursuant to God\u2019s revealed\nwill, which was the rule of his obedience; had Abraham known, before\nthis, that God designed to hold his hand, and prevent him from striking\nthe fatal blow, it had been no trial of his faith; for it would have\nbeen no difficult matter for him to have done every thing else. The holy\npatriarch knew well enough that God could prevent him from doing it; but\nthis he had no ground to conclude, because he had no divine intimation\nconcerning it; therefore that which appeared to him to be the event, was\nthe loss of his son, and he reconciled this with the truth of the\npromise before given him, that _in Isaac his seed should be called_, by\nsupposing that God, at some time or other, would _raise him from the\ndead_, as the apostle observes, Heb. xi. 19. therefore that which\nAbraham concluded as judging, not by an express revelation, but by the\nvoice of providence, was, that Isaac must be slain by his hand: But this\nwas contrary to the real event, as is evident, from the account thereof\nin scripture; and, consequently since the real event was agreeable to\nthe divine determination, as all events are, it follows, that there is a\ndifference between the will of God, determining the event of things,\nwhich shall certainly come to pass accordingly; and the revelation of\nhis will, relating to what is the creatures present duty, which may, at\nthe same time, appear to them, when judging only by the command, which\nis the rule of duty, and some circumstances that attend it, to be\ncontrary to what will afterwards appear to have been the real design of\nGod therein. God\u2019s real design was to try Abraham\u2019s faith, and to\nprevent him from slaying his son, when he had given a proof of his\nreadiness to obey him; but this remained, at first, a secret to Abraham,\nand the apparent design was, that he should slay him. Therefore there is\na foundation for this distinction, as thus explained, concerning the\nsecret and revealed will of God; the former belongs not to us, nor are\nwe to take our measures from it, as being unknown: and, when the latter\nappears contrary to it, we must distinguish between two things, that are\ncontrary in the same, and different respects; or between the judgment\nwhich we pass concerning events, which are apparent to us, and, at most,\nare only probable and conjectural, as we judge of the consequence of a\nduty commanded; and those events, which, though they are infallibly\ncertain, yet are not revealed, nor can be known, till they come to pass.\nIn this sense we understand the distinction between God\u2019s secret and\nrevealed will, when they seem to oppose each other; which it was\nnecessary for us thus to explain, inasmuch as we shall frequently have\noccasion to mention, and apply it, when we account for the difference\nthat there seems to be, between the purpose of God, relating to the\nevent of things, and our present views thereof, whereby we may\nunderstand and account for the difficulties contained in several\nscriptures, which I would have mentioned in this place, for the farther\nillustration hereof, had it been necessary. But this is sufficient to\nexplain and vindicate it from the prejudices entertained against it, by\nthose who are disposed to misrepresent what is said in defence of this\ndoctrine.\n\nFrom what has been said, concerning God\u2019s secret and revealed will, we\nmay infer,\n\n_1st_, That it is a great boldness, and unwarrantable instance of\npresumption, for any one to enter into, or judge of God\u2019s secret\npurpose, so as peremptorily to determine, beyond the present appearance\nof things, that this or that shall certainly come to pass, till he makes\nthem known; for _secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those\nthings which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children forever_,\nDeut. xxiv. 29. Therefore no one ought to determine that he is elected\nto salvation, before the work of grace is wrought, and, some way or\nother, made visible to him; or, on the other hand, to determine that he\nis rejected or reprobated, when he has no other ground to go upon, but\nuncertain conjecture, which would be a means to drive him to despair:\nthat some are, indeed, elected, and others rejected, is no secret\nbecause God has revealed this in his word; so that we may assert it as a\nproposition, undoubtedly true, when we do not apply it to particular\npersons; and therefore this doctrine has not that pernicious tendency,\nwhich many pretend that it has.\n\n_2dly_, The first act of saving faith does not consist in our believing\nthat we are elected; neither is it the duty of unregenerate persons, as\nsuch to apply this privilege to themselves any more than to conclude\nthemselves rejected: But our business, is, so long as the purpose of God\nremains a secret to us, to attend on the means of grace, hoping and\nwaiting for the display of divine power, in effectually calling us; and\nafterwards for the Spirit\u2019s testimony, or seal, to be set to it, whereby\nhe discovers his own work; and then it may, in some measure, be reckoned\na branch of his revealed will and will afford us matter of thanksgiving\nand praise to him, and a foundation of peace and comfort in our own\nsouls. But this may be farther insisted on, when we come to consider the\nimprovement we ought to make of this doctrine. We proceed to consider\nthe next property of election.\n\n4. It is free, and sovereign, or absolute, and unconditional; for that\nwhich would be a reflection on the divine perfections, if applied to\nGod\u2019s method of working, is, by no means, to be said concerning his\npurpose to work, or, (which is the same) his decree of election;\ntherefore if there are no obligations laid on him by his creatures, to\ndisplay or perform any of his works of grace, but they are all free and\nsovereign, then it follows, that the fore-sight of any thing that shall\nbe done by them, in time, could not be the motive, or reason of his\npurpose, or decree, to save them, or of his choosing them to salvation.\n\nThis may be farther argued, from the independence of the divine nature:\nif his nature and perfections are independent, his will must be so. But\nmore particularly,\n\n(1.) The displays of God\u2019s grace, in time, are expressly resolved into\nhis sovereign pleasure, in scripture, in Rom. ix. 15. _He saith to\nMoses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have\ncompassion on whom I will have compassion._ And there are many other\nscriptures, which might be referred to, where all merit, or motives,\ntaken from the creature, which might be supposed to induce him to bestow\nspiritual and saving blessings, are entirely excluded, and the whole is\nresolved in to the glory of his own name, and in particular, of those\nperfections which he designed herein to illustrate. This is applied,\neven to the common blessings of providence; _Nevertheless, he saved them\nfor his name\u2019s sake, that he might make his mighty power to be known_,\nPsal. cvi. 8. and it is also applied to sparing mercy, or the exercise\nof God\u2019s patience, _For my name\u2019s sake will I defer mine anger, and for\nmy praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off_, Isa.\nxlviii. 9. and to pardoning mercy, _For thy name\u2019s sake, O Lord, pardon\nmine iniquity, for it is great_, Psal. xxv. 11. And when he is\nrepresented as doing great things for his people, he puts them in mind,\nat the same time, of their own vileness and unworthiness, that the\nfreeness and sovereignty of his grace, to them, might be more\nconspicuous: Thus, when he tells them how he delivered Israel out of\nEgypt, he puts them in mind of their idolatry in that land; therefore no\nmotive could be taken, from their behaviour towards him, which could\ninduce him to do this for them; as it is said, _But they rebelled\nagainst me, and would not hearken unto me; they did not every man cast\naway the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols\nof Egypt; then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish\nmy anger against them, in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I wrought,\nfor my name\u2019s sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen,\namong whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in\nbringing them forth out of the land of Egypt_, Ezek. xx. 8, 9.\n\n(2.) If the grace of God, and consequently his purpose relating\nthereunto, were not absolute, free, and sovereign, then all the glory\nthereof could not be attributed to him, neither would boasting be\nexcluded; but as the creature might be said to be a worker together with\nGod, so he would lay claim to a share, if not to the greatest part of\nthe honour, that will redound to him from it; which is directly contrary\nto the divine perfections, and the great design of the gospel. This will\nfarther appear, if we consider,\n\n_1st._ That a conditional purpose to bestow a benefit, cannot take\neffect till the condition be performed, and accordingly it is said to\ndepend on it. This is obvious, from the known idea affixed to the word\n_condition_, and the common signification thereof; it follows therefore,\n\n_2dly._ That the performance of the condition is the next, or immediate\ncause of a conditional purpose\u2019s taking effect; and, to apply this to\nthe case before us,\n\n_3dly._ If, on our performing the condition of God\u2019s purpose to save us,\nit be rendered effectual, which otherwise it would not have been,\n(agreeably to the nature of a conditional purpose) then we are more\nbeholden to our own conduct, than the divine purpose, and so the glory\nthereof will be due to ourselves; which would not only cast the highest\ndishonour on the divine perfections, but it is contrary to the design of\nthe gospel, which is to stain the pride of all flesh, and take away all\noccasions of glorying, from the creature. Thus the prophet Isaiah,\nfore-telling the glory of the gospel-state, considers its tendency to\nhumble the pride of man, when he says, _The loftiness of man shall be\nbowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low, and the Lord\nalone shall be exalted in that day_, Isa. ii. 17. and the apostle,\ndescribing the nature of faith, considers its tendency _to exclude\nboasting_; Rom. iii. 27. and our Saviour, speaking concerning the\ndiscriminating grace of God, that appears in election, either in his\npurpose relating to it, or in the execution thereof, says, _Ye have not\nchosen me, but I have chosen you_, John xv. 16. that is, you have done\nnothing that has laid any obligation on me to choose you by that act of\nfaith, whereby you are inclined to prefer me to all others; for this is\nthe consequence and result of my discriminating grace.\n\nWe shall now proceed to consider those arguments, which are generally\nmade use of by those, who are in the other way of thinking, to support\nthe conditionality of God\u2019s purpose, as well as of his works of grace,\nin opposition to what has been said concerning the freeness and\nsovereignty thereof. They generally allege those scriptures for that\npurpose, that are laid down in a conditional form; as when the apostle\nspeaks of such a confession of Christ _with the mouth_, as is attended\nwith _believing in the heart, that God raised him from the dead_, and\n_calling on the name of the Lord_, as connected with salvation, Rom. x.\n9, 13. and our Saviour says, that _whosoever believeth on him should not\nperish, but have everlasting life_, John iii. 15. and that _he that\nbelieveth shall be saved_, Mark xvi. 16. and elsewhere, _Except ye\nrepent, ye shall all likewise perish_, Luke xiii. 3. and many other\nscriptures of the like nature; from whence they argue, that since the\ndispensations of God\u2019s providence, the gifts of his grace, and the\nexecution of his purpose are all conditional, the purpose itself must be\nso. Were it but allowed that election is conditional whether it respects\nthe purpose or providence of God, we should meet with no opposition from\nthose who are on the other side of the question; but as such a purpose\nto save, as is not absolute, peremptory, or independent on the will of\nman, has many absurd consequences attending it, which are derogatory to\nthe glory of the divine sovereignty, as has been already considered; so\nthis cannot be the sense of those scriptures, that are laid down in a\nconditional form, as those and such-like are, that we have but now\nmentioned; for no sense of scripture can be true or just, that has the\nleast tendency to militate against any of the divine perfections; so\nthat there may without any strain or violence offered to the sense of\nwords, be another sense put upon these, and all other scriptures, in\nwhich we have the like mode of speaking, whereby they may be explained,\nagreeably to the analogy of faith; therefore let us consider,\n\n1. That all such scriptures are to be understood as importing the\nnecessary connexion of things, so that one shall not be brought about\nwithout the other; accordingly, repentance, faith, and all other graces,\nare herein no otherwise considered, than as inseparably connected with\nsalvation; which depends upon one of those propositions, which was\nbefore laid down, _viz._ that God having chosen to the end has also\nchosen to the means. We are far from denying that faith and repentance\nare necessary to salvation, as God never gives one without the other,\nand consequently they are inseparably connected in his eternal purpose\nrelating thereunto. If nothing else were intended by a conditional\npurpose than this, we would not offer any thing against it; but\ncertainly this would be to use words without their known or proper\nideas; and the word _condition_, as applicable to other things, is never\nto be understood in this sense. There is a necessary connection between\nGod\u2019s creating the world, and his upholding it, or between his creating\nan intelligent creature, and his giving laws to him; but none ever\nsupposed one to be properly a condition of the other: so a king\u2019s\ndetermining to pardon a malefactor, is inseparably connected with his\npardoning him, and his pardon given forth, with his having a right to\nhis forfeited life; but it is not proper to say, one is a condition of\nthe other; so a person\u2019s seeing is inseparably connected with his\nopening his eyes; and speaking, with the motion of his lips; but we do\nnot say, when he determines to do both of them, that one is a condition\nof the other. A condition, properly speaking is that which is not only\nconnected with the privilege that follows upon the performance thereof,\nbut it must be performed by a subject acting independently on him who\nmade the conditional overture, or promise.\n\nIf it be said, that a duty, which we are enabled to perform by God, who\npromised the blessing connected with it, is properly a condition, we\nwill not contend about the propriety, or impropriety, of the word; but\ninasmuch as it is taken by many, when applied to divine things, in the\nsame sense as in matters of a lower nature, and so used to signify the\ndependence of the blessings promised, or the efficacy of the divine\npurpose, relating thereunto, on our performance of the condition, which\nis supposed to be in our own power, whereby we come to have a right and\ntitle to eternal life; it is this that we principally militate against,\nwhen we assert the absoluteness of God\u2019s purpose.\n\n2. Whatever ideas there may be contained in those scriptures, which are\nbrought to support the doctrine we are opposing, that contain in them\nthe nature of a condition, nothing more is intended thereby, but that\nwhat is connected with salvation is a condition of our claim to it, or\nexpectation of it: In this sense, we will not deny faith and repentance\nto be conditions of salvation, inasmuch as it would be an unwarrantable\ninstance of presumption, for impenitent and unbelieving sinners, to\npretend that they have a right to it, or to expect the end without the\nmeans, since these are inseparably connected in God\u2019s purpose, as well\nas in all his dispensations of grace. This being laid down, as a general\nrule for our understanding all those scriptures, which are usually\nbrought to prove that God\u2019s purposes are sometimes conditional, we shall\nfarther illustrate it, by applying it to three or four other scriptures,\nthat are often brought in defence thereof, which we shall endeavour to\nexplain, consistently with the doctrine we are maintaining.\n\nOne is taken from Gen. xix. 22. where the angel bade Lot _escape to\nZoar_, telling him, that _he could not do any thing till he came\nthither_. If we suppose this to have been a created angel, as most\ndivines do, yet he must be considered as fulfilling the purpose of God,\nor acting pursuant to his commission; and therefore it is all one, to\nour present argument, as though God had told Lot, that he could do\nnothing till he was gone from that place. It is plain, that he had given\nhim to understand, that he should be preserved from the flames of Sodom,\nand that, in order thereunto, he must flee for his life; and adds, that\nhe could do nothing, that is, he could not destroy Sodom, consistently\nwith the divine purpose to save him, till he was escaped out of the\nplace; for God did not design to preserve him alive (as he did the three\nHebrew captives, in Daniel) in the fire, but by his escaping from it;\none was as much fore-ordained as the other, or was designed as a means\nconducive to it; and therefore the meaning of the text is, not that\nGod\u2019s purpose, relating to Sodom\u2019s destruction, was founded on Lot\u2019s\nescape, as an uncertain and dubious condition, depending on his own\nwill, abstracted from the divine determination relating to it; but he\ndesigned that those two things should be connected together, and that\none should be antecedent to the other; and both of them, as well as\ntheir respective connection, were the object of God\u2019s absolute and\nperemptory determination.\n\nThere is another scripture, sometimes brought to the same purpose, in\nGen. xxxii. 26. where the angel says to Jacob, _Let me go, for the day\nbreaketh_; and Jacob replies, _I will not let thee go, except thou bless\nme_, which does not infer, that God\u2019s determinations were dependent on\nJacob\u2019s endeavour to detain him, or his willingness to let him depart;\nbut we must consider Jacob as an humble, yet importunate suppliant, as\nit is said elsewhere, _Weeping and making supplication_, Hos. xii. 4.\n_Let me go_, says God, appearing in the form of an angel, and speaking\nafter the manner of men, that he might give occasion to Jacob to express\na more ardent desire of his presence and blessing, as well as to signify\nhow unworthy he was of it; not as though he was undetermined before-hand\nwhat to do, but since the grace which Jacob exercised, as well as the\nblessing which he received, was God\u2019s gift, and both were connected in\nthe execution of his purpose, we must conclude that the purpose itself\nwas free, sovereign, and unconditional.\n\nAgain, there is another scripture, in which God condescends to use a\nmode of speaking, not much unlike to the other, in which he says to\nMoses, speaking concerning Israel, in Exod. xxxii. 10. _This is a\nstiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax\nhot against them, and that I may consume them_; we are not to suppose\nthat the whole event was to turn upon Moses\u2019s prayer, as though God\u2019s\npurposing to save his people were dependent on it; or that that grace,\nwhich inclined him to be importunate with God, did not take its rise\nfrom him. Moses, indeed, when first he began to plead with God, knew not\nwhether his prayer would be prevalent or no; however, he addresses\nhimself, with an uncommon degree of importunity, for sparing mercy; and,\nwhen God says, _Let me alone_, it signifies, that his people were\nunworthy that any one should plead their cause; and, if God should mark\niniquity, then Moses\u2019s intercession would be altogether in vain, and so\nhe might as well let him alone, in that respect, as ask for his mercy.\nHe does not, indeed, at first, tell him what he designed to do, that he\nmight aggravate their crime, but afterwards he answers his prayer in\nIsrael\u2019s favour, and signifies that he would work, not for their sakes,\nbut for his own name\u2019s sake; so that he takes occasion, on the one hand,\nto set forth the people\u2019s desert of punishment; and, on the other, the\nfreeness of his own grace.\n\nThere is but one scripture more that I shall mention, among many that\nmight have been brought, and that is what is said concerning our\nSaviour, in Matt. xiii. 58. that _he could not do many mighty works\nthere_, at that time, in his own country, _because of their unbelief_?\nwhere he speaks either of their not having a faith of miracles that was\nsometimes required, in those for whom they were wrought: or else of the\nunaccountable stupidity of that people, who were not convinced, by many\nothers that he had wrought before them; therefore he resolves to put a\nstop to his hand, and not, for the present, to work so many miracles\namongst them, as otherways might have been expected: If we suppose that\ntheir want of faith prevented his working them, this is not to be\nconsidered as an unforeseen event. And as he had determined not to\nconfer this privilege upon them, or to continue to work miracles amongst\nthem, if those, which he had already wrought, were disregarded and\ndespised by their unbelief, we must conclude that he had a perfect\nknowledge of this before-hand, and that his determinations were not\ndependent on uncertain conditions, though he had resolved to act in such\na way, as was most for his own glory; and that there should be an\ninseparable connexion between that faith, which was their duty, and his\ncontinuing to exert divine power, as an ordinance adapted to excite it.\n\n5. God\u2019s purpose concerning election is unchangeable; this is the result\nof his being infinitely perfect. Mutability is an imperfection that\nbelongs only to creatures: As it would be an instance of imperfection,\nif there were the least change in God\u2019s understanding, so as to know\nmore or less than he did from all eternity; the same must be said with\nrespect to his will, which cannot admit of any new determinations. There\nare, indeed, many changes in the external dispensations of his\nprovidence, which are the result of his will, as well as the effects of\nhis power; yet there is not the least appearance of mutability in his\npurpose. We have before considered, in speaking concerning the\nimmutability of the divine nature[207], that whatever may be a reason\nobliging men to alter their purposes, it cannot, in the least, take\nplace, so that God hereby should be obliged to alter his: No unforeseen\noccurrence can render it expedient for him to change his mind, nor can\nany superior power oblige him to do it; nor can any defect of power, to\nbring about what he had designed, induce him to alter his purpose.\n\nIf it be objected to this, that the obstinacy of man\u2019s will may do it;\nthat is to suppose his will exempted from the governing influence of\ndivine providence, and the contrary force, that offers resistance,\nsuperior to it, which cannot be supposed, without detracting from the\nglory of the divine perfections. It would be a very unworthy thought for\nany one to conclude that God is one day of one mind, and another day\nforced to be of the contrary; how far this is a necessary consequence\nfrom that scheme of doctrine that we are opposing, let any one judge. It\nwill be very hard to clear it of this entanglement, which they are\nobliged to do, or else all the absurdities that they fasten on the\ndoctrine of election, which are far from being unanswerable, will not be\nsufficient to justify their prejudices against it.\n\nThey who are on the other side of the question, are sensible that they\nhave one difficulty to conflict with, namely, the inconsistency of God\u2019s\ninfallible knowledge of future events, with a mutability of will\nrelating thereunto; or how the independency of the divine fore-knowledge\nis consistent with the dependence and mutability of his will. To fence\nagainst this, some have ventured to deny the divine prescience; but that\nis to split against one rock, whilst endeavouring to avoid another.\nTherefore others distinguish concerning the objects of the divine\nprescience, and consider them, either as they are necessary or\ncontingent, and accordingly suppose that God has a certain foreknowledge\nof the former; but his knowledge of the latter, (from the nature of the\nthings known) is uncertain, and consequently the determination of his\nwill is not unalterable. But this is to set bounds to the fore-knowledge\nof God, with respect to its object, and, indeed, to exclude the free\nactions of the creature from being the objects thereof, which is a\nlimiting and lessening of this perfection, and is directly contrary to\nthe idea of omniscience; and therefore we must insist on their proving\nthis to be consistent with the infinite perfection of God, which they\nwill find it very difficult to do; and to suppose, on the other hand,\nthat any thing is the object of God\u2019s certain fore-knowledge, about\nwhich his will is no way conversant, or only so, in such a way, as that\nit is subject to change, according to the mutability of things, is\naltogether as indefensible, and equally subversive of the independency,\nwisdom, and sovereignty thereof.\n\n_Object._ The most material objection against this doctrine, is take\nfrom some scriptures, which seem to represent God as repenting, and\ntherein, as it is supposed, changing his purpose. Thus he is sometimes\nsaid to repent, that he had bestowed some blessings upon men, when he\nperceives how they have been abused by them, and accordingly he purposes\nto bring evil on them; as we read, in Gen. vi. 6, 7. _It repented the\nLord that he had made man, and it grieved him at his heart; and the Lord\nsaid, I will destroy man, whom I have created_; and, at other times he\nis said to repent of the evil that he designed to bring upon them, and\nalter his purpose in their favour; thus it is said, in Deut. xxxii. 36.\n_The Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants;\nwhen he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or\nleft_; and in Joel ii. 13. _Rend your hearts, and not your garments, and\nturn unto the Lord your God; for he is gracious and merciful, slow to\nanger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil_; and in\nPsal. xc. 13, _Return, O Lord, how long? and let it repent thee\nconcerning thy servants_; and in Jer. xviii. 8. _If that nation, against\nwhom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil\nthat I have thought to do unto them._ And we have a very remarkable\ninstance of this, in God\u2019s sparing Nineveh, on their repentance, after\nhe had threatened, by the prophet Jonah, that _within forty days they\nshould be destroyed_.\n\n_Answ._ It is true, there are many scriptures, in which repentance is\nascribed to God, which, if we consider nothing else but the grammatical\nsense of the words, seem to favour the objection; but we are bound to\nconclude, that such a sense of repentance, as that on which it is\nfounded, is inconsistent with the divine perfections, and therefore\nthose scriptures, referred to therein, cannot imply a change in God\u2019s\npurpose. And, indeed, there are other scriptures, which assert what is\ndirectly contrary thereunto; as when it is said, in Numb, xxiii. 19.\n_God is not a man, that he should lye, neither the son of man, that he\nshould repent; hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken,\nand shall he not make it good?_ And elsewhere, in 1 Sam. xv. 29. it is\nsaid, _The strength of Israel will not lye, nor repent; for he is not a\nman that he should repent_.\n\nBut we must have recourse to some methods to reconcile this seeming\ncontradiction, and so consider the sense thereof, in different respects,\nas applicable to them both; in some scriptures, God is said to repent;\nin others, it is said that he cannot repent. That these may not appear\ninconsistent with one another, nor either of them infer any imperfection\nin God, let it be considered, that God is sometimes represented, in\nscripture, in condescension to our common mode of speaking, as though he\nhad human passions, as in others, he is described, as though he had a\nbody, or bodily parts: But such expressions are always to be taken in a\nmetaphorical sense, without the least supposition, that he is subject to\nany such imperfections; and particularly we must not conclude, that\nrepentance is ever ascribed to God in the same sense as it is to men,\n_viz._ as implying a change in his purpose, occasioned by an unforeseen\noccurrence, which is the sense contained in the objection. Such a\nrepentance, as this, is a passion peculiarly belonging to the creature,\nand therefore in this sense we must understand those words; _God is not\na man, that he should lye, nor the son of man, that he should repent_;\naccordingly, he is said to repent, not by changing his purpose, but by\nchanging his work. Thus when it is said, that _he repented that he had\nmade man_, nothing is meant by it, but that he determined to destroy\nhim, as he did afterwards by the flood. And this was no new\ndetermination arising from any thing in the creature, which God did not\nforesee; he knew before-hand that all flesh would corrupt their way, and\ntherefore his determination to punish them for it, was not a new resolve\nof the divine will, after the sin was committed; but God determined\nthings in their respective order, first to permit sin, and then knowing\nwhat would be the consequence thereof, namely, that they would rebel\nagainst him, he determined to punish it, or to destroy the old world,\nwhich is, in effect, the same, as though he had repented that he made\nit. He cannot be said to repent as we do, by wishing that he had not\ndone that which he is said to repent of, but by denying us the\nadvantage, which we might have otherwise expected from it. In this sense\nwe are to understand all those scriptures that speak of God, as\nrepenting of the good that he had bestowed on man.\n\nAnd, on the other hand, when he is said to repent of the evil which he\nthreatened to bring on men, as in the case of Nineveh, this does not\nargue any change in his purpose; for he determined that Nineveh should\nbe destroyed, provided they did not repent, and it was not uncertain to\nhim whether they would repent or no; for, at the same time, he\ndetermined to give them repentance, as appears by the event, and so not\nto inflict the judgment threatened; and therefore when Jonah was sent to\nmake a public proclamation to the people, that in forty days they should\nbe destroyed, it is plain that they understood the threatening in this\nsense, that they had no ground to expect any thing else, except they\nrepented, which accordingly they did, and so were spared, without having\nany reason to conclude that God changed his purpose relating thereunto.\n\nIf it be objected hereunto, that this is nothing less than to establish\na conditional purpose in God, and so overthrows the argument that we are\nmaintaining; the reply that may be made to it, is, that we distinguish\nbetween a conditional purpose, in God\u2019s secret will, and a conditional\nproposition, which was to be the subject of the prophet\u2019s ministry: The\nprophet, it is plain, was not told, when he received his commission to\ngo to Nineveh, that God would give them repentance, but only, that,\nwithout repentance, they should be destroyed; whereas God, as the event\nmakes it appear, determined that they should repent, and therefore that\nthey should not be destroyed; and, consequently, we must not suppose,\nthat, when God sent him, he was undetermined, in his own purpose,\nwhether to destroy them or not, or that there was any thing conditional\nin the divine mind, that rendered the event uncertain to God, though\nthere was a condition contained in the subject-matter of the prophet\u2019s\nmessage, which the Ninevites very well understood, namely, that they had\nno ground to expect deliverance without repentance, and therefore they\nrepented, in hope of obtaining mercy, which they supposed would be\nconnected with their repentance; and it is evident, that Jonah himself\nsuspected that this might be the event, though God had not told him that\nit would be so, and therefore says, in chap. iv. 2. _For I knew that\nthou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great\nkindness, and repentest thee of the evil._\n\n6. The purpose of God, in choosing men to eternal life, renders their\nsalvation necessary; so that nothing shall defeat, or disannul it. What\nGod says concerning Israel\u2019s deliverance from the Babylonish captivity,\nmay be applied to all his other determinations, and particularly to what\nrelates to the eternal salvation of his people; _My counsel shall stand,\nand I will do all my pleasure; yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring\nit to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it_, Isa. xlvi. 10, 11.\nThe purposes of God, indeed, are distinguished from his bringing them to\npass; it is one thing to design to bring his people to glory, and\nanother thing to bring them to it. It is not to be supposed that the\ndecree of God has, in itself, a proper efficiency to produce the thing\ndecreed:[208] for then there would be no difference between an eternal\ndecree, and an eternal production of things; whereas the apostle plainly\ndistinguishes between man\u2019s being predestinated to glory, and brought to\nit, when he says, _Those whom he predestinated, them he glorified_, Rom.\nviii. 30.\n\nThe purpose of God, is, indeed, the internal moving cause, or the first\nground and reason of the salvation of those who are elected to it; but\nhis power is the more immediate cause of it, so that his purpose is the\nreason of his exerting this power, and both concurring to the salvation\nof men, render it certain and necessary. Therefore some distinguish, for\nthe explaining of this, between the determining and powerful will of\nGod; the latter of which, is sometimes called the word of his power, and\nrenders the former effectual; this it must certainly do, otherwise God\nwould be said to will the existence of things, that shall never have a\nbeing. In this respect, the purpose of God renders things necessary,\nwhich are in themselves contingent, or arbitrary, and would otherwise\nnever come to pass.[209]\n\nThis is a great encouragement to those who are enabled to make their\ncalling and election sure; for their perseverance in grace,\nnotwithstanding all the opposition that they meet with, is the necessary\nconsequence of their election to eternal life. Thus, as we before\ndistinguished predestination into election and reprobation, we have\nconsidered the former of these, and we proceed,\n\n_Secondly_, To speak concerning the doctrine of reprobation;[210] which\nis become obnoxious to those on the other side of the question, almost\nto a proverb; so that if any doctrine is considered as shocking, and to\nbe answered no otherwise than by testifying their abhorrence of it, it\nis compared to this of reprobation; and, indeed, if it were not a\nconsequence from the doctrine of election to eternal life, that doctrine\nwould not be so much opposed by them. How far some unguarded\nexpressions, or exceptionable methods of explication, may have given\noccasion for this prejudice, it is not to our present purpose to\nenquire; but we shall take occasion, from thence, to explain it in such\na way, as that a fair and unprejudiced disputant will not see just\nreason to except against it, at least to reproach it, as though it were\na doctrine subversive of the divine glory, and to be defended by none\nbut those who seem to have a design to raise prejudices, in the minds of\nmen, against religion in general.\n\nAnd here we shall take occasion to consider the meaning of the word, as\nit is contained in, or deduced from scripture, where the same word that\nis used to signify the execution of this decree, may be applied to\nexpress the decree itself. Thus we read of God\u2019s rejecting, or\ndisregarding men, as a punishment of their rebellion against him: and\nthese are compared by the prophet Jeremiah, chap. vi. 30. _To reprobate\nsilver, because the Lord hath rejected them_; or, as it is in the\nmargin, _The refuse of silver_; and, in the New Testament, the same\nword[212] is sometimes translated reprobates; at other times,\ndisapproved or rejected, 1 Cor. iv. 27. 2 Cor. xiii. 5. Heb. vi. 8. and\nwhen this disapprobation, or rejection, respects not only their actions,\nas contrary to the holy nature of God, but their persons, as punished\nfor their iniquities; and when this punishment is considered as what\nrespects their eternal state, as the objects of vindictive justice, the\npurpose of God, relating hereunto, is what we call reprobation.\n\nBut, that we may more particularly consider the sense of the word, it\nseems, in scripture, to contain in it two ideas.\n\n1. God\u2019s determining to leave a part of the world in that state of sin\nand misery, which he from all eternity, fore-knew that they would bring\nthemselves into, or his decreeing not to save them; and, since all will\nallow that a part of mankind shall not be saved, it cannot reasonably be\ndenied that this was determined by him before-hand; and this is what\ndivines generally call preterition.\n\n2. There is another idea in the word _reprobation_, which is also\ncontained in scripture, or deducible from it, and that respects the\npurpose of God to punish those for their iniquities, whom he will not\nsave. Not to be saved, is the same as to be _punished with everlasting\ndestruction, from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power_.\nAnd God\u2019s purpose, relating hereunto, is expressed in scripture by his\n_appointing them to wrath_, 1 Thess. v. 9. for those sins which he\nfore-saw they would commit. This is what some call _pre-damnation_, as\ntaken from that expression of the apostle, Jude, ver. 4, 13. concerning\nsome who had _crept into the church unawares_, whom he describes as\n_ungodly men_, that is, notoriously so, _who turned the grace of God\ninto lasciviousness_, for whom _is reserved the blackness of darkness\nforever_; of these he says, that they were _before of old, ordained to\nthis condemnation_, where God is represented as punishing sinners, in\nproportion to their crimes; and this is considered as the result of that\neternal purpose, which was founded on his fore-sight of their\ncontracting that guilt whereby they would render themselves liable to\nit.\n\nIf this doctrine be thus explained, it will appear agreeable, not only\nto scripture, but to the divine perfections, and therefore too great a\ntruth to be treated with that abhorrence, with which it generally is,\nwithout explaining, distinguishing or fairly entering into the merits of\nthe cause. It is a very easy matter to render any doctrine odious, by\nmisrepresentation, as they on the other side of the question, have done\nthis of reprobation, which we shall briefly consider, and therein take\nleave to explain it in a different manner, whereby it will appear not\nonly worthy to be defended, as redounding to the glory of God, but a\nplain and evident truth, founded on scripture.\n\nIf this doctrine were to be considered no otherwise, than as it is often\nrepresented by them, we should dislike it, as much as they do; for when\nthey pretend that we herein suppose God to be severe and cruel to his\ncreatures, delighting himself in, and triumphing over them, in their\nmisery: and that he decreed, from all eternity, to damn the greatest\npart of mankind, without any consideration of their sin, as the result\nof his arbitrary will, or dominion, as he has a right to dispose of his\ncreatures, according to his pleasure, and that as a means to attain this\nend, as though it were in itself desirable, he leaves them to\nthemselves, blinds their minds, and hardens their hearts, and offers\nthese occasions of, and inducements to sin, which are as\nstumbling-blocks in their way, and that he determined that his\nprovidence should be so conversant about the will of man, as that it\nshould be under a natural necessity, or kind of compulsion, to what is\nevil, without considering the corruption and depravity of nature, as a\nvicious habit, which they had contracted; and that all this is done in\npursuance of this decree of reprobation.\n\nIt is very probable that many who give this account of this doctrine,\nhave no other foundation for it, but the popular outcry of those who are\nnot apprised of the methods that are generally taken to explain and\ndefend it; or else they suppose that it cannot be defended, without\nbeing exposed to those exceptions which are contained in the account\nthey give of it. But we shall take no farther notice of this, but\nproceed to explain and defend it another way. And,\n\n1. As to the former branch thereof, namely, preterition, or God\u2019s\npassing by, or rejecting those whom he hath not chosen to salvation, let\nit be premised; that God, in his eternal purpose, considered all mankind\nas fallen, which must be supposed to have been foreknown by him,\notherwise he would not be said to be omniscient, and the result of his\nfore-knowledge is his determining to leave a part of them in their\nfallen state, in which he might have left the whole world to perish\nwithout being liable to the least charge of injustice. This is what we\ncall his rejecting them, and accordingly it is opposed to his having\nchosen the rest to eternal life. These terms of opposition are plainly\ncontained in scripture: thus it is said, _The election hath obtained it,\nand the rest were blinded_, Rom. xi. 7. not by God\u2019s leading them into\nmistakes, or giving them false ideas of things, but they were left to\nthe blindness of their minds, which was the result of their apostasy\nfrom God; and elsewhere our Saviour says, _Thou hast hid these things\nfrom the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes_, Matt. xi.\n25. Thou hast hid, that is, not revealed them; and that either\nobjectively, as respecting those who are destitute of the light of the\ngospel; or subjectively, as he did not effectually, or savingly\nenlighten them with the light of life, by _revealing Christ in them_, as\nthe apostle calls it, Gal. i. 16. and therefore it is as though he had\nsaid, thou hast determined not to give to some the means of grace, nor\nto others the saving efficacy thereof, such as they are partakers of,\nwho are chosen to salvation. Accordingly, he is said _to have suffered\nall nations to walk in their own ways_, Acts xiv. 16. that is, not to\nrestrain or prevent the breaking forth of corruption, as he might have\ndone; and elsewhere, to have _winked at_, chap. xvii. 30. that is, as it\nmay be rendered, _over-looked_ the greatest part of the world, which is\nno other than his rejecting or passing them by; and in this sense we are\nto understand that difficult mode of speaking used by the apostle, _Whom\nhe will he hardeneth_, Rom. ix. 18. by which nothing else is intended\nbut his purposing to leave many to the hardness of their own hearts. God\nforbid that any one should think that there is a positive act contained\nin those words, as though God infused hardness into the hearts of any;\nfor the meaning is only this, that he determined to deny heart-softening\ngrace to that part of mankind, whom he had not fore-ordained to eternal\nlife. That there was such a purpose relating hereunto, is evident,\nbecause whatever God does in the methods of his providence, is the\nresult of an eternal purpose. This no one, who observes the\ndispensations of God\u2019s providence, and allows as every one must do, that\nall that he does was pre-concerted by him, can justly deny.\n\nBut that which must be farther enquired into, as to this matter, is,\nwhether God\u2019s determining to pass by a part of mankind, be an act of\nsovereignty or of justice. And this may also be judged of, by the\nexternal dispensation of his providence; so far as there is sovereignty,\nor justice, visible in them, we are to conclude that this purpose,\nrelating thereunto, was the result of one or other of these perfections.\nIn some respects it is an act of sovereignty: As, for instance, that God\nshould give one nation the gospel, or the means of grace, and deny it to\nanother; it is not because he sees any thing in one part of the world,\nthat obliges him thereunto, more than in the other; but the reason is,\nas was observed in the scripture but now mentioned, _because it seemed\ngood in his sight_, Matt. xi. 26. Moreover, his giving special grace,\nwhereby some are effectually called and sanctified; and denying it to\nothers, is an act of sovereign pleasure.\n\nBut on the other hand, God is said sometimes, in the external\ndispensations of his providence, to leave men to themselves, to give\nthem up to their own hearts lust, in a judicial way, which supposes not\nonly the commission of sin, but persons being obstinate and resolutely\ndetermined to continue in it. Thus God saith concerning his people;\n_Israel would none of me; so I gave them up to their own hearts\u2019 lusts,\nand they walked in their own counsels_, Psal. lxxxi. 11, 12. and the\nPsalmist says elsewhere, _Add iniquity to their iniquity_, Psal. lxix.\n27. which words I would rather consider as a prediction than a prayer,\nor as an expression of the church\u2019s acquiescence in God\u2019s righteous\njudgments, which they had ground to conclude, that he would inflict on\nan impenitent, incorrigible people; these are expressed, by _adding\niniquity to iniquity_, not as though he designed to infuse any habit of\nsin into them, for that is inconsistent with the holiness of his nature;\nbut that he would reject, and leave them to themselves, in a judicial\nway, as a punishment inflicted on them for their iniquities, the\nconsequence whereof would be their own adding iniquity to iniquity.\nThus, in different respects, the purpose of God, in passing by a part of\nmankind, may be considered, either as the result of his sovereign\npleasure, or as an act of justice.\n\n2. We shall now proceed to consider the other branch of reprobation,\nwhich some call _pre-damnation_, or (to use the scripture-expression\nbefore referred to) God\u2019s fore-ordaining those who shall not be saved,\nto that condemnation, which they shall fall under, as exposing\nthemselves to it by their own wickedness; which is nothing else but his\ndetermining, from all eternity, to punish those, as a judge, who should,\nby their own crimes, deserve it, and thereby to vindicate the holiness\nof his nature and law. Here let it be observed, that when this doctrine\nis reproached or misrepresented, it is described as an act of divine\nsovereignty, but that we are as ready to deny and oppose as they are,\nsince, according to the description we have given of it, it can be no\nother than an act of justice; for, if to condemn, or punish, be an act\nof justice, then the decree, relating hereunto, must be equally so, for\none is to be judged of by the other. If God cannot punish creatures as\nsuch, but as criminals and rebels, then he must be supposed to have\nconsidered them as such, when, in his eternal purpose, he determined to\npunish them. No man can style this an act of cruelty, or severity in\nGod, but those who reckon the punishing of sin to be so, and are\ndisposed to charge the Judge of all with not doing right, or offering an\ninjury to his creatures, when he pours forth the vials of his wrath on\nthem, who, by their bold and wilful crimes, render themselves obnoxious\nthereunto.\n\nHere let it be considered, that God, in his actual providence, is not\nthe author of sin, though he suffer it to be committed in the world.\nAnd, since his permitting, or not hindering it, cannot be said to be the\ncause of its being committed, there being no cause thereof, but the will\nof man; it follows, from hence, that God\u2019s punishing sin, is not to be\nresolved into his permission of it, as the cause thereof, but into the\nrebellion of man\u2019s will, as refusing to be subject to the divine law;\nand thus God considered men, when, in his eternal purpose, he determined\nto condemn those, whose desert of this punishment was foreseen, by him,\nfrom all eternity. And is this a doctrine to be so much decried?\n\nI cannot but wonder the learned author, whom I have before referred to,\nas opposing this doctrine,[213] should so far give into the common and\npopular way of misrepresenting it, unless he designed, by this way of\nopposing it to render it detested; when he speaks concerning them,\nmentioned in Jude, ver. 4. _who were before, of old, ordained to this\ncondemnation_, he says, \u201cThis cannot be meant of any divine ordination,\nor appointment of them, to eternal condemnation, because it cannot be\nthought, without horror, that God doth thus ordain men to perdition,\nbefore they had a being.\u201d If he had expressed his horror and resentment\nagainst God\u2019s ordaining men to perdition, as creatures, it had been\njust; but to express this detestation against God\u2019s ordaining men to\nperdition, who are described as these are, is to expose this doctrine\nwithout reason; and it is still more strange that he should cast this\ncensure upon it, when he owns in his farther explication of this text,\n\u201cThat God ordaineth none to punishment but sinners, and ungodly men, as\nthese persons here are styled, and that these were men of whom it was\nbefore written, or prophesied, that they should be condemned for their\nwickedness;\u201d since there is not much difference in the method of\nreasoning, between saying that the condemnation of sinners, for their\nwickedness, was before written, or prophesied, and saying, that God\nfore-ordained them to eternal punishment.\n\nI am sensible that many are led into this mistake, by supposing that we\ngive a very injurious and perverse sense of that text, in which the\ndoctrine of reprobation is contained, which, it may be, has occasioned\nthis reproach to be cast upon it. For when the apostle says, in Rom. ix.\n22. _What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known,\nendured with much long-suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to\ndestruction_, some suppose that we understand this text, as though these\nvessels of wrath were, from all eternity, prepared for destruction by\nGod, and that his eternal purpose, is his fitting them for it, as\nintending to bring about that end, _viz._ his destroying them. But if\nany have expressed themselves in such a way, as is equivalent thereunto,\nlet them be accountable for their own sense of the text; though this I\nmay say, that some, even of them, who give into the Supralapsarian way\nof explaining the doctrine of predestination, have not understood it in\nthis sense;[214] and the sense which I would give of it is this, that\nthose, whom the apostle speaks of as vessels of wrath, are persons whom\nGod had rejected, and from the foresight of the sins which they would\ncommit, he had _appointed them to wrath_, which is an expression the\napostle uses elsewhere, 1 Thess. v. 9. but they were appointed to wrath,\nnot as creatures, but as sinners; they are described as fitted to\ndestruction, not by God\u2019s act, but their own, and that is the reason of\ntheir being fore-ordained to it.[215]\n\nThere is another scripture, which is generally cited by those who treat\non this subject, that we are to use the utmost caution in explaining,\nlest we give just occasion, to those who oppose it, to express their\nabhorrence of it, as inconsistent with the divine perfections, namely,\nwhat the apostle says concerning those that were not elected, whom he\ncalls _the rest_ of the Jewish nation, in Rom. xi. 7-10. that _they were\nblinded_, and that _God had given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that\nthey should not see, and ears that they should not hear_; and he speaks\nof _their table being made a snare, and a trap and a stumbling-block,\nand a recompense to them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not\nsee, and bow down their back always_. The sense which they, who\nmisrepresent this doctrine, suppose that we put upon this scripture, is,\nthat they, who are reprobated, have, as a consequence thereof, occasions\nof sin laid in their way, some things designed to blind their minds,\ncast a mist before their eyes, and so lead them out of the way, and\nother things, that prove a snare to them, a trap, and occasion of sin,\nand all this with a design to bring about that damnation which God had\nordained for them, in this decree of reprobation; which sense of this\nscripture never was, nor could be given, by any one, who has a due\nregard to the divine perfections.\n\nAnd shall this doctrine be judged of hereby, when it is very hard to\nfind any, how unguarded soever they are in their modes of speaking, that\nunderstand this text as they represent it? We shall therefore consider\nwhat is probably the meaning of this scripture, with which the doctrine\nwe have laid down is very consistent. It is not to be understood as\nthough God were the author of these sins, which they are said to be\ncharged with; but this blindness and stupidity, which is called, _A\nspirit of slumber_ as it is connected with the idea of their being\nrejected of God, and his determining not to give them the contrary\ngraces, is considered, as the consequence, not the effect thereof, and\nthat not the immediate, but the remote consequence thereof, in the same\nsense as stealing is the consequence of poverty, in those who have a\nvicious inclination thereunto. Thus when a person, who has contracted\nthose habits of sin, that tend to turn men aside from God, is destitute\nof preventing and restraining grace, the consequence thereof, is, that\nthese corruptions will break forth with greater violence; and God is not\nobliged to give this grace to an apostate, fallen creature, much less to\none who has misimproved the means of grace, by which a multitude of sins\nmight have been prevented; so that nothing is intended hereby but this,\nthat they are left to themselves, and permitted to stumble and fall, and\nto commit those abominations, which, if they had not been thus\njudicially left, would have been prevented, and as the consequence\nthereof, they run into many sins, which they might have avoided; for\nthough we suppose that it is not in a man\u2019s own power, as destitute of\nthe grace of God, to bring himself into a regenerate or converted state,\n(as will be farther considered, in its proper place) nevertheless, we do\nnot deny but that men might, in the right use of the gifts of nature,\navoid many sins, which they, who are said to be thus blinded, and\nhardened, run into, and so increase their guilt and misery, especially\nwhere they are not prevented by the grace of God, which he may, without\nany impeachment of his providence, deny to those whom he has not chosen\nto eternal life, as he might, had he pleased, have denied it to the\nwhole world, and much more to those who have not improved the common\ngrace, which they received, but have, through the wickedness of their\nnature, proceeded from one degree of sin unto another.\n\nThere is another scripture, which, some suppose we understand in such a\nsense, as gives the like occasion of prejudice to many against this\ndoctrine, in 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12. _For this cause God shall send them\nstrong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be\ndamned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness_;\nthe meaning whereof is this, that God suffered them to be deluded, who,\nin the following verse, are represented as not receiving _the love of\nthe truth_; not that God was the author of these delusions, or deceived\nthem by a false representation of things to them, or by exciting or\ninclining them to adhere to the suggestions of those who lie in wait to\ndeceive; but, since he did not design to give them grace under the means\nof grace, or to enable them to receive the truth in the love thereof,\nwhich he was not obliged to do to any, much less to those who rebelled\nagainst the light that had been already given them; hereupon, through\nthe blindness of their own minds, they became an easy prey to those who\nendeavoured to ensnare or delude them; so that the decree of God only\nrespects his denying preventing grace to those, who, through the\ncorruption of their own nature, took occasion, from thence, to run\ngreater lengths in their apostasy from, and rebellion against God. And\nas for that mode of speaking here used, that _God shall send them strong\ndelusions_, that only respects his will to permit it, and not his design\nto delude them.\n\nThere is another scripture to the same purpose, in Psal. lxxxi. 12. _So\nI gave them up unto their own heart\u2019s lust, and they walked in their own\ncounsels_; the meaning of which is, that God left them to themselves,\nand then lust, or the corrupt habits of sin, which they had acquired,\nconceived, and, as the apostle James speaks, _brought forth sin_, chap\ni. 15. or greater acts of sin, which exposed them to a greater degree of\ncondemnation; and all this is to be resolved into God\u2019s permissive will,\nor purpose, to leave man, in his fallen state, to himself, which he\nmight do, without giving occasion to any to say, on the one hand, that\nhe is the author of sin; or, on the other, that he deals injuriously\nwith the sinful creature.\n\nAnd to this we may add our Saviour\u2019s words concerning the Jews, in John\nxii. 39, 40. _Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said\nagain, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they\nshould not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be\nconverted, and I should heal them_. The sense which they, who\nmisrepresent this doctrine, suppose we put upon them, and conclude, that\nno other is consistent with the argument we are maintaining, is, that\nthe unbelief, which the Jews are charged with, was principally, if not\naltogether, resolved into God\u2019s eternal purpose, to blind their eyes,\nand harden their hearts, namely, by some positive act, as a cause\nproducing this effect, with this view, that they should not be\nconverted, and saved, that thereby his decree to condemn them, might\ntake effect. It is no wonder to find persons prejudiced against this\ndoctrine, when set in such a light; but as this is very remote from the\nexplication we have given thereof, so our Saviour\u2019s design, in this\ntext, is to give an account why those miracles, which he wrought before\nthe Jews, were ineffectual for their conviction; the more immediate\ncause whereof was the blindness of their mind, and the hardness of their\nhearts, inasmuch as they had shut their eyes against the light, and,\nthrough the corruption of their nature, had hardened their own hearts.\nAs to what God is said to have done, in a judicial way, agreeable to the\nmode of speaking here used, when it is said, _He hath hardened their\nhearts_, it imports nothing else but his leaving them to the hardness of\ntheir own hearts, or denying them heart-softening grace, which would\nhave been an effectual remedy against it. And may not God deny his grace\nto sinners, without being charged as the author of sin, or the blame\nthereof devolved on him, and not themselves? And, since this judicial\nact of providence cannot but be the result of an eternal purpose, is\nthere any thing, in this decree, that reflects on his perfections, any\nmore than there is in the execution thereof?\n\nThere is another scripture, in Prov. xvi. 4. _The Lord hath made all\nthings for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil_; from\nwhence they infer, that the doctrine of reprobation, which they suppose\nto be founded on a perverse sense given of it, includes in it the divine\npurpose to make man to damn him; for they conclude that we understand it\nin that sense; and they proceed a little farther than this, and pretend\nthat we infer from it, that God made men wicked, or that he made them\nwicked for his glory, as if he had need of sinful man for that end. I\nshould never have thought that so vile a consequence could be drawn from\nthis doctrine, if the learned writer, before mentioned, had not told the\nworld that we infer this from it;[216] and, to give countenance to this\nsuggestion, he quotes a passage out of Dr. Twiss;[217] his words are\nthese: \u201cThat all, besides the elect, God hath ordained to bring them\nforth into the world in their corrupt mass, and to permit them to\nthemselves, to go on in their own ways, and so finally to persevere in\nsin; and, lastly, to damn them for their sin, for the manifestation of\nthe glory of his justice on them.\u201d\n\nI am not ashamed to own my very great esteem of this excellently learned\nand pious writer, who was as considerable for that part of learning,\nwhich his works discover him to have been conversant in, as most in his\nday; though I cannot think myself obliged, in every respect, to explain\nthis doctrine as he does; and Dr. Whitby knew very well, that if such an\ninference, as what we have been speaking of, were to be deduced from the\nwritings of any, who maintain the doctrine of reprobation, it must be\nfrom one who gives into the Supralapsarian way of explaining it; and\nthis expression, which, it may be, was a little unguarded, seems to bid\nas fair for it as any other he could have found out: But any one that\nreads it, without prejudice, and especially that compares it with what\nis connected therewith, would not suppose that any thing is intended\nhereby, that gives the least ground to conclude that God made men wicked\nfor the manifestation of his justice. The most obnoxious part of this\nquotation, is, _God ordained to bring forth into the world the\nnon-elect, in their corrupt mass_, that is, that persons, who are every\nday born into the world, are the seed of corrupt and fallen man, and so\nhave the habits of sin propagated with their nature, which many other\ndivines have endeavoured to maintain. What my sentiments are concerning\nthis matter, I shall rather choose to insist on, under a following\nanswer, in which we shall be lead to speak of the doctrine of original\nsin, and of that corruption of nature, which is the consequence of it;\ntherefore, passing this by, there is nothing, in what remains of this\nquotation, but what is very defensible, and far from making God the\nauthor of sin; for we may observe, that all he says, concerning the\nprovidence of God relating to this matter, is only, that he permits, or\nleaves them to themselves, and he supposes them finally to persevere in\nsin, without which they cannot be liable to damnation, or the display of\nthe justice of God therein; and if the author, who brings this\nquotation, had duly considered the words immediately before, he might\nhave seen the reason to have saved himself the trouble of making this\nreflection upon it; for Dr. Twiss, who, though a Supralapsarian, says,\n\u201cThat he reckons that controversy, relating to the order of God\u2019s\ndecrees, to be merely _Apex Logicus_, as he calls it, _a logical\nnicety_;\u201d and adds, \u201cThat his opinion about it is well known, namely,\nthat God doth not ordain any man to damnation, before the consideration\nof sin;\u201d and, a few lines after, he says, \u201cThat God, of his mere\npleasure, created all, but, of his mere pleasure, he damneth none; but\nevery one that is damned, is damned for his sin, and that wilfully\ncommitted, and contumaciously continued in by them that come to ripe\nyears.\u201d And if nothing more than this is intended by the doctrine of\nreprobation, it ought not to be so misrepresented, with a design to cast\nan odium upon it.\n\nBut to return to the scripture but now mentioned: When God is said _to\nhave made the wicked for the day of evil_, the meaning is not that man\u2019s\ndamnation was the end designed by God, in creating him, for there are\nsome other ideas that intervene between God\u2019s purpose to create and\ncondemn him; he must be considered not barely as a creature, but as a\nsinner; now, as God did not create man that he might sin, he could not\nbe said to create him, that he might condemn him. Accordingly, the sense\nwhich some give of this text, is, that God is said to have _made all\nthings for himself_, to wit, for his own glory. And inasmuch as some\nwill be ready to object, that God will have no glory from the wicked,\nwho oppose his name and interest in the world; the answer to this is,\nthat in them, from whom he shall have no glory, as a Saviour, he will,\nnotwithstanding, be glorified as a Judge; which judicial act, though it\nbe deferred for a time, while his long-suffering waits upon them, yet it\nshall fall heavily on them, in the day of evil: which is very remote\nfrom that supposition, that God made man to damn him. And there is a\nsense given of it by some, who are on the other side of the question,\nwhich seems equally probable, or agreeable to the mind of the Holy\nGhost, and is not in the least subversive of the doctrine we are\nmaintaining, namely, \u201cThat the Lord disposeth all things throughout the\nworld, to serve such ends as he thinks fit to design, which they cannot\nrefuse to comply withal; for if any man be so wicked as to oppose his\nwill, he will not lose their service; but when he brings a public\ncalamity upon a country, employ them to be the executioners of his\nwrath: Of this there was a remarkable instance in the destruction of\nJerusalem, by the Roman soldiers, whom our Saviour used, to punish his\ncrucifiers, not that they undertook that war out of any design or desire\nto do our blessed Saviour right, but out of an ambition to enslave the\nworld; yet God made use of them for another design, as public\nexecutioners, by whom he punished the ungodly[218].\u201d So the Assyrian is\nsaid, in Isa. x. 5, 6. to be _the rod of God\u2019s anger_, and to be _sent\nagainst the people of Israel, and to lead them captive_, and therein _to\ntread them down, like the mire in the streets_[219]. And as to what\nconcerns the purpose of God, on which these judicial proceedings depend,\nthis is to be judged of by the execution thereof, as is evidently to be\ninferred from thence. And this is the sense in which we understand the\ndoctrine of _reprobation_, as in the foregoing argument.\n\nThus we have endeavoured to prove the doctrine of _election_ and\n_reprobation_, and defend it from the reproaches and misrepresentations\ncast upon it by considering it, not only as agreeable to the divine\nperfections, but as founded on scripture. We shall therefore proceed,\n\nVI. To enquire, whether the contrary doctrine as defended by some, be\nnot derogatory to the divine perfections, and therefore does not contain\ngreater absurdities; or, if expressions of detestation were a sufficient\nargument to set it aside, whether we have not as much reason to testify\nour dislike that way, as they have against the doctrine we are\nmaintaining? As to that part of the charge brought against us, as though\nwe represented God as severe and cruel to his creatures; or that it is\ninconsistent with his goodness to suppose that he leaves any to\nthemselves in their fallen state, so as not to give them the means of\ngrace, when he knew that being destitute thereof, they could not\nbelieve, and so would fall short of salvation, pursuant to his eternal\npurpose relating thereunto: can this be said to be inconsistent with his\ngoodness, any more than all his other displays of vindictive justice? If\nthey suppose that it is, we might easily retort the argument upon them\nsince they will not assert, that the whole race of fallen man shall be\nsaved; and, if so, must we not suppose that God certainly fore-knew\nthis, otherwise where is his infinite understanding? And if he knew that\nthis would be the consequence of their being born, and living in the\nworld, where is his goodness in bringing them into it? If it be said\nthat they have a free-will to choose what is good, and so had a power to\nattain salvation; therefore their not attaining it, is wholly owing to\nthemselves. Suppose this were taken for granted, without entering on\nthat subject at present; yet it must be farther enquired whether they\nwill allow that God fore-know that they would abuse this freedom of\nwill, or power to make themselves holy or happy; and, if so, could he\nnot have prevented this? Did he make a will that he could not govern or\nrestrain? Could he not have prevented the sin that he knew they would\ncommit? And, if he could, why did he not do it, and thereby prevent\ntheir ruin, which he knew would be the consequence hereof? So that if\nmen are disposed to find fault with the divine dispensation, it is no\ndifficult matter to invent some methods of reasoning to give umbrage to\nit; and, indeed this objection is not so much against God\u2019s\nfore-ordaining what comes to pass, as it is a spurning at his judicial\nhand, and finding fault with the equity of his proceedings, when he\ntakes vengeance on sinners for their iniquities; or charging severity on\nGod, because all mankind are not the objects of his goodness, and\nconsequently not elected to eternal life.\n\nBut passing by this, we shall proceed to consider how, in several\ninstances, the methods used to oppose the doctrine, which we are\nmaintaining, are attended with many absurd consequences, derogatory to\nthe divine perfections; which farther discovers the unreasonableness of\ntheir opposition to it; particularly,\n\n1. It represents God as indeterminate, or unresolved what to do, which\nis the plain sense of their asserting that he has not fore-ordained\nwhatever comes to pass. To suppose him destitute of any determination,\nis directly contrary to his wisdom and sovereignty, and it would argue\nthat there are some excellencies and perfections belonging to\nintelligent creatures, which are to be denied to him, who is a God of\ninfinite perfection: but if, on the other hand, they suppose that every\nthing, which comes to pass, is determined by him; nevertheless, that his\ndeterminations, as they respect the actions of intelligent creatures,\nare not certain and peremptory, but such as may be disannulled, or\nrendered ineffectual as taking his measures from the uncertain\ndeterminations of man\u2019s will; this is, in effect to say, that they are\nnot determined by God; for an uncertain determination, or a conditional\npurpose, cannot properly be called a determination. Thus for God to\ndetermine, that he that believes shall be saved, without resolving to\ngive that faith which is necessary to salvation, is, in effect, not to\ndetermine that any shall be saved; for, since they suppose that it is\nleft to man\u2019s free-will to believe or not, and liberty is generally\nexplained by them, as implying that a person might, had he pleased, have\ndone the contrary to that which he is said to do freely; it follows that\nall mankind might not have believed, and repented, and consequently that\nthey might have missed of salvation, and then the purpose of God,\nrelating thereunto, is the same as though he had been indeterminate, as\nto that matter. But, if, on the other hand, they suppose that to prevent\nthis disappointment, God over-rules the free actions of men, in order to\nthe accomplishment of his own purpose, then they give up their own\ncause, and allow us all that we contend for; but this they are not\ndisposed to do; therefore we cannot see how the independency of the\ndivine will can be defended by them, consistently with their method of\nopposing this doctrine.\n\nAgain, if it be supposed, as an expedient to fence against this absurd\nconsequence, that God fore-knew what his creatures would do, and that\nhis determinations were the result thereof, and, consequently, that the\nevent is as certain as the divine fore-knowledge, this is what is not\nuniversally allowed of by them; for many are sensible that it is as hard\nto prove, that God fore-knew what must certainly come to pass, without\ninferring the inevitable necessity of things, as it is to assert that,\nhe willed or determined them, whereby they are rendered eventually\nnecessary. And if they suppose that God fore-knew what his creatures\nwould do, and, particularly, that they would convert themselves, and\nimprove the liberty of their will, so as to render themselves objects\nfit for divine grace, without supposing that he determined to exert that\npower and grace, which was necessary thereunto; this is to exclude his\nprovidence from having a hand in the government of the world, or to\nassert that his determinations rather respect what others will do, than\nwhat he will enable them to do, which farther appears to be inconsistent\nwith the divine perfections.\n\n2. There are some things, in their method of reasoning, which seem to\ninfer a mutability in God\u2019s purpose which is all one as to suppose, that\nhe had no purpose at all relating to the event of things: Thus, in\nopposing the doctrine of election, they refer to such-like scriptures as\nthese, namely, that _God will have all men to be saved, and come to the\nknowledge of the truth_, 1 Tim. ii. 4. applying this act of the divine\nwill to every individual, even to those who shall not be saved, or come\nto the knowledge of the truth; and they understand our Saviour\u2019s words,\n_How often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen\ngathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not? Behold your\nhouse is left unto you desolate_, Mat. xxiii. 37, 38. as implying, that\nGod purposed to save them, but was obliged afterwards, by the\nperverseness of their actions, to change his purpose. What is this, but\nto assert him to be dependent and mutable?\n\n3. They, who suppose that salvation is not to be resolved into the power\nand will of God, must ascribe it to the will of man, by which we\ndetermine ourselves to perform those duties, which render us the objects\nof divine mercy; and then what the apostle says, _It is not of him that\nwilleth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy_, Rom.\nix. 16. would hardly be intelligible, or a defensible proposition; and\nwhen it is said, _We love him, because he first loved us_, 1 John iv.\n19. the proposition ought to be inverted, and it should rather be said,\nHe loved us, because we first loved him; and that humbling question,\nwhich the apostle proposes, _Who maketh thee to differ_, 1 Cor. iv. 7.\nshould be answered, as one proudly did, I make myself to differ.\n\n4. As to what concerns the doctrine of discriminating grace, which\ncannot well be maintained, without asserting a discrimination in God\u2019s\npurpose relating thereunto, which is what we call election; if this be\ndenied, there would not be so great a foundation for admiration, or\nthankfulness, as there is, or for any to say, as one of Christ\u2019s\ndisciples did, speaking the sense of all the rest, _Lord, how is it,\nthat thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world_, John\nxiv. 22. Nor is there so great an inducement to humility, as what will\narise from the firm belief, that, when no eye pitied the poor helpless\nand miserable sinner, he was singled out of a ruined and undone world,\namong that remnant whom God first designed for, and then brought to\nglory.\n\nVII. We shall now consider those methods of reasoning, by which the\ncontrary doctrine is defended, and enquire into the sense of those\nscriptures, which are generally brought for that purpose; and shall\nendeavour to make it appear, that they may be explained, in a different\nway, more consistently with the divine perfections. It is plain that the\nmain design of those, who oppose the doctrine of election, is to advance\nthe goodness of God; and, since all mankind cannot be said to be equally\npartakers of the effects of this goodness, inasmuch as all shall not be\nsaved, they suppose that God has put all mankind into a salvable state;\nand, accordingly, as the gospel-overture is universal, so God\u2019s purpose\nto save, includes all to whom it is made; but the event, and\nconsequently the efficacy of the divine purpose relating hereunto,\ndepends on the will of man; and, that there may be no obstruction which\nmay hinder this design from taking effect, God has given him a power to\nyield obedience to his law, which, though it be not altogether so\nperfect as it was at first, but is somewhat weakened by the fall; yet it\nis sufficient to answer the end and design of the gospel, that is to\nbring him to salvation if he will, and the event of things is wholly put\non this issue; so that, though there be not an universal salvation,\nthere is a determination in God to save all upon this condition. How far\nthis is inconsistent with the divine perfections has been already\nconsidered; and we are farther to enquire, whether there be any\nfoundation for it in scripture, and what is the sense of some texts,\nwhich are often brought in defence thereof.\n\nOne text referred to, is, those words of the apostle, in 1 Tim. ii. 4.\n_Who will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the\ntruth_; and another scripture, to the same purpose, in 2 Pet. iii. 9.\n_The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should\ncome to repentance_; and several others, from whence they argue the\nuniversality of the divine purpose relating to the salvation of mankind,\nor that none are rejected, or excluded from it, by any act of God\u2019s\nwill, and consequently that the doctrine of election and reprobation is\nto be exploded, as contrary hereunto.\n\nThat the sense of these scriptures cannot be, that God designed that all\nmen should be eventually saved, or come to the knowledge of the truth,\nso that none of them should perish, is evident, from many other\nscriptures, that speak of the destruction of ungodly men, which,\ndoubtless, will be allowed by all; therefore it follows, that the\nmeaning of these two scriptures, is not that God purposed, or\ndetermined, what shall never come to pass, which is inconsistent with\nthe glory of his wisdom and sovereignty, as has been before observed;\nbut they are to be understood with those limitations, which the word\n_all_, which refers to the persons mentioned, as designed to be saved,\nis subject to in other scriptures; as will be more particularly\nconsidered, when we treat of universal and particular redemption, under\na following answer[220]. And therefore, at present, we need only\nobserve, that these scriptures may be set in a true light, that the word\n_all_ is oftentimes taken for all sorts of men, or things; as when it is\nsaid, that _of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in\ntwo and two unto Noah into the ark_, Gen. vii. 8, 9. that is all the\n_species_ of living creatures, not every individual; so, Acts x. 12. in\nthe vision that Peter saw of the sheet let down from heaven, in which\n_there were all manner of four-footed beasts_[221], &c. and it is said\nconcerning our Saviour, that he _went about, healing all manner of\nsickness, and all manner of diseases among the people_[222]; and\nelsewhere God promises, that _he will pour out his Spirit on all flesh_,\nActs ii. 17. that is, persons of all ages and conditions, young and old.\n\nThere are many instances of the like nature in scripture, which justify\nthis sense of the word _all_; and it seems plain, from the context, that\nit is to be so taken in the former of the scriptures, but now referred\nto, when it is said, _God will have all men to be saved_; for he\nexhorts, in ver. 1. that _prayer and supplication should be made for all\nmen_, that is, for men of all characters and conditions in the world,\nand, in particular, for _kings, and all that are in authority_, and\nthereby he takes occasion to resolve a matter in dispute among them,\nwhether those kings that were tyrants and oppressors, ought to be prayed\nfor, when he tells them, that all sorts of men are to be prayed for; and\nthe reason of this is assigned, namely, _because God will have all men_,\nthat is, all sorts of men, _to be saved_.\n\nMoreover, they whom God will save, are said to be such as _shall come_,\nthat is, as he will bring _to the knowledge of the truth_. Now it is\ncertain, that God never designed to bring every individual to the\nknowledge of the truth; for, if he did, his purpose is not fulfilled, or\nhis providence runs counter to it, for every individual of mankind have\nnot the gospel; therefore it follows, that since God did not purpose\nthat all men should come to the knowledge of the truth, the foregoing\nwords, _Who will have all men to be saved_, are not to be understood in\nany other sense, but as signifying _all sorts of men_. Neither can it\nwell be proved, whatever may be attempted in order thereto, that the\nfollowing words, which speak of Christ\u2019s being _a Mediator between God\nand men_, intend, that he performs this office for every individual man,\neven for those that shall not be saved; for then it would be executed in\nvain for a great part of them, as will be farther considered in its\nproper place; therefore we must conclude, that, in the former of these\nscriptures, nothing else is intended, but that God determined to give\nsaving grace to all sorts of men.\n\nAnd as for the latter, in which the apostle Peter says, that _God is not\nwilling that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance_;\nthere the word _all_ is expressly limited, in the context, as referring\nonly to those who are elect and faithful; and therefore he says,\nincluding himself among them, that _the Lord is long-suffering to\nus-ward_. Now if we observe the character which he gives of the church,\nto which he writes, in the beginning of both his epistles, (which, as he\nsays, in ver. 1. of this chapter, were directed to the same persons) it\nis as great as is given of any in scripture; and they are distinguished\nfrom those profane _scoffers, who walked after their own lusts_, and\nother ungodly men, whose perdition he speaks of, as what would befal\nthem in the dissolution of the world, by fire, in the day of Judgment;\nand they are described not only as _elect unto obedience_, and as having\n_obtained like precious faith_ with the apostles, but they were such as\nGod would _keep, through faith, unto salvation_; therefore the apostle\nmight well say, concerning them, that God determined that none of them\nshould perish, without advancing any thing that militates against the\ndoctrine we are maintaining.\n\n_Object._ The apostle, in this verse, speaks of God, as willing that\n_all should come to repentance_; therefore they are distinguished from\nthat part of the church, who had obtained like precious faith, and were\nincluded in the character that he gives of some of them, in both his\nepistles, which infers their being then in a state of salvation;\ntherefore the word, _all_, in this text, is not subject to the\nlimitation before mentioned, but must be applied to _all the world_, and\nconsequently the meaning is, that God is not willing that any of mankind\nshould perish, but that all should come to repentance.\n\n_Answ._ The apostle, in this text, speaks of God\u2019s deferring the day of\njudgment, and perdition of ungodly men, and so exercising his\nlong-suffering towards the world in general; not that he designed to\nbring them all to repentance hereby, for that would be to intend a thing\nwhich he knew should never come to pass: But the end of his patience, to\nthe world in general, is, that all whom he designed to bring to\nrepentance, or who were chosen to it, as well as to obedience, and\nsprinkling of the blood of Jesus, should be brought to it.\n\nThere are other arguments, which they bring in defence of their sense of\nthe doctrine of election, as supposing that it is not peremptory,\ndeterminate, or unchangeable, and such as infers the salvation of those\nwho are the objects thereof, taken from those scriptures, which, as they\napprehend, ascribe a kind of disappointment to God; as when he says, in\nIsa. v. 4. concerning his vineyard, to wit, the church of the Jews,\n_Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it\nforth wild grapes?_ and our Saviour\u2019s words, in Luke xiii. 6. that _he\nsought fruit on the fig-tree_, meaning the church of the Jews in his\nday, _but found none_; and, speaking concerning Jerusalem, he says, in\nMatth. xxiii. 37, 38. _How often would I have gathered thy children\ntogether, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye\nwould not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate_; therefore they\nconclude, that God\u2019s purpose, or design of grace, may be defeated; so\nthat these, and many other scriptures, not unlike to them, are\ninconsistent with the doctrine of election, as ascertaining the event,\nto wit, the salvation of those who are chosen to eternal life; which\nleads us, particularly to consider the sense thereof.\n\nAs to the first of them, in which God says, by the prophet, _What could\nhave been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?\nWherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it\nforth wild grapes?_ He condescends therein to speak of himself after the\nmanner of men, as he often does in scripture, and is said to look for\nwhat might reasonably have been expected, as the consequence of all the\nmeans of grace, which he had vouchsafed to them; the reasonableness of\nthe thing is called his looking for it, as though he should say, it\nmight have been expected, from the nature of the thing, that they, who\nhad been laid under such obligations, should express some gratitude for\nthem, and so have brought forth some fruit, to the glory of God. And\nthose words, which seem to attribute disappointment to him, when it is\nsaid, _I looked_, &c. signifying nothing else but the ingratitude of the\npeople, that they did not walk agreeably to the obligations they were\nunder; not that God was really disappointed, for that would militate\nagainst his omniscience. He knew, before he laid these obligations on\nthem, what their behaviour would be; therefore, had he eyes of flesh, or\nseen as man seeth, their behaviour would have tended to disappoint him;\nbut there is no disappointment in the divine mind, though the sin\nreproved in the people be the same as though it had had a tendency to\ndefeat the divine purpose, or disappoint his expectation.\n\nAs for that other scripture, in which it is said, that _he sought fruit\non the fig-tree, but found none_, that is to be explained in the same\nway, _he sought fruit_, that is, it might reasonably have been expected,\nbut _he found none_, that is, they did not act agreeably to the means of\ngrace which they enjoyed. Therefore neither this, nor the other\nscripture, does in the least argue, that the purpose of God was not\nconcerned about the event, or that he did not know what it would be;\nfor, as his providential dispensation gives us ground to conclude, that\nhe determined to leave them to themselves, so he knew beforehand that\nthis, through the corruption of their nature, would issue in their\nunfruitfulness, otherwise he is not omniscient. Therefore it follows,\nthat neither of these scriptures have the least tendency to overthrow\nthe doctrine of the certainty and peremptoriness of the divine purpose.\n\nAs to what our Saviour says, relating to his willingness, to _have\ngathered Jerusalem, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but\nthey would not_, it may be taken, without the least absurdity attending\nthe sense thereof, as referring to the end and design of his ministry\namong them; and it is as though he should say, your nation shall be\nbroken, and you scattered, as a punishment inflicted on you for your\niniquities, and this destruction would have been prevented, had you\nbelieved in me; so that all that can be inferred from hence, is, that\nChrist\u2019s ministry and doctrine were attended with that convincing\nevidence, being confirmed by so many undoubted miracles, that their\nunbelief was not only charged on them as a crime, but was the occasion\nof their ruin; or (as it is said in the following words) of their\n_houses being left unto them desolate_. And this might have been\nprevented, by their making a right improvement of that common grace,\nwhich they had; for though it be not in man\u2019s power,[223] without the\nspecial influence of divine grace, to believe to the saving of the soul;\nyet I know no one who denies that it is in his power to do more good,\nand avoid more evil, than he does, or so far to attend to the preaching\nof the gospel, as not to oppose it with that malice and envy as the Jews\ndid; and, had they paid such a deference to Christ\u2019s ministry, as this\namounted to, they would not have been exposed to those judgments which\nafterwards befel them; for it is one thing to say, that men, by\nimproving common grace, can attain salvation, and another thing to\nconclude, that they might have escaped temporal judgments thereby.\n\nTherefore, if it be enquired, what was God\u2019s intention in giving them\nthe gospel? the answer is very plain: It was not that hereby he might\nbring them all into a state of salvation, for then it would have taken\neffect; but it was, as appears by the event, to bring those, that should\nbe saved among them, to that salvation, and to let others know, whether\nthey would hear, or whether they would forbear, that God had a right to\ntheir obedience, and therefore that the message which the Redeemer\nbrought to them, ought to have met with better entertainment from them,\nthan it did. And if it be farther enquired, whether, provided they had\nbelieved, their ruin would have been prevented? This is an undoubted\nconsequence, from our Saviour\u2019s words; but yet it does not follow, from\nhence, that it was a matter of uncertainty with God, whether they should\nbelieve or no; for it is one thing to say, that he would not have\npunished them, unless they rejected our Saviour; and another thing to\nsuppose that he could not well determine whether they would reject him\nor no. So that the purpose of God must be considered, as agreeing with\nthe event of things, and the design of Christ\u2019s ministry, as being what\nit really was; yet he might, notwithstanding, take occasion to charge\nthe Jews\u2019 destruction upon their own obstinacy.\n\nThere are many other scriptures, which they bring to the like purpose,\nwhich I pass over, because the sense they give of them differs not much\nfrom that, in which they understand the scriptures before-mentioned, and\ntheir reasoning from them, in opposition to this doctrine is the same,\nand the same answer may be given to it.\n\nHowever, I cannot but observe, that as, from some scriptures, they\nattribute disappointment to God, they represent him, from others, as\nwishing, but in vain, that it had happened otherwise, and as being\ngrieved at the disappointment; so they understand those words, in Psal.\nlxxxi. 13, 14. _Oh! that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had\nwalked in my ways! I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned\nmy hand against their adversaries_; and that, in Luke xix. 42. _If_, or,\n_Oh! that thou hadst known, even thou at least, in this thy day, the\nthings which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine\neyes_.\n\nAs for the sense of these, and such-like scriptures, it is no more than\nthis, that the thing which they refused to perform, was, in itself, most\ndesirable, or a matter to be wished for, and not that God can be said to\nwish for a thing that cannot be attained. And when our Saviour laments\nover Jerusalem, as apprehending their destruction near at hand, whether\nthe words are to be considered in the form of a wish, that it had been\notherwise, or an intimation, that if they had known the things of their\npeace, their destruction would not have ensued, it is only to be\nunderstood as a representation of the deplorableness of their condition,\nwhich, with a tenderness of human compassion, he could not speak of,\nwithout tears: Yet we are not to suppose that this mode of expression is\napplicable to the divine will; so that, when the misery of that people\nis hereby set forth, we are not to strain the sense of words, taken from\nhuman modes of speaking, so far, as to suppose that the judicial acts of\nGod, in punishing a sinful people, are not the execution of his purpose\nrelating thereunto.\n\nAgain, when the Spirit is said to be _grieved_, Eph. iv. 30. or\n_resisted_, Acts vii. 15. nothing else is intended hereby, but that men\nact in such a way, as that, had the Spirit of God been subject to human\npassions, it would have been matter of grief to him. But far be it from\nus to suppose that the divine nature is liable hereunto, or that any\ndisappointment can attend his purposes, which has a tendency to excite\nthis passion in men. And when he is said to be resisted, it is not meant\nas though his will, or design, could be rendered ineffectual, but it\nonly implies, that men oppose what the Spirit communicated by the\nprophets, or in his word. This a person may do, and yet it may be truly\nsaid, that _the counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of\nhis heart to all generations_, Psal. xxxiii. 11.\n\nVIII. We shall proceed to consider several objections that are made\nagainst the doctrine we have endeavoured to maintain, and what reply may\nbe given to them. Some have been occasionally mentioned under several\nforegoing heads, and there are others which require a distinct reply.\n\n_Object._ 1. That the doctrine of absolute Election and Reprobation was\naltogether unknown by the Fathers in the three first centuries, and that\nit was first brought into the Christian world by Augustin; before whose\ntime, the only account we have of it, is, that God foreknowing who would\nlive piously, or believe and persevere to the end, accordingly\npredestinated them to eternal life, or determined to pass them by, and\nso is said to have rejected them.[224]\n\n_Answ._ This objection, were it literally true, cannot have any tendency\nto overthrow this doctrine, in the opinion of those, who depend not on\nthe credit of Augustin, as defending it, on the one hand, nor are\nstaggered by the opposition made to it by some of the Fathers, who lived\nbefore his time, on the other; and therefore we might have passed it by,\nwithout making any reply to it. However, since it contains a kind of\ninsult, or boast, which will have its weight with some, it may be\nexpected that a few things should be said, in answer to it.\n\nWe will not deny but that the Fathers, before the Pelagian heresy was\nbroached in the world; expressed themselves, in many parts of their\nwritings, in so lax and unguarded a manner concerning the doctrines of\npredestination, free-will, and grace, that, had they lived after those\ndoctrines began to be publickly contested, one would have thought that\nthey had verged too much towards Pelagius\u2019s side; but, since they were\nnot the subject-matter of controversy in those ages, it is no wonder to\nfind them less cautious in their modes of expressing themselves, than\nthey might otherwise have been; and therefore it is a just observation,\nwhich one[225] makes of this matter, that they had to do with the\nManichees, and some of the heathen, who supposed that men sinned by a\nfatal necessity of nature, as though there were no wicked action\ncommitted in the world, but some would be ready to excuse it, from the\nimpotency or propensity of human nature to sin, which rendered it, as\nthey supposed, unavoidable; and others took occasion, from hence, to\ncharge God with being the author of sin. It is very probable the\nFathers, in those ages, were afraid of giving countenance to this vile\nopinion, and therefore they were less on their guard, in some respects,\nthan they would have been, had they been to encounter with Pelagius, or\nhis followers.\n\nAnd indeed, Augustin himself, before he took occasion to enquire more\ndiligently into the state of this controversy, gave into the same way of\nexpressing his sentiments about the power of nature, or the grace of\nGod, as some others of the Fathers had done, and concluded that faith\nwas in our power, as well a duty incumbent on us, but afterwards\nretracted such modes of speaking as the result of more mature\ndeliberation.[226] But notwithstanding though he expressed himself in a\ndifferent way from them, yet he often takes occasion, from some passages\nwhich he purposely refers to in their writings, to vindicate them as\nholding the same faith, though not always using the same phrases. And,\nafter he had thus defended Cyprian and Ambrose, in that respect, he puts\na very charitable construction on their unguarded way of expressing\nthemselves, and says, that this arose from their not having any occasion\nto engage in that controversy, which was on foot in his day.[227] The\nsame might be said to Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Chrysostom, and several\nothers, whom some modern writers defend from the charge of favouring the\nPelagian scheme, by referring to some places in their writings, in which\nthey acknowledge, that the salvation of men is owing to the grace of\nGod, whereby all occasions of glorying are taken away from the\ncreature,[228] or expressions used by them to the like purpose. And the\nlearned Vossius, though he acknowledges, that the Fathers, before\nAugustin, expressed themselves in such a way, as is represented in the\nobjection, yet he vindicates them from the charge of verging towards the\nPelagian, or Semi-Pelagian heresy; inasmuch as he concludes, that when\nthey speak of God\u2019s predestinating men to eternal life, on the foresight\nof good works, they only intend those good works, which God would enable\nthem to perform; and this will clear many of those expressions which\nthey use, from this imputation.[229] But if all these endeavours to\nestablish our claim to those Fathers, who lived before Augustin, as not\nbeing opposers of this doctrine, appear to be to no purpose, yet this\nwill not weaken the truth thereof; for we suppose it to be founded on\nscripture, and several consequences plainly deduced from it, and\ntherefore it doth not want the suffrage of human testimony to support\nit.\n\nBut if it be said, that this is a very desirable thing as doubtless it\nis, we might consider this doctrine, as obtaining very much in, and\nafter Augustin\u2019s time, being examined and defended by very considerable\nnumbers of men, who have transmitted it down to posterity, throughout\nthe various ages of the church. Notwithstanding, by whomsoever it is\ndefended, or opposed, we lay no great stress on human authority, as a\njudicious divine well observes[230]. We shall therefore proceed to\nconsider some other objections, which it will be more necessary for us\nto give a particular answer to.\n\n_Object._ 2. To the doctrine of God\u2019s purpose\u2019s ascertaining all events,\nit is objected that he has not determined the bounds of the life of man,\nbut that it may be lengthened, or shortened, by the intervention of\nsecond causes. This is nothing else but the applying one branch of this\ncontroversy, relating to the decrees of God, to a particular instance.\nAnd it was very warmly debated in the Netherlands, towards the beginning\nof the last century.[231] This objection is managed in a popular way,\nand is principally adapted to give prejudice to those who are disposed\nto pass over, or set aside, these necessary distinctions, which, if duly\nconsidered, would not only shorten the debate, but set the matter in a\nclearer light, which we shall endeavour to do; but shall first consider\ntheir method of reasoning on this subject, and the sense they give of\nsome scriptures, which as they suppose, give countenance to this\nobjection.\n\nThey therefore thus argue, that if the term of life be immoveably fixed\nby God, then it is a vain thing for any one to use those means that are\nnecessary to preserve it, and the skill of the physician, as well as the\nvirtue of medicine, is altogether needless; and the good advice which is\noften given to persons, to take heed that they do not shorten their\nlives by intemperance, will be to no purpose; for they have a reply\nready at hand, namely, that they shall live their appointed time, do\nwhat they will. And that, which is still more absurd, is, that if a\nperson attempts to lay violent hands upon himself, it will be to no\npurpose, if God has determined that he shall live longer; or if he has\ndetermined that he shall die, then he is guilty of no crime, for he only\nfulfils the divine purpose.\n\nThey add, moreover, that this not only renders all our supplications to\nGod to preserve our lives, or to restore us from sickness, when we are\nin danger of death, needless; but our conduct herein is a practical\ndenial of the argument we maintain; for what is this, but to suppose\nthat the bounds of life are unalterably fixed.\n\nAs to what concerns the countenance, which they suppose, scripture gives\nto this objection, they refer us to those places in which the life of\nman is said to be lengthened or shortened; accordingly, there are\npromises of _long life given to the righteous who love God, and keep his\ncommandments_, Exod. xx. 12. Deut. iv. 40. 1 Kings iii. 14. and Solomon\nsays expressly, _The fear of the Lord prolongeth days; but the years of\nthe wicked shall be shortened_, Prov. x. 27. and elsewhere he speaks of\nthe _wicked\u2019s dying before their time_, Eccl. vii. 17. and the Psalmist\nsays, that _bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their\ndays_, Psal. lv. 23.\n\nThey also refer to that scripture in which Martha tells our Saviour,\nthat _if he had been with her brother Lazarus_, before his death, _he\nhad not died_, John xi. 21. which either contradicts the argument we are\nmaintaining, or else Martha was mistaken; which, had she been, our\nSaviour would have reproved her, for asserting that which was false.\n\nMoreover, they add, that when the old world was destroyed in the deluge,\nand so died before their time, they might have prolonged their lives,\nhad they repented in that space of time, wherein _Noah as a preacher of\nrighteousness_, gave them warning of this desolating judgment, and\nChrist, _by his Spirit_, in him, _preached to them_, as the apostle\nsays, 1 Pet. iii. 20. which, doubtless, was with a design to bring them\nto repentance, and save them from this destruction.\n\nAnd when Abraham pleaded with God in the behalf of Sodom, God tells him,\nthat _if he found but ten righteous persons in the city, he would spare\nit for their sake_, Gen. xviii. 32. which is inconsistent with his\ndetermination, that they should all die by an untimely death, if the\nbounds of their lives had been fixed.\n\nAnd lastly, they refer to that scripture, in which God first told\nHezekiah, that _he should die, and not live_, and afterwards, that he\nwould _add to his days fifteen years_, Isa. xxxviii. 1. compared with 5.\n\n_Answ_. To prepare our way for a reply to this objection, let us\nconsider that the contrary side of the question, which we are\nmaintaining, is equally supported by express texts of scripture: thus it\nis said _His days are determined, the number of his months are with\nthee; thou hast appointed him bounds that he cannot pass_, Job xiv. 5.\nthan which, nothing can be more express, where he speaks concerning that\ndecree of God, which respects all mankind, without exception, and sets\nforth his absolute sovereignty, and the irreversibleness of his purpose\nherein; and the apostle Paul, in reasoning with the Athenians concerning\nthe decree and providence of God in whom we live, move, and have our\nbeing says, that _he hath determined the times before appointed, and\nfixed the bounds of their habitation_, Acts xvii. 26. As he has placed\nmen upon the earth, by his decree and providence, so he has determined\nnot only the place where they should live, but the time of their\ncontinuance in the world. This was no new doctrine; for the heathen had\nbeen instructed in it by their own philosophers and therefore the\napostle speaks their sense, especially that of the _stoicks_, about this\nmatter.[232] When he mentions the times are determined, it is not to be\nunderstood of the seasons of the year, which God has fixed to return in\ntheir certain courses, but the seasons appointed for every work, or for\nevery occurrence of life; and, among the rest, the time of life, and of\nserving our generation therein, as Solomon expressly says, in Eccl. iii.\n1, 2. _To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose; a\ntime to be born, and a time to die._ Several other scriptures might be\nbrought to the same purpose, as a farther proof hereof, namely, those in\nwhich God has foretold the death of particular persons, 2 Sam. xii. 14.\n1 Kings xiv. 12. chap. xxii. 28.\n\nMoreover, if the providence of God is conversant about all the actions\nof men, and _the hairs of their head are all numbered_, Matt. x. 30. so\nthat the smallest changes in life do not come by chance, but are subject\nthereto; then certainly the time of life must be subjected to his\nprovidence, who is styled, _Our life, and the length of our days_, Deut.\nxxx. 20. He must therefore certainly be considered as the sovereign\nArbiter thereof, which doctrine none that own a providence, can, with\nany shadow of reason, gainsay; so that this doctrine is agreeable not\nonly to several scriptures, but to the very nature and perfections of\nGod.\n\nThis being premised we return to the arguments laid down against it, and\nthe scriptures cited to give countenance to them. It is certain, that\ntwo contradictory propositions cannot be both true in the same sense;\nand the scriptures, which are exactly harmonious, as well as infallibly\ntrue, no where contradict themselves. Therefore we must consider what\nanswer may be given to the objections before-mentioned; and, that our\nwork herein may be shortened, we may observe, that the bounds of life\nare twofold; either such as men might have lived to, according to the\ncommon course of nature if nothing had intervened to ruin the\nconstitution, or no disease, or violent death, had broken the thread of\nlife before; or that time which God has ordained that men shall live,\nwhether it be longer or shorter: the former of these respects the\nlengthening or shortening of life, by the influence of second causes;\nand, in this respect, we do not suppose that the terms of life are\nimmoveably fixed, but that in some, it is longer, and, in others\nshorter; for it is certain, that by intemperance, or other methods, men\nmay shorten their days; or, by laying violent hands on themselves, not\nlive the time that otherwise they would have done. But if we consider\nthe over-ruling, or disposing providence of God, as conversant about\nthis matter, there is nothing happens without the concurrence thereof.\nTherefore persons, who shorten their days by intemperance, do this by\nthe permissive providence of God; though he be not the author of their\nintemperance, which is sinful, yet he permits, or determines not to\nhinder it, and consequently though he has fixed the bounds of life,\nwhich can neither be lengthened or shortened, yet knowing what men will\ndo, in a natural way, to shorten them, he determines that this shall put\nan end to their lives.[233] And when we read, in scripture, of God\u2019s\n_delivering_ him, who dies a violent death, _into his hands_, who is the\nimmediate cause of it, Exod. xxi. 13. God is not the author of the sin\nof the murderer; yet providence is not wholly to be exempted from that\naction, so far as it is not sinful, but purely natural, or the effect of\npower; and, when this is said to have a tendency to shorten the life of\nman, it does not detract from the time that he had in his own purpose\naffixed to it. We must also consider, that his decree and providence\nrespects the means, as well as the end, which are always inseparably\nconnected, and equally subject thereunto.\n\nThese things being premised, we proceed more particularly to answer the\narguments brought against this doctrine. And,\n\n1. When it is said, that God\u2019s fixing the bounds of life, renders all\nmeans for the preservation thereof unnecessary, that depends upon a\nfalse supposition, namely, that God does not ordain the means as well as\nthe end. If God had determined that persons shall live, he has\ndetermined to give them the supports of life, and to prevent every thing\nthat might tend to destroy it; so, on the other hand, when he takes them\naway, by a disease, this is ordained by him, as a means conducive\nthereunto. If health is to be supported, or recovered, by means, and\nthereby life preserved, God has ordained that these means shall be used,\nas well as the end attained.\n\n2. As to persons shortening their lives by intemperance, this has a\nnatural tendency to do it; so that, though God be not the author of the\nsin, he certainly knows, before-hand, what methods the sinner will take\nto hasten his end, and leaves him to himself; so that, though the sin be\nnot from God, the punishment, which is the consequence thereof, may\ntruly be said to be from him, and therefore this was determined by him.\n\nAnd when it is farther objected, that they, who destroy their health, or\nlay violent hands on themselves, cannot be said to sin in so doing,\nbecause they do that which tends to fulfil the divine will, provided God\nhas determined the fatal event; herein they oppose this doctrine,\nwithout taking the words in the same sense in which it is maintained;\nfor it is well known, that the will of God is sometimes taken for that\nprescribed rule that he has given us, which is the matter of our duty,\nin which sense we readily allow, that he that fulfils it, cannot be said\nto sin. But, besides this, it is sometimes taken for his purpose to\npermit sin; or, to give the sinner up to his own heart\u2019s lusts, to act\nthat which he hates, and is resolved to punish. In this sense, the\nsinner is said to do that which God would not have suffered him to do,\nhad he willed the contrary; but it is a very groundless insinuation, to\nsuppose that this exempts him from the guilt of sin.\n\n3. To say, that God\u2019s fixing the bounds of life, is inconsistent with\nour praying, that our lives may be prolonged, or that we may be\ndelivered from sickness, or death, when we are apprehensive that we are\ndrawing nigh to it, is no just consequence; for as we do not pray that\nGod would alter his purpose, when we desire any blessing of him, but\nsuppose this to be hid from us, and expect not to know it any otherwise\nthan by the event; so a person, who prays to be delivered from sickness,\nor death, is not to address the divine Majesty, as one who\npresumptuously, and without ground, supposes that God has decreed that\nhe shall immediately die, but as one who hopes, or who has no ground to\nconclude otherwise, but that he will make it appear, by answering his\nprayer, that he has determined to spare his life. For the secret purpose\nof God, relating to the event of things, is no more to be a rule of\nduty, inasmuch as it is secret, than if there had been no purpose\nrelating thereunto; but yet it does not follow from hence, that this\nmatter is not determined by him.\n\n4. As to those scriptures, that seem to give countenance to this\nobjection, they may, without the least absurdity, be understood\nconsistently with other scriptures, which have been before produced,\nwhereby it is proved, that God has fixed, or determined the bounds of\nlife. As for those _promises_, which God has made of a long life, _to\nthose that love him, and keep his commandments_, the meaning thereof is\nthis, that he will certainly bestow this blessing, either in kind or\nvalue, on those whose conversation is such as is therein described; this\nnone can deny, who rightly understand the meaning of that scripture, in\nwhich it is said, that _godliness hath the promise of the life that now\nis_, as well as of _that which is to come_, 1 Tim. iv. 8. But, so far as\nit affects the argument we are maintaining, we must consider, that that\nefficacious grace, whereby we are enabled to love God, and keep his\ncommandments, is as much his gift, and consequently the result of his\npurpose, as the blessing connected with it; therefore if he has\ndetermined that we shall enjoy a long and happy life in this world, and\nto enable us to live a holy life therein; if both the end and the means\nare connected together, and are equally the objects of God\u2019s purpose,\nthen it cannot justly be inferred from hence, that the event, relating\nto the lengthening or shortening our lives, is not determined by him.\n\nAs for those scriptures that speak of the wicked\u2019s _dying before their\ntime_, or _not living half their days_, these are to be understood\nagreeably to that distinction before-mentioned, between men\u2019s dying\nsooner, than they would have done according to the course of nature, or\nthe concurrence of second causes thereunto, in which sense it is\nliterally true, that many do not live out half their days; and their\ndying sooner than God had before determined. May not the sovereign\nDisposer of all things inflict a sudden and immediate death, as the\npunishment of sin, without giving us reason to conclude that this was\nnot pre-concerted, if we may so express it, or determined beforehand?\n\nAs for that other scripture, referred to in the objection, in which\nMartha tells our Saviour, that if he had been with Lazarus, when sick,\n_he had not died_, she does not suppose Christ\u2019s being there, would have\nfrustrated the divine purpose, for then, he would, doubtless, have\nreproved her for it; whereas, in reality, he did not come to visit him,\nbecause he knew that God had purposed that he should die, and be\nafterwards raised from the dead; so that this does not argue that he has\nnot fixed the bounds, or term of life.\n\nAgain, as for that argument, to support this objection, taken from the\ndestruction of the world in the flood, or that of Sodom, by fire from\nheaven, that they might have prolonged their lives, had they repented,\nwe do not deny but that this would have been the consequence thereof,\nbut then their repentance would have been as much determined by God, as\ntheir deliverance from that untimely death, which befel them.\n\nThe last scripture mentioned, in which God, by the prophet Isaiah, tells\nHezekiah, that _he should die, and not live_; notwithstanding which,\nfifteen years were added to his life, which is very frequently insisted\non, by those who deny the unalterable decree of God, relating to life\nand death, as that which they apprehend to be an unanswerable argument\nto support it: to this it may be replied, that when God says, _Set thine\nhouse in order, for thou shalt die, and not live_, he gave Hezekiah to\nunderstand, that his disease was what we call mortal, namely, such as no\nskill of the physician, or natural virtue of medicine, could cure, and\ntherefore that he must expect to die, unless God recovered him by a\nmiracle; and Hezekiah, doubtless, took the warning in this sense,\notherwise it would have been a preposterous thing for him to have prayed\nfor life, as it would have been an affront to God, to have desired to\nhave changed his purpose. But God, on the other hand, designed, by this\nwarning, to put him upon importunate prayer for life; therefore when he\nsays, _I will add to thy days fifteen years_, the meaning is only this,\nthough thou mightest before have expected death, my design in giving\nthee that intimation, was, that thou shouldest pray for life, which\nmight be given thee by a miracle, and now I will work a miracle, and\nfulfil, in this respect, what I before purposed in adding to thy life\nfifteen years.\n\n_Object._ 3. It is farther objected, against the doctrine of election\nand reprobation, and particularly the immutability of God\u2019s purpose\ntherein, that it tends to establish a fatal necessity of things, and\noverthrow that known distinction that there is between things, as\nnecessary, or contingent, as though nothing in the whole series of\ncauses and effects could happen otherwise than it does, and God himself\nwere confined to such a method of acting, that it was impossible for him\nto have done the contrary; which is nothing else but the Stoical\ndoctrine of fate applied to, and defended by some scriptures, though it\nbe contrary to others, which speak of the uncertainty of future events.\n\nThus God speaks of the Jews, turning from their iniquities, and his\nbestowing pardoning mercy, as the result thereof, as an uncertain event,\nwhen he says, in Jer. xxxvi. 3. _It may be that the house of Judah will\nhear all the evil, which I purpose to do unto them, that they may return\nevery man from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their\nsin._ So when God gave the Jews a sign, immediately before the\ncaptivity, taken from the prophet Ezekiel\u2019s personating one that was\nremoving his stuff, or household-goods, as signifying, that the nation\nin general should soon remove to other habitations, when carried captive\ninto Babylon, he adds, upon this occasion, _It may be they will\nconsider, though they be a rebellious house_, Ezek. xii. 3. And the\nprophet Zephaniah exhorts the people _to seek righteousness and\nmeekness_, and, as the consequence thereof, says, _It may be ye shall be\nhid in the day of the Lord\u2019s anger_, Zeph. ii. 3. And the apostle speaks\nof the uncertainty of the divine dispensations of grace, when he advises\nTimothy, _in meekness, to instruct those that oppose themselves, if God,\nperadventure, will give them repentance, to the acknowledging of the\ntruth_, 2 Tim. ii. 25. which is directly contrary to the unalterable\nnecessity of events, depending upon the divine purpose, according to the\ndoctrine of election.\n\n_Answ._ 1. As to the former part of this objection, in which this\ndoctrine is pretended to have taken its rise from, and to be agreeable\nto, that of the Stoics, concerning fate and destiny, it will not be much\nto our purpose to enquire what was the opinion of that sect of\nphilosophers concerning it; and, indeed, it will be difficult to fix on\na just sense thereof, in which they all agree. Some are of opinion, that\nmany of them intended nothing else thereby, but the immutability of\nGod\u2019s purposes, but the dispensation of his providence, being a\nnecessary execution thereof; and when he is said to be bound by the laws\nof fate, they mean, that he cannot act contrary to what himself has\ndetermined.[234] And, had it been universally explained by them in this\nsense, it would not have done them much service, who oppose the doctrine\nof election, to have compared it therewith; for it would only have\nproved the agreeableness of the doctrine of the immutability of God\u2019s\npurpose, relating to all events, to the light of nature, as some of the\nheathen were thereby instructed in it. But since this does not appear to\nbe the sense of all the Stoicks about the doctrine of fate, but some of\nthem understood it in the same sense as it is represented in the\nobjection, this we cannot but militate against, and assert the doctrine\nof election to be very remote from it.\n\nTherefore we need only, in answer to this part of the objection, explain\nwhat we mean, when we maintain the necessity of events, as founded on\nthe will of God. We are far from asserting that there is a necessary\nconnexion between second causes, and their respective effects, in which\nsome are produced arbitrarily, by the will of intelligent creatures; and\nwhen we call any thing a necessary cause, producing effects, according\nto its own nature, we suppose that this is agreeable to the order, or\ncourse of nature, which was fixed by God. All that we pretend to prove,\nis the dependence of things on the divine will, and the necessity of\nGod\u2019s purposes taking effect; so that that which is arbitrary or\ncontingent, which might be, or not be, as depending on, or relating to\nsecond causes, is eventually necessary, as it is an accomplishment of\nthe divine purpose. Therefore we always distinguish between things being\ncontingent, with respect to us, and their being so, with respect to God;\nand, consequently, though _it may be_, or _peradventure_, may be applied\nto the apparent event of things, these words can never be applied to the\nfulfilling of the divine will; and this leads us to consider the latter\npart of the objection; therefore,\n\n2. As to the scripture\u2019s speaking concerning the uncertainty of future\nevents, in those places mentioned in the objection, these, and all\nothers of the like nature, in which such a mode of speaking is used, may\nbe explained, by distinguishing between what might reasonably have been\nexpected to be the event of things, supposing men had not been given up\nto the blindness of their mind, and hearts, to act below the dictates of\nreason, without consulting their own safety and happiness, or expressing\ntheir gratitude to God; and what would be the real event of things,\nwhich God was not pleased to reveal, and therefore was unknown to them.\nThus, when the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel represented the repentance\nand reformation of Israel as an uncertain event, as well as their\nforgiveness, and deliverance from the captivity, connected with it, in\nsuch dubious terms, _It may be they will consider and return, every man\nfrom his evil way_; it implies, that this was what might have been\nreasonably expected by men, though it was no matter of uncertainty to\nthe heart-searching God, who knoweth the end from the beginning, and\nperfectly foresees what will be the event of things, which, in various\nrespects, are under the direction of his providence. Though it could\nhardly be thought, by men, that such an admonition should be treated\nwith such contempt, yet God knew how they would behave themselves; there\nwas no _peradventure_ with respect to his judgment thereof; he knew that\nthey would not repent, otherwise he would have inclined their wills, and\neffectually have persuaded them to exercise this grace, and thereby have\nprevented his expectation, or determination, from being disappointed, or\nfrustrated.\n\nIf it be objected, that, according to this sense of the text, the\nprophet\u2019s message to the people would have been to no purpose, and his\nministry, among them, exercised in vain; or that it was contrary to the\nwisdom and goodness of God to make this overture to them, when he knew\nit would not be complied with.\n\nTo this it may be replied, that the great God is not bound to decline\nthe asserting his right to man\u2019s obedience, or requiring that which is a\njust debt to him, though he knew that they would not comply with his\ndemand thereof; and, indeed, this objection cannot be maintained,\nwithout supposing, that, when the gospel is preached to man, the glory\nof the divine wisdom and goodness therein cannot be secured, unless we\nconclude either that God doth not know whether man will embrace it, or\nno, which is contrary to his omniscience; or that he determines, that\nall, to whom the gospel is preached, shall embrace it, which is contrary\nto matter of fact. But there may be a medium between both these, which\nvindicates the divine perfections, in ordering that the gospel should be\npreached, and thereby asserting his sovereignty, and unalienable right\nto their obedience; accordingly, there might be a small remnant among\nthem, in whom God designed that this message should take effect. And\nwill any one say, that because the goodness of God was not herein\ndemonstrated to all, that therefore no glory was brought to that\nperfection?\n\nAnd if it be farther said, that supposing there were some who turned\nfrom their evil ways, the captivity, which was threatened, was not\nhereby prevented, and therefore the promise, relating thereunto, did not\ntake place; to this it may be replied; that as God did not give them\nground to expect this blessing, unless this repentance should be more\nuniversal, than it really was, so he had various ways to testify his\nregard to those who should receive advantage by this message, for whose\nsake it was principally intended.\n\nAs for that other scripture, in which God advises his people to _seek\nrighteousness and meekness_, and, as the consequence hereof, says, _it\nmay be ye may be hid in the day of the Lord\u2019s fierce anger_; the meaning\nis, that they, who were enabled to exercise these graces, should either\nhave some instances of temporal deliverance vouchsafed to them; or if\nnot, that they should have no reason to complain that the exercise\nthereof was altogether in vain.\n\nAs for that scripture, in which the apostle bids Timothy to exhort those\nthat oppose the gospel, _if, peradventure, God would give them\nrepentance to the acknowledging of the truth_; the meaning is, that it\nwas uncertain to Timothy whether God would give this grace or no; and\ntherefore he must preach the gospel, whatever were the event thereof:\nNevertheless, it was no matter of uncertainty, with respect to God, who\nmust be supposed to know what grace he designs to bestow, and therefore\nthe event of things may be dubious to us, and yet be certain with\nrespect to him.\n\n_Object._ 4. Another objection, against the doctrine of election and\nreprobation, is, that it is altogether inconsistent with the preaching\nof the gospel; for if God has determined the final state of man, so that\nhis purpose cannot be altered, then it is a preposterous thing, not to\nsay illusory, for grace to be offered to the chief of sinners, which\nmust certainly argue, that it is impossible to be attained by them; and,\nsince the overture is universal, we must conclude that God has put all\nmankind into a salvable state, and consequently not excluded any from\nsalvation by his peremptory and unchangeable decree. To what purpose are\nthe promises of the gospel held forth, to all that sit under the sound\nthereof, if it be impossible for them to attain the blessings promised\ntherein? Or what regard could men be supposed to have to the promises,\nif they were not a declaration of God\u2019s purpose? And, on the other hand,\nthe threatnings denounced would be as little regarded, as an expedient\nto deter men from sinning, if their state were unalterably fixed by God,\naccording to this doctrine of election, as it has been before\nconsidered.\n\n_Answ._ That we may proceed with greater clearness in answering this\nobjection, we shall first shew what we mean by preaching the gospel,\nwhich is nothing else but a declaration of God\u2019s revealed will, and our\nduty pursuant thereunto, which is to be made known, particularly what is\ncontained in the word of God, relating to the salvation of men, and the\nway which he has ordained in order to their attaining it. Therefore,\n\n1. When this salvation is said to be offered in the gospel, we intend\nnothing else thereby, but that a declaration is made to sinners, that\nthere are many invaluable privileges which Christ has purchased for, and\nwill, in his own time and way, apply to all those whom God has purposed\nto save; and, since we cannot describe them by name, and no unregenerate\nperson has ground to conclude that he is of that number, therefore there\nis a farther declaration to be made, namely, that God has inseparably\nconnected this salvation, which he has chosen them to, with faith and\nrepentance, and the exercise of all other graces, which, as they are\nGod\u2019s gift, and to be prayed for, and expected, in a diligent attendance\non all his ordinances; so they are to be considered as the mark and\nevidences of their being chosen to salvation, without which, it is\ncertainly a vain and presumptuous thing for any one to pretend that he\nhas a right to it, as the object of God\u2019s eternal election.\n\n2. No one, who preaches the gospel, has any warrant from God to tell any\nindividual person that whether he repents and believes, or no, he shall\nbe saved; or, to direct his discourse to him, as one that is chosen\nthereunto, much less to give the impenitent sinner occasion to conclude,\nthat, though he obstinately, and finally, remain in a state of rebellion\nagainst God, notwithstanding he may hope to be saved, because there is a\nnumber of mankind chosen to salvation; for this is not to declare God\u2019s\nrevealed will, but that which is directly contrary to it, and therefore\nnot to preach the gospel. Therefore,\n\n3. All, who sit under the sound of the gospel, ought to look upon it as\na declaration of God\u2019s design to save a part of mankind, under the\npreaching thereof, and among them the chief of sinners, which they have\na sufficient ground to conclude themselves to be; but yet a door of hope\nis so far opened hereby, that they have no reason to conclude that they\nare rejected, any more than that they are elected; and, while they wait\non God\u2019s instituted means of grace, they have, at least, this\nencouragement, that, peradventure, they may be of the number of God\u2019s\nelect; and, when they find in themselves that faith, which is the\nevidence thereof, then they may determine their interest in, and lay\nclaim to this privilege, when they are enabled to make their calling,\nand thereby their election sure.\n\nAnd as for the promises and threatnings, these are to be considered by\nunregenerate persons, without determining their right to the one, or\nfalling under the other, as elected or rejected; for that is still\nsupposed to be a secret; therefore they are to regard the promise, as a\ndeclaration of God\u2019s purpose, relating to the connexion that there is\nbetween faith and salvation, as an inducement to perform the one, in\nexpectation of the other. And as for the threatnings, though they\ndetermine the present state of impenitent sinners to be such, in which\nthey are undone and miserable, yet they are not to be extended to those\nevents, which are hid in the purpose of God, so as to give any one\nground to conclude that he is thereby finally excluded from salvation,\nsince such an exclusion as this is inseparably connected with final\nimpenitency and unbelief.\n\n_Object._ 5. It is farther objected, that this doctrine is, in many\ninstances subversive of practical religion. And,\n\n1. That it is inconsistent with the duty of prayer; for if God has\ndetermined to save a person, what need has he to ask a blessing, which\nis already granted? and, if he has determined to reject him, his prayer\nwill be in vain.\n\n2. It is farther supposed, that it leads to presumption, on the one\nhand, or despair, on the other; election, to presumption; reprobation,\nto despair. And,\n\n3. They add, that it leads to licentiousness, as it is inconsistent with\nour using endeavours that we may be saved: for to what purpose is it for\npersons to strive to enter in at the strait gate, when all their\nendeavours will be ineffectual, if they are not elected? or to what\npurpose is it for persons to use any endeavours to escape the wrath of\nGod, due to sin, if they are appointed to wrath, and so must necessarily\nperish?\n\n_Answ._ This objection is, beyond measure, shocking; and it is no\nwonder, that a doctrine, that is supposed to have such consequences\nattending it, is treated with the utmost degree of detestation: but as\nthe greatest part of the objections against it, are no other than\nmisrepresentations thereof, so it is no difficult matter to reply to\nthem, to the conviction of those who are disposed to judge impartially\nof the matter in controversy between us. We shall therefore proceed to\nreply to the several branches of this objection. And,\n\n1. As to what concerns the duty of prayer; when we are engaged in it, we\nare not to suppose that we are to deal with God, in such a way, as when\nwe have to do with men, whom we suppose to be undetermined, and that\nthey are to be moved, by intreaties, to alter their present resolutions,\nand to give us what we ask for; for that is to conceive of him as\naltogether such an one as ourselves; accordingly, we are not to\nconclude, that he has not determined to grant the thing that we are to\npray to him for; for that would be presumptuously to enter into his\nsecret purpose, since he has no where told us we shall be denied the\nblessings we want; but rather that there is forgiveness with him, and\nmercy for the chief of sinners, as an encouragement to this duty; and,\nbesides this, has given us farther ground to hope for a gracious answer\nof prayer, where he gives a heart to seek him. Therefore we are to\nbehave ourselves, in this duty, as those who pretend not to know God\u2019s\nsecret purpose, but rather desire to wait for some gracious intimation\nor token for good, that he will hear and answer our prayer; therefore\nhis secret purpose is no more inconsistent with this duty, than if, with\nthose that deny the doctrine we are maintaining, we should conclude that\nthis matter is not determined by him.\n\n2. As to this doctrine\u2019s leading to presumption, or despair, there is no\nground to conclude that it has a tendency to either of them. It cannot\nlead to presumption, inasmuch as election is not discovered to any one\ntill he believes; therefore an unconverted person has no ground to\npresume and conclude, that all is well with him, because he is elected;\nfor that is boldly to determine a thing that he knows nothing of; the\nobjection therefore, with respect to such, supposes that to be known,\nwhich remains a secret. And, on the other hand, they have no ground to\ndespair, on a supposition that they are finally rejected; for it is one\nthing to be the object of the decree of reprobation, which no one can,\nor ought to determine, concerning himself, so long as he is in this\nworld, much more if we consider him as enjoying the means of grace, and\na door of hope is open to him therein; and God has pleased to declare,\nin the gospel, that he will receive sinners that repent and believe in\nhim, how unworthy soever they are; therefore such are not to conclude\nthat their state is desperate, though it be exceeding dangerous, but to\nwait for the efficacy of the means of grace, and those blessings that\naccompany salvation.\n\nAnd as for those that are in a converted state, this doctrine is far\nfrom having a tendency, either to lead them to presumption, or despair;\nbut, on the other hand, to thankfulness to God, for his discriminating\ngrace, which, when persons experience, they are not only encouraged to\nhope for farther blessings, but to perform those duties whereby they may\nexpress their gratitude to him. As for presumption, which is the only\nthing that election is pretended to lead them to, that cannot be the\nnatural consequence or tendency thereof; for if they presume that they\nshall be saved, this is not to be reckoned a crime in them; for that\npresumption which is supposed to be so in the objection consists in a\nperson\u2019s expecting a blessing without reason; but this is contrary to\nthe supposition that he is a believer; and it would be a strange method\nof reasoning to infer, that he, who has ground to conclude that he has a\nright to eternal life, from those marks and evidences of grace, which he\nfinds in himself, is guilty of a sinful presumption, when he is induced\nhereby to lay claim to it; and therefore the sense of the objection,\nmust be this, that a believer having been once enabled to conclude\nhimself elected, may, from hence, take occasion, supposing that his work\nis done, and his end answered, to return to his former wicked life, and\nyet still presume that he shall be saved; whereas that would be a\ncertain indication that he had no ground to conclude this, but was\nmistaken, when he thought that he had; so that this doctrine cannot lead\na believer, as such, to presumption, and consequently the objection, in\nwhich it is supposed that it does, is founded on one of these two\nmistakes, _viz._ that every one, who is elected to salvation, knows his\ninterest in this privilege, as though it were immediately revealed to\nhim, without inferring it from any marks and evidences of grace that he\nfinds in himself; or else, that it is impossible for any one, who thinks\nthat he believes, and, from thence, concludes that he is elected, to\nappear afterwards to have been mistaken in the judgment, which he then\npassed upon himself; but either of these contain a misrepresentation of\nthe consequences of the doctrine of election; neither is there any\nregard had to that necessary distinction that there is, between a\nperson\u2019s being chosen to eternal life, and his being able to determine\nhimself to be interested in this privilege; and it is contrary to what\nwe have before considered, that whenever God chooses to the end, he\nchooses to the means, which are inseparably connected with it, which is\nthe only rule whereby we are warranted, when applying it to ourselves,\nto conclude that we shall be saved.\n\n3. It cannot, in the least, be proved that this doctrine has any\ntendency to lead persons to licentiousness; nor is it inconsistent with\nour using the utmost endeavours to attain salvation. If it be said, that\nmany vile persons take occasion, from hence, to give the reins to their\ncorruption; that is not the natural, or necessary consequence thereof;\nsince there is no truth but what may be abused. The apostle Paul did not\nthink the doctrine of the grace of God, which he so strenuously\nmaintained, was less true, Or glorious, because some drew this vile\nconsequence from it, _Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound_,\nRom. vi. 1.\n\nAnd as for those means, which God has ordained to bring about the\nsalvation of his people, we are obliged to attend upon them, though we\nknow not, before-hand, what will certainly be the event thereof; and if\nthrough the blessing of God accompanying them, we are effectually called\nand sanctified, and thereby enabled to know our election, this will\n(agreeably to the experience of all true believers,) have a tendency to\npromote holiness.\n\n_Object._ 6. It is farther objected, that more especially against the\ndoctrine of reprobation, that it argues God to be the author of sin; and\nparticularly in such instances as these, _viz._ with respect to the\nfirst entrance of sin into the world, and in God\u2019s imputing the sin of\nour first parents to all their posterity, and afterwards suffering it to\nmake such a progress as it has done ever since; and, most of all, when\nit is supposed that this is not only the result of the divine purpose,\nbut that it also respects the blinding men\u2019s minds, and hardening their\nhearts, and so rendering their final impenitency and perdition\nunavoidable.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered,\n\n1. As to what concerns the first entrance of sin into the world, it\ncannot reasonably be denied, that the purpose of God was concerned about\nit, before it was committed, in the same sense as his actual providence\nwas afterwards, namely, in permitting, though not effecting it;\nnotwithstanding this was not the cause of the committing it, since a\nbare permission has no positive efficiency in order thereunto; the not\nhindering, or restraining a wicked action, does not render him the\nauthor of it. It is true, God knew how man would behave, and\nparticularly, that he would mis-improve and forfeit that original\nrighteousness, in which he was created, and that, by this means, he\nwould contract that guilt, which was the consequence thereof, and\nthereby render himself liable to his just displeasure; to deny this,\nwould be to deny that he foreknew that, from eternity, which he knew in\ntime. And, so far as the actual providence of God was conversant about\nwhat was natural therein, so far his purpose determined that it should\nbe; but neither does this argue him to be the author of sin. But this\nwill be farther considered, when we speak concerning the actual\nprovidence of God under a following answer.[235]\n\n2. As to that part of the objection, which respects the imputing the sin\nof our first parents to all their posterity, that is more frequently\nbrought against this doctrine than any other; and it is generally\nrepresented in the most indefensible terms, without making any\nabatements as to the degree of punishment that was due to it; and,\naccordingly, they think that we can hardly have the front to affirm,\nthat our arguments, in defence hereof, are agreeable to the divine\nperfections, as we pretend those others are, which have been brought in\ndefence of this doctrine. But, I hope, we shall be able to maintain the\ndoctrine of _original sin_, in consistency with the divine perfections,\nas well as scripture, in its proper place, to which we shall refer\nit.[236] Therefore all that I shall add, at present, is, that if the\ndoctrine of original sin be so explained, as that it does not render God\nthe author of sin, his purpose relating thereunto, which must be\nsupposed, in all respects, to correspond with it, does not argue him to\nbe the author of it.\n\n3. As to the progress of sin in the world, and the proneness of all\nmankind to rebel against God; this, as before was observed, concerning\nsin in general, is the object of his permissive, but not his effective\nwill; though there is this difference between God\u2019s suffering sin to\nenter into the world at first, and his suffering the continuance, or\nincrease of it therein, that, at first, he dealt with man as an innocent\ncreature, and only left him to the mutability of his own will, having\nbefore given him a power to retain his integrity. But the fallen\ncreature is become weak, and unable to do any thing that is good in all\nits circumstances, and afterwards is more and more inclined to sin, by\ncontracting vicious habits, and persisting therein. Now, though God\u2019s\nleaving man to himself at first, when there was no forfeiture made of\nhis preventing grace, must be reckoned an act of mere sovereignty, his\nleaving sinners to themselves may be reckoned an act of justice, as a\npunishment of sin before committed, and neither of these argue him to be\nthe author of it; neither does the purpose of God, relating thereunto,\ngive the least occasion for such an inference.\n\nAgain, we must distinguish between the occasion and the cause of sin.\nGod\u2019s providential dispensations, though unexceptionably holy and\nrighteous, are often-times the occasion thereof: thus his afflictive\nhand sometimes occasions the corruptions of men to break forth, in\nrepining at, and quarrelling with his providence; and his giving outward\nblessings to one, which he withholds from another, gives occasion, to\nsome, to complain of the injustice of his dealings with them; and the\nstrictness, and holiness of his law, and gives occasion, to corrupt\nnature to discover itself in the blackest colours; the apostle plainly\nevinces this truth, when he says, _Sin taking occasion by the\ncommandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence_, Rom. vii. 8.\nand, indeed, there is nothing in the whole compass of providence, or in\nthe methods of the divine government therein, but what may be, and often\nis, an occasion of sin, in wicked men. But certainly it is not the cause\nof it; even as the clemency of a prince may occasion a rebellion among\nhis subjects; but it is the vile ingratitude, and wickedness of their\nnature, that is the spring and cause thereof; so the providence, and\nconsequently the purpose of God, which is executed thereby, may be the\noccasion of sin, and yet the charge brought in this objection, as though\nGod hereby was argued to be the author of sin, is altogether groundless.\n\n4. As to what is farther objected, relating to the purpose of God, to\nblind the minds, and harden the hearts of men, and that final\nimpenitency, which is the consequence thereof, God forbid that we should\nassert that this is a positive act in him; and, so far as it contains\nnothing else but his determining to deny that grace, which would have\nhad the contrary effect, or his providence relating thereunto, this does\nnot give any countenance to the objection, or weaken the force of the\narguments that we have before laid down, which is very consistent\ntherewith.\n\n_Object._ 7. There is another objection, which is generally laid down in\nso moving a way, that, whether the argument be just or no, the style is\nadapted to affect the minds of men with prejudice against this doctrine,\nand that is taken from the inconsistency thereof with God\u2019s judicial\nproceedings against the wicked in the day of judgment, and that it will\nafford the sinner a plea, in which he may say to this effect: Lord, I\nsinned by a fatal necessity; it was impossible for me to avoid that\nwhich thou art now offended with me for; it was what thou didst decree\nshould come to pass. I have been told, that thy decrees are unalterable,\nand that it is as impossible to change the course of nature, or to\nremove the mountains, which thou hast fixed with thy hand, as to alter\nthy purpose; wilt thou then condemn one, who sinned and fell pursuant to\nthy will? Dost thou will that men should sin and perish, and then lay\nthe blame at their door, as though they were culpable for doing what\nthou hast determined should be done?\n\n_Answ._ This objection supposes that the decree of God lays a necessary\nconstraint on, and enforces the will of man to sin; which, if they could\nmake it appear that it does, no reply could be made to it. But this is\nto represent the argument we are maintaining in such a way, in which no\none, who has just ideas of this doctrine, would ever understand it, and\nit is directly contrary to the foregoing method of explaining it. We\nhave already proved, in our answer to the third objection, that sin is\nnot necessary in that sense, in which they suppose it to be, or that,\nthough the decree of God renders events necessary, yet it does not take\naway the efficiency of second causes, and therefore the purpose of God,\nrelating thereunto, is not to be pleaded, as an excuse for it, or as a\nground of exemption from punishment. We read of the Jews, that, _with\nwicked hands, they crucified_ our Saviour; the crime was their own; but\nthis is expressly said to have been done by, or, in pursuance of, _the\ndeterminate counsel and fore-knowledge of God_, Acts ii. 23. He\nfore-knew what they would do, and purposed not to prevent it; but yet he\ndid not force their will to commit it. And elsewhere God says,\nconcerning Israel, _Thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; from that\ntime thine ear was not opened_; and then he adds, _I knew that thou\nwouldest deal very treacherously_, Isa. xlviii. 8. Israel might as well\nhave pleaded, that God knew, before-hand, how they would behave\nthemselves, and so have thrown the blame on him, for not preventing this\nforeseen event, but suffering them to go on in this destructive way,\nwith as much reason, as the sinner is supposed, in the objection, to\nhave, when taking occasion so to plead, as he is represented, as having\nground to do, in the day of judgment, as a consequence from the doctrine\nwe are maintaining.\n\nAgain, whatever has been said concerning the immutability of the divine\npurpose, yet this does not give the least countenance to any one\u2019s\ncharging his sin on God; as we have, in answer to the last objection,\nproved that it does not render him the author of sin; and therefore\nman\u2019s destruction must lie at his own door. It is one thing to say, that\nit is in the sinner\u2019s power to save himself, and another thing to say,\nthat the sin he commits is not wilful, and therefore that guilt is not\ncontracted thereby; and, if so, then this affords no matter of excuse to\nthe sinner, according to the import of the objection.\n\nIX. We are now to consider some things that may be inferred from the\ndoctrine we have been insisting on, and how it is to be practically\nimproved by us, to the glory of God, and our spiritual advantage. And,\n\n1. From the methods taken to oppose and decry it, by misrepresentations,\nwhich contain little less than blasphemy, we infer, that however unjust\nconsequences deduced from a doctrine may be an hindrance to its\nobtaining in the world; yet this method of opposition will not render it\nless true, or defensible; nor ought it to prejudice the minds of men\nagainst the sacred writings, or religion in general. We cannot but\nobserve, that while several scriptures are produced in defence of this\ndoctrine and others in opposition to it, and the utmost cautions have\nnot been used to reconcile the sense given thereof with the natural\nideas which we have of the divine perfections; and many, in defending\none side of the question have made use of unguarded expressions, or\ncalled that a scripture-doctrine which is remote from it; and others, in\nopposition hereunto, have, with too much assurance, charged the\ndefenders thereof with those consequences, which are neither avowed by\nthem, nor justly deduced from their method of reasoning; the unthinking\nand irreligious part of mankind have taken occasion, from hence, with\nthe Deists, to set themselves against revealed religion, or to give way\nto scepticism, as though there were nothing certain, or defensible, in\nreligion; and take occasion to make it the subject of satire and\nridicule. But, passing this by, though it is a matter very much to be\nlamented we will consider this doctrine as rendered less exceptionable,\nor more justly represented; and, accordingly,\n\n2. We may infer from it, that as it is agreeable to the divine\nperfections, so it has the greatest tendency to promote practical\ngodliness. For,\n\n(1.) Since God has fore-ordained whatever comes to pass; this should\nlead us to an humble submission to his will, in all the dispensations of\nhis providence. When we consider that nothing, in this respect comes by\nchance; this should have a tendency to quiet our minds, and silence all\nour murmuring and uneasy thoughts, whatever afflictions we are exposed\nto. We are too apt to complain sometimes of second causes, as though all\nour miseries took their rise from thence; and, at other times, to\nafflict ourselves beyond measure, as apprehending that those proper\nmeans have not been used, which might have prevented them; as Martha\ntells our Saviour, _If thou hadst been here, my brother had not died_,\nJohn xi. 21. whereas we ought rather to consider, that all this befalls\nus in pursuance of God\u2019s purpose: had he designed to have prevented the\naffliction, he would have directed to other means conducive to that end,\nor would have attended those that have been used, with their desired\nsuccess. We use the means as not knowing what are the secret purposes of\nGod, with respect to the event of things; but, when this is made known\nto us, it should teach us to acquiesce in, and be entirely resigned to\nthe divine will.\n\n(2.) When we cannot see the reason, or understand the meaning of the\ndispensations of divine providence, and are not able to pass a judgment\nconcerning future events, whether relating unto ourselves, or others;\nand, when all things look with a very dismal aspect, as to what concerns\nthe interest and church of God in the world, we must be content to wait\ntill he is pleased to discover them to us; what he oftentimes does, _we\nknow not now, but shall know hereafter_, as our Saviour said to one of\nhis disciples, John xiii. 7. It is no wonder that we are at a loss, as\nto God\u2019s purposes, since secret things belong to him; and therefore all\nthat we are to do, in such a case, is, to rest satisfied, that all these\nthings shall, in the end, appear to have a tendency to advance his own\nperfections, and bring about the salvation of his people.\n\n(3.) Since the purpose of God respects the means, as well as the end,\nthis should put us upon the use of those proper means, in which we may\nhope to obtain grace and glory; and therefore this doctrine does not\nlead us to sloth, and indifference in religion; for that is to suppose,\nthat the ends and means are separated in God\u2019s purpose: and when,\nthrough his blessing attending them, the ordinances, or means of grace,\nare made effectual for the working of faith, and all other graces, these\nbeing connected, in God\u2019s purpose, with glory, it ought to encourage our\nhope relating to the end of faith, even the salvation of our souls.\n\n(4.) Let us take heed that we do not peremptorily, without ground\nconclude ourselves elected unto eternal life, on the one hand, or\nrejected on the other. To determine that we are chosen to salvation,\nbefore we are effectually called, is presumptuously to enter into God\u2019s\nsecret counsels, which we cannot, at present, have a certain and\ndeterminate knowledge of; but to lay this as a foundation, as to what\nconcerns the conduct of our lives, is oftentimes of a very pernicious\ntendency. If, as the result of this conclusion made, we take\nencouragement to go on in sin, this will cut the sinews of all religion,\nand expose us to blindness of mind, and hardness of heart, and a greater\ndegree of impenitency and unbelief, as the consequence of this bold\npresumption and affront to the divine Majesty.\n\nNeither, on the other hand, are we to conclude that we are not elected;\nfor though we may be in suspense about the event of things, and not know\nwhether we are elected or rejected, this is not inconsistent with our\nusing endeavours to attain a good hope, through grace; yet to determine\nthat we are not elected, is to conclude, against ourselves that all\nendeavours will be to no purpose; which we have no ground to do, since\nit is one thing to conclude that we are in a state of unregeneracy, and\nanother thing to determine that we are not elected. The consequence of\nour concluding that we are in an unconverted state, ought to be our\npraying, waiting, and hoping for the efficacy of divine grace, which\nextends itself to the chief of sinners, as a relief against despair,\nthough such can have no ground to say, they are elected; therefore the\nsafest way, and that which is most conducive to the ends of religion, is\nto be firmly persuaded, that though the final state of man be certainly\ndetermined by God, yet this is to be no rule for an unregenerate person\nto take his measures from, any more than if it were a matter of\nuncertainty, and, in all respects, undetermined by him.\n\n(5.) Let us, according to the apostle\u2019s advice, _Give diligence to make\nour calling and election sure_, 2 Pet. i. 10. It is certainly a very\ngreat privilege for us, not barely to know, that some were chosen to\neternal life, but to be able to conclude that we are of that happy\nnumber; and, in order hereunto, we must not expect to have an\nextraordinary revelation thereof, or to find ourselves described by name\nin scripture, as though this were the way to attain it; for the rule by\nwhich we are to judge of this matter, is, our enquiring whether we have\nthose marks, or evidences thereof, which are contained therein; and\ntherefore we are, by a diligent and impartial self-examination, to\nendeavour to know whether we are called, or enabled, to perform the\nobedience of faith, which God is said to elect his people to; or whether\nwe are holy, and without blame, before him in love? whether we have the\ntemper and disposition of the children of God, as an evidence of our\nbeing chosen to the adoption of children, and as such, are conformed to\nthe image of Christ?\n\n(6.) If we have ground to conclude that we are chosen to eternal life,\nthis ought to be improved to the glory of God, and our own spiritual\nadvantage; it ought to put us upon admiring and adoring the riches of\ndiscriminating grace, which is herein eminently illustrated; and such\nare under the highest obligation to walk humbly with God, as well as\nthankfully; for it is owing to his grace, not only that they are chosen\nto eternal life, but that they are enabled to discern their interest in\nthis privilege.[237]\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  \u201cCertainly, it is not to be understood, in a literal or strict sense,\n  that He _does_, all that is done. \u2018Far be it from God,\u2019 says Elihu,\n  \u2018that he should do wickedness: and from the Almighty, that he should\n  commit iniquity.\u2019 Doing wickedness, and committing iniquity, are\n  synonymous phrases: but to impute to the Most High, any thing like\n  what is commonly meant by either of these phrases, is evident\n  blasphemy.\n\n  \u201cNor are we to imagine, certainly, that God _makes_ his creatures do,\n  whatever is done by them, in any such manner as is inconsistent with\n  their own proper agency. Rational creatures certainly act; and act as\n  freely, as if there were no being above them to direct their steps, or\n  to govern their actions. When God works in men, to will and to do that\n  which is good; they, nevertheless will and do it themselves; and are\n  really praise-worthy. And he does not, surely, so influence any to\n  evil, as to render them unactive, involuntary, or undeserving of\n  blame.\n\n  \u201cNor do I believe it true, literally and strictly speaking, that God\n  _creates_, whatsoever comes to pass; particularly darkness, and moral\n  evil.\n\n  \u201cBut this must not be taken for granted, nor hastily passed over:\n  because, however indisputable, it is disputed. There are some among\n  us, and some who are deservedly in reputation for wisdom, and general\n  soundness in the faith; who appear to be of opinion, that God is the\n  direct Author\u2014the immediate Cause\u2014the proper Creator, of all evil, as\n  well as of all good\u2014of all sin, as well as holiness, in heart and\n  life\u2014in thought, word, and deed.\n\n  \u201cThis opinion, however, notwithstanding my high esteem and particular\n  friendship for some of the holders of it, I am not yet ready to adopt,\n  for several reasons.\n\n  \u201c1. To suppose that the actions of men, whether virtuous or vicious,\n  are _created_, seems to confound all distinction between creation and\n  Providence; or rather, wholly to exclude the latter.\n\n  \u201cThe work of creation, we used to think, was God\u2019s making creatures\n  and things, at first; or giving the beginning of existence to matter\n  and minds, with their various properties, instincts and organizations.\n  And that God\u2019s works of Providence, were his preserving things already\n  made, and governing all their operations. But according to this new\n  philosophy, creation is all; Providence is nothing. For what\n  preserving and governing of creatures or actions can there be, when\n  every creature and every action, is every moment created anew? An\n  action, a thought, or volition, whether good or evil, is a new and\n  strange kind of creature, or created thing. But, in a theological\n  view, the question before us is of chief importance, as it respects\n  moral evil. I add, therefore;\n\n  \u201c2. It appears to me, that to suppose God the Creator of sin, whether\n  in principle or action, is hardly reconcilable with his perfect\n  holiness. \u2018Doth a fountain send forth, at the same place, sweet waters\n  and bitter?\u2019 Can darkness proceed from Him, as its proper source, in\n  whom there is no darkness at all?\n\n  \u201cIt is true, God has created many things which are of a _different_\n  nature from himself; as the bodies of men and beasts, and all parts of\n  the world of matter: but nothing, I conceive, directly _opposite_ to\n  his own nature; as is sin. The sun is the immediate cause of the\n  growth of vegetables; though these are essentially different from the\n  sun itself: but it is not thus the cause of ice and darkness; which\n  are no more of a contrary nature to it, than sin is to the nature of\n  God.[184]\n\n  \u201cI am sensible it has been said, there is no more inconsistency with\n  the holiness of God, in supposing him the efficient, immediate cause\n  of sin, for necessary good purposes; than in supposing he only permits\n  it, for wise ends, and so orders things that he knows it will be\n  committed.\n\n  \u201cBut these two ways of accounting for the existence of moral evil,\n  appear to me materially different. There are supposable cases in which\n  it would be right for a _man_, not to hinder another from sinning,\n  when he could hinder him; and also to place him in circumstances of\n  temptation, expecting that he would sin. For instance, a parent may\n  leave money in the way of a child suspected of being given to theft;\n  and may conceal himself and let the child steal it; with a view to\n  correct him, in order to reclaim him, or as a warning to his other\n  children. All this might be perfectly right in the parent; however\n  certainly he might know, that the child would be guilty of the\n  expected crime. But I question whether any case can be supposed in\n  which it would not be wrong, directly to influence another to do evil,\n  that good might come. Exciting one to sin by power or persuasion; and\n  placing one in circumstances of trial, wherein he would be tempted to\n  sin, without restraining him from it, are surely different things,\n  although the certainty of his sinning may be the same.\n\n  \u201c3. I dare not think that God creates sin, and all kinds of evil,\n  because this seems plainly contrary to the general current of the holy\n  scriptures.\n\n  \u201cIn the first chapter of Genesis, it is said, \u2018God saw every thing\n  that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.\u2019 Of his making two\n  great lights, we are told; and that he made the stars also: but no\n  account is there given of his creating darkness. Respecting our own\n  species, the inspired historian particularly informs us, that \u2018God\n  created man in his own image: in the image of God created he him: male\n  and female created he them.\u2019 Nor do we find in that book, or in all\n  the Bible, that he hath since ever created them otherwise. Solomon\n  three thousand years after the fall, having made diligent search among\n  men and women, to find out their true character, and the cause of\n  their so universal depravity, says; \u2018Lo, this only have I found, that\n  _God_ made man upright; but _they_ have sought out many inventions.\u2019\n  Wicked practices, and deceitful inventions to conceal their\n  criminality, are ever ascribed in scripture to mankind themselves, or\n  to other fallen creatures, and never to God, as their efficient cause.\n\n  \u201cIn the New-Testament, christians are said to be \u2018created unto good\n  works:\u2019 and we read of \u2018the new man, which after God, is created in\n  righteousness and true holiness\u2019. But no where do we read of any one\n  that was created unto _evil_ works; or after _Satan_ in\n  unrighteousness and sin. It is written, 1 Cor. xiv. 33, \u2018God is not\n  the author of confusion, but of peace.\u2019 And James i. 13-17, \u2018Let no\n  man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be\n  tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is\n  tempted when he is led away of his own lust and enticed.\u2014Do not err,\n  my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from\n  above, and cometh down from the Father of lights.\u2019 Can any thing be\n  more express to teach us, that a distinction ought carefully to be\n  made between the origin of good and evil; and that we should not\n  conceive them both alike to come from God?\n\n  \u201cFor scripture proof that God is not the efficient author of sin, I\n  will only add, that the fruits of the Spirit, and works of the flesh,\n  are set in contrast and spoken of as diametrical opposites: whereas,\n  did God create sinful propensities in men, or directly influence them\n  to evil actions, the works of the flesh would be as real and immediate\n  fruits of the divine Spirit, as the holiest exercises of the best\n  saints.\n\n  \u201c4. I see no occasion for the supposition of God\u2019s being thus the\n  author of all evil: nor any good ends that it can answer.\n\n  \u201cCould it be seen how evils might be accounted for, without supposing\n  them any part of the creation of God; and how God might have an\n  absolute dominion over all events, without being the immediate cause\n  of bad things; no good man, I conclude, would wish to conceive of Him\n  as being thus the proper source of darkness and evil. And indeed, were\n  it so, that our weak minds were unable to comprehend how God can work\n  all things after the counsel of his own will, or how natural and moral\n  evil could ever have been, without believing that God is as much, and\n  as immediately, the cause of evil as of good; yet it might be more\n  modest, and more wise, to leave these among other incomprehensibles,\n  than to have recourse to so bold an hypothesis for the solution of\n  them. But, I apprehend, there is no need of this hypothesis in order\n  to account for the existence of evil, or in order to an understanding\n  belief of the universal government of the Most High.\n\n  \u201cEvils, of most if not all kinds, are such negative things\u2014such mere\n  defects, in their origin at least, as do not need creation, or require\n  a positive omnipotent cause. This is the case, evidently, with respect\n  to natural darkness: it is only the want of light. This is the case,\n  also, with respect to natural death: it is only the cessation, the\n  loss, the want of life. And this may be the case, with respect to\n  spiritual darkness, and spiritual death. It has heretofore been the\n  orthodox opinion, that all moral evil consists radically in privation;\n  or, that unholiness, at bottom, is the mere want of holiness. And,\n  notwithstanding all the floods of light, from various quarters, which\n  have come into the world in this age of new discoveries, possibly this\n  one old opinion may yet be true. \u2018God made man _upright_.\u2019 That is, He\n  formed him with a disposition impartially just and good: He created in\n  him a principle of universal righteousness. When man fell, by eating\n  the forbidding fruit, this principle had not been preserved in perfect\n  strength and exercise. In consequence of that disobedience, the divine\n  internal influence was so withdrawn, that this principle was entirely\n  lost. But we are not told, nor need it be supposed, that any opposite\n  principle was then created in him. Our first parents had, I believe,\n  in their original formation, all the radical instincts of nature which\n  they had after the fall; or which any of their posterity now have.\n  Such as a principle of self-preservation, a desire of self-promotion,\n  and a propensity to increase and multiply; together with all the more\n  particular appetites and passions, subservient to these purposes. All\n  these are innocent in themselves, though not in themselves virtuous.\n  But these private instincts, when left to operate alone, without the\n  governing influence of a public spirit, or a just regard for other\n  beings, will naturally lead to all manner of iniquity, in heart and\n  life. To avarice and ambition; to envy and malice; to intemperance and\n  lewdness; to frauds and oppressions; to wars and fightings.\n\n  \u201cThere is no need of supposing any other divine agency, than only to\n  uphold in existence creatures that have lost their virtue, amidst\n  surrounding temptations, in order to account for all the evil\n  affections which we ever feel, and for all the external wickedness\n  that is ever committed. Nor, in order to the holiest creatures losing\n  their virtue, need any thing more be supposed on God\u2019s part, than only\n  his leaving them to themselves; or not upholding in them, and\n  constantly invigorating, a virtuous disposition.\n\n  \u201cAnd as, in this way, we can account for the existence of all manner\n  of evil; so we can thus understand how it is possible for God to bring\n  about whatsoever comes to pass, without his being the actor, or maker,\n  or instigator, of any thing that is not perfectly good. When He does\n  not cause light, there will be darkness. When He does not make peace,\n  there will be evil. The darkness takes place according to his\n  appointment, with the same exactness and certainty, as if He actually\n  created it; and so does evil of every kind. What He determines to\n  permit, knowing perfectly the circumstances and dispositions of every\n  agent concerned, will as infallibly come to pass, as what he\n  determines to do himself, or to effect by his own positive influence.\n  The king\u2019s heart, and the rivers of water; the waves of the sea, and\n  the tumults of the people, are in the hand of the Lord, to all\n  important intents and purposes, if it be only true that He restrains\n  them, or lets them run; stilleth them, or suffereth them to rage, just\n  as he sees fit.\n\n  \u201cIn this sense, I conceive, it is to be understood, that God forms the\n  light, and creates darkness; makes peace, and creates evil. He has the\n  absolute government\u2014the perfect control\u2014the entire superintendency, of\n  all these things.\n\n  \u201cWhen any folly has been committed or any mischief has been done, some\n  are ready to say, _It was so ordered_; as if therefore nobody was to\n  be blamed. But this is a false inference, from just premises. True, it\n  was so ordered of God; and ordered righteously and wisely: but it was\n  so ordered by the doer of the mischief also; and ordered carelessly,\n  perhaps, or wickedly. You will say, It must have been so, and the\n  actor could not have done otherwise: but, I say, he might have done\n  otherwise, if he would. It is true, there is a kind of necessity in\n  the actions of men. They necessarily act according to their own\n  choice; and they necessarily choose to act according to their own\n  disposition. Under this kind of necessity God himself acts. It is\n  impossible for him to do, because it is impossible for him to will\n  that which is contrary to his own nature. He necessarily wills and\n  does, what is agreeable to his moral perfections. But such a necessity\n  as this, is so far from being inconsistent with freedom, that it is\n  essential to all free agency. Actions which can and do take place,\n  contrary to the inclination of the agent, are not _his_ actions. He\n  has no command over them; and therefore can deserve no praise or blame\n  for them.\n\n  \u201cThe necessity of acting according to our own minds, is all the\n  necessity which need be supposed, when we suppose that all our actions\n  were decreed, and are ordered of God. A creature that acts according\n  to any laws of nature, and not at perfect random, without any\n  self-government, acts in such a manner that He who knows what is in\n  him, may fore-know all his actions; and in such a manner that He in\n  whose hand his times are, may govern all his volitions. Men follow\n  their several courses, as freely as the rivers of water, and with a\n  higher kind of freedom; yet, since they run agreeably to their own\n  inclination, and cannot do otherwise, a Being omniscient and\n  omnipotent, can calculate before hand all their motions; can keep them\n  in the channels decreed for them, and can turn them whithersoever he\n  will. If any do not comprehend this, yet let them not think they so\n  fully comprehend the contrary, as to feel certain, that either man\n  cannot be free, or God cannot govern the world. Certainly the\n  providential government of God, over the hearts and ways of men,\n  though most absolute, is not such but that, if they do well, they are\n  praise-worthy; and if they do not well, the sin lieth at their own\n  door.\n\n  \u201cNeither let it be imagined that the criminality of a bad action is\n  taken away, or at all extenuated, because it will be over-ruled for\n  good. Actions are good or evil, according to the nature of them, and\n  the intention of the agent, and not according to undesigned\n  consequences. When we act wickedly, and with a wicked mind, its being\n  productive of happy effects, alters nothing in regard to our\n  blame-worthiness. In the divine decrees, and in the divine providence,\n  \u2018Whatever is, is right:\u2019 but in the conduct of creatures, many things\n  that are, are not at all the less wrong. God\u2019s governing all things,\n  so as to make them subserve his wise and holy designs, should not lead\n  us to think any more favourably of our own, or of our neighbour\u2019s\n  foolish and sinful actions.\u201d\n\n  SMALLEY\u2019S SERMONS.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  \u201cThere is a vast difference between the sun\u2019s being the cause of the\n  lightsomeness and warmth of the atmosphere, and of the brightness of\n  gold and diamonds, by its presence and positive influence; and its\n  being the occasion of darkness and frost in the night, by its motion\n  whereby it descends below the horizon. The motion of the sun is the\n  occasion of the latter kind of events; but not the proper cause,\n  efficient, or producer of them.\u2014No more is any action of the divine\n  Being, the cause of the evil of men\u2019s wills. If the sun were the\n  proper _cause_ of cold and darkness, it would be the fountain of these\n  things, as it is the fountain of light and heat: and then something\n  might be argued from the nature of cold and darkness, to a likeness of\n  nature in the sun; and it might be justly inferred that the sun itself\n  is dark and cold: but from its being the cause of these, no otherwise\n  than by its absence, no such thing can be inferred, but the contrary.\n  It may justly be argued that the sun is a bright and hot body, if cold\n  and darkness are found to be the consequence of its withdrawment; and\n  the more constantly and necessarily these effects are connected with\n  and confined to its absence, the more strongly does it argue the sun\n  to be the fountain of light and heat. So, in as much as sin is not the\n  fruit of any positive influence of the Most High, but on the contrary,\n  arises from the withdrawment of his action and energy, and under\n  certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of his\n  influence, this is no argument that he is sinful, or his operation\n  evil; but on the contrary, that he and his agency are altogether holy,\n  and that he is the fountain of all holiness. It would be strange\n  arguing indeed, because men never commit sin, but only when God leaves\n  them to themselves; and necessarily sin when he does so, that\n  therefore their sin is not from themselves, but from God: as strange\n  as it would be to argue, because it is always dark when the sun is\n  gone, and never dark when he is present, that therefore darkness is\n  from the sun, and that his disk and beams must be black.\u201d\n\n  _Edwards on the Will._\n\n  Page 259. _Boston Ed._ 1754.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  _Dr. Whitby, in his discourse of election, &c._\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  _See his discourse concerning election, page 36. 37. &c._\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  _See the contrary opinion defended by Whitby in loc._\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  _See Whitby\u2019s discourse, &c. page 40, & seq._\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  _See_ Twiss. Vind. Grat. & de Pr\u00e6dest. _and his riches of God\u2019s love,\n  against Hord; and also that part of the writings of some others, in\n  which they treat of predestination_, _viz._ _Beza, Gomarus, Piscator,\n  Maccovius, Rutherford, Whitaker, and Perkins_.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  _Among these were bishop Davenant, and other divines, who met in the\n  synod of Dort; also Calvin, P. Du Moulin, Turrettin, and, indeed, the\n  greater number of those who have defended the doctrine of\n  predestination; and there are many others, who, when they treat of it,\n  seem to wave the particular matter in controversy, as thinking it of\n  no great importance or that this doctrine may be as well defended,\n  without confining themselves to certain modes of speaking, which have\n  been the ground of many prejudices against it, whose prudence and\n  conduct herein cannot be justly blamed._\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  \u039f\u03c5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03be \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd. non solum ex Jud\u00e6is; _that is, those who are\n  called from among the Jews, as distinguished from the rest of them\n  that were rejected_.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  \u05d6\u05d2\u05e7\u05d1\u05e6\u05d5\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  _See Questions_ lxvii, lxviii, lxxii, lxxv, lxxvi.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  _See Prov._ viii. 23.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  _Vid. Grot. in loc._\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  \u03a4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  _Vid. Whitby in loc._\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  _Vid. Beza in loc._\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  _The principal text that Dr. Whitby refers to, as justifying his sense\n  of the word, is in Acts_ xx. 13. We went to Assos, there intending to\n  take in Paul, for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot;\n  _the words are_, \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd;\n  _which he understands as though the meaning was, that the apostle was\n  disposed, in his own mind, to go afoot; but that sense is not\n  agreeable to the scope of the text, for the meaning of it seems to be\n  this: That it was determined, ordered, or preconcerted by them, before\n  they set sail; that Paul should be taken in at Assos, since he was to\n  go there afoot; so that this makes nothing to that author\u2019s purpose,\n  but rather to the sense that we have given of the word._\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  _See Grot. in loc._\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  _See Dr. Whitby in loc._\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  _See Quest._ xliv, lxviii.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  _See Dr. Goodwin, vol. 2. of election._\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  _See page 137._\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  _This is what is meant by that axiom, used by the school-men_,\n  Decretum Dei, nihil ponit in esse.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  _Thus the school-men distinguish between_ necessitas consequentis,\n  _and_ consequenti\u00e6; _so that that, which is not in itself necessary,\n  is rendered eventually so, as the consequence of God\u2019s purpose, that\n  it shall be_.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  \u201cThere is no necessity for supposing a predestination to death, in the\n  same sense as unto life, that is to the means and the consequent end:\n  For the occurrence of sin may be satisfactorily accounted for on other\n  principles; though without pretending to the removal of every\n  difficulty in a subject the entire comprehension of which is probably\n  unsuited to our present state and faculties.\u201d[211]\n\n  SMITH\u2019S LETTERS TO BELSHAM.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  It is acknowledged that this view of the subject is different from\n  that which most Calvinistic writers have given. Yet several eminent\n  divines have laid down the fundamental principles, at least, of this\n  sentiment, and have opened the way to it: particularly Augustine,\n  Theophilus Gale, and a class of German Theologians who may be termed\n  the school of Leibnitz. A short time ago an attempt was made to excite\n  the attention of thinking men to his doctrine, by a _Sermon on the\n  Divine glory, displayed by the Permission of Sin_. But, since the\n  publication of that pamphlet, the subject has been more ably and fully\n  treated by my reverend tutor, the Rev. Dr. Williams, in his _Discourse\n  on Predestination to Life_, published very lately.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  \u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  _See Whitby\u2019s Paraphrase, &c. on Jude, ver. 4._\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  _Thus Beza in loc. calls them_ vessels, _because, as creatures, they\n  are the workmanship of God, the great potter, but vessels prepared for\n  destruction by themselves, and therefore adds_, Exitii veras causas\n  minime negem in ipsis vasis h\u00e6rere juxta illud _perditio, tua ex te\n  est_.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  _It ought to be observed, that the word, here used, is_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\n  \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, _and not_ \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1; _nor is there any thing added\n  to the word, that signifies, that this preparation thereunto was\n  antecedent to their being; or as though it took its rise from God, as\n  the cause of that sin for which he designed to punish them; whereas,\n  on the other hand when the apostle in the following verse, speaks of\n  God\u2019s_ making known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy,\n  _to wit, the elect, they are described as those whom he had_ afore\n  prepared unto glory, \u1f01 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03bd. _What should be the\n  reason that the apostle alters the phrase, but that we may hereby be\n  led to consider, that when God chose the elect to glory they are\n  considered in his purpose as those whom he designed, by his grace, to\n  make meet for it! So that the vessels of wrath are considered as\n  fitting themselves for destruction; the vessels of mercy, as persons\n  whom God would first prepare for, and then bring to glory._\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  _See Whitby\u2019s Discourse, &c. page 10._\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  _See his Riches of God\u2019s love, against Hord. Part II. page 50._\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  _See Bishop Patrick in loc._\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  _This agrees with the sense given of it by Grot. in loc. and Whitby in\n  his discourse, &c. page 11. and it agrees very well with the sense of\n  the Hebrew words_, \u05e4\u05e2\u05dc \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05e0\u05e8\u05d4 _which does not so much signify to make,\n  as to dispose, and adapt one thing to another, which the lxx. render_,\n  \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2, &c. the wicked is reserved to the day of evil.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  _See Quest. xliv._\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  _The words are_, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1, _that is_, all four-footed beasts.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  _Matt. iv. 23. The words are_, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n  \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, every sickness, and every disease; _and so the same words\n  are translated, in Matt. ix. 35._\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n  It is improper to say we have no power, when we can do the thing if we\n  will; and criminal to take the glory, which is God\u2019s.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  _See Whitby of Election, Chap. 5. Limborch. Amic. Collat. page 242._\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  _Vid. Sixt Senens. Bibliothec. Lib. V. Annotat 101. Annotavit quidam\n  Chrytostomum interdum natur\u00e6 nostr\u00e6 vires plus \u00e6quo extulisse ex\n  contentione disceptandi cum Manich\u00e6is & Gentilibus, qui hominem\n  asserebant, vel natura malum vel fati violentia ad peccandum\n  compelli._\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  _Vid. Aug. Retrac. I. Cap. 25._\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  _Vid. Aug. de Pr\u00e6dest. Sanet. Cap. 14. Quid igitur opus est, ut eorum\n  scrutemur opuscula, qui prius quam ista h\u00e6resis oriretur, non\n  habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad solvendum qu\u00e6stione\n  versari: quod proculdubio facerent, si respondere talibus cogerentur._\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  _Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Historico-Theol. Lib. VIII. Cap. 28. \u00a7 16, &c.\n  & Joh. Jacobi Hottingeri, Fata Doctrin\u00e6 de Pr\u00e6destinat. Lib. I. \u00a7 35,\n  &c._\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  _Vid. G. J. Vossii Hist. Pelag. Lib. VI. Thes. 8, 9, 10._\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  _Vid. Calv. Instit. Lib. III. Cap. 22. \u00a7 1. Certior est hic Dei\n  veritas, quam ut concutiatur, clarior quam ut obruatur hominum\n  authoritate._\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  _See the epistles that passed between Berevov, a physician at Dort,\n  and several divines at that time, in_ Lib. de Term vit\u00e6.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  _Seneca de Consol. ad Marciam, cap. 20. Nemo nimis cito moritur, qui\n  victurus diutius quam vixit non fuit, fixus est cuique terminus,\n  manebit semper ubi positus est, nec illum ulterius diligentia aut\n  gratia promovebit. Et Cicero de Senect. Quod cuique temporis ad\n  vivendum datum, eo debet contentus esse. Virg. \u00c6n. X. Stat sua cuique\n  dies. Serv. Fixum est tempus vit\u00e6._\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  Evil as well as good actions are links in the chain of providence, and\n  yet do not impeach Divine holiness.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  _Vid. Senac. de Prov. cap. 5. August, de Civ. Dei, Lib. V. cap. 1, &\n  8. Lips Phys. Stoic. Lib. J. Diss. 12._\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  _See Quest. XVIII._\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  _See Quest. XXI, XXII._\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  When we contend for this doctrine as a _truth_, it should be viewed in\n  connexion with its real _importance_. These two objects are extremely\n  different in things natural, civil, and religious. There are many\n  things true in history, in philosophy, in politics, and even in\n  theology, which no sober person deems important. There are other\n  things hypothetically important, whether actually true or not. And of\n  this kind is the subject before us. Such is the nature, the connexion,\n  and consequences of it, that _if_ it be true, it cannot fail of being\n  of the first importance.\n\n  But how are we more particularly to estimate the importance of this\n  subject? By the influence which the admission or the denial of it has\n  on the very foundations of religion. For instance, if it be NOT true,\n  either _man_ himself or mere _chance_ has the principal share in\n  effecting our actual salvation, and investing us with eternal glory.\n  Some indeed are so lost to modesty and self-knowledge, and so\n  unacquainted with the leading truths of christianity, that they do not\n  scruple to ascribe the eventual difference in our future state,\n  whether good or bad, to man himself, but attended with some verbal,\n  unmeaning compliment to divine mercy. Such persons should first learn\n  the rudiments of christianity, before they have a right to expect any\n  deference shewn to their opinions. On the other hand, if this BE true,\n  its utility is plain; it will hide pride from man; it will exclude\n  chance from having any share in our deliverance; it will exalt the\n  grace of God; it will render salvation a certain, and not a precarious\n  thing; and, in a word, it will secure to them who have the Spirit of\n  Christ the greatest consolation.\n\n  This was the view which our episcopal reformers had of the doctrine,\n  both as to its truth, and the importance of it. \u2018Predestination to\n  life\u2019 say they, \u2018is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before\n  the foundations of the world were laid, he hath constantly decreed by\n  his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those\n  whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by\n  Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.\u2014The godly\n  consideration of Predestination and our election in Christ is full of\n  sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as\n  feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ mortifying the\n  works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their\n  minds to high and heavenly things; as well because it doth greatly\n  establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation, to be enjoyed\n  through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards\n  God.\u2019\u2014Another observation I would make is,\n\n  2. That it is highly proper, in order to investigate the present\n  subject with success, to keep it perfectly distinct, and free from all\n  _impure mixtures_. This is what some of our early reformers, and many\n  of the modern defenders of this doctrine have not done. For want of\n  this, many bitter enemies have opposed it. Dr. WHITBY, for instance,\n  and most who have written on the same side of the question since his\n  time, place predestination to death, or reprobation to misery, as the\n  very foundation of Calvinism, and inseparable from predestination to\n  life. But so far is predestination to death from being true, that\n  nothing can be more untrue. It is but an arbitrary assumption; a\n  foreign, impure mixture, having no foundation either in the real\n  meaning of holy writ, or in the nature of things; except indeed we\n  mean by it, what no one questions, a determination to punish the\n  guilty.[238] But is not one man\u2019s misery as _certain_ as another man\u2019s\n  happiness? Yes; _equally certain_. What then; must they therefore be\n  equally _predestinated_? No. But how can a thing be _certain_, if it\n  be not _predestinated_? Have a little patience and I will tell you.\n  The previous question is, Does God predestinate to _sin_ as the means,\n  and to death or misery as the end, in the same way as he predestinates\n  to holiness as the means, and eternal glory as the end? This we deny,\n  as it would be infinitely unworthy of God, making him the author of\n  sin, or doing evil that good may come. Some indeed have distinguished\n  between being the author or the cause of sin, and being a sinner. But\n  the distinction itself is not solid, nor could it fully satisfy those\n  who have made it in clearing the divine character.[239]\n\n  In fact, sin and holiness are not only different, but _opposite\n  effects_, and their causes equally opposite; but as God is the sole\n  cause, the sole exclusive cause of holiness, the creature, in some\n  way, must be the sole and exclusive cause of sin. If you ask how? I\n  reply, by exercising his _liberty_, which is a mere natural\n  instrument, on _himself_, rather than on God. But how came he to do\n  that? By his _passive power_. What is passive power? In general, it is\n  that which distinguishes the creature from the Creator. But more\n  particularly, it is that tendency to nothing as to being, and to\n  defection as to well being, which is essential to every created\n  existence. If every creature have, and must of necessity have this\n  passive power, you will ask, how came the holy angels, and the spirits\n  of the just, not to sin? The answer is, because divine grace upholds\n  them. These things duly considered, though briefly stated, will shew,\n  that as God is not the author of sin, so neither has he predestinated\n  sin. He is the author and cause of good only. He is the author of our\n  liberty; but that in itself is not evil. And he is the author of our\n  nature as limited; that also of itself is no moral evil. But when our\n  liberty unites with this limited nature, or terminates on passive\n  power, when this latter is not controuled by grace, their offspring is\n  imperfect, or sinfulness attaches to our moral acts.\n\n  Hence you may learn, that sin and future misery are events perfectly\n  certain, though not predestinated. It has been often assumed, but\n  without propriety or truth, that an event is foreknown only because it\n  is decreed. In reality all _good_ is foreknown, because it is decreed;\n  for there is no other ground of its existence. But sin, as before\n  shewn, has another ground of existence, namely, passive power, which\n  can no more be an object of divine predestination or decree than its\n  perfect opposite, the all-sufficiency of Jehovah. Yet, observe\n  attentively, this has its _proper nature_, and God sees all things,\n  and all essences, in their proper nature. What! Does not God foreknow\n  the sinfulness of any event in its _deficient_ cause, as well as the\n  goodness of another in that which is efficient? Beside, passive power\n  in union with liberty is an _adequate_, a fully adequate ground of sin\n  and death; and therefore to introduce a predestination of sin and\n  death, is to ascribe to God what is equally impious and\n  needless.[240]\u2014Let us, therefore, keep this doctrine free from all\n  impure mixtures, and now proceed to a\n\n  3rd Observation, that is, When the _end_ is maintained to be\n  infallibly certain, the _means_ to promote that end are included. Thus\n  you may suppose a chain suspended from a great height, and to the\n  lowest link a weight is fixed, which is borne by it. You do not\n  suppose that this link is unconnected with the next, and so on till\n  you come to the highest. Every one of the links is equally necessary\n  with that which is next the weight; and the whole is connected with\n  something else which is stronger than the weight, including that of\n  the chain also, however long and heavy.\n\n  Thus also in the cultivation of our land, though it is decreed that on\n  such a field there shall be this very season a crop of wheat, this was\n  not independent of providential virtue giving the increase, the genial\n  showers, the solar warmth, and the vivifying air. It is not\n  unconnected with the proper seed sown, needful tillage, plowing and\n  harrowing, and the quality of the soil. And the same holds true as to\n  the health of the body, and the prolongation of life to an appointed\n  period. He who dies must first have life; he who grows to manhood must\n  arrive at it through the previous stages of youth, childhood and\n  infancy. So likewise an the education of our children; if learning be\n  the end, that supposes the previous means of application; and if it is\n  determined who shall be the first scholar of the age in which he\n  lives, it is _equally_ determined that he shall begin with the\n  rudiments of letters, and diligently prosecute his literary studies.\n  And respecting religious attainments the matter is equally plain; if\n  life or eternal glory be the end predestinated, the previous steps of\n  purity of heart, justification and a new birth unto righteousness,\n  preservation in Christ, and every individual event and circumstance\n  preceding, is included in the decree, as far as there is any\n  _goodness_ in them. As to the _evil_ with which any events or\n  circumstances are blended, that has been already accounted for on\n  another principle. Nothing can be more true or plain, God had\n  predestinated an everlasting righteousness to be brought in by the\n  Lord Jesus Christ. But is it not equally true and plain that the birth\n  of Jesus, and of his virgin mother, the existence of David, the call\n  of Abraham, the preservation of Noah, and the creation of Adam and Eve\n  were predestinated?\u2014Let us therefore guard against separating the end\n  and the means; and what God joins together in his predestinating care\n  and love, let no man put asunder.\u2014We now come\n\n  II. To consider some proofs of this doctrine.\u2014That the scriptures,\n  especially those of the New Testament, _appear_, at least, to maintain\n  the doctrine in question, no person of common modesty will deny. Thus,\n  for instance, Rom. viii. 29, 30. \u201cWhom he did foreknow, he also did\n  _predestinate_ to be conformed to the image of his Son.\u201d Again, Eph.\n  i. 4-6. \u201cAccording as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation\n  of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in\n  love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus\n  Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the\n  praise of the glory of his grace.\u201d And again, ver. 11. \u201cIn whom also\n  we have obtained an inheritance, being _predestinated_ according to\n  the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own\n  will.\u201d Believers are said to be \u201ccalled according to God\u2019s _purpose_;\u201d\n  and certain discriminations are made between man and man, between\n  nation and nation, \u201cthat the _purpose_ of God according to election,\n  might stand, not of works but of him who calleth.\u201d \u201cThe _election_\n  hath obtained it.\u201d \u201cSo then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him\n  that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.\u201d \u201cShall the thing formed\n  say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?\u201d\u2014\u201cI will have\n  mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I\n  will have compassion.\u201d\n\n  These are some of the many passages of holy writ which at least _seem_\n  to hold this doctrine. But it is of importance to observe, that to\n  establish this very doctrine is the main drift of the apostle Paul\u2019s\n  elaborate argument in a considerable part of his epistle to the\n  Romans. See Rom. ix.-xi.\u2014But more particularly,\n\n  1. It is evidently inconsistent with God\u2019s infinite perfection to\n  suppose that he has _no_ purposes, designs, or aims in his operations;\n  or, which is virtually the same thing, to suppose that he decrees or\n  predestinates _nothing_. Wherein would he then differ from blind,\n  unmeaning chance, which hath neither wisdom, power, nor properties? An\n  intelligent spirit without _any_ plan or purpose, is inconceivable;\n  much less is the infinitely perfect Jehovah such a being.\n\n  But if he purposes _any thing_, what can be conceived of in this world\n  of higher importance, or more worthy of his predestinating care, than\n  the _salvation_ of his people, that is, of those who are eventually\n  saved? Shall he purpose from eternity to give his Son to appear in the\n  form of a servant, to suffer an ignominious death, and to be head over\n  all things to the church, at an _uncertainty_? Does he bestow his Holy\n  Spirit without knowing, or without intending, who shall be ultimately\n  changed into the divine image from glory to glory, and made meet for\n  the inheritance of the saints in light? Truly, if in time he draws\n  with loving-kindness, it is because he has loved with an everlasting\n  love.\n\n  2. What scripture and experience teach of man\u2019s condition as a sinner,\n  utterly excludes every other cause of salvation but God\u2019s\n  predestinating love. From our very birth we are sinful, guilty, and\n  without strength. The carnal mind is enmity against God. The graceless\n  heart is a heart of stone; in spiritual concerns unfeeling and\n  impenetrable. Well may our Lord say to his disciples, Ye have not\n  chosen me, but I have chosen you. If then those who were dead in\n  trespasses and sins have been quickened, if persecutors have been\n  arrested and alarmed, if those who were fully bent on rebellion have\n  been instantly rendered humble, meek, loving and obedient, to what can\n  we rationally ascribe it but to the discriminating and sovereign\n  pleasure of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own\n  will? If such are not predestinated, how came they to be called,\n  converted, and regenerated?\n\n  Consult the good man\u2019s experience. Will he coolly and deliberately\n  arrogate any thing to himself? Follow him to the throne of grace; what\n  is his language before God? Listen to his most holy, happy, and\n  animated praises in the church. Attend to him in his happiest\n  frames\u2014or, when emerging from the deep waters of affliction\u2014when\n  restored from backslidings\u2014or with faltering speech on the brink of\n  eternity; and you will find him steady to one point; \u201cBehold, God is\n  my salvation.\u201d My recovery from sin and woe is all of grace. Yea,\n  follow him to heaven, when he joins the noble army of martyrs, and the\n  countless myriads of the redeemed from among men, and there he shouts\n  aloud in chorus, \u201cUnto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins\n  in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his\n  Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.\u201d\u2014\u201cThou\n  art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power; for thou\n  hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were\n  created.\u201d If we search eternally into the origin and cause of our\n  deliverance from sin, and our exaltation to happiness and glory, none\n  can be found but God\u2019s predestinating love.\n\n  3. Nothing short of eternal predestination could secure that which is\n  demonstrably the most worthy, the most glorious, the most real _end_\n  of God in the salvation of man, that is, the praise of the glory of\n  his grace. No _end_ can be compared to this in excellence; it is\n  expressly the end which God has proposed to himself in the salvation\n  of his people; \u201chaving predestinated us unto the adoption of children\n  by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his\n  will, to the praise of the glory of his grace.\u201d If there be no\n  predestination, how can such an end ever be proposed, and how\n  infallibly secured? Can there be any effect without an adequate cause?\n  Or can the invention of men or angels discover any other cause than\n  predestination?\n\n  On any other supposition, how can divine love, grace, and mercy be\n  glorified, _infallibly_ glorified? Is the honour of these glorious and\n  blessed perfections of Jehovah to be suspended on a feeble\n  peradventure? Or is the spiritual temple constructed of some materials\n  which come by chance, or approach of themselves, while others are\n  brought forth by a divine hand out of the quarry of nature, and placed\n  on the living foundation? Is the glory of the Creator to depend upon\n  the precarious will of man? The supposition is too absurd to admit a\n  thought.\u2014Again,\n\n  4. Predestination to life is essentially necessary to secure the _full\n  end_ of the _death of Christ_ and the efficacy of divine influence.\n  What though he laid down his life for his sheep, if after all he do\n  not bring them into his fold? For him to lay down his life a _ransom_\n  for many, and then leave it to _them_ whether they should come for\n  life, and all the benefits of his death, righteousness and grace, is\n  to suppose them possessed of more power than Adam had before the fall.\n  For the power he needed was only that which might keep him from\n  falling; but the power which fallen man requires is that by which he\n  may rise from his fallen state, and enter into the favour of God, into\n  union with Christ, into spiritual sensibility and life, into wisdom,\n  righteousness and holiness, and into eternal glory. Now what can be\n  adequate to this but omnipotent power helping our infirmities?\n\n  If it be said, Though we cannot of ourselves do this, may we not\n  through Christ and his holy Spirit assisting us? I reply, _assistance_\n  is of two kinds; it is either affording us proper _means_, such as the\n  holy scriptures, the ministry of the word, ordinances of religion, and\n  precious promises by way of encouragement;\u2014or, it is actually to\n  _influence_ the mind by supernatural agency. If this latter assistance\n  be afforded, the event is secured; for nothing is requisite to secure\n  the volitions, and all the exercises of the will, in faith,\n  repentance, love, hope, and even perseverance therein unto the end,\n  but _this kind_ of influence to a certain degree. But does God impart\n  any gracious influence without _purposing_ to do so? And does he not\n  know what influence is necessary to secure the end? Without\n  predestination to life, what security can there be, that the death of\n  Christ will not prove abortive and unavailing?\n\n  The notion that a _sufficient_ degree of grace is given to all, but\n  that a degree _more_ than sufficient is given to the elect; that all\n  the elect are certainly and infallibly saved, but the others left at\n  uncertainty, with a _perhaps_ that some of them may be saved in\n  _addition_ to the elect\u2014this notion is neither founded in revealed\n  truth, nor capable of rational consistency.[241]\n\n  Without predestination to life, the influences of the Holy Spirit,\n  which, it is confessed, are given to some, might be given in vain, or\n  without effecting any saving purpose in any one of the human race.\n  Where then could be the wisdom of a dispensation of the Spirit, or of\n  communicating the influence of grace? Does God foresee that some will\n  be so good and pliable as to improve a _common_ favour in such a way\n  and to such a degree as to constitute the difference between them and\n  others that perish? But where is this divinity taught, and by whom is\n  it sanctioned? It is not sanctioned by the patriarchs and prophets, by\n  Christ and his apostles, nor is it contained in the words of\n  inspiration, or even in the tablet of unsophisticated reason.\n\n  5. Setting aside this doctrine, or supposing it not true, what room is\n  left for a covenant of grace between the Father, Son, and Spirit? Has\n  not the Father given to the Son a people for whom he should be\n  obedient unto death, for whom he should give his life a ransom, for\n  whom he should rise, live, and reign till all his enemies be subdued,\n  and to whom Christ has engaged to give eternal life? If we reject\n  predestination to life, what meaning is there in his office of\n  _surety_? Is not Jesus a surety for his people? But what is a surety?\n  It is one who undertakes for another. What does Jesus undertake to do?\n  He undertakes not only to become incarnate for them, to obey the law,\n  to endure the contradiction of sinners and cope with the rigid demands\n  of equity, but also to justify many, to give them life, to keep them\n  from every rapacious hand, to purify them by his blood, to save them\n  from sin and hell, and to bring them to the beatific vision of his\n  glory.\n\n  In a word, take away this doctrine, and you take away the foundation\n  of God\u2014the foundation of his covenant\u2014the foundation of his temple,\n  the church\u2014the foundation of the saints\u2019 hope and joy. But, blessed be\n  God, his foundation standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth\n  them that are his. Known unto God are all his ways, and all his people\n  from the beginning. Blind chance and impotent free will shall never be\n  the partners of his throne.\n\n  We next come to notice\n\n  III. Some objections which may be, and often are, made to this\n  doctrine. And\n\n  1. If this doctrine be true, it is urged by some, God would then be an\n  arbitrary and partial being. This objection supposes that God has _no\n  right_ to be so; but on the contrary, nothing appears more worthy of\n  him than to exercise arbitrary power, and to manifest partiality. No\n  such right is vested in man, as to do what he pleases, while he\n  disdains to consult any other will than his own. But whose will beside\n  his own can the infinitely perfect God consult? Who hath known the\n  mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor? Or, who hath first\n  given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him,\n  and through him, and to him are all things; to whom be glory for ever.\n\n  Let us appeal to facts. Are there not marks of high sovereignty and\n  holy partiality through universal nature? Are they not visible in the\n  heavens above, and in this lower world? Is there not a greater light\n  that rules the day, and the lesser lights that rule the night? And\n  does not one star differ from another star in glory? Are not these\n  marks visible in the operations of providence, in the persons of men,\n  their corporeal forms and mental endowments? Are they not constantly\n  seen in the history of nations, the changes of empires, and the\n  dispensations of grace to different tribes of men? How conspicuous is\n  this in God\u2019s conduct towards Abraham and his posterity for a series\n  of ages, and afterwards in the calling of the Gentiles? And how\n  becoming in us to adopt the same language with the apostle Paul on\n  that occasion: \u201cO the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and\n  knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways\n  past finding out!\u201d And is not the same partiality visible at this very\n  day? Yet is he holy in all his works, and righteous in all his ways.\n\n  2. It is objected, If this doctrine be true, then is man reduced to a\n  mere machine. No, a mere machine has no sensibility, no consciousness,\n  no reason, and no will. But he is acted upon, they say, and therefore\n  not an agent. Is it then essential to an agent not to be acted upon?\n  Then there is but one agent in the universe; for every thing but the\n  first cause is acted upon more or less. The fact is, there is no\n  contrariety in these two things. Angels and men are acted upon, yet\n  they are moral agents. The holy agency upon them respects chiefly\n  their _disposition_ itself, but the agency they exert is the\n  _exercise_ of their faculties, will, and disposition. Whether their\n  disposition be good or bad, still they are agents. If this be made\n  good, it must be by sovereign influence; and then the agency and\n  choice will be good: but if this be bad, the agency is bad too.\n\n  But granting to the objector that the objects of predestination are,\n  in the sense now mentioned, machines, or instruments in the hand of\n  divine sovereignty; what then? I fain would know what better lot can\n  be assigned us than to be instruments in the hand of a predestinating\n  God? I solemnly protest that I desire no better, no other lot. And who\n  can describe the nature of this high privilege! This people have I\n  formed for myself, they shall shew forth my praise. O the blessedness\n  of being entirely passive in the hand of that God who predestinates\n  nothing but good? Was Paul obliged to the Lord, or was he not, for\n  arresting him in the midst of his wicked career? Has that man any\n  reason to complain, who is restrained from wickedness, but compelled\n  to embrace happiness? Then, say some, his will would be forced. O no!\n  this by no means follows. My people, saith the Lord, shall be willing\n  in the day of my power. Surely God can put his Holy Spirit in either\n  man or child without forcing the will. And let there be but the\n  active, regenerating renewing presence of this divine agent, the\n  choice of good will be no more compelled, or the will no more forced,\n  than in the most free acts of which the human mind is capable.\n\n  3. This doctrine, it is said, tends to licentiousness.\u2014This is an\n  assertion which has been often made, but, I apprehend, never fairly\n  proved; for it is contrary to universal experience. Turn your eyes to\n  a vast army, headed by experienced officers\u2014what is the language of\n  nature and experience? You uniformly find great generals anxious to\n  impress the sentiment on the minds of their troops that they are\n  _destined_ to victory. What gives rise to this kind of oratory? What\n  is the philosophy of such rhetoric? It is founded in the nature of\n  man, and confirmed by the experience of ages, that confidence in a\n  favourable issue animates exertion.\n\n  Consult a serious christian, who, through a long pilgrimage, has\n  believed this doctrine. Will he deliberately tell you that it has this\n  tendency, or that he has found this effect in his own experience? No,\n  he will tell you nothing gives him more courage and vigour against\n  sin.\u2014It is not when in a dry, backsliding frame of mind, or when\n  verging to licentiousness, that he can rest in this doctrine; but when\n  he is most resolved for God and heaven\u2014when most diligent in the high\n  way of holiness. Then, indeed, he can say, I know that all things work\n  together for my good\u2014my predestination includes conformity to Christ,\n  my calling, my justification, and warfare against sin. If God be for\n  me, who can be against me? Who shall lay any thing to my charge? It is\n  God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that\n  died, is risen, and maketh intercession. Who shall separate me from\n  the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or famine, or\n  persecution, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Nay, in all these\n  things I am more than conqueror through him that loved me. For I am\n  persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor\n  principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,\n  nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to\n  separate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus my Lord.\n\n  4. Some would insinuate, that though this doctrine be true, yet it\n  should not be preached, because it is a secret in the mind of God. But\n  I hope it has been proved, that as a _doctrine_ it is not a secret,\n  but is revealed in the holy scriptures, and supported by the soundest\n  arguments. The objects, indeed, or the persons who are predestinated,\n  are known to God only before they bear fruit, By their _fruits_ WE can\n  come to know them, in the _ordinary_ course of things; nor is it any\n  part of the doctrine asserted, that it belongs to man to ascertain the\n  individual objects any farther than by character.\n\n  But there are other ends to be answered by this doctrine.\u2014To be in the\n  way to eternal glory is an unspeakable privilege; and it is the proper\n  part of a christian to enquire into the cause of it. His own humility\n  and gratitude are involved in it. The honour of God, the wisdom of his\n  counsel, and the lustre of his grace; the offices of Christ, the\n  surety of a better covenant, and the good Shepherd of the sheep; his\n  powerful intercession, and his government over all things to the\n  church\u2014all are involved in the proper declaration of this truth.\u2014Once\n  more,\n\n  5. This doctrine, it may be said, is dangerous, in proportion as it is\n  insisted upon, in that it prevents the more needful enquiry, \u201cAm I\n  born again!\u201d Yes, there would be danger, if _all_ the attention of\n  ministers and people, or even a disproportionate share of it were\n  confined to this. But, thou mistaken objector, because there are some\n  who will take the bread of children and cast it away, are the children\n  not to be fed? Because there were corrupt men disposed to turn the\n  grace of God into lasciviousness, would you rob any child of God of\n  this holy triumph. He will choose our inheritance for us! The Lord\n  will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.\n  For the Lord is our defence, the Holy One of Israel is our King. I\n  will trust and not be afraid, for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and\n  my song, he also is become my salvation.\u2014\u2014For the same reason that we\n  ought not to be ashamed of the gospel of Christ, we need not, we ought\n  not to be ashamed of this doctrine.\n\n  I would now offer\n\n  IV. A few practical uses of the subject. And,\n\n  1. This doctrine is a source of great comfort, when contrasted with\n  the fickleness of men, and the perpetual vicissitudes of the world.\n  The lot may be cast, but the Lord is the disposer of it. He worketh\n  all things after the counsel of his own will. His counsel shall stand,\n  and he doeth, and will do, all his pleasure. The wrath of man shall\n  praise him, and the remainder of wrath he will restrain. All things\n  work together for good to them who love God, to them who are the\n  called according to his purpose. He doeth all things well.\n\n  After viewing the present perturbed state of the world, the\n  revolutions of empire, the devastations of war, the alarms of\n  invasion, the degradation of some, and the exaltation of other\n  characters\u2014how pleasing and consolatory to view a steady hand\n  over-ruling, guiding, and influencing all! Providence is \u201cas it were a\n  wheel in the middle of a wheel.\u201d\u2014As for their rings, they are so high\n  that they are dreadful, and are full of eyes round about them. But how\n  delightful to reflect, that within these perpetually revolving wheels\n  there is an immoveable centre! God\u2019s aim is steady, he is of one mind,\n  who can turn him?\n\n  2. As the predestination for which we contend is only to _good_, it\n  affords the most pleasing view of the divine character. God is love.\n  In him is no such inconsistency as is but too frequently found among\n  men. He is not a fountain sending forth at the same place both sweet\n  water and bitter, yielding both salt water and fresh. With the utmost\n  safety and confidence may a humble soul commit itself into the arms of\n  such a being. No one has any thing to fear from God but the proud and\n  rebellious, the unbelieving and impenitent. And surely bad must be the\n  doctrine that speaks peace to the wicked.\n\n  3. As in the present case the end, and the way leading to it, are\n  inseparable; every reason and argument, every alarming topic, every\n  scriptural exhortation, and every obligation to duty, are in full\n  force. They who represent these things as inconsistent with\n  predestination, either have a wrong view of the subject, or care not\n  what they say nor whereof they affirm. Obligation to duty is founded\n  on widely and totally different considerations.[242]\n\n  God sustains, with respect to man, a twofold character, the one is\n  that of an equitable governor, the other that of a sovereign disposer.\n  Answerably to this, man sustains a twofold character also; that of an\n  accountable agent, and that of a disposable subject. As _passive_ in\n  the hand of a sovereign God, he is necessitated to good, in proportion\n  as goodness attaches to him; and in the heirs of salvation this is\n  predestination to life. As _active_, or a moral agent, man is treated\n  according to the rules of reason and equity, yet mingled with\n  undeserved favours. So that every man is, in these different respects,\n  at once the subject of liberty and necessity.\n\n  Equally vague and unprofitable, therefore, is all controversy on the\n  subject now alluded to while one side contends for _liberty_ and the\n  other for _necessity_ to the usual exclusion of the opposite. Neither\n  can be wholly right. For, as sure as God disposes of a man for final\n  good, the doctrine of necessity is true; and as sure as a man is a\n  transgressor of divine law, and thus is fitted for destruction, he is\n  _free_ from all _decretive_ necessity. Therefore,\n\n  4. Here is no room for the impious inference, that when we do evil we\n  are predestinated to it. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am\n  tempted of God; for as God cannot be tempted with evil, so neither\n  tempteth he any man; but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of\n  his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth\n  forth sin; and sin when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not\n  err, my beloved brethren; every good gift, and every perfect gift is\n  from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no\n  variableness, neither shadow of turning.\u2014But evil, in whatever person,\n  in whatever place, at whatever time, in whatever form or degree, is\n  from a quarter diametrically opposite.\u2014On the contrary,\n\n  5. When at any time we are engaged in the work of God, in any thing\n  whatever that is morally good, then are we employed in the execution\n  of the divine purposes; for there is no good done in time but was\n  decreed to be done, in all its circumstances, from eternity. Even all\n  the actions of the wicked, except the deformity or sinfulness which is\n  in them, are also worthy of God to predestinate. This consideration,\n  every one must allow, is a great incentive to virtue and holiness.\n  This remark is applicable both to ministers and people. Are ministers\n  engaged in preaching the law for conviction, the promises for\n  encouragement, and the unsearchable riches of Christ for consolation;\n  are they urging, according to scripture commands and example,\n  repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; do they\n  enforce christian duties, teaching the disciples all things whatsoever\n  our Lord and lawgiver has commanded; do they warn sinners to flee from\n  the wrath to come, or invite the burdened and heavy laden to seek rest\n  in the meek and lowly, the merciful and loving Saviour? They are in\n  all this only the instruments of a sovereign God, or the _appointed\n  means_ whereby he executes his eternal purposes. Again, has God\n  enjoined the necessity of repentance, faith, holiness, obedience, and\n  perseverance; poverty of spirit, holy mourning, purity of heart, love\n  to enemies, &c? our personal compliance, which is evermore of grace,\n  is only the _decreed method_ of bringing us to that eternal glory\n  which is the end. Once more,\n\n  6. This doctrine properly guarded, and rightly understood, shews with\n  peculiar force the true ground of repentance, and the obligations of\n  gratitude and holiness.\u2014If the sinfulness of no action is decreed, but\n  proceeds wholly from that in us which is opposite to God and his will,\n  whether secret or revealed, rectoral or decretive, what can be more\n  binding and reasonable than repentance toward God? And if all good,\n  whether natural, supernatural, moral or spiritual, in ourselves and\n  others, in time and to eternity proceed from God\u2019s predestination,\n  what a foundation is there laid for gratitude! Put on, therefore, as\n  the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness,\n  humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering. Give all diligence to\n  make your calling and election sure. And let the peace of God rule in\n  your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body, and be ye\n  thankful. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of\n  the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. _Amen._\n\n  DR. WILLIAMS.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  Predestination _to Death_ or _misery_, as the end, and to _sin_ as the\n  means, I call \u201can impure mixture;\u201d a _mixture_, because its connexion\n  with Predestination to life is arbitrary and forced;\u2014impure, because\n  the supposition itself is a foul aspersion of the divine character.\n  St. Augustine, Calvin, Perkins, Twisse, Rutherford, &c. &c. though\n  highly valuable and excellent men, upon the whole, were not free from\n  this impure mixture of doctrine. But of all modern authors, if we\n  except the philosophical Necessarians, Hobbes, Collins, Hume, Hartley,\n  Priestly, &c. Dr. Hopkins, of America seems the most open in his\n  avowal of the sentiment, that _sin and misery_ are _decreed_ in the\n  same manner as holiness and happiness, in order to produce the\n  greatest general good. The substance of his reasoning is thus\n  expressed by himself: \u201cAll future existences, events, and actions,\n  must have a cause of their futurition, or there must be a reason why\n  they are future, or certainly to take place, rather than not. This\n  cause must be the _divine decree_ determining their future existence,\n  or it must be in the future _existences themselves_. But the future\n  existences could not he the cause of their own futurition; for this\n  supposes them to exist as a cause, and to have influence, before they\n  have any existence, even from eternity.\u2014The cause therefore can be\n  nothing but _divine decree_, determining their future existence,\n  without which nothing could be future, consequently nothing could be\n  known to be future.\u201d\u2014See his System of doctrines, 2 vol. 8vo.\n  especially Vol. i p. 110-217.\n\n  On the sentiment itself, by whomsoever held, I would offer the\n  following strictures:\n\n  1. It is a mere assumption, that _sin_, which the above proposition\n  avowedly includes, has no possible _cause_ of its futurition but\n  either the divine decree, or the future existences themselves. For\n  though God\u2019s decrees are the cause of our being, faculties, and\n  volitions, none of these, nor any thing else that can he traced to\n  divine causation, will constitute _sin_. Nor yet is it true that sin\n  is the _cause of itself_; for then sin would be self-existent. It\n  follows therefore that it must have another origin than either the\n  divine decree or its own existence.\n\n  2. It is equally plain that the _cause_ of sin is not itself morally\n  evil; For this would involve a contradiction, making cause and effect\n  to be the same thing. Nor yet can the cause be morally good. For as\n  from truth nothing but truth can legitimately proceed, so from good\n  nothing but good can flow. Evil, indeed, is _related_ to good, but not\n  as cause and effect. Though evil could not follow were there no\n  infinite good, no creature, no will, no freedom, yet something else\n  must be sought as the matrix, where the monster sin is generated and\n  fostered, and which, morally considered, is neither good nor\n  evil.\u2014Therefore,\n\n  3. We assert, that the _origin of moral evil_ is to be found in the\n  _union_ of two principles, neither of which considered alone partakes\n  of a _moral_ character. These two principles are _Liberty_ and\n  _Passive Power_. Liberty, it is manifest is morally neither good nor\n  bad, but is a mere natural instrument, if I may so speak, and may be\n  termed a _natural good_ of which God is the author and decreer. On the\n  contrary, Passive Power is a _natural evil_ of which God is not the\n  author or decreer, yet morally considered is not evil. But this term,\n  being little understood, requires further explanation; at least it is\n  incumbent on me to shew in what sense I use it. My design is not to\n  vindicate the use of it by others, but I adopt it to convey a specific\n  idea, for which I find no other word or phrase more appropriate. By\n  \u2018Passive Power,\u2019 then, I mean, That which is of _unavoidable\n  necessity_ found in every creature, as such, in direct opposition to\n  the self-existence, independence, and all-sufficiency of God. In other\n  words, It is that _tendency_ to nihility, physically considered, and\n  to defection, morally considered, which of _absolute necessity_\n  belongs to every dependent or created nature. That there is such a\n  principle is self-evident, nor is it probable that any reasonable\n  being will ever controvert its existence. Now, it is demonstrable that\n  this, from the definition, cannot be the object of divine decree, or\n  of will; for it is stated to be of _absolute_ or _unavoidable_\n  necessity; besides, it is absurd to suppose that God has decreed, or\n  produces, any thing the existence of which stands in _direct\n  contrariety_ to himself. That it is not a _moral_ evil is plain, for\n  the _holiest_ creatures are subjects of it\u2014God alone is exempt.\n\n  4. Let it be further observed, that the First Cause, being goodness\n  itself, impels, whether decretively or efficiently, to _good only_;\n  and of this character is even our being necessitated to exercise our\n  volitions. Yet, when the exercise of liberty, in itself innocent,\n  _unites_ with passive power, the fruit or offspring of this union is\n  moral evil. This, I am fully persuaded, is the true solution of this\n  question, _Whence cometh moral evil?_ If any person shall think proper\n  candidly to assign his reasons to the contrary, due regard shall be\n  paid to them,\n\n  5. If it be asked, where lies the difference between _decreeing_ and\n  _permitting_ sin to take place? I answer, the difference is, that the\n  one would be an act of _injustice_, the other is _doing nothing_. So\n  that until it can be shewn that there is no difference between\n  injustice and doing nothing, there is no force in the objection. That\n  to necessitate sin decretively would be an act of injustice, and\n  therefore incompatible with the divine character, is, I think,\n  demonstrable; for, it would be to decree to destruction _antecedently_\n  to desert\u2014to _annihilate_ the sinfulness of any act, making its evil\n  nature to consist in its effects\u2014and to destroy the immutable essences\n  of good and evil. Whereas to _permit_, or to _suffer_ to take place\n  without prevention, is _not to act not to decree_. To \u2018decree to\n  permit,\u2019 therefore, is a contradiction in terms.\n\n  6. But, it has been said, the _event_ is the same to the sinner,\n  whether he hurried on to sin and misery by a decretive impulse, or\n  these effects are not prevented when in the power of omnipotence to\n  interpose. This objection would have some weight, if the _happiness_\n  of the creature were the only, or even the _principal_ end of God in\n  creation. But this not being the case, its weight vanishes. To\n  illustrate this we may suppose, that the _event_ of a man\u2019s execution\n  is well known to a judge; but, instead of proceeding on the principles\n  of law and equity, and to effect conviction and condemnation according\n  to legal evidence, he orders the man to be executed clandestinely\n  without any equitable process, under pretence that it could make no\n  difference to the sufferer, for the _event_ of his execution was\n  _certain_! Besides, the spirit of the objection reflects on God\u2019s\n  _actual_ dealings with his creatures, in every instance of their\n  sufferings; because it is in the power of omnipotence to interpose.\n  And in fact, it must be allowed, either that the _happiness_ of the\n  Creature is not the _chief_ end of creation, or that the permission of\n  sin is an act of injustice. But the case is plain, that his own glory\n  is the chief end of creation and government, and that there is no\n  injustice in the permission of sin.\n\n  7. It may be said, If the union of liberty with passive power be the\n  origin of moral evil, and if the holiest creatures in heaven are both\n  free and the subjects of passive power, how is it that they do not\n  sin! If both are united in the same persons, does the one never\n  terminate upon; or unite itself to the other? In answer to this\n  enquiry, we must distinguish between _having_ the principle, and being\n  under its influence without control. Though the spirits of the just,\n  and holy angels, have in them the principle, as the condition of their\n  created existence, yet it is counteracted by sovereign favour. They\n  may say, as well as Paul, by the grace of God we are what we are. The\n  object of divine support is the _disposition_, or the _seat_ of moral\n  action; this being made good, or pure, or holy, prior to all acts of\n  the will, effectually counteracts the influence of passive power. The\n  Liberty and choice of a heavenly being therefore, terminating on such\n  a disposition, no acts but such as are holy can ensue. Hence,\n\n  8. If we would know how this is consistent with the actual fall of\n  beings who were once in this condition, we must attend to another\n  important consideration; which is, that when God at any time deals in\n  _mere equity_ with a moral agent, without the counteracting influence\n  of sovereign favour, the inevitable consequence is, that his liberty,\n  or free choice, will terminate upon his passive power. Hence the\n  _certainty_ of the futurition of moral evil, in all possible degrees\n  and circumstances, without any decretive efficiency in its\n  production.\u2014If it be asked, why the exercise of _equity_ is assigned\n  as the occasion of this union, rather than _sovereignty_; or, why\n  leaving a free agent to the influence of his passive power should not\n  be considered a sovereign rather than an equitable act? The best\n  answer to this enquiry, is a definition of the two terms. By _equity_\n  then I mean the principle that gives to each his due; by\n  _sovereignty_, a right to do whatsoever is not inconsistent with\n  equity. And from this definition it must appear that there may he a\n  two-fold deviation from equity, _viz._ giving _more_ than is due, or\n  _less_ than is due; more good and less evil, or more evil and less\n  good than is equitable. The former of these, more good and less evil,\n  must needs be for the advantage of the creature; and therefore it may\n  be called a _gracious_ deviation. Without it, there would be no room\n  for either mercy or grace. The latter, more evil and less good than is\n  due, is properly called _injustice_, and is such a deviation from\n  equity as is not compatible with the divine character. Therefore, to\n  do us good _beyond_ our claim is an act of _sovereignty_; but to give\n  us neither more nor less than is our due is to deal with us in _pure\n  equity_.\n\n  9. Hence it follows, that when God deals with angels or men in\n  _sovereignty_, according to the definitions, he does them _good\n  beyond_ their claim. But to make _this_ to be the immediate _cause_ of\n  the sin of men and angels is absurd. On the other hand, it is\n  incompatible with the divine character, as before observed, to give\n  them less good and more evil than is their due; and therefore _this_\n  cannot be the cause of sin, as sure as God is incapable of exercising\n  injustice.\u2014Wherefore, it remains that then alone can moral agents fall\n  into sin when dealt with in _pure equity_. In the act of defection, or\n  becoming sinful, they are equally free from being impelled by\n  injustice, and upheld by sovereign favour.\n\n  COROLLARIES.\n\n  1. All the _good_ and happiness in the universe of created beings are\n  the fruit of Sovereignty and Decree.\n\n  2. All the _moral evil_ and misery in the universe are the offspring\n  of _liberty_, a natural good, terminating or acting upon, or united to\n  _passive power_, a natural evil not counteracted by sovereignly\n  gracious acts on the disposition, or the seat of the moral principle,\n  which may be called analogically _the heart_.\n\n  3. As every act and degree of liberty is perfectly fore-known to God,\n  as the effect of his own decree, and every hypothetical tendency of\n  passive power, though itself not an object of decree, is equally\n  fore-known, it follows, that every sin is as accurately fore-known as\n  if decreed, and has an equally infallible ground of certain\n  futurition.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  It is allowed that there is a difference between the _cause of sin_,\n  as a _principle_, and being a _sinner_; but when applied to an\n  _agent_, to be the author or the cause of sin, and to be a sinner, is\n  the same thing. Therefore, when applied to God, in no proper sense\n  whatever can it be said that he is the _author of sin_.\u2014\u201cIf by _the\n  author of sin_ is meant (says President Edwards) the permitter, or a\n  _not hinderer_ of sin, and at the same time a disposer of the state of\n  events in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and\n  purposes, that sin infallibly follows: I say, if this be all that is\n  meant by the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of\n  sin, though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and\n  custom is apt to carry another sense.\u201d Edwards on the Will, Part iv.\n  Sect. xi.\n\n  But though this acute and excellent writer disavows the use of the\n  phrase, he no where assigns the _true ground_ why it should not be\n  used. The truth is, he does not seem to have been aware of any\n  alternative between the _certain futurition_ of sin and its being\n  _decreed_. And his only method of warding off the most ruinous\n  consequences appears to have been adopted for want of a better, and\n  not from the satisfactory nature of that method. His view, in brief,\n  is this: God is a being of infinite goodness and wisdom; he can will\n  nothing but good; the system he hath adopted is the best; now, says\n  he, \u201cif the will be good, and the object of his will be, all things\n  considered, good and best, then the choosing and willing it, is not\n  _willing evil_. And if so, then his ordering according to that will is\n  not _doing evil_.\u201d\n\n  It is very seldom that this eminent author fails in his reasoning; but\n  here certainly he does fail. The phrases _willing evil_, and _doing\n  evil_, are not used in the same sense in both parts of the premises,\n  from whence the conclusion is inferred. A system, all things\n  considered, being best, is no good reason why each individual part of\n  it is good. And it may be forcibly retorted; a system which includes\n  an infinite evil as a part of its institution cannot be from God. Nor\n  can it be said that this is arguing against _fact_, without begging\n  the question, that God has _appointed the evil_ which is blended with\n  the good.\u2014On the subject itself let the following things be\n  considered:\n\n  1. If choosing and willing a system in which _sin is a decreed part_\n  is not _willing evil_, because the system is good and best, all things\n  considered then it would inevitably follow, that sin, because such a\n  part of that system is _not an evil_. But, it may be said, It is\n  willing it for a _good end_. Does then a good _end_ or intention\n  destroy the _nature_ of sin? Was the sin of Paul or any other saint\n  _anihilated_ because he _sincerely aimed_ at the Glory of God? Or has\n  any _design_, however comprehensive, exalted or sincere, the _least\n  tendency_ to alter the _nature_ of sin?\n\n  2. Allowing as incontrovertible that the present system of things is\n  the best, all things considered, and that sin is actually blended with\n  it, it does not thence follow that the sin itself is _decreed_, or is\n  any part of divine appointment. For _not to hinder_ sin, is extremely\n  different from being the _cause_ or author of it. The one is perfectly\n  consistent with equity, the other would be an act of _injustice_.\n\n  3. It is a sentiment so repugnant to all analogical propriety, to _do\n  evil that good may come_, that it cannot be supposed a man of Mr.\n  Edwards\u2019 piety would have adopted any thing like it, but from what\n  appeared to him an inevitable necessity. And indeed whoever assumes\n  the principle, that every event comes to pass from _decretive_\n  necessity, sin not excepted, must of course be driven to his\n  conclusion. But this valuable author had no need to recur to that\n  opinion, in order to establish his theory of _hypothetical_ necessity;\n  for this will stand on a rock, immoveably, without such aid.\n\n  4. In reality, the certain futurition of _good_, and that of _evil_,\n  arises from _different_, yea from diametrically _opposite_ causes. The\n  one flows from the operative will of God, and is fore-known to be\n  future because decreed, the other flows from a deficient or privative\n  cause, passive power, when united to liberty, as before explained,\n  which exists only in created beings, and in all these, as a contrast\n  to self-existence, independence, and all-sufficiency. Yet _this_ is\n  the subject of hypothetical tendencies and results no less than the\n  good to which it stands opposed, in all the boundless varieties of its\n  blendings; therefore no case can be so complicated, but to infinite\n  prescience the event must appear with _equal certainty_ as if decreed.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n  \u201c_Equally impious and needless._\u201d _Needless_, because the existence of\n  sin is fairly and fully accounted for on another principle; _impious_,\n  because it ascribes to God the worst of all principles, the causation\n  of sin. That God superintends, directs, and over-rules the actions of\n  men is worthy of him; and equally so that he does _not hinder_ the\n  existence of moral evil; but that he is a positive and efficacious\n  cause of moral evil, or that this is consistent with either his\n  justice or holiness can never be proved. Dr. Hopkins, indeed, says,\n  that \u201cthe attempt to _distinguish_ between the sinful volitions or\n  actions of men as natural and moral actions; and making God the origin\n  and cause of them considered as natural actions, and men the cause and\n  authors of the _depravity_ and sin which is in them, is, it is\n  believed, _unintelligible_\u2014unless by making this distinction it be\n  meant, that in every sinful action, God is not the sinful cause of\n  it.\u201d The author, however, candidly adds, \u201cBut if the contrary can be\n  made to appear, this doctrine, with all that is implied in it, shall\n  be given up and renounced.\u201d As the removal of this principle, and the\n  establishment of the other, appear to me of the highest importance in\n  theology, a few remarks, in addition to those already made, may not be\n  superfluous, as tending to exhibit the principle here maintained in\n  different lights and connexions; and when all are properly examined,\n  it is probable they will not be wholly \u201c_unintelligible_.\u201d\n\n  1. God, JEHOVAH, is the infinite and eternal Essence, which is of\n  _absolute necessity_\u2014the self-existent, independent, and\n  all-sufficient Being\u2014from eternity to eternity generating his own\n  light and joy, called his only begotten Son; not from mere will, but\n  of the same necessity.\n\n  2. God in his boundless all-sufficiency views all _possibles_ with all\n  their positive and privative _tendencies_. That all possibles have\n  their _positive_ tendencies is as plain as that two added to three\n  make five. Were there no positive tendencies, there could be no\n  hypothetical certainty, no law of nature, no connexion between cause\n  and effect. And it is equally true, though not equally plain, that\n  there are _privative_ tendencies in all beings but that one who exists\n  of _absolute necessity_. To suppose the contrary, is the same as to\n  suppose that a creature _may be made_ independent, and all-sufficient.\n  But that is, every reasonable being must allow, _absolutely\n  impossible_, as implying the grossest contradiction. On this\n  demonstrated fact rests unavoidably the existence of that principle in\n  every created nature which I call _Passive Power_. Yet.\n\n  3. It does not follow that the mere collateral existence of these two\n  principles in the same subject must needs produce moral evil. Then\n  alone does this take place when the one terminates upon, or is united\n  to the other, without the interposition of sovereign favour. It is not\n  in the power of equity to assist. For the exercise of equity is to\n  give each his due; but to _prevent_ sin is not _due_ to the subject of\n  it, otherwise no one _could ever sin_ but on condition of _injustice_\n  in God.\n\n  4. After all, it may be objected, that the _scriptures_ ascribe to God\n  the causation of moral evil; as, hardening the heart of\n  Pharaoh\u2014hardening whom he will\u2014making the wicked for the day of\n  evil\u2014appointing to destruction\u2014determining the death of\n  Christ\u2014delivering him by determinate counsel\u2014doing all evil in a\n  city\u2014making vessels to dishonour\u2014fitting them for destruction, &c.\u2014In\n  reply to this objection it must be considered, that whatever the\n  import of such representations may be, no interpretation which is\n  _unworthy of God_ can be the true meaning\u2014that the idioms of the\n  sacred languages ascribing cause or operation to God must be\n  understood according to the nature of the subject\u2014and, what is\n  particularly to our purpose, that active verbs which denote _making_,\n  _doing_, _causing_, and the like, often denote a _declaration_ of the\n  thing done, or that shall take place; or a _permission_ of it.\n\n  Take a few specimens. Thus Acts x. 15. \u201cWhat God hath _cleansed_,\u201d\n  means, what God hath _declared_ to be clean.\u2014Isai. vi. 9, 10. The\n  prophet is commanded to tell the people, \u201cunderstand not, perceive\n  not;\u201d and he is ordered to \u201c_make_ the heart of this people fat, to\n  _make_ their ears heavy, and to _shut_ their eyes.\u201d And what can this\n  mean more than to _declare a fact_, either what they then were, or\n  what they would be?\u2014So Jer. i. 10. The Prophet\u2019s _declaration_ of what\n  should be, is called his _rooting_ out _pulling_ down, &c.\u2014Ezek.\n  xliii. 3. The prophet says, \u201cwhen I came to _destroy_ the city;\u201d his\n  meaning undoubtedly is, When I came to prophecy or _declare_ that the\n  city should be destroyed.\u2014Exod. v. 22. \u201cLord, wherefore hast thou\n  _evil entreated_ this people?\u201d Moses means, Wherefore hast thou\n  _permitted_ them to be evil entreated?\u2014Jer. iv. 10. \u201cLord God, thou\n  hast greatly _deceived_ this people;\u201d that is, _permitted_ or not\n  hindered them to be deceived by the false Prophets.\u2014Ezek. xiv. 9. \u201cI\n  the Lord have _deceived_ that prophet.\u201d Can any thing else be meant\n  than suffering him to deceive himself?\u2014Matt. xi. 25. \u201cThou hast _hid_\n  these things\u201d _i. e._ _not revealed_.\u2014\u2014Thus also, Rom. ix. 18. \u201cWhom\n  he will he _hardeneth_,\u201d he suffereth to be hardened.\u2014Rom. xi. 8. \u201cGod\n  _gave them_ a spirit of slumber,\u201d _i. e._ permitted them to slumber. 2\n  Thes. ii. 11. \u201cGod shall _send_ them strong delusion, that they should\n  believe a lie;\u201d _i. e._ shall _permit_ them to be deluded so that they\n  shall believe a lie.\u2014Exod. vii. 3. &c. \u201cAnd I will _harden_ Pharaoh\u2019s\n  heart,\u201d i. e. I will _suffer_ it to be hardened. Matt. x. 34, 35. \u201cI\n  am not come to _send_ peace, but _a sword_; For I am come to _set_ a\n  man _at variance_ against his father,\u201d That is, my coming shall be the\n  _innocent occasion_ of wars and variance.\u2014Jude 4. \u201cWho were before of\n  old _ordained_ to this condemnation;\u201d _i. e._ _foretold_, or\n  _forewritten_, as the word signifies; _announced_ in the sacred pages,\n  and _proscribed_ by divine law.\n\n  But the passage above all others, which appears to countenance the\n  notion, that God is the _cause_ of sin, is 1 Pet. ii. 8. \u201cA stone of\n  stumbling, and a rock of offence, even in them which stumble at the\n  word, being disobedient, _whereunto also they were appointed_.\u201d _i.\n  e._ _unto which thing_, their stumbling, _they were appointed because\n  disobedient_. The Greek participle includes the cause of their\n  falling; as Heb. ii. 3. _Neglecting_ so great salvation, how shall we\n  escape? _To which_ not escaping, they _were appointed, for neglecting_\n  so great salvation. A striking _contrast_ to this we have, John vii.\n  17. \u201cIf any man will _do his will_, he shall _know_ of the doctrine;\u201d\n  but the _disobedient_ shall, according to an awful but equitable\n  _appointment_, \u201cstumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and\n  be taken.\u201d\u2014(Isa. viii. 15.) We have a further illustration of this\n  meaning in Heb. iii. 18. \u201cTo whom sware he that they should not enter\n  into his rest, but to them that _believe_ not?\u201d _i. e._ Who were\n  _appointed_ to destruction? The answer is, the _disobedient_; for the\n  original word is the same here as in Peter, under a different\n  inflection. And it is added, ver. 19. \u201cSo they could not enter in\n  _because_ of _unbelief_.\u201d\u2014Thus also Rom. xi. 7. \u201cThe rest _were\n  blinded_, or _hardened_;\u201d _i. e._ were _suffered_ to be blind or hard.\n  And that this is the meaning is decided by ver. 20. \u201c_Because of\n  unbelief_ they were broken off.\u201d\n\n  Upon the whole, Peter intimates, that none should be offended at such\n  characters, men of learning and eminence rejecting the Messiah and his\n  gospel. Their end is what might be expected, as _foretold_ by the\n  prophets, according to God\u2019s _righteous_ government, and his eternal\n  _appointment_, or _determination_, respecting all such offenders.\n  Their habitual unbelieving _disobedience_ was the _cause_, but their\n  actual stumbling at the word to their destruction was the natural, the\n  righteous, the appointed _effect_. To this they were appointed,\n  _placed_, or _set forth_ (as Pharaoh was _raised up_) by the righteous\n  judgment of God, who resisteth the proud and disobedient; in order to\n  shew forth the glory of his justice in them. They were personally\n  _appointed_ to exalted situations, being civil and ecclesiastical\n  _builders_; they were _suffered_ to reject Christ, in pure equity; and\n  thus were deservedly _constituted_ awful warnings to others.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  This notion, perhaps more than any other, has been termed\n  _Baxterianism_, and yet it is not easy to say that Mr. Baxter ever\n  maintained it. He says indeed \u201call have so much (grace) as bringeth\n  and leaveth the success to man\u2019s will;\u201d and this in a discourse\n  wherein he allows that God hath \u201cpositively elected certain persons by\n  an absolute decree to overcome all their resistances of his Spirit,\n  and to draw them to Christ, and by Christ to himself, by such a power\n  and way as shall _infallibly_ convert and save them.\u201d He moreover\n  says, \u201cWhat if men cannot here tell how to resolve the question,\n  whether _any_ or _how many_ are ever converted or saved by that _mere\n  grace_ which we call _sufficient_, or rather _necessary_, and common\n  to those that are not converted; and whether man\u2019s will ever make a\n  saving determining improvement of it?\u201d\u2014\u201cAnd yet,\u201d he adds, \u201cthis\n  question itself is formed on false suppositions and is capable of a\n  satisfactory solution.\u201d Baxter\u2019s Works, Vol. ii. p. 929.\u2014On the\n  subject of this Note the author begs leave to refer his readers to\n  Doddridge\u2019s Works, Vol. v. p. 238, 239, Notes.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  The nature of God, his holy will, and our peculiar relation to him,\n  form an adamantine chain of obligation to duty which cannot with\n  impunity be broken; from which predestination is so far from releasing\n  us, that it forms another chain of gold that shall finally prevail;\n  and divine grace personally experienced is a silken cord to draw the\n  soul along in the path of duty. But do these powerful ties render\n  useless God\u2019s _reasoning_ with sinners, his _exhortations_ to\n  repentance, to believing, to obedience, and to every particular branch\n  of duty? No: for these methods are the very means to attain the end,\n  and form a part of the decree itself.\n\nEND OF THE FIRST VOLUME.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes:\n\nMissing or obscured punctuation was corrected. The author's archaic\npunctuation and spellings have been retained.","title":"A Body of Divinity, Vol. 1 (of 4): Wherein the doctrines of the Christian religion are explained and defended, being the substance of several lectures on the Assembly's Larger Catechism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":298923}