THE WORKS OF
JAMES ARMINIUS
VOL. 1
ORATIONS OF ARMINIUS
ORATION I
THE OBJECT OF THEOLOGY
To Almighty God alone belong the inherent and absolute right,
will, and power of determining concerning us. Since,
therefore, it has pleased him to call me, his unworthy
servant, from the ecclesiastical functions which I have for
some years discharged in the Church of his Son in the
populous city of Amsterdam, and to give me the appointment of
the Theological Professorship in this most celebrated
University, I accounted it my duty, not to manifest too much
reluctance to this vocation, although I was well acquainted
with my incapacity for such an office, which with the
greatest willingness and sincerity I then confessed and must
still acknowledge. Indeed, the consciousness of my own
insufficiency operated as a persuasive to me not to listen to
this vocation; of which fact I can cite as a witness that God
who is both the Inspector and the Judge of my conscience. Of
this consciousness of my own insufficiency, several persons
of great probity and learning are also witnesses; for they
were the cause of my engaging in this office, provided it
were offered to me in a legitimate order and manner. But as
they suggested, and as experience itself had frequently
taught me, that it is a dangerous thing to adhere to one's
own judgment with pertinacity and to pay too much regard to
the opinion which we entertain of ourselves, because almost
all of us have little discernment in those matters which
concern ourselves, I suffered myself to be induced by the
authority of their judgment to enter upon this difficult and
burdensome province, which may God enable me to commence with
tokens of his Divine approbation and under his propitious
auspices.
Although I am beyond measure cast down and almost shudder
with fear, solely at the anticipation of this office and its
duties, yet I can scarcely indulge in a doubt of Divine
approval and support when my mind attentively considers, what
are the causes on account of which this vocation was
appointed, the manner in which it is committed to execution,
and the means and plans by which it is brought to a
conclusion. From all these considerations, I feel a
persuasion that it has been Divinely instituted and brought
to perfection.
For this cause I entertain an assured hope of the perpetual
presence of Divine assistance; and, with due humility of
mind, I venture in God's holy name to take this charge upon
me and to enter upon its duties. I most earnestly beseech all
and each of you, and if the benevolence which to the present
time you have expressed towards me by many and most signal
tokens will allow such a liberty, I implore, nay, (so
pressing is my present necessity,) I solemnly conjure you, to
unite with me in ardent wishes and fervent intercessions
before God, the Father of lights, that, ready as I am out of
pure affection to contribute to your profit, he may be
pleased graciously to supply his servant with the gifts which
are necessary to the proper discharge of these functions, and
to bestow upon me his benevolent favour, guidance and
protection, through the whole course of this vocation.
But it appears to me, that I shall be acting to some good
purpose, if, at the commencement of my office, I offer some
general remarks on Sacred Theology, by way of preface, and
enter into an explanation of its extent, dignity and
excellence. This discourse will serve yet more and more to
incite the mind, of students, who profess themselves
dedicated to the service of this Divine wisdom, fearlessly to
proceed in the career upon which they have entered,
diligently to urge on their progress and to keep up an
unceasing contest till they arrive at its termination. Thus
may they hereafter become the instruments of God unto
salvation in the Church of his Saints, qualified and fitted
for the sanctification of his divine name, and formed "for
the edifying of the body of Christ," in the Spirit. When I
have effected this design, I shall think, with Socrates, that
in such an entrance on my duties I have discharged no
inconsiderable part of them to some good effect. For that
wisest of the Gentiles was accustomed to say, that he had
properly accomplished his duty of teaching, when he had once
communicated an impulse to the minds of his hearers and had
inspired them with an ardent desire of learning. Nor did he
make this remark without reason. For, to a willing man,
nothing is difficult, especially when God has promised the
clearest revelation of his secrets to those "who shall
meditate on his law day and night." (Psalm i, 2.) In such a
manner does this promise of God act, that, on those matters
which far surpass the capacity of the human mind, we may
adopt the expression of Isocrates, If thou be desirous of
receiving instruction, thou shalt learn many things."
This explanation will be of no small service to myself. For
in the very earnest recommendation of this study which I give
to others, I prescribe to myself a law and rule by which I
ought to walk in its profession; and an additional necessity
is thus imposed on me of conducting myself in my new office
with holiness and modesty, and in all good conscience; that,
in case I should afterwards turn aside from the right path,
(which may our gracious God prevent,) such a solemn
recommendation of this study may be cast in my face to my
shame.
In the discussion of this subject, I do not think it
necessary to utter any protestation before professors most
learned in Jurisprudence, most skillful in Medicine, most
subtle in Philosophy, and most erudite in the languages.
Before such learned persons I have no need to enter into any
protestation, for the purpose of removing from myself a
suspicion of wishing to bring into neglect or contempt that
particular study which each of them cultivates. For to every
kind of study in the most noble theater of the sciences, I
assign, as it becomes me, its due place, and that an
honourable one; and each being content with its subordinate
station, all of them with the greatest willingness concede
the president's throne to that science of which I am now
treating.
I shall adopt that plain and simple species of oratory which,
according to Euripides, belongs peculiarly to truth. I am not
ignorant that some resemblance and relation ought to exist
between an oration and the subjects that are discussed in it;
and therefore, that a certain divine method of speech is
required when we attempt to speak on divine things according
to their dignity. But I choose plainness and simplicity,
because Theology needs no ornament, but is content to be
taught, and because it is out of my power to make an effort
towards acquiring a style that may be in any degree worthy of
such a subject.
In discussing the dignity and excellence of sacred Theology,
I shall briefly confine it within four titles. In imitation
of the method which obtains in human sciences, that are
estimated according to the excellence of their OBJECT, their
AUTHOR, and their END, and of the IMPORTANCE of the reasons
by which each of them is supported -- I shall follow the same
plan, speaking, first, of The OBJECT of Theology, then of its
AUTHOR, afterwards of its END, and lastly, of its CERTAINTY.
I pray God, that the grace of his Holy Spirit may be present
with me while I am speaking; and that he would be pleased to
direct my mind, mouth and tongue, in such a manner as to
enable me to advance those truths which are holy, worthy of
our God, and salutary to you his creatures, to the glory of
his name and for the edification of his Church.
I intreat you also, my most illustrious and polite hearers,
kindly to grant me your attention for a short time while I
endeavour to explain matters of the greatest importance; and
while your observation is directed to the subject in which I
shall exercise myself, you will have the goodness to regard
IT, rather than any presumed SKILL in my manner of treating
it. The nature of his great subject requires us, at this hour
especially, to direct our attention, in the first instance,
to the Object of Theology. For the objects of sciences are so
intimately related, and so essential to them, as to give them
their appellations.
But God is himself the Object of Theology. The very term
indicates as much: for Theology signifies a discourse or
reasoning concerning God. This is likewise indicated by the
definition which the Apostle gives of this science, when he
describes it as "the truth which is after godliness." (Tit.
i, 1.) The Greek word here used for godliness, is eusebeia
signifying a worship due to God alone, which the Apostle
shews in a manner of greater clearness, when he calls this
piety by the more exact term qeosebeia All other sciences
have their objects, noble indeed, and worthy to engage the
notice of the human mind, and in the contemplation of which
much time, leisure and diligence may be profitably occupied.
In General Metaphysics, the object of study is, "BEING in
reference to its being;" Particular Metaphysics have for
their objects "intelligence and minds separated and removed
from mortal contagion." Physics are applied to "bodies, as
having the principle of motion in themselves." The
Mathematics have "relation to quantities." Medicine exercises
itself with the human body, in relation to its capacity of
health and soundness." Jurisprudence has a reference to
"justice, in relation to human society." Ethics, to "the
virtues." Economics, to "the government of a family;" and
Politics, to "state affairs." But all these sciences are
appointed in subordination to God; from him also they derive
their origin. They are dependent on him alone; and, in
return, they move back again, and unto him is their natural
re-action. This science is the only one which occupies itself
about the BEING of beings and the CAUSE of causes, the
principle of nature, and that of grace existing in nature,
and by which nature is assisted and surrounded. This object,
therefore, is the most worthy and dignified of all, and full
of adorable majesty, It far excels all the rest; because it
is not lawful for any one, however well and accurately he may
be instructed in the knowledge of all the sciences, to glory
in the least on this account; and because every one that has
obtained a knowledge of this science only, may on solid
grounds and in reality glory in it. For God himself has
forbidden the former species of boasting, while he commands
the latter. His words by the prophet Jeremiah, are "Let not
the wise man glory in his wisdom; but let him. that glorieth
glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me." (ix,
23, 24)
But let us consider the conditions that are generally
employed to commend the object of any science. That OBJECT is
most excellent (1.) which is in itself the best, and the
greatest, and immutable; (2.) which, in relation to the mind,
is most lucid and clear, and most easily proposed and
unfolded to the view of the mental powers; and (3.) which is
likewise able, by its action on the mind, completely to fill
it, and to satisfy its infinite desires. These three
conditions are in the highest degree discovered in God, and
in him alone, who is the subject of theological study.
1. He is the best being; he is the first and chief good, and
goodness itself; he alone is good, as good as goodness
itself; as ready to communicate, as it is possible for him to
be communicated: his liberality is only equaled by the
boundless treasures which he possesses, both of which are
infinite and restricted only by the capacity of the
recipient, which he appoints as a limit and measure to the
goodness of his nature and to the communication of himself.
He is the greatest Being, and the only great One; for he is
able to subdue to his sway even nothing itself, that it may
become capable of divine good by the communication of
himself. "He calleth those things which are not, as though
they were," (Rom. iv, 17) and in that manner, by his word, he
places them in the number of beings, although it is out of
darkness that they have received his commands to emerge and
to come into existence. "All nations before him are as
nothing, the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers, and the
princes nothing." (Isa. xl, 17, 22, 23.) The whole of this
system of heaven and earth appears scarcely equal to a point
"before him, whose center is every where, but whose
circumference is no where." He is immutable, always the same,
and endureth forever; "his years have no end." (Psalm 102)
Nothing can be added to him, and nothing can be taken from
him; with him "is no variableness, neither shadow of
turning." (James i, 17.) Whatsoever obtains stability for a
single moment, borrows it from him, and receives it of mere
grace. Pleasant, therefore, and most delightful is it to
contemplate him, on account of his goodness; it is glorious
in consideration of his greatness; and it is sure, in
reference to his immutability.
2. He is most resplendent and bright; he is light itself, and
becomes an object of most obvious perception to the mind,
according to this expression of the apostle, That they should
seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find
Him, though he be not far from every one of us; for in him we
live, and move, and have our being; for we are also his
offspring:" (Acts xvii, 27, 28.) And according to another
passage, "God left not himself without witness, in that he
did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons,
filling our hearts with food and gladness." (Acts xiv, 17.)
Being supported by these true sayings, I venture to assert,
that nothing can be seen or truly known in any object, except
in it we have previously seen and known God himself.
In the first place he is called "Being itself," because he
offers himself to the understanding as an object of
knowledge. But all beings, both visible and invisible,
corporeal and incorporeal, proclaim aloud that they have
derived the beginning of their essence and condition from
some other than themselves, and that they have not their own
proper existence till they have it from another. All of them
utter speech, according to the saying of the Royal Prophet:
"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament
showeth his handy-work." (Psalm xix, 1.) That is, the
firmament sounds aloud as with a trumpet, and proclaims, that
it is "the work of the right hand of the Most High." Among
created objects, you may discover many tokens indicating
"that they derive from some other source whatever they
themselves possess," mere strongly than "that they have an
existence in the number and scale of beings." Nor is this
matter of wonder, since they are always nearer to nothing
than to their Creator, from whom they are removed to a
distance that is infinite, and separated by infinite space:
while, by properties that are only finite, they are
distinguished from nothing, the primeval womb from whence
they sprung, and into which they may fall back again; but
they can never be raised to a divine equality with God their
maker. Therefore, it was rightly spoken by the ancient
heathens,
"Of Jove all things are full."
3. He alone can completely fill the mind, and satisfy its
(otherwise) insatiable desires. For he is infinite in his
essence, his wisdom, power, and goodness. He is the first and
chief verity, and truth itself in the abstract. But the human
mind is finite in nature, the substance of which it is
formed; and only in this view is it a partaker of infinity --
because it apprehends Infinite Being and the Chief Truth,
although it is incapable of comprehending them. David,
therefore, in an exclamation of joyful self-gratulation,
openly confesses, that he was content with the possession of
God alone, who by means of knowledge and love is possessed by
his creatures. These are his words: "Whom have I in heaven
but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside
thee." (Psalm lxxiii, 25.)
If thou be acquainted with all other things, and yet remain
in a state of ignorance with regard to him alone, thou art
always wandering beyond the proper point, and thy restless
love of knowledge increases in the proportion in which
knowledge itself is increased. The man who knows only God,
and who is ignorant of all things else, remains in peace and
tranquillity, and, (like one that has found "a pearl of great
price," although in the purchase of it he may have expended
the whole of his substance,) he congratulates himself and
greatly triumphs. This luster or brightness of the object is
the cause why an investigation into it, or an inquiry after
it, is never instituted without obtaining it; and, (such is
its fullness,) when it has once been found, the discovery of
it is always attended with abundant profit.
But we must consider this object more strictly; for we treat
of it in reference to its being the object of our theology,
according to which we have a knowledge of God in this life.
We must therefore clothe it in a certain mode, and invest it
in a formal manner, as the logical phrase is; and thus place
it as a foundation to our knowledge.
Three Considerations of this matter offer themselves to our
notice: The First is, that we cannot receive this object in
the infinity of its nature; our necessity, therefore,
requires it to be proposed in a manner that is accommodated
to our capacity. The Second is, that it is not proper, in the
first moment of revelation, for such a large measure to be
disclosed and manifested by the light of grace, as may be
received into the human mind when it is illuminated by the
light of glory, and, (by that process,) enlarged to a greater
capacity: for by a right use of the knowledge of grace, we
must proceed upwards, (by the rule of divine righteousness,)
to the more sublime knowledge of glory, according to that
saying, "To him that hath shall be given." The Third is, that
this object is not laid before our theology merely to be
known, but, when known, to be worshipped. For the Theology
which belongs to this world, is Practical and through Faith:
Theoretical Theology belongs to the other world, and consists
of pure and unclouded vision, according to the expression of
the apostle, "We walk by faith, and not by sight;" (2 Cor. v,
7,) and that of another apostle, "Then shall we be like him,
for we shall see him as he is." (1 John iii, 2.) For this
reason, we must clothe the object of our theology in such a
manner as may enable it to incline us to worship God, and
fully to persuade and win us over to that practice.
This last design is the line and rule of this formal relation
according to which God becomes the subject of our Theology.
But that man may be induced, by a willing obedience and
humble submission of the mind, to worship God, it is
necessary for him to believe, from a certain persuasion of
the heart: (1.) That it is the will of God to be worshipped,
and that worship is due to him. (2.) That the worship of him
will not be in vain, but will be recompensed with an
exceedingly great reward. (3.) That a mode of worship must be
instituted according to his command. To these three
particulars ought to be added, a knowledge of the mode
prescribed.
Our Theology, then, delivers three things concerning this
object, as necessary and sufficient to be known in relation
to the preceding subjects of belief. The First is concerning
the nature of God. The Second concerning his actions. And the
Third concerning his will.
(1.) Concerning his nature; that it is worthy to receive
adoration, on account of its justice; that it is qualified to
form a right judgment of that worship, on account of its
wisdom; and that it is prompt and able to bestow rewards, on
account of its goodness and the perfection of its own
blessedness.
(2.) Two actions have been ascribed to God for the same
purpose; they are Creation and Providence. (i.) The Creation
of all things, and especially of man after God's own image;
upon which is founded his sovereign authority over man, and
from which is deduced the right of requiring worship from man
and enjoining obedience upon him, according to that very just
complaint of God by Malachi, "If then I be a father, where is
mine honour? and if I be a master, were is my fear," (i, 6.)
(ii.) That Providence is to be ascribed to God by which he
governs all things, and according to which he exercises a
holy, just, and wise care and oversight over man himself and
those things which relate to him, but chiefly over the
worship and obedience which he is bound to render to his God.
(3.) Lastly, it treats of the will of God expressed in a
certain covenant into which he has entered with man, and
which consists of two parts: (i.) The one, by which he
declares it to be his pleasure to receive adoration from man,
and at the same time prescribes the mode of performing that
worship; for it is his will to be worshipped from obedience,
and not at the option or discretion of man. (ii.) The other,
by which God promises that he will abundantly compensate man
for the worship which he performs; requiring not only
adoration for the benefits already conferred upon man, as a
trial of his gratitude; but likewise that He may communicate
to man infinitely greater things to the consummation of his
felicity. For as he occupied the first place in conferring
blessings and doing good, because that high station was his
due, since man was about to be called into existence among
the number of creatures; so likewise it is his desire that
the last place in doing good be reserved for him, according
to the infinite perfection of his goodness and blessedness,
who is the fountain of good and the extreme boundary of
happiness, the Creator and at the same time the Glorifier of
his worshippers. It is according to this last action of his,
that he is called by some persons "the Object of Theology,"
and that not improperly, because in this last are included
all the preceding.
In the way which has been thus compendiously pointed out, the
infinite disputes of the schoolmen, concerning the formal
relation by which God is the Object of Theology, may, in my
opinion, be adjusted and decided. But as I think it a
culpable deed to abuse your patience, I shall decline to say
any more on this part of the subject.
Our sacred Theology, therefore, is chiefly occupied in
ascribing to the One True God, to whom alone they really
belong, those attributes of which we have already spoken, his
nature, actions, and will. For it is not sufficient to know,
that there is some kind of a NATURE, simple, infinite, wise,
good, just, omnipotent, happy in itself, the Maker and
Governor of all things, that is worthy to receive adoration,
whose will it is to be worshipped, and that is able to make
its worshippers happy. To this general kind of knowledge
there ought to be added, a sure and settled conception, fixed
on that Deity, and strictly bound to the single object of
religious worship to which alone those qualities appertain.
The necessity of entertaining fixed and determinate ideas on
this subject, is very frequently inculcated in the sacred
page: "I am the Lord thy God." (Exod. xx, 2.) "I am the Lord
and there is none else." (Isa. xlv, 5.) Elijah also says, "If
the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him."
(1 Kings xviii, 21.) This duty is the more sedulously
inculcated in scripture, as man is more inclined to depart
from the true idea of Deity. For whatever clear and proper
conception of the Divine Being the minds the Heathens had
formed, the first stumbling-block over which they fell
appears to have been this, they did not attribute that just
conception to him to whom it ought to have been given; but
they ascribed it either, (1.) to some vague and uncertain
individual, as in the expression of the Roman poet, "O
Jupiter, whether thou be heaven, or air, or earth!" Or, (2)
some imaginary and fabulous Deity, whether it be among
created things, or a mere idol of the brain, neither
partaking of the Divine nature nor any other, which the
Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans and to the
Corinthians, produces as a matter of reproach to the
Gentiles. (Rom. 1, and 1 Corinthians 8.) Or (3,) lastly, they
ascribed it to the unknown God; the title of Unknown being
given to their Deity by the very persons who were his
worshippers. The Apostle relates this crime as one of which
the Athenians were guilty: But it is equally true when
applied to all those who err and wander from the true object
of adoration, and yet worship a Deity of some description. To
such persons that sentence justly belongs which Christ
uttered in conversation with the woman of Samaria: "Ye
worship YE KNOW NOT WHAT." (John iv, 22.)
Although those persons are guilty of a grievous error who
transgress in this point, so as to be deservedly termed
Atheists, in Scripture aqeoi "men without God;" yet they are
by far more intolerably insane, who, having passed the
extreme line of impiety, are not restrained by the
consciousness of any Deity. The ancient heathens considered
such men as peculiarly worthy of being called Atheists. On
the other hand, those who have a consciousness of their own
ignorance occupy the step that is nearest to sanity. For it
is necessary to be careful only about one thing; and that is,
when we communicate information to them, we must teach them
to discard the falsehood which they had imbibed, and must
instruct them in the truth alone. When this truth is pointed
out to them, they will seize it with the greater avidity, in
proportion to the deeper sorrow which they feel at the
thought that they have been surrounded for a long series of
years by a most pernicious error.
But Theology, as it appears to me, principally effects four
things in fixing our conceptions, which we have just
mentioned, on that Deity who is true, and in drawing them
away from the invention and formation of false Deities.
First. It explains, in an elegant and copious manner, the
relation in which the Deity stands, lest we should ascribe to
his nature any thing that is foreign to it, or should take
away from it any one of its properties. In reference to this,
it is said, "Ye. heard the voice, but saw no similitude; take
ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, lest you make you a
graven image." (Deut. iv, 15, 16.) -Secondly. It describes
both the universal and the particular actions of the only
true God, that by them it may distinguish the true Deity from
those which are fabulous. On this account it is said, "The
gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, shall
perish from the earth, and under these heavens." (Jer. x,
11.) Jonah also said, "I fear the Lord, the God of heaven,
who hath made the sea and the dry land." (i, 9.) And the
Apostle declares, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of
God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto
gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and by man's
device:" (Acts xvii, 29.) In another passage it is recorded,
"I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of
Egypt;" (Deut. v, 6.) "I am the God that appeared to thee in
Bethel." (Gen. xxvi, 13.) And, "Behold the days come, saith
the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which
brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt,
but, The Lord liveth which brought up and which led the seed
of the house of Israel out of the North Country," &c. (Jer.
xxiii, 7, 8.) Thirdly. It makes frequent mention of the
covenant into which the true Deity has entered with his
worshippers, that by the recollection of it the mind of man
may be stayed upon that God with whom the covenant was
concluded. In reference to this it is said, "Thus shalt thou
say unto the Children of Israel, the Lord God of your
fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and
this is. my memorial unto all generations", (Exod. iii, 15.)
Thus Jacob, when about to conclude a compact with Laban his
father-in-law, swears "by the fear of his father Isaac."
(Gen. xxxi, 53.) And when Abraham's servant was seeking a
wife for his master's son, he thus invoked God, "O Lord God
of my master Abraham!" (Gen. xxiv, 12.) Fourthly. It
distinguishes and points out the true Deity, even by a most
appropriate, particular, and individual mark, when it
introduces the mention of the persons who are partakers of
the same Divinity; thus it gives a right direction to the
mind of the worshipper, and fixes it upon that God who is THE
FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. This was manifested with
some degree of obscurity in the Old Testament, but with the
utmost clearness in the New. Hence the Apostle says, "I bow
my knee unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ephes.
iii, 14.) All these remarks are comprehended and summed up by
Divines, in this brief sentence, "That God must be invoked
who has manifested himself in his own word." But the
preceding observations concerning the Object of Theology,
properly respect Legal Theology, which was accommodated to
man's primeval state. For when man in his original integrity
acted under the protecting favour and benevolence of a good
and just God, he was able to render to God that worship which
had been prescribed according to the law of legal
righteousness, that says, "This do, and thou shalt live" he
was able to "love with all his heart and soul" that Good and
Just Being; he was able, from a consciousness of his
integrity, to repose confidence in that Good and Just One;
and he was able to evince towards him, as such, a filial
fear, and to pay him the honour which was pleasing and due to
him, as from a servant to his Lord. God also, on his part,
without the least injury to his justice, was able to act
towards man, while in that state, according to the proscript
of legal righteousness, to reward his worship according to
justice, and, through the terms of the legal covenant, and
consequently "of debt," to confer life upon him. This God
could do, consistency with his goodness, which required the
fulfillment of the promise. There was no call for any other
property of his nature, which might contribute by its agency
to accomplish this purpose: No further progress of Divine
goodness was necessary than that which might repay good for
good, the good of perfect felicity, for the good of entire
obedience: No other action was required, except that of
creation, (which had then been performed,) and that of a
preserving and governing providence, in conformity with the
condition with which man was placed: No other volition of God
was needed, than that by which he might both require the
perfect obedience of the law and might repay that obedience
with life eternal. In that state of human affairs, therefore,
the knowledge of the nature described in those properties,
the knowledge of those actions, and of that will, to which
may be added the knowledge of the Deity to whom they really
pertained, was necessary for the performance of worship to
God, and was of itself amply sufficient.
But when man had fallen from his primeval integrity through
disobedience to the law, and had rendered himself "a child of
wrath" and had become devoted to condemnations, this goodness
mingled with legal justice could not be sufficient for the
salvation of man. Neither could this act of creation and
providence, nor this will suffice; and therefore this legal
Theology was itself insufficient. For sin was to be condemned
if men were absolved; and, as the Apostle says, (in the
eighth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans,) "it could not
be condemned by the law." Man was to be justified: but he
could not be justified by the law, which, while it is the
strength of sin, makes discovery of it to us, and is the
procurer of wrath.
This Theology, therefore, could serve for no salutary
purpose, at that time: such was its dreadful efficacy in
convincing man of sin and consigning him to certain death.
This unhappy change, this unfavourable vicissitude of affairs
was introduced by the fault and the infection of sin; which
was likewise the cause why "the law which was ordained to
life and honour," (Rom. vii, 10,) became fatal and
destructive to our race, and the procurer of eternal
ignominy. (1.) Other properties, therefore, of the Divine
Nature were to be called into action; every one of God's
benefits was to be unfolded and explained; mercy, long
suffering, gentleness, patience, and clemency were to be
brought forth out of the repository of his primitive
goodness, and their services were to be engaged, if it was
proper for offending man to be reconciled to God and
reinstated in his favour. (2.) Other actions were to be
exhibited: "Anew creation" was to be effected; "a new
providence," accommodated in every respect to this new
creation, was to be instituted and put in force; "the work of
redemption" was to be performed; "remission of sins" was to
be obtained; "the loss of righteousness" was to be repaired;
"the Spirit of grace" was to be asked and obtained; and a
"lost salvation" restored. (3.) Another decree was likewise
to be framed concerning the salvation of man; and another
covenant, a new one," was to be made with him, "not according
to that former one, because those" who were parties on one
side "had not continued in that covenant:" (Heb. viii, 11,)
but, by another and a gracious will, they "were to be
sanctified" who might be "consecrated to enter into the
Holiest by a new and living way." (Heb. x, 20.) All these
things were to be prepared and laid down as foundations to
the new manifestation.
Another revelation, therefore, and a different species of
Theology, were necessary to make known those properties of
the Divine Nature, which we have described, and which were
most wisely employed in repairing our salvation; to proclaim
the actions which were exhibited; and to occupy themselves in
explaining that decree and new covenant which we have
mentioned.
But since God, the punisher and most righteous avenger of
sinners, was either unwilling, or, (through the opposition
made by the justice and truth which had been originally
manifested in the law,) was unable to unfold those properties
of his nature, to produce those actions, or to make that
decree, except by the intervention of a Mediator, in whom,
without the least injury to his justice and truth, he might
unfold those properties, perform those actions, might through
them produce those necessary benefits, and might conclude
that most gracious decree; on this account a Mediator was to
be ordained, who, by his blood, might atone for sinners, by
his death might expiate the sin of mankind, might reconcile
the wicked to God, and might save them from his impending
anger; who might set forth and display the mercy, long
suffering and patience of God, might provide eternal
redemption, obtain remission of sin, bring in an everlasting
righteousness, procure the Spirit of grace, confirm the
decree of gracious mercy, ratify the new covenant by his
blood, recover eternal salvation, and who might bring to God
those that were to be ultimately saved.
A just and merciful God, therefore, did appoint as Mediator,
his beloved Son, Jesus Christ. He obediently undertook that
office which was imposed on him by the Father, and
courageously executed it; nay, he is even now engaged in
executing it. He was, therefore, ordained by God as the
Redeemer, the saviour, the King, and, (under God,) the Head
of the heirs of salvation. It would have been neither just
nor reasonable, that he who had undergone such vast labours,
and endured such great sorrows, who had performed so many
miracles, and who had obtained through his merits so many
benefits for us, should ingloriously remain among us in
meanness and obscurity, and should be dismissed by us without
honour. It was most equitable, that he should in return be
acknowledged, worshipped, and invoked, and that he should
receive those grateful thanks which are due to him for his
benefits.
But how shall we be able to adore, worship and invoke him,
unless "we believe on him? How can we believe in him, unless
we hear of him? And how can we hear concerning him," except
he be revealed to us by the word? (Rom. x, 14.) From this
cause, then, arose the necessity of making a revelation
concerning Jesus Christ; and on this account two objects,
(that is, God and his Christ,) are to be placed as a
foundation to that Theology which will sufficiently
contribute towards the salvation of sinners, according to the
saying of our saviour Christ: "And this is life eternal, that
they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom than hast sent." (John xvii, 3.) Indeed, these two
objects are not of such a nature as that the one may be
separated from the other, or that the one may be collaterally
joined to the other; but the-latter of them is, in a proper
and suitable manner, subordinate to the former. Here then we
have a Theology, which, from Christ, its object, is most
rightfully and deservedly termed Christian, which is
manifested not by the Law, but in the earliest ages by
promise, and in these latter days by the Gospel, which is
called that "of Jesus Christ," although the words (Christian
and Legal) are sometimes confounded. But let us consider the
union and the subordination of both these objects.
I. Since we have God and his Christ for the object of our
Christian Theology, the manner in which Legal Theology
explains God unto us, is undoubtedly much amplified by this
addition, and our Theology is thus infinitely ennobled above
that which is legal.
For God has unfolded in Christ all his own goodness. "For it
pleased the Father, that in him should all fullness dwell;"
(Col. i, 19,) and that the "fullness of the Godhead should
dwell in him," not by adumbration or according to the shadow,
but "bodily:" For this reason he is called "the image of the
invisible God;" (Col. i, 15,) "the brightness of his Father's
glory, and the express image of his person," (Heb. i, 3,) in
whom the Father condescends to afford to us his infinite
majesty, his immeasurable goodness, mercy and philanthropy,
to be contemplated, beheld, and to be touched and felt; even
as Christ himself says to Philip, "He that hath seen me, hath
seen the Father." (John xiv, 9.) For those things which lay
hidden and indiscernible within the Father, like the fine and
deep traces in an engraved seal, stand out, become prominent,
and may be most clearly and distinctly seen in Christ, as in
an exact and protuberant impression, formed by the
application of a deeply engraved seal on the substance to be
impressed.
1. In this Theology God truly appears, in the highest degree,
the best and the greatest of Beings: (1.) The Best, cause he
is not only willing, as in the former Theology, to
communicate himself (for the happiness of men,) to those who
correctly discharge their duty, but to receive into his
favour and to reconcile to himself those who are sinners,
wicked, unfruitful, and declared enemies, and to bestow
eternal life on them when they repent. (2.) The Greatest,
because he has not only produced all things from nothing,
through the annihilation of the latter, and the creation of
the former, but because he has also effected a triumph over
sin, (which is far more noxious than nothing, and conquered
with greater difficulty,) by graciously pardoning it, and
powerfully putting it away;" and because he has "brought in
everlasting righteousness," by means of a second creation,
and a regeneration which far exceeded the capacity of "the
law that acted as schoolmaster." (Gal. iii, 24.) For this
cause Christ is called "the wisdom and the power of God," (1
Cor. i, 24,) far more illustrious than the wisdom and the
power which were originally displayed in the creation of the
universe. (3.) In this Theology, God is described to us as in
every respect immutable, not only in regard to his nature but
also to his will, which, as it has been manifested in the
gospel, is peremptory and conclusive, and, being the last of
all, is not to be corrected by another will. For "Jesus
Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever"; (Heb.
xiii, 8,) by whom God hath in these last days spoken unto
us." (Heb. i, 2.) Under the law, the state of this matter was
very different, and that greatly to our ultimate advantage.
For if the will of God unfolded in the law had been fatal to
us, as well as the last expression of it, we, of all men most
miserable, should have been banished forever from God himself
on account of that declaration of his will; and our doom
would have been in a state of exile from our salvation. I
would not seem in this argument to ascribe any mutability to
the will of God. I only place such a termination and boundary
to his will, or rather to something willed by him, as was by
himself before affixed to it and predetermined by an eternal
and peremptory decree, that thus a vacancy might be made for
a "better covenant established on better promises" (Heb. vii,
22; viii, 6.)
2. This Theology offers God in Christ as an object of our
sight and knowledge, with such clearness, splendour and
plainness, that we with open face, beholding as in a glass
the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from
glory to glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (1 Cor.
iii, 18.) In comparison with this brightness and glory, which
was so pre-eminent and surpassing, the law itself is said not
to have been either bright or glorious: For it "had no glory
in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth." (2
Cor. iii, 8.) This was indeed "the wisdom of God which was
kept secret since the world began :" (1 Cor. ii, 7; Rom. xvi,
25.) Great and inscrutable is this mystery; yet it is
exhibited in Christ Jesus, and "made manifest" with such
luminous clearness, that God is said to have been "manifest
in the flesh" (1 Tim. iii, 16,) in no other sense than as
though it would never have been possible for him to be
manifested without the flesh; for the express purpose "that
the eternal life which was with the Father, and the Word of
life which was from the beginning with God, might be heard
with our ears, seen with our eyes, and handled with our
hands." (1 John i, 1, 2.)
3. The Object of our Theology being clothed in this manner,
so abundantly fills the mind and satisfies the desire, that
the apostle openly declares, he was determined "to know
nothing among the Corinthians save Jesus Christ, and him
crucified." (1 Cor. ii, 2.) To the Phillipians he says, that
he "counted all things but lost for the excellency of the
knowledge of Christ Jesus; for whom he had suffered the loss
of all things, and he counted them but dung that he might
know Christ, and the power of his resurrection, and the
fellowship of his sufferings." (Phil. iii, 8, 10.) Nay, in
the knowledge of the object of our theology, modified in this
manner, all true glorying and just boasting consist, as the
passage which we before quoted from Jeremiah, and the purpose
to which St. Paul has accommodated it, most plainly evince.
This is the manner in which it is expressed: "Let him. that
glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me,
that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment
and righteousness in the earth." (Jer. ix, 24.) When you
hear any mention of mercy, your thoughts ought necessarily to
revert to Christ, out of whom "God is a consuming fire" to
destroy the sinners of the earth. (Deut. iv, 24; Heb. xii,
29) The way in which St. Paul has accommodated it, is this:
"Christ Jesus is made unto us by God, wisdom, righteousness,
and sanctification, and redemption; that, according as it is
written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord!"(1 Cor.
i, 30, 31.) Nor is it wonderful, that the mind should desire
to "know nothing save Jesus Christ," or that its otherwise
insatiable desire of knowledge should repose itself in him,
since in him and in his gospel "are hidden all the treasures
of wisdom, and knowledge." (Col. ii, 3, 9.)
II. Having finished that part of our subject which related to
this Union, let us now proceed to the Subordination which
subsists between these two objects. We will first inspect the
nature of this subordination, and then its necessity:
First. Its nature consists in this, that every saving
communication which God has with us, or which we have with
God, is performed by means of the intervention of Christ.
1. The communication which God holds with us is (i.) either
in his benevolent affection towards us, or, (ii.) in his
gracious decree concerning us, or, (iii.) in his saving
efficacy in us. In all these particulars, Christ comes in as
a middle man between the parties. For (i.) when God is
willing to communicate to us the affection of his goodness
and mercy, he looks upon his Anointed One, in whom, as "his
beloved, he makes us accepted, to the praise of the glory of
his grace." (Ephes. i, 6.) (ii.) When he is pleased to make
some gracious decree of his goodness and mercy, he interposes
Christ between the purpose and the accomplishment, to
announce his pleasure; for "by Jesus Christ he predestinates
us to the adoption of children." (Ephes. i, 5.) (iii.) When
he is willing out of this abundant affection to impart to us
some blessing, according to his gracious decree, it is
through the intervention of the same Divine person. For in
Christ as our Head, the Father has laid up all these
treasures and blessings; and they do not descend to us,
except through him, or rather by him, as the Father's
substitute, who administers them with authority, and
distributes them according to his own pleasure.
2. But the communication which we have with God, is also made
by the intervention of Christ. It consists of three degrees -
- access to God, cleaving to him, and the enjoyment of him.
These three particulars become the objects of our present
consideration, as it is possible for them to be brought into
action in this state of human existence, and as they may
execute their functions by means of faith, hope, and that
charity which is the offspring of faith.
(1.) Three things are necessary to this access; (i.) that God
be in a place to which we may approach; (ii.) that the path
by which we may come to him be a high-way and a safe one; and
(iii.) that liberty be granted to us and boldness of access.
All these facilities have been procured for us by the
mediation of Christ. (i.) For the Father dwelleth in light
inaccessible, and sits at a distance beyond Christ on a
throne of rigid justice, which is an object much too
formidable in appearance for the gaze of sinners; yet he hath
appointed Christ to be "apropitiation. through faith in his
blood ;" (Rom. iii, 25,) by whom the covering of the ark, and
the accusing, convincing, and condemning power of the law
which was contained in that ark, are taken away and removed
as a kind of veil from before the eyes of the Divine Majesty;
and a throne of grace has been established, on which God is
seated, "with whom in Christ we have to do." Thus has the
Father in the Son been made euwrositov "easy of access to
us." (ii.) It is the same Lord Jesus Christ who "hath not
only through his flesh consecrated for us a new and living
way," by which we may go to the Father, (Heb. x, 20,) but who
is likewise "himself the way" which leads in a direct and
unerring manner to the Father. (John xiv, 6.) (iii.) "By the
blood of Jesus" we have liberty of access, nay we are
permitted "to enter into the holiest," and even "within the
veil whither Christ, as a High Priest presiding over the
house of God and our fore runner, is entered for us,." (Heb.
v, 20,) that "we may draw near with a true heart, in the
sacred and full assurance of faith, (x, 22,) and may with
great confidence of mind "come boldly unto the throne of
grace." (iv, 16.) Have we therefore prayers to offer to God?
Christ is the High Priest who displays them before the
Father. He is also the altar from which, after being placed
on it, they will ascend as incense of a grateful odour to God
our Father. Are sacrifices of thanksgiving to be offered to
God? They must be offered through Christ, otherwise "God will
not accept them at our hands." (Mal. i, 10.) Are good works
to be performed? We must do them through the Spirit of
Christ, that they may obtain the recommendation of him as
their author; and they must be sprinkled with his blood, that
they may not be rejected by the Father on account of their
deficiency.
(2.) But it is not sufficient for us only to approach to God;
it is likewise good for us to cleave to him. To confirm this
act of cleaving and to give it perpetuity, it ought to depend
upon a communion of nature. But with God we have no such
communion. Christ, however, possesses it, and we are made
possessors of it with Christ, "who partook of our flesh and
blood." (Heb. ii, 14.) Being constituted our head, he imparts
unto us of his Spirit, that we, (being constituted his
members, and cleaving to him as "flesh of his flesh and bone
of his bone,") may be one with him, and through him with the
Father, and with both may become "one Spirit."
(3.) The enjoyment remains to be considered. It is a true,
solid and durable taste of the Divine goodness and sweetness
in this life, not only perceived by the mind and
understanding, but likewise by the heart, which is the seat
of all the affections. Neither does this become ours, except
in Christ, by whose Spirit dwelling in us that most divine
testimony is pronounced in our hearts, that "we are the
children of God, and heirs of eternal life." (Rom. viii, 16.)
On hearing this internal testimony, we conceive joy
ineffable, "possess our souls in hope and patience," and in
all our straits and difficulties we call upon God and cry,
Abba Father, with an earnest expectation of our final access
to God, of the consummation of our abiding in him and our
cleaving to him, (by which we shall have "all in all,") and
of the most blessed fruition, which will consist of the clear
and unclouded vision of God himself. But the third division
of our present subject, will be the proper place to treat
more fully on these topics.
Secondly. Having seen the subordination of both the objects
of Christian Theology, let us in a few words advert to its
Necessity. This derives its origin from the comparison of our
contagion and vicious depravity, with the sanctity of God
that is incapable of defilement, and with the inflexible
rigor of his justice, which completely separates us from him
by a gulf so great as to render it impossible for us to be
united together while at such a vast distance, or for a
passage to be made from us to him -- unless Christ had
trodden the wine press of the wrath of God, and by the
streams of his most precious blood, plentifully flowing from
the pressed, broken, and disparted veins of his body, had
filled up that otherwise impassable gulf, "and had purged our
consciences, sprinkled with his own blood, from all dead
works ;" (Heb. ix, 14, 22,) that, being thus sanctified, we
might approach to "the living God and might serve him without
fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days
of our life." (Luke i, 75.)
But such is the great Necessity of this subordination, that,
unless our faith be in Christ, it cannot be in God: The
Apostle Peter says, "By him we believe in God, that raised
him from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and
hope might be in God." (1 Pet., i, 21.) On this account the
faith also which we have in God, was prescribed, not by the
law, but by the gospel of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which is properly "the word of faith" and "the word of
promise."
The consideration of this necessity is of infinite utility,
(i.) both in producing confidence in the consciences of
believers, trembling at the sight of their sins, as appears
most evidently from our preceding observations; (ii.) and in
establishing the necessity of the Christian Religion. I
account it necessary to make a few remarks on this latter
topic, because they are required by the nature of our present
purpose and of the Christian Religion itself.
I observe, therefore, that not only is the intervention of
Christ necessary to obtain salvation from God, and to impart
it unto men, but the faith of Christ is also necessary to
qualify men for receiving this salvation at his hands; not
that faith in Christ by which he may be apprehended under the
general notion of the wisdom, power, goodness and mercy of
God, but that faith which was announced by the Apostles and
recorded in their writings, and in such a saviour as was
preached by those primitive heralds of salvation.
I am not in the least influenced by the argument by which
some persons profess themselves induced to adopt the opinion,
"that a faith in Christ thus particular and restricted, which
is required from all that become the subjects of salvation,
agrees neither with the amplitude of God's mercy, nor with
the conditions of his justice, since many thousands of men
depart out of this life, before even the sound of the Gospel
of Christ has reached their ears." For the reasons and terms
of Divine Justice and Mercy are not to be determined by the
limited and shallow measure of our capacities or feelings;
but we must leave with God the free administration and just
defense of these his own attributes. The result, however,
will invariably prove to be the same, in what manner soever
he may be pleased to administer those divine properties --
for, "he will always overcome when he is judged." (Rom. iii,
4.) Out of his word we must acquire our wisdom and
information. In primary, and certain secondary matters this
word describes -- the Necessity of faith in Christ, according
to the appointment of the just mercy and the merciful justice
of God. "He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life;
and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but
the wrath of God abideth on him." (John iii, 36.) This is
not an account of the first kindling of the wrath of God
against this willful unbeliever; for he had then deserved the
most severe expressions of that wrath by the sins which he
had previously committed against the law; and this wrath
"abides upon him," on account of his continued unbelief,
because he had been favoured with the opportunity as well as
the power of being delivered from it, through faith in the
Son of God. Again: If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall
die in your sins." (John viii, 24.) And, in another passage,
Christ declares, "This is life eternal, that they might know
thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast
sent." (John xvii, 3.) The Apostle says, "It pleased God by
the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." That
preaching thus described is the doctrine of the cross, "to
the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness:
But unto them which are called both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God and the wisdom of God:" (1 Cor. i, 21, 23,
24.) This wisdom and this power are not those attributes
which God employed when he formed the world, for Christ is
here plainly distinguished from them; but they are the wisdom
and the power revealed in that gospel which is eminently "the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth."
(Rom. i, 16.) Not only, therefore, is the cross of Christ
necessary to solicit and procure redemption, but the faith of
the cross is also necessary in order to obtain possession of
it.
The necessity of faith in the cross does not arise from the
circumstance of the doctrine of the cross being preached and
propounded to men; but, since faith in Christ is necessary
according to the decree of God, the doctrine of the cross is
preached, that those who believe in it may be saved. Not only
on account of the decree of God is faith in Christ necessary,
but it is also necessary on account of the promise made unto
Christ by the Father, and according to the Covenant which was
ratified between both of them. This is the word of that
promise: "Ask of me, and I will give thee the Heathen for
thine inheritance." (Psalm ii, 8.) But the inheritance of
Christ is the multitude of the faithful; "the people, who, in
the days of his power shall willingly come to him, in the
beauties of holiness." (Psalm cx, 3.) "in thee shall all
nations be blessed; so then they which be of faith are
blessed with faithful Abraham." (Gal. iii, 8, 9 In Isaiah it
is likewise declared, "When thou shalt make his soul an
offering for sin, he shall see his seed. He shall prolong his
days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his
hands. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be
satisfied: by the knowledge of himself [which is faith in
him] shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall
bear their iniquities." (Isa. liii, 10, 11.) Christ adduces
the covenant which has been concluded with the Father, and
founds a plea upon it when he says, "Father glorify thy Son;
that thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him
power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as
many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal," &c.,
&c. (John xvii, 1, 2, 3, 4.) Christ therefore by the decree,
the promise and the covenant of the Father, has been
constituted the saviour of all that believe on him, according
to the declaration of the Apostle: "And being made perfect he
became the author of eternal salvation, to all them that obey
him." (Heb. v, 9.) This is the reason why the Gentiles
without Christ are said to be "alien from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having
no hope, and without God in the world." Yet through faith
"those who some time were thus afar off and in darkness" are
said to be made nigh, and "are now light in the Lord."
(Ephes. ii, 12, 13, and v, 8.) It is requisite, therefore,
earnestly to contend for the Necessity of the Christian
religion, as for the altar and the anchor of our salvation,
lest, after we have suffered the Son to be taken away from us
and from our Faith, we should also be deprived of the Father:
"For whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the
Father." (1 John ii, 23.) But if we in the slightest degree
connive at the diminution or limitation of this Necessity,
Christ himself will be brought into contempt among
Christians, his own professing people; and will at length be
totally denied and universally renounced. For it is not an
affair of difficulty to take away the merit of salvation, and
the power to save from Him to whom we are not compelled by
any necessity to offer our oaths of allegiance. Who believes,
that it is not necessary to return thanks to him who has
conferred a benefit? Nay, who will not openly and confidently
profess, that he is not the Author of salvation whom it is
not necessary to acknowledge in that capacity. The union,
therefore, of both the objects, God and Christ, must be
strongly urged and enforced in our Christian Theology; nor is
it to be endured that under any pretext they be totally
detached and removed from each other, unless we wish Christ
himself to be separated and withdrawn from us, and for us to
be deprived at once of him and of our own salvation.
The present subject would require us briefly to present to
your sight all and each of those parts of which the
consideration of this object ought to consist, and the order
in which they should be placed before our eyes; but I am
unwilling to detain this most famous and crowded auditory by
a more prolix oration.
Since, therefore, thus wonderfully great are the dignity,
majesty, splendour and plenitude of Theology, and especially
of our Christian Theology, by reason of its double object
which is God and Christ, it is just and proper that all those
who glory in the title of "men formed in the image of God,"
or in the far more august title of "Christians" and "men
regenerated after the image of God and Christ, should most
seriously and with ardent desire apply themselves to the
knowledge of this Theology; and that they should think no
object more worthy, pleasant, or useful than this, to engage
their labourious attention or to awaken their energies. For
what is more worthy of man, who is the image of God, than to
be perpetually reflecting itself on its great archetype? What
can be more pleasant, than to be continually irradiated and
enlightened by the salutary beams of his Divine Pattern? What
is more useful than, by such illumination, to be assimilated
yet more and more to the heavenly Original? Indeed there is
not any thing the knowledge of which can be more useful than
this is, in the very search for it; or, when discovered, can
be more profitable to the possessor. What employment is more
becoming and honourable in a creature, a servant, and a son
than to spend whole days and nights in obtaining a knowledge
of God his Creator, his Lord, and his Father? What can be
more decorous and comely in those who are redeemed by the
blood of Christ, and who are sanctified by his Spirit, than
diligently and constantly to meditate upon Christ, and always
to carry him about in their minds, and hearts, and also on
their tongues?
I am fully aware that this animal life requires the discharge
of various functions; that the superintendence of them must
be entrusted to those persons who will execute each of them
to the common advantage of the republic; and that the
knowledge necessary for the right management of all such
duties, can only be acquired by continued study and much
labour. But if the very persons to whom the management of
these concerns has been officially committed, will
acknowledge the important principle -- that in preference to
all others, those things should be sought which appertain to
the kingdom of God and his righteousness, (Matt. vi, 33,)
they will confess that their ease and leisure, their
meditations and cares, should yield the precedence to this
momentous study. Though David himself was the king of a
numerous people, and entangled in various wars, yet he never
ceased to cultivate and pursue this study in preference to
all others. To the benefit which he had derived from such a
judicious practice, he attributes the portion of wisdom which
he had obtained, and which was "greater than that of his
enemies." (Psalm cxix, 98,) and by it also "he had more
understanding than all his teachers." (99.) The three most
noble treatises which Solomon composed, are to the present
day read by the Church with admiration and thanksgiving; and
they testify the great advantage which the royal author
obtained from a knowledge of Divine things, while he was the
chief magistrate of the same people on the throne of his
Father. But since, according to the opinion of a Roman
Emperor, "nothing is more difficult than to govern well" what
just cause will any one be able to offer for the neglect of a
study, to which even kings could devote their time and
attention. Nor is it wonderful that they acted thus; for they
addicted themselves to this profitable and pleasant study by
the command of God; and the same Divine command has been
imposed upon all and each of us, and is equally binding. It
is one of Plato's observations, that "commonwealths would at
length enjoy happiness and prosperity, either when their
princes and ministers of state become philosophers, or when
philosophers were chosen as ministers of state and conducted
the affairs of government." We may transfer this sentiment
with far greater justice to Theology, which is the true and
only wisdom in relation to things Divine.
But these our admonitions more particularly concern you, most
excellent and learned youths, who, by the wish of your
parents or patrons, and at your own express desire, have been
devoted, set apart, and consecrated to this study; not to
cultivate it merely with diligence, for the sake of promoting
your own salvation, but that you may at some future period be
qualified to engage in the eligible occupation, (which is
most pleasing to God,) of teaching, instructing, and edifying
the Church of the saints -- "which is the body of Christ, and
the fullness of him that filleth all in all." (Ephes. i, 23.)
Let the extent and the majesty of the object, which by a
deserved right engages all our powers, be constantly placed
before your eyes; and suffer nothing to be accounted more
glorious than to spend whole days and nights in acquiring a
knowledge of God and his Christ, since true and allowable
glories consists in this Divine knowledge. Reflect what great
concerns those must be into which angels desire to look.
Consider, likewise, that you are now forming an entrance for
yourselves into a communion, at least of name, with these
heavenly beings, and that God will in a little time call you
to the employment for which you are preparing, which is one
great object of my hopes and wishes concerning you.
Propose to yourselves for imitation that chosen instrument of
Christ, the Apostle Paul, whom you with the greater
willingness acknowledge as your teacher, and who professes
himself to be inflamed with such an intense desire of knowing
Christ, that he not only held every worldly thing in small
estimation when put in competition with this knowledge, but
also "suffered the loss of all things, that he might win the
knowledge of Christ." (Phil. iii, 8.) Look at Timothy, his
disciple, whom he felicitates on this account -- "that from a
child he had known the holy scriptures." (2 Tim. iii, 15.)
You have already attained to a share of the same blessedness;
and you will make further advances in it, if you determine to
receive the admonitions, and to execute the charge, which
that great teacher of the Gentiles addresses to his Timothy.
But this study requires not only diligence, but holiness, and
a sincere desire to please God. For the object which you
handle, into which you are looking, and which you wish to
know, is sacred -- nay, it is the holy of holies. To pollute
sacred things, is highly indecent; it is desirable that the
persons by whom such things are administered, should
communicate to them no taint of defilement. The ancient
Gentiles when about to offer sacrifice were accustomed to
exclaim,
"Far, far from hence, let the profane depart!"
This caution should be re-iterated by you, for a more solid
and lawful reason when you proceed to offer sacrifices to God
Most High, and to his Christ, before whom also the holy choir
of angels repeat aloud that thrice-hallowed song, "Holy,
holy, holy, Lord God Almighty!" While you are engaged in this
study, do not suffer your minds to be enticed away by other
pursuits and to different objects. Exercise yourselves,
continue to exercise yourselves in this, with a mind intent
upon what has been proposed to you according to the design of
this discourse. If you do this, in the course of a short time
you will not repent of your labour; but you will make such
progress in the way of the knowledge of the Lord, as will
render you useful to others. For "the secret of the Lord, is
with them that fear him." (Psalm xxv, 14) Nay, from the very
circumstance of this unremitting attention, you will be
enabled to declare, that you "have chosen the good part which
alone shall not be taken away from you," (Luke x, 42) but
which will daily receive fresh increase. Your minds will be
so expanded by the knowledge of God and of his Christ, that
they will hereafter become a most ample habitation for God
and Christ through the Spirit. I have finished.
ORATION II
THE AUTHOR AND THE END OF THEOLOGY
They who are conversant with the demonstrative species of
oratory, and choose for themselves any subject of praise or
blame, must generally be engaged in removing from themselves,
what very readily assails the minds of their auditors, a
suspicion that they are impelled to speak by some immoderate
feeling of love or hatred; and in showing that they are
influenced rather by an approved judgment of the mind; and
that they have not followed the ardent flame of their will,
but the clear light of their understanding, which accords
with the nature of the subject which they are discussing. But
to me such a course is not necessary. For that which I have
chosen for the subject of my commendation, easily removes
from me all ground for such a suspicion.
I do not deny, that here indeed I yield to the feeling of
love; but it is on a matter which if any one does not love,
he hates himself, and perfidiously prostitutes the life of
his soul. Sacred Theology is the subject whose excellence and
dignity I now celebrate in this brief and unadorned Oration;
and which, I am convinced, is to all of you an object of the
greatest regard. Nevertheless, I wish to raise it, if
possible, still higher in your esteem. This, indeed, its own
merit demands; this the nature of my office requires. Nor is
it any part of my study to amplify its dignity by ornaments
borrowed from other objects; for to the perfection of its
beauty can be added nothing extraneous that would not tend to
its degradation and loss of its comeliness. I only display
such ornaments as are, of themselves, its best
recommendation. These are, its Object, its Author, its End
and its Certainty. Concerning the Object, we have already
declared whatever the Lord had imparted; and we will now
speak of its Author and its End. God grant that I may ,follow
the guidance of this Theology in all respects, and may
advance nothing except what agrees with its nature, is worthy
of God and useful to you, to the glory of his name, and to
the uniting of all of us together in the Lord. I pray and
beseech you also, my most excellent and courteous hearers,
that you will listen to me, now when I am beginning to speak
on the Author, and the End of Theology, with the same degree
of kindness and attention as that which you evinced when you
heard my preceding discourse on its Object.
Being about to treat of the Author, I will not collect
together the lengthened reports of his well merited praises,
for with you this is unnecessary. I will only declare (1.)
Who the Author is; (2.) In what respect he is to be
considered; (3.) Which of his properties were employed by him
in the revelation of Theology; and (4.) In what manner he has
made it know.
I. We have considered the Object of Theology in regard to two
particulars. And that each part of our subject may properly
and exactly answer to the other, we may also consider its
Author in a two-fold respect -- that of Legal and of
Evangelical Theology. In both cases, the same person is the
Author and the Object, and the person who reveals the
doctrine is likewise its matter and argument. This is a
peculiarity that belongs to no other of the numerous
sciences. For although all of them may boast of God, as their
Author, because he a God of knowledge; yet, as we have seen,
they have some other object than God, which something is
indeed derived from him and of his production. But they do
not partake of God as their efficient cause, in an equal
manner with this doctrine, which, for a particular reason,
and one entirely distinct from that of the other sciences,
lays claim to God , its Author. God, therefore, is the author
of Legal Theology; God and his Christ, or God in and through
Christ, is the Author of that which is evangelical. For to
this the scripture bears witness, and thus the very nature of
the object requires, both of which we will separately
demonstrate.
1. Scripture describes to us the Author of legal theology
before the fall in these words: "And the Lord God commanded
the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest
freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it:" (Gen. ii, 16, 17.) A threat
was added in express words, in case the man should
transgress, and a promise, in the type of the tree of life,
if he complied with the command. But there are two things,
which, as they preceded this act of legislation, should have
been previously known by man: (1.) The nature of God, which
is wise, good, just, and powerful; (2.) The authority by
which he issues his commands, the right of which rests on the
act of creation. Of both these, man had a previous knowledge,
from the manifestation of God, who familiarly conversed with
him, and held communication with his own image through that
Spirit by whose inspiration he said, "This is now bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh." (Gen. ii, 23.) The apostle
has attributed the knowledge of both these things to faith,
and, therefore, to the manifestation of God. He speaks of the
former in these words: "For he that cometh to God must have
believed [so I read it,] that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Heb. xi, 6.) If
a rewarder, therefore, he is a wise, good, just, powerful,
and provident guardian of human affairs. Of the latter, he
speaks thus: "Through faith we understand that the world was
framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were
not made of things which do appear." (Heb. xi, 3.) And
although that is not expressly and particularly stated of the
moral law, in the primeval state of man; yet when it is
affirmed of the typical and ceremonial law, it must be also
understood in reference to the moral law. For the typical and
ceremonial law was an experiment of obedience to the moral
law, that was to be tried on man, and the acknowledgement of
his obligation to obey the moral law. This appears still more
evidently in the repetition of the moral law by Moses after
the fall, which was specially made known to the people of
Israel in these words: "And God spake all these words :"
(Exod. xx, 1,) and "What nation is there so great that hath
statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I
set before you this day," (Deut. iv, 8.) But Moses set it
before them according to the manifestation of God to him, and
in obedience to his command, as he says: "The secret things
belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are
revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we
may do all the words of this law." (Deut. xxix, 29.) And
according to Paul, "That which may be known of God, is
manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." (Rom. i,
19.)
2. The same thing is evinced by the nature of the object. For
since God is the Author of the universe, (and that, not by a
natural and internal operation, but by one that is voluntary
and external, and that imparts to the work as much as he
chooses of his own, and as much as the nothing, from which it
is produced, will permit,) his excellence and dignity must
necessarily far exceed the capacity of the universe, and, for
the same reason, that of man. On this account, he is said in
scripture, "to dwell in the light unto which no man can
approach," (1 Tim. vi, 16,) which strains even the most acute
sight of any creature, by a brightness so great and dazzling,
that the eye is blunted and overpowered, and would soon be
blinded unless God, by some admirable process of attempering
that blaze of light, should offer himself to the view of his
creatures: This is the very manifestation before which
darkness is said to have fixed its habitation.
Nor is he himself alone inaccessible, but, as the heavens are
higher than the earth, so are his ways higher than our ways,
and his thoughts than our thoughts." (Isa. lv, 9.) The
actions of God are called "the ways of God," and the creation
especially is called "the beginning of the way of God,"
(Prov. 8,) by which God began, as it were, to arise and to go
forth from the throne of his majesty. Those actions,
therefore, could not have been made known and understood, in
the manner in which it is allowable to know and understand
them, except by the revelation of God. This was also
indicated before, in the term "faith" which the apostle
employed. But the thoughts of God, and his will, (both that
will which he wishes to be done by us, and that which he has
resolved to do concerning us,) are of free disposition, which
is determined by the divine power and liberty inherent in
himself; and since he has, in all this, called in the aid of
no counselor, those thoughts and that will are of necessity
"unsearchable and past finding out." (Rom. xi, 33.) Of these,
Legal Theology consists; and as they could not be known
before the revelation of them proceeded from God, it is
evidently proved that God is its Author.
To this truth all nations and people assent. What compelled
Radamanthus and Minos, those most equitable kings of Crete,
to enter the dark cave of Jupiter, and pretend that the laws
which they had promulgated among their subjects, were brought
from that cave, at the inspiration of Deity? It was because
they knew those laws would not meet with general reception,
unless they were believed to have been divinely communicated.
Before Lycurgus began the work of legislation for his
Lacedaemonians, imitating the example of those two kings, he
went to Apollo at Delphos, that he might, on his return,
confer on his laws the highest recommendation by means of the
authority of the Delphic Oracle. To induce the ferocious
minds of the Roman people to submit to religion, Numa
Pompilius feigned that he had nocturnal conferences with the
goddess Aegeria. These were positive and evident testimonies
of a notion which had preoccupied the minds of men, "that no
religion except one of divine origin, and deriving its
principles from heaven, deserved to be received." Such a
truth they considered this, "that no one could know God, or
any thing concerning God, except through God himself."
2. Let us now look at Evangelical Theology. We have made the
Author of it to be Christ and God, at the command of the same
scriptures as those which establish the divine claims of
Legal Theology, and because the nature of the object requires
it with the greater justice, in proportion as that object is
the more deeply hidden in the abyss of the divine wisdom, and
as the human mind is the more closely surrounded and
enveloped with the shades of ignorance.
(1.) Exceedingly numerous are the passages of scripture which
serve to aid and strengthen us in this opinion. We will
enumerate a few of them: First, those which ascribe the
manifestation of this doctrine to God the Father; Then, those
which ascribe it to Christ. "But we" says the apostle, "speak
the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which
God ordained before the world unto our glory. But God hath
revealed it unto us by his Spirit." (1 Cor. ii, 7,10.) The
same apostle says, "The gospel and the preaching of Jesus
Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was
kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest
by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the
commandment of the everlasting God." (Rom. xvi, 25, 26.)
When Peter made a correct and just confession of Christ, it
was said to him by the saviour, "Flesh and blood hath not
revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
(Matt. xvi, 17.) John the Baptist attributed the same to
Christ, saying, "The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom
of the Father, be hath declared God to us." (John i, 18.)
Christ also ascribed this manifestation to himself in these
words: "No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither
knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever
the Son will reveal him." (Matt. xi, 17.) And, in another
place, "I have manifested thy name unto the men whom thou
gavest me out of the world, and they have believed that thou
didst send me." (John xvii, 6, 8.)
(2.) Let us consider the necessity of this manifestation from
the nature of its Object.
This is indicated by Christ when speaking of Evangelical
Theology, in these words: "No man knoweth the Son but the
Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son."
(Matt. xi, 27.) Therefore no man can reveal the Father or
the Son, and yet in the knowledge of them are comprised the
glad tidings of the gospel. The Baptist is an assertor of the
necessity of this manifestation when he declares, that "No
man hath seen God at any time." (John i, 18.) It is the
wisdom belonging to this Theology, which is said by the
Apostle to be "hidden in a mystery, which none of the princes
of this world knew, and which eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man." (1
Cor. ii, 7, 8, 9.) It does not come within the cognizance of
the understanding, and is not mixed up, as it were, with the
first notions or ideas impressed on the mind at the period of
its creation; it is not acquired in conversation or
reasoning; but it is made known "in the words which the Holy
Ghost teacheth." To this Theology belongs "that manifold
wisdom of God which must be made known by the Church unto the
principalities and powers in heavenly places," (Ephes. iii,
10,) otherwise it would remain unknown even to the angels
themselves. What! Are the deep things of God "which no man
knoweth but the Spirit of God which is in himself," explained
by this doctrine? Does it also unfold "the length and
breadth, and depth and height" of the wisdom of God? As the
Apostle speaks in another passage, in a tone of the most
impassioned admiration, and almost at a loss what words to
employ in expressing the fullness of this Theology, in which
are proposed, as objects of discovery, "the love of Christ
which passeth knowledge, and the peace of God which passeth
all understanding." (Ephes. iii, 18.) From these passages it
most evidently appears, that the Object of Evangelical
Theology must have been revealed by God and Christ, or it
must otherwise have remained hidden and surrounded by
perpetual darkness; or, (which is the same thing,) that
Evangelical Theology would not have come within the range of
our knowledge, and, on that account, as a necessary
consequence, there could have been none at all.
If it be an agreeable occupation to any person, (and such it
must always prove,) to look more methodically and distinctly
through each part, let him cast the eyes of his mind on those
properties of the Divine Nature which this Theology displays,
clothed in their own appropriate mode; let him consider those
action of God which this doctrine brings to light, and that
will of God which he has revealed in his gospel: When he has
done this, (and of much more than this the subject is
worthy,) he will more distinctly understand the necessity of
the Divine manifestation.
If any one would adopt a compendious method, let him only
contemplate Christ; and when he has diligently observed that
admirable union of the Word and Flesh, his investiture into
office and the manner in which its duties were executed; when
he has at the same time reflected, that the whole of these
arrangements and proceedings are in consequence of the
voluntary economy, regulation, and free dispensation of God;
he cannot avoid professing openly, that the knowledge of all
these things could not have been obtained except by means of
the revelation of God and Christ.
But lest any one should take occasion, from the remarks which
we have now made, to entertain an unjust suspicion or error,
as though God the Father alone, to the exclusion of the Son,
were the Author of the legal doctrine, and the Father through
the Son were the Author of the Evangelical doctrine -- a few
observations shall be added, that may serve to solve this
difficulty, and further to illustrate the matter of our
discourse. As God by his Word, (which is his own Son,) and by
his Spirit, created all things, and man according to the
image of himself, so it is likewise certain, that no
intercourse can take place between him and man, without the
agency of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How is this
possible, since the ad extra works of the Deity are
indivisible, and when the order of operation ad extra is the
same as the order of procession ad intra? We do not,
therefore, by any means exclude the Son as the Word of the
Father, and the Holy Ghost who is "the Spirit of Prophecy,"
from efficiency in this revelation.
But there is another consideration in the manifestation of
the gospel, not indeed with respect to the persons
testifying, but in regard to the manner in which they come to
be considered. For the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
have not only a natural relation among themselves, but
another likewise which derives its origin from the will; yet
the latter entirely agrees with the natural relation that
subsists among them. There is an internal procession in the
persons; and there is an external one, which is called in the
scriptures and in the writings of the Father, by the name of
"Mission" or "sending." To the latter mode of procession,
special regard must be had in this revelation. For the Father
manifests the Gospel through his Son and Spirit. (i.) He
manifests it through the Son, as to his being, sent for the
purpose of performing the office of Mediator between God and
sinful men; as to his being the Word made flesh, and God
manifest in the flesh; and as to his having died, and to his
being raised again to life, whether that was done in reality,
or only in the decree and foreknowledge of God. (ii.) He also
manifests it through his Spirit, as to his being the Spirit
of Christ, whom he asked of his Father by his passion and his
death, and whom he obtained when he was raised from the dead,
and placed at the right hand of the Father.
I think you will understand the distinction which I imagine
to be here employed: I will afford you an opportunity to
examine and prove it, by adducing the clearest passages of
scripture to aid us in confirming it. (I.) "All things," said
Christ, "are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth
the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father,
save the Son." (Matt. xi, 27.) They were delivered by the
Father, to him as the Mediator, "in whom it was his pleasure
that all fullness should dwell." (Col. i, 19. See also ii,
9.) In the same sense must be understood what Christ says in
John: "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest
me;" for it is subjoined, "and they have known surely that I
came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst
send me." (xvii, 8.) From hence it appears, that the Father
had given those words to him as the Mediator: on which
account he says, in another place, "He whom God hath sent,
speaketh the words of God." (John iii, 34.) With this the
saying of the Baptist agrees, "The law was given by Moses,
but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John i, 17.) But
in reference to his being opposed to Moses, who accuses and
condemns sinners, Christ is considered as the Mediator
between God and sinners. The following passage tends to the
same point: "No man hath seen God at any time: the only
begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father," [that is,
"admitted," in his capacity of Mediator, to the intimate and
confidential view and knowledge of his Father's secrets,] "he
hath declared him:" (John i, 18.) "For the Father loveth the
Son, and hath given all things into his hand;" (John iii,
35,) and among the things thus given, was the doctrine of the
gospel, which he was to expound and declare to others, by the
command of God the Father. And in every revelation which has
been made to us through Christ, that expression which occurs
in the beginning of the Apocalypse of St. John holds good and
is of the greatest validity: "The revelation of Jesus Christ,
which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants." God has
therefore manifested Evangelical Theology through his Son, in
reference to his being sent forth by the Father, to execute
among men, and in his name, the office of Mediator.
(ii.) Of the Holy Spirit the same scripture testifies, that,
as the Spirit of Christ the Mediator, who is the head of his
church, he has revealed the Gospel. "Christ, by the Spirit,"
says Peter, "went and preached to the spirits in prison." (1
Pet. iii, 19.) And what did he preach? Repentance. This
therefore, was done through his Spirit, in his capacity of
Mediator, For, in this respect alone, the Spirit of God
exhorts to repentance. This appears more clearly from the
Same Apostle: "Of which salvation the prophets have inquired
and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that
should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time,
the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it
testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory
that should follow." And this was the Spirit of Christ in his
character of Mediator and head of the Church, which the very
object of the testimony foretold by him sufficiently evinces.
A succeeding passage excludes all doubt; for the gospel is
said in it, to be preached by the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven." (1 Pet. i, 12.) For he was sent down by Christ when
he was elevated at the right hand of God, as it is mentioned
in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; which
passage also makes for our purpose, and on that account
deserves to have its just meaning here appreciated. This is
its phraseology, "Therefore, being by the right hand of God
exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the
Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and
hear." (Acts ii, 33.) For it was by the Spirit that the
Apostles prophesied and spoke in divers languages. These
passages might suffice; but I cannot omit that most noble
sentence spoken by Christ to console the minds of his
disciples, who were grieving on account of his departure, "If
I go not away the Comforter [or rather, 'the Advocate, who
shall, in my place, discharge the vicarious office,' as
Tertullian expresses himself;] If I go not away, the
Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will
send him unto you. And when he is come he will reprove the
world, &c. (John xvi, 7, 8.) He shall glorify me: For he
shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." Christ,
therefore, as Mediator, "will send him," and he "will receive
of that which belongs to Christ the Mediator. He shall
glorify Christ," as constituted by God the Mediator and the
Head of the Church; and he shall glorify him with that glory,
which, according to the seventeenth chapter of St. John's
Gospel , Christ thought it necessary to ask of his Father.
That passage brings another to my recollection, which may be
called its parallel in merit: John says, "The Holy Ghost was
not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified."
(vii, 39.) This remark was not to be understood of the person
of the Spirit, but of his gifts, and especially that of
prophecy. But Christ was glorified in quality of Mediator:
and in that glorified capacity he sends the Holy Ghost;
therefore, the Holy Spirit was sent by Christ as the
Mediator. On this account also, the Spirit of Christ the
Mediator is the Author of Evangelical Prophecy. But the Holy
Ghost was sent, even before the glorification of Christ, to
reveal the Gospel. The existing state of the Church required
it at that period, and the Holy Spirit was sent to meet that
necessity. "Christ is likewise the same yesterday, today and
forever." (Heb. xiii, 8.) He was also "slain from the
foundation of the world;" (Rev. xiii, 8,) and was, therefore,
at that same time raised again and glorified; but this was
all in the decree and fore-knowledge of God. To make it
evident, however, that God has never sent the Holy Spirit to
the Church, except through the agency of Christ the Mediator,
and in regard to him, God deferred that plentiful and
exuberant effusion of his most copious gifts, until Christ,
after his exaltation to heaven, should send them down in a
communication of the greatest abundance. Thus he testified by
a clear and evident proof, that he had formerly poured out
the gifts of the Spirit upon the Church, by the same person,
as he by whom, (when through his ascension the dense and
overcharged cloud of water above the heavens had been
disparted,) he poured down the most plentiful showers of his
graces, inundating and over spreading the whole body of the
Church.
III. But the revelation of Evangelical Theology is attributed
to Christ in regard to his Mediatorship, and to the Holy
Ghost in regard to his being the appointed substitute and
Advocate of Christ the Mediator. This is done most
consistently and for a very just reason, both because Christ,
as Mediator, is placed for the ground-work of this doctrine,
and because in the duty of mediation those actions were to be
performed, those sufferings endured, and those blessings
asked and obtained, which complete a goodly portion of the
matters that are disclosed in the gospel of Christ. No
wonder, therefore, that Christ in this respect, (in which he
is himself the object of the gospel,) should likewise be the
revealer of it, and the person who asks and procures all
evangelical graces, and who is at once the Lord of them and
the communicator. And since the Spirit of Christ, our
Mediator and our head, is the bond of our union with Christ,
from which we also obtain communion with Christ, and a
participation in all his blessings -- it is just and
reasonable, that, in the respect which we have just
mentioned, Christ should reveal to our minds, and seal upon
our hearts, the evangelical charter and evidence of that
faith by which he dwelleth in our hearts. The consideration
of this matter exhibits to us (1.) the cause why it is
possible for God to restrain himself with such great
forbearance, patience, and long suffering, until the gospel
is obeyed by those to whom it is preached; and (2.) it
affords great consolation to our ignorance and infirmities.
I think, my hearers, you perceive that this single view adds
no small degree of dignity to our Evangelical Theology,
beside that which it possesses from the common consideration
of its Author. If we may be allowed further to consider what
wisdom, goodness and power God expended when he instituted
and revealed this Theology, it will give great importance to
our proposition. Indeed, all kinds of sciences have their
origin in the wisdom of God, and are communicated to men by
his goodness and power. But, if it be his right, (as it
undoubtedly is,) to appoint gradations in the external
exercise of his divine properties, we shall say, that all
other sciences except this, have arisen from an inferior
wisdom of God, and have been revealed by a less degree of
goodness and power. It is proper to estimate this matter
according to the excellence of its object. As the wisdom of
God, by which he knows himself, is greater than that by which
he knows other things; so the wisdom employed by him in the
manifestation of himself is greater than that employed in the
manifestation of other things. The goodness by which he
permits himself to be known and acknowledged by man as his
Chief Good, is greater than that by which he imparts the
knowledge of other things. The power also, by which nature is
raised to the knowledge of supernatural things, is greater
than that by which it is brought to investigate things that
are of the same species and origin with itself. Therefore,
although all the sciences may boast of God as their author,
yet in these particulars, Theology, soaring above the whole,
leaves them at an immense distance.
But as this consideration raises the dignity of Theology, on
the whole far above all other sciences, so it likewise
demonstrates that Evangelical far surpasses Legal Theology;
on which point we may be allowed, with your good leave, to
dwell a little. The wisdom, goodness and power, by which God
made man, after his own image, to consist of a rational soul
and a body, are great, and constitute the claims to
precedence on the part of Legal Theology. But the wisdom,
goodness and power, by which "the Word was made flesh," (John
i, 14,) and God was manifest in the flesh," (1 Tim. iii, 16,)
and by which he "who was in the form of God took upon himself
the form of a servant," (Phil. ii, 7,) are still greater, and
they are the claims by which Evangelical Theology asserts its
right to precedence. The wisdom and goodness, by the
operation of which the power of God has been revealed to
salvation, are great; but that by which is revealed "the
power of God to salvation to every one that believeth," (Rom.
ii, 16,) far exceeds it. Great indeed are the wisdom and
goodness by which the righteousness of God by the law is made
manifest," and by which the justification of the law was
ascribed of debt to perfect obedience; but they are
infinitely surpassed by the wisdom and goodness through which
the righteousness of God by faith is manifested, and through
which it is determined that the man is justified "that
worketh not, but [being a sinner,] believeth on him who
justifieth the ungodly," according to the most glorious
riches of his grace. Conspicuous and excellent were the
wisdom and goodness which appointed the manner of union with
God in legal righteousness, performed out of conformity to
the image of God, after which man was created. But a solemn
and substantial triumph is achieved through faith in Christ's
blood by the wisdom and goodness, which, having devised and
executed the wonderful method of qualifying justice and
mercy, appoint the manner of union in Christ., and in his
righteousness, "who is the brightness of his Father's glory
and the express image of his person." (Heb. i, 3.) Lastly, it
is the wisdom, goodness and power, which, out of the thickest
darkness of ignorance brought forth the marvelous light of
the gospel; which, from an infinite multitude of sins,
brought in everlasting righteousness; and which, from death
and the depths of hell, "brought life and immortality to
light." The wisdom, goodness and power which have produced
these effects, exceed those in which the light that is added
to light, the righteousness that is rewarded by a due
recompense, and the animal life that is regulated according
to godliness by the command of the law, are each of them
swallowed up and consummated in that which is spiritual and
eternal.
A deeper consideration of this matter almost compels me to
adopt a more confident daring, and to give to the wisdom,
goodness and power of God, which are unfolded in Legal
Theology, the title of Natural," and as in some sense the
beginning of the going forth of God towards his image, which
is man, and a commencement of Divine intercourse with him.
The others, which are manifested in the gospel, I fearlessly
call "Supernatural wisdom, power and goodness," and "the
extreme point and the perfect completion of all revelation;"
because in the manifestation of the latter, God appears to
have excelled himself, and to have unfolded every one of his
blessings. Admirable was the kindness of God, and most
stupendous his condescension in admitting man to the most
intimate communion with himself -- a privilege full of grace
and mercy, after his sins had rendered him unworthy of having
the establishment of such an intercourse. But this was
required by the unhappy and miserable condition of man, who
through his greater unworthiness had become the more
indigent, through his deeper blindness required illumination
by a stronger light, through his more grievous wickedness
demanded reformation by means of a more extensive goodness,
and who, the weaker he had become, needed a stronger exertion
of power for his restoration and establishment. It is also a
happy circumstance, that no aberration of ours can be so
great, as to prevent God from recalling us into the good way;
no fall so deep, as to disable him from raising us up and
causing us to stand erect; and no evil of ours can be of such
magnitude, as to prove a difficult conquest to his goodness,
provided it be his pleasure to put the whole of it in motion;
and this he will actually do, provided we suffer our
ignorance and infirmities to be corrected by his light and
power, and our wickedness to be subdued by his goodness.
IV. We have seen that, (1.) God is the Author of Legal
Theology; and God and his Christ, that of Evangelical
Theology. We have seen at the same time (2.) in what respect
God and Christ are to be viewed in making known this
revelation, and (3.) according to what properties of the
Divine Nature of both of them it has been perfected.
We will now just glance at the Manner. The manner of the
Divine manifestation appears to be threefold, according , the
three instruments or organs of our capacity. (1.) The
External Senses, (2.) The Inward Fancy or Imagination, and
(3.) The Mind or Understanding. God sometimes reveals himself
and his will by an image or representation offered to the
external sight, or through an audible speech or discourse
addressed to the ear. Sometimes he introduces himself by the
same method to the imagination; and sometimes he addresses
the mind in a manner ineffable, which is called Inspiration.
Of all these modes scripture most clearly supplies us with
luminous examples. But time will not permit me to be detained
in enumerating them, lest I should appear to be yet more
tedious to this most accomplished assembly.
THE END OF THEOLOGY
We have been engaged in viewing the Author,: let us now
advert to the End. This is the more eminent and divine
according to the greater excellence of that matter of which
it is the end. In that light, therefore, this science is far
more illustrious and transcendent than all others; because it
alone has a relation to the life that is spiritual and
supernatural, and has an End beyond the boundaries of the
present life: while all other sciences have respect to this
animal life, and each has an End proposed to itself,
extending from the center of this earthly life and included
within its circumference. Of this science, then, that may be
truly said which the poet declared concerning his wise
friend, "For those things alone he feels any relish, the rest
like shadows fly." I repeat it, "they fly away," unless they
be referred to this science, and firmly fix their foot upon
it and be at rest. But the same person who is the Author and
Object, is also the End of Theology. The very proportion and
analogy of these things make such a connection requisite. For
since the Author is the First and the Chief Being, it is of
necessity that he be the First and Chief Good. He is,
therefore, the extreme End of all things. And since He, the
Chief Being and the Chief Good, subjects, lowers and spreads
himself out, as an object to some power or faculty of a
rational creature, that by its action or motion it may be
employed and occupied concerning him, nay, that it may in a
sense be united with him; it cannot possibly be, that the
creature, after having performed its part respecting that
object, should fly beyond it and extend itself further for
the sake of acquiring a greater good. It is, therefore, of
necessity that it restrain itself within him, not only as
within a boundary beyond which it is impossible for it to
pass on account of the infinitude of the object and on
account of its own importance, but also as within its End and
its Good, beyond which, because they are both the Chief in
degree, it neither wishes nor is capable of desiring
anything; provided this object be united with it as far as
the capacity of the creature will admit. God is, therefore,
the End of our Theology, proposed by God himself, in the acts
prescribed in it; intended by man in the performance of those
actions, and to be bestowed by God, after man shall have
piously and religiously performed his duty. But because the
chief good was not placed in the promise of it, nor in the
desire of obtaining it, but in actually receiving it, the end
of Theology may with the utmost propriety be called THE UNION
OF GOD WITH MAN.
But it is not an Essential union, as if two essences, (for
instance that of God and man,) were compacted together or
joined into one, or as that by which man might himself be
absorbed into God. The former of these modes of union is
prohibited by the very nature of the things so united, and
the latter is rejected by the nature of the union. Neither is
it a formal union, as if God by that union might be made in
the form of man, like a Spirit united to a body imparting to
it life and motion, and acting upon it at pleasure, although,
by dwelling in the body, it should confer on man the gift of
life eternal. But it is an objective union by which God,
through the agency of his pre-eminent and most faithful
faculties and actions, (all of which he wholly occupies and
completely fills,) gives such convincing proofs of himself to
man, that God may then be said to be "all in all." (1 Cor.
xv, 21.) This union is immediate, and without any bond that
is different to the limits themselves. For God unites himself
to the understanding and to the will of his creature, by
means of himself alone, and without the intervention of
image, species or appearance. This is what the nature of this
last and supreme union requires, as being that in which
consists the Chief Good of a rational creature, which cannot
find rest except in the greatest union of itself with God.
But by this union, the understanding beholds in the clearest
vision, and as if "face to face," God himself, and all his
goodness and incomparable beauty. And because a good of such
magnitude and known by the clearest vision cannot fail of
being loved on its own account; from this very consideration
the will embraces it with a more intense love, in proportion
to the greater degree of knowledge of it which the mind has
obtained.
But here a double difficulty presents itself, which must
first be removed, in order that our feet may afterwards
without stumbling run along a path that will then appear
smooth and to have been for some time well trodden. (1.) The
one is, "How can it be that the eye of the human
understanding does not become dim and beclouded when an
object of such transcendent light is presented to it?" (2.)
The other is, "How can the understanding, although its eye
may not be dim and blinded, receive and contain that object
in such great measure and proportion?" The cause of the first
is, that the light exhibits itself to the understanding not
in the infinity of its own nature, but in a form that is
qualified and attempered. And to what is it thus
accommodated? Is it not to the understanding? Undoubtedly, to
the understanding; but not according to the capacity which it
possessed before the union: otherwise it could not receive
and contain as much as would suffice to fill it and make it
happy. But it is attempered according to the measure of its
extension and enlargement, to admit of which the
understanding is exquisitely formed, if it be enlightened and
irradiated by the gracious and glorious shining of the light
accommodated to that expansion. If it be thus enlightened,
the eye of the understanding will not be overpowered and
become dim, and it will receive that object in such a vast
proportion as will most abundantly suffice to make man
completely happy. This is a solution for both these
difficulties. But an extension of the understanding will be
followed by an enlargement of the will, either from a proper
and adequate object offered to it, and accommodated to the
same rule; or, (which I prefer,) from the native agreement of
the will and understanding, and the analogy implanted in both
of them, according to which the understanding extends itself
to acts of volition, in the very proportion of its
understanding and knowledge. In this act of the mind and will
-- in seeing a present God, in loving him, and therefore in
the enjoyment of him, the salvation of man and his perfect
happiness consist. To which is added , conformation of our
body itself to this glorious state of soul, which, whether it
be effected by the immediate action of God on the body, or by
means of an agency resulting from the action of the soul on
the body, it is neither necessary for us here to inquire, nor
at this time to discover. From hence also arises and shines
forth illustriously the chief and infinite glory of God, far
surpassing all other glory, that he has displayed in every
preceding function which he administered. For since that
action is truly great and glorious which is good, and since
goodness alone obtains the title of "greatness," according to
that elegant saying, to eu mega then indeed the best action
of God is the greatest and the most glorious. But that is the
best action by which he unites himself immediately to the
creature and affords himself to be seen, loved and enjoyed in
such an abundant measure as agrees with the creature dilated
and expanded to that degree which we have mentioned. This is,
therefore, the most glorious of God's actions. Wherefore the
end of Theology is the union , God with man, to the salvation
of the one and the glory of the other; and to the glory which
he declares by his act, not that glory which man ascribes to
God when he is united to him. Yet it cannot be otherwise,
than that man should be incited to sing forever the high
praises of God, when he beholds and enjoys such large and
overpowering goodness.
But the observations we have hitherto made on the End of
Theology, were accommodated to the manner of that which is
legal. We must now consider the End as it is proposed to
Evangelical Theology. The End of this is (1.) God and Christ,
(2.) the union of man with both of them, and (3.) the sight
and fruition of both, to the glory of both Christ and God. On
each of these particulars we have some remarks to make from
the scriptures, and which most appropriately agree with, and
are peculiar to, the Evangelical doctrine.
But before we enter upon these remarks, we must shew that the
salvation of man, to the glory of Christ himself, consists
also in the love, the sight, and the fruition of Christ.
There is a passage in the fifteenth chapter of the first
Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, which imposes
this necessity upon us, because it appears to exclude Christ
from this consideration. For in that place the apostle says,
"When Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even
the Father, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto
him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. xv, 24.) From this
passage three difficulties are raised, which must be removed
by an appropriate explanation. They are these: (1.) "If
Christ 'shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the
Father,' he will no longer reign himself in person." (2.) "If
he 'shall be subject to the Father,' he will no more preside
over his Church:" and (3.) "If 'God shall be all in all,'
then our salvation is not placed in the union, sight and
fruition of him." I will proceed to give a separate answer to
each of these objections. The kingdom of Christ embraces two
objects: The Mediatorial function of the regal office, and
the Regal glory: The royal function, will be laid aside,
because there will then be no necessity or use for it, but
the royal glory will remain because it was obtained by the
acts of the Mediator, and was conferred on him by the Father
according to covenant. The same thing is declared by the
expression "shall be subject," which here signifies nothing
more than the laying aside of the super-eminent power which
Christ had received from the Father, and which he had, as the
Father's Vicegerent, administered at the pleasure of his own
will: And yet, when he has laid down this power, he will
remain, as we shall see, the head and the husband of his
Church. That sentence has a similar tendency in which it is
said, "God shall be ALL IN ALL." For it takes away even the
intermediate and deputed administration of the creatures
which God is accustomed to use in the communication of his
benefits; and it indicates that God will likewise immediately
from himself communicate his own good, even himself to his
creatures. Therefore, on the authority of this passage,
nothing is taken away from Christ which we have been wishful
to attribute to him in this discourse according to the
scriptures.
This we will now shew by some plain and apposite passages.
Christ promises an union with himself in these words, "If a
man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love
him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
(John xiv, 23.) Here is a promise of good: therefore the
good of the Church is likewise placed in union with Christ;
and an abode is promised, not admitting of termination by the
bounds of this life, but which will continue for ever, and
shall at length, when this short life is ended, be
consummated in heaven. In reference to this, the Apostle
says, "I desire to depart and to be with Christ;" and Christ
himself says, "I will that they also whom thou hast given me,
be with me where I am." (John xvii, 24.) John says, that the
end of his gospel is, "that our fellowship may be with the
Father and the Son;" (1 John i, 3,) in which fellowship
eternal life must necessarily consist, since in another place
he explains the same end in these words, "But these are
written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ: and
that, believing, ye might have life through his name." (John
xx, 31.) But from the meaning of the same Apostle, it
appears, that this fellowship has an union antecedent to
itself. These are his words, "If that which ye have heard
from the beginning shall remain in you ye also shall continue
in the Son, and in the Father." (1 John ii, 24.) What! Shall
the union between Christ and his Church cease at a period
when he shall place before his glorious sight his spouse
sanctified to himself by his own blood? Far be the idea from
us! For the union, which had commenced here on earth, will
then at length be consummated and perfected.
If any one entertain doubts concerning the vision of Christ,
let him listen to Christ in this declaration: "He that loveth
me shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will
manifest myself to him." (John xiv, 21.) Will he thus
disclose himself in this world only? Let us again hear Christ
when he intercedes with the Father for the faithful: "Father,
I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me
where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast
given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the
world." (John xvii, 34) Christ, therefore, promises to his
followers the sight of his glory, as something salutary to
them; and his Father is intreated to grant this favour. The
same truth is confirmed by John when he says, "Then we shall
see him as he is." (1 John iii, 2.) This passage may without
any impropriety be understood of Christ, and yet not to the
exclusion of God the Father. But what do we more distinctly
desire than that Christ may become, what it is said he will
be, "the light" that shall enlighten the celestial city, and
in whose light "the nations shall walk?" (Rev. xxi, 23, 24.)
Although the fruition of Christ is sufficiently established
by the same passages as those by which the sight of him is
confirmed, yet we will ratify it by two or three others.
Since eternal felicity is called by the name of "the supper
of the lamb," and is emphatically described by this term,
"the marriage of the Lamb," I think it is taught with
adequate clearness in these expressions, that happiness
consists in the fruition or enjoyment of the Lamb. But the
apostle, in his apocalypse, has ascribed both these epithets
to Christ, by saying, "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give
honour to him, for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his
wife hath made herself ready :" (Rev. xix, 7,) and a little
afterwards, he says, "Blessed are they which are called to
the marriage-supper of the Lamb." (verse 9.) It remains for
us to treat on the glory of Christ, which is inculcated in
these numerous passages of Scripture in which it is stated
that "he sits with the Father on his throne," and is adored
and glorified both by angels and by men in heaven.
Having finished the proof of those expressions, the truth of
which we engaged to demonstrate, we will now proceed to
fulfill our promise of explanation, and to show that all and
each of these benefits descend to us in a peculiar and more
excellent manner, from Evangelical Theology, than they could
have done from that which is Legal, if by it we could really
have been made alive.
2. And, that we may, in the first place, dispatch the subject
of Union, let the brief remarks respecting marriage which we
have just made, be brought again to our remembrance. For that
word more appropriately honours this union, and adorns it
with a double and remarkable privilege; one part of which
consists of a deeper combination, the other of a more
glorious title. The Scripture speaks thus of the deeper
combination; "And the two shall be one flesh. This is a great
mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church!"
(Ephes. v, 31, 32.) It will therefore be a connubial tie that
will unite Christ with the church. The espousals of the
church on earth are contracted by the agency of the brides-
men of Christ, who are the prophets, the apostles, and their
successors, and particularly the Holy Ghost, who is in this
affair a mediator and arbitrator. The consummation will then
follow, when Christ will introduce his spouse into his bride-
chamber. From such an union as this, there arises, not only a
communion of blessings, but a previous communion of the
persons themselves; from which the possession of blessings is
likewise assigned, by a more glorious title, to her who is
united in the bonds of marriage. The church comes into a
participation not only of the blessings of Christ, but also
of his title. For, being the wife of the King, she enjoys it
as a right due to her to be called QUEEN; which dignified
appellation the scripture does not withhold from her. "Upon
thy right hand stands the Queen in gold of Ophir:" (Psalm
xlv, 9.) "There are three-score queens, and four-score
concubines, and virgins without number. "My dove, my
undefiled, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she
is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughter saw her,
and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines; and they
praised her." (Song of Sol. vi, 8, 9.) The church could not
have been eligible to the high honour of such an union,
unless Christ has been made her beloved, her brother, sucking
the breasts of the same mother." (Cant. 8.) But there would
have been no necessity for this union, "if righteousness and
salvation had come to us by the law." That was, therefore, a
happy necessity, which, out of compassion to the emergency of
our wretched condition, the divine condescension improved to
our benefit, and filled with such a plenitude of dignity! But
the manner of this our union with Christ is no small addition
to that union which is about to take place between us and God
the Father. This will be evident to any one who considers
what and how great is the bond of mutual union between Christ
and the Father.
3. If we turn our attention to sight or vision, we shall meet
with two remarkable characters which are peculiar to
Evangelical Theology.
(1.) In the first place, the glory of God, as if accumulated
and concentrated together into one body, will be presented to
our view in Christ Jesus; which glory would otherwise have
been dispersed throughout the most spacious courts of a
"heaven immense;" much in the same manner as the light, which
had been created on the first day, and equally spread through
the whole hemisphere, was on the fourth day collected, united
and compacted together into one body, and offered to the eyes
as a most conspicuous and shining object. In reference to
this, it is said in the Apocalypse, that the heavenly
Jerusalem "had no need of the sun, neither of the moon; for
the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb will be the
future light thereof," (Rev. xxi, 23,) as a vehicle by which
this most delightful glory may diffuse itself into immensity.
(2.) We shall then not only contemplate, in God himself, the
most excellent properties of his nature, but shall also
perceive that all of them have been employed in and devoted
to the procuring of this good for us, which we now possess in
hope, but which we shall in reality then possess by means of
this union and open vision.
The excellence, therefore, of this vision far exceeds that
which could have been by the law; and from this source arises
a fruition of greater abundance and more delicious sweetness.
For, as the light in the sun is brighter than that in the
stars, so is the sight of the sun, when the human eye is
capable of bearing it, more grateful and acceptable, and the
enjoyment of it is far more pleasant. From such a view of the
Divine attributes, the most delicious sweetness of fruition
will seem to be doubled. For the first delight will arise
from the contemplation of properties so excellent; the other
from the consideration of that immeasurable condescension by
which it has pleased God to unfold all those his properties,
and the whole of those blessings which he possesses in the
exhaustless and immeasurable treasury of his riches, and to
give this explanation, that he may procure salvation for man
and may impart it to his most miserable creature. This will
then be seen in as strong a light, as if the whole of that
which is essentially God appeared to exist for the sake of
man alone, and for his solo benefit. There is also the
addition of this peculiarity concerning it: "Jesus Christ
shall change our vile body, [the body of our humiliation,]
that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body: (Phil.
iii, 21,) and as we have borne the image of the earthy
[Adam], we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." (1
Cor. xv, 49.) Hence it is, that all things are said to be
made new in Christ Jesus; (2 Cor. v, 17,) and we are
described in the scriptures as "looking, according to his
promise, for new heavens and a new earth, (2 Pet. iii, 13,)
and a new name written on a white stone, (Rev. ii, 17,) the
new name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which
is the new Jerusalem, (Rev. iii, 12.) and they shall sing a
new song to God and his Christ forever." (Rev. v, 9.)
Who does not now see, how greatly the felicity prepared for
us by Christ, and offered to us through Evangelical Theology
excels that which would have come to us by "the righteousness
of the law," if indeed it had been possible for us to fulfill
it? We should in that case have been similar to the elect
angels; but now we shall be their superiors, if I be
permitted to make such a declaration, to the praise of Christ
and our God, in this celebrated Hall, and before an assembly
among whom we have some of those most blessed spirits
themselves as spectators. They now enjoy union with God and
Christ, and will probably be more closely united to both of
them at the time of the "restitution of all things." But
there will be nothing between the two parties similar to that
Conjugal Bond which unites us, and in which we may be
permitted to glory.
They will behold God himself "face to face," and will
contemplate the most eminent properties of his nature; but
they will see some among those properties devoted to the
purpose of man's salvation, which God has not unfolded for
their benefit, because that was not necessary; and which he
would not have unfolded, even if it had been necessary. These
things they will see, but they will not be moved by envy; it
will rather be a subject of admiration and wonder to them,
that God, the Creator of both orders, conferred on man, (who
was inferior to them in nature,) that dignity which he had of
old denied to the spirits that partook with themselves of the
same nature. They will behold Christ, that most brilliant and
shining light of the city of the living God, of which they
also are inhabitants: and, from this very circumstance their
happiness will be rendered more illustrious through Christ.
Christ "took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of
Abraham;" (Heb. ii, 16,) to whom also, in that assumed
nature, they will present adoration and honour, at the
command of God, when he introduces his First begotten into
the world to come. Of that future world, and of its
blessings, they also will be partakers: but "it is not put in
subjection to them," (Heb. ii, 5,) but to Christ and his
Brethren, who are partakers of the same nature, and are
sanctified by himself. A malignant spirit, yet of the same
order as the angels, had hurled against God the crimes of
falsehood and envy. But we see how signally God in Christ and
in the salvation procured by him, has repelled both these
accusations from himself. The falsehood intimated an
unwillingness on the part of God that man should be
reconciled to him, except by the intervention of the death of
his Son. His envy was excited, because God had raised man,
not only to the angelical happiness, (to which even that
impure one would have attained had "he kept his first
estate,) but to a state of blessedness far superior to that
of angels.
That I may not be yet more prolix, I leave it as a subject of
reflection to the devoted piety of your private meditations,
most accomplished auditors, to estimate the vast and amazing
greatness of the glory of God which has here manifested
itself, and to calculate the glory due from us to him for
such transcendent goodness.
In the mean time, let all of us, however great our number,
consider with a devout and attentive mind, what duty is
required of us by this doctrine, which having received its
manifestation from God and Christ, plainly and fully
announces to us such a great salvation, and to the
participation of which we are most graciously invited. It
requires to be received, understood, believed, and fulfilled,
in deed and in reality. It is worthy of all acceptation, on
account of its Author; and necessary to be received on
account of its End.
1. Being delivered by so great an Author, it is worthy to be
received with a humble and submissive mind; to have much
diligence and care bestowed on a knowledge and perception of
it; and not to be laid aside from the hand, the mind, or the
heart, until we shall have "obtained the End of it -- THE
SALVATION OF OUR SOULS." Why should this be done? Shall the
Holy God open his mouth, and our ears remain stopped? Shall
our Heavenly Master be willing to communicate instruction,
and we refuse to learn? Shall he desire to inspire our hearts
with the knowledge of his Divine truth, and we, by closing
the entrance to our hearts, exclude the most evident and mild
breathings of his Spirit? Does Christ, who is the Father's
Wisdom, announce to us that gospel which he has brought from
the bosom of the Father, and shall we disdain to hide it in
the inmost recesses of our heart? And shall we act thus,
especially when we have received this binding command of the
Father, which says, "Hear ye him!" (Matt. xvii, 5,) to which
he has added a threat, that "if we hear him not, our souls
shall be destroyed from among the people; (Acts iii, 23,)
that is, from the commonwealth of Israel? Let none of us fall
into the commission of such a heinous offense! "For if the
word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression
and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how
shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at
the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed
unto us by them that heard him ," (Heb. ii, 2, 3.)
2. To all the preceding considerations, let the End of this
doctrine be added, and it will be of the greatest utility in
enforcing this the work of persuasion on minds that are not
prodigal of their own proper and Chief Good -- an employment
in which its potency and excellence are most apparent. Let us
reflect, for what cause God has brought us out of darkness
into this marvelous light; has furnished us with a mind,
understanding, and reason; and has adorned us with his image.
Let this question be revolved in our minds, "For what purpose
or End has God restored the fallen to their pristine state of
integrity, reconciled sinners to himself, and received
enemies into favour," and we shall plainly discover all this
to have been done, that we might be made partakers of eternal
salvation, and might sing praises to him forever. But we
shall not be able to aspire after this End, much less to
attain it, except in the way which is pointed out by that
Theological Doctrine which has been the topic of our
discourse. If we wander from this End, our wanderings from it
extend, not only beyond the whole earth and sea, but beyond
heaven itself -- that city of which nevertheless it is
essentially necessary for us to be made free men, and to have
our names enrolled among the living. This doctrine is "the
gate of heaven," and the door of paradise; the ladder of
Jacob, by which Christ descends to us, and we shall in turn
ascend to him; and the golden chain, which connects heaven
with earth. Let us enter into this gate; let us ascend this
ladder; and let us cling to this chain. Ample and wide is the
opening of the gate, and it will easily admit believers; the
position of the ladder is movable, and will not suffer those
who ascend it to be shaken or moved; the joining which unites
one link of the chain with another is indissoluble, and will
not permit those to fall down who cling to it, until we come
to "him that liveth forever and ever," and are raised to the
throne of the Most High; till we be united to the living God,
and Jesus Christ our Lord, "the Son of the Highest."
But on you, O chosen youths, this care is a duty peculiarly
incumbent; for God has destined you to become "workers
together with him," in the manifestation of the gospel, and
instruments to administer to the salvation of others. Let the
Majesty of the Holy Author of your studies, and the necessity
of the End, be always placed before your eyes. (1.) On
attentively viewing the Author, let the words of the Prophet
Amos recur to your remembrance and rest on your mind: "The
lion hath roared, who will not fear? The Lord God hath
spoken, who can but prophesy?" (Amos ii, 8.) But you cannot
prophesy, unless you be instructed by the Spirit of Prophesy.
In our days he addresses no one in that manner, except in the
Scriptures; he inspires no one, except by means of the
Scriptures, which are divinely inspired. (2.) In
contemplating the End, you will discover, that it is not
possible to confer on any one, in his intercourse with
mankind, an office of greater dignity and utility, or an
office that is more salutary in its consequences, than this,
by which he may conduct them from error into the way of
truth, from wickedness to righteousness, from the deepest
misery to the highest felicity; and by which he may
contribute much towards their everlasting salvation. But this
truth is taught by Theology alone; there is nothing except
this heavenly science that prescribes the true righteousness;
and by it alone is this felicity disclosed, and our salvation
made known and revealed. Let the sacred Scriptures therefore
be your models:
"Night and day read them, read them day and night. Colman.
If you thus peruse them, "they will make you that you shall
not be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord
Jesus Christ; (2 Pet. i, 8,) but you will become good
ministers of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith
and of good doctrine; (1 Tim. iv, 6,) and ready to every good
work; (Tit. iii, 1,) workmen who need not to be ashamed;" (2
Tim. ii, 15,) sowing the gospel with diligence and patience;
and returning to your Lord with rejoicing, bringing with you
an ample harvest, through the blessing of God and the grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ: to whom be praise and glory from
this time, even forever more! Amen !
ORATION III
THE CERTAINTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY
Although the observations which I have already offered in
explanation of the Object, the Author and the End of sacred
Theology, and other remarks which might have been made, if
they had fallen into the hands of a competent interpreter,
although all of them contain admirable commendations of this
Theology, and convince us that it is altogether divine, since
it is occupied concerning God, is derived from God, and leads
to God; yet they will not be able to excite within the mind
of any person a sincere desire of entering upon such a study,
unless he be at the same time encouraged by the bright rays
of an assured hope of arriving at a knowledge of the
desirable Object, and of obtaining the blessed End. For since
the perfection of motion is rest, vain and useless will that
motion be which is not able to attain rest, the limit of its
perfection. But no prudent person will desire to subject
himself to vain and useless labour. All our hope, then, of
attaining to this knowledge is placed in Divine revelation.
For the anticipation of this very just conception has engaged
the minds of men, "that God cannot be known except through
himself, to whom also there can be no approach but through
himself." On this account it becomes necessary to make it
evident to man, that a revelation has been made by God; that
the revelation which has been given is fortified and defended
by such sure and approved arguments, as will cause it to be
considered and acknowledged as divine; and that there is a
method, by which a man may understand the meanings declared
in the word, and may apprehend them by a firm and assured
faith. To the elucidation of the last proposition, this third
part of our labour must be devoted. God grant that I may in
this discourse again follow the guidance of his word as it is
revealed in the scriptures, and may bring forth and offer to
your notice such things as may contribute to establish our
faith, and to promote the glory of God, to the uniting
together of all of us in the Lord. I pray and beseech you
also, my very famous and most accomplished hearers, not to
disdain to favour me with a benevolent and patient hearing,
while I deliver this feeble oration in your presence.
As we are now entering upon a consideration of the Certainty
of Sacred Theology, it is not necessary that we should
contemplate it under the aspect of Legal and Evangelical; for
in both of them there is the same measure of the truth, and
therefore, the same measure of knowledge, and that is
certainty. We will treat on this subject, then, in a general
manner, without any particular reference or application.
But that our oration may proceed in an orderly course, it
will be requisite in the first place briefly to describe
Certainty in general; and then to treat at greater length on
the Certainty Of Theology.
I. Certainty, then, is a property of the mind or
understanding, and a mode of knowledge according to which the
mind knows an object as it is, and is certain that it knows
that object as it is. It is distinct from Opinion; because it
is possible for opinion to know a matter as it is, but its
knowledge is accompanied by a suspicion of the opposite
falsity. Two things, therefore, are required, to constitute
certainty. (1.) The truth of the thing itself, and (2.) such
an apprehension of it in our minds as we have just described.
This very apprehension, considered as being formed from the
truth of the thing itself, and fashioned according to such
truth, is also called Truth on account of the similitude;
even as the thing itself is certain, on account of the action
of the mind which apprehends it in that manner. Thus do those
two things, (certainty and truth,) because of their admirable
union, make a mutual transfer of their names, the one to the
other.
But truth may in reality be viewed in two aspects -- one
simple, and the other compound. (1.) The former, in relation
to a thing as being in the number of entities; (2.) the
latter, in reference to something inhering in a thing, being
present with it or one of its circumstantials -- or in
reference to a thing as producing something else, or as being
produced by some other -- and if there be any other
affections and relations of things among themselves. The
process of truth in the mind is after the same manner. Its
action is of two kinds. (1.) On a simple being or entity
which is called "a simple apprehension;" and (2.) on a
complex being, which is termed composition." The mode of
truth is likewise, in reality, two-fold -- necessary and
contingent; according to which, a thing, whether it be simple
or complex, is called "necessary" or "contingent." The
necessity of a simple thing is the necessary existence of the
thing itself, whether it obtain the place of a subject or
that of an attribute. The necessity of a complex thing is the
unavoidable and essential disposition and habitude that
subsists between the subject and the attribute.
That necessity which, as we have just stated, is to be
considered in simple things, exists in nothing except in God
and in those things which, although they agree with him in
their nature, are yet distinguished from him by our mode of
considering them. All other things, whatever may be their
qualities, are contingent, from the circumstance of their
being brought into action by power; neither are they
contingent only by reason of their beginning, but also of
their continued duration. Thus the existence of God, is a
matter of necessity; his life, wisdom, goodness, justice,
mercy, will and power, likewise have a necessary existence.
But the existence and preservation of the creatures are not
of necessity. Thus also creation, preservation, government,
and whatever other acts are attributed to God in respect of
his creatures, are not of necessity. The foundation of
necessity is the nature of God; the principle of contingency
is the free will of the Deity. The more durable it has
pleased God to create anything, the nearer is its approach to
necessity, and the farther it recedes from contingency;
although it never pass beyond the boundaries of contingency,
and never reach the inaccessible abode of necessity.
Complex necessity exists not only in God, but also in the
things of his creation. It exists in God, partly on account
of the foundation of his nature, and partly on account of the
principle of his free-will. But its existence in the
creatures is only from the free will of God, who at once
resolved that this should be the relation and habitude
between two created objects. Thus "God lives, understands,
and loves," is a necessary truth from his very nature as God.
"God is the Creator," "Jesus Christ is the saviour," "An
angel is a created spirit endowed with intelligence and
will," and "A man is a rational creature," are all necessary
truths from the free will of God.
From this statement it appears, that degrees may be
constituted in the necessity of a complex truth; that the
highest may be attributed to that truth which rests upon the
nature of God as its foundation; that the rest, which proceed
from the will of God, may be excelled by that which (by means
of a greater affection of his will,) God has willed to invest
with such right of precedence; and that it may be followed by
that which God has willed by a less affection of his will.
The motion of the sun is necessary from the very nature of
that luminary; but it is more necessary that the children of
Israel be preserved and avenged on their enemies; the sun is
therefore commanded to stand still in the midst of the
heavens. (Josh. x, 13.) It is necessary that the sun be borne
along from the east to the west, by the diurnal motion of the
heavens. But it is more necessary that Hezekiah receive, by a
sure sign, a confirmation of the prolongation of his life;
the sun, therefore, when commanded, returns ten degrees
backward; (Isa. xxxviii, 8,) and thus it is proper, that the
less necessity should yield to the greater, and that from the
free will of God, which has imposed a law on both of them. As
this kind of necessity actually exists in things, the mind,
by observing the same gradations, apprehends and knows it, if
such a mode of cognition can truly deserve the name of
"knowledge."
But the causes of this Certainty are three. For it is
produced on the mind, either by the senses, by reasoning and
discourse, or by revelation. The first is called the
certainty of experience; the second, that of knowledge; and
the last, that of faith. The first is the certainty of
particular objects which come within the range and under the
observation of the senses; the second is that of general
conclusions deduced from known principles; and the last is
that of things remote from the cognizance both of the senses
and reason.
II. Let these observations now be applied to our present
purpose. The Object of our Theology is God, and Christ in
reference to his being God and Man. God is a true Being, and
the only necessary one, on account of the necessity of his
nature. Christ is a true Being, existing by the will of God;
and he is also a necessary Being, because he will endure to
all eternity. The things which are attributed to God in our
Theology: partly belong to his nature, and partly agree with
it by his own free will. By his nature, life, wisdom,
goodness, justice, mercy, will and power belong to him, by a
natural and absolute necessity. By his free will, all his
volitions and actions concerning the creatures agree with his
nature, and that immutably; because he willed at the same
time, that they should not be retracted or repealed. All
those things which are attributed to Christ, belong to him by
the free will of God, but on this condition, that "Christ be
the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever," (Heb. xiii, 8,)
entirely exempt from any future change, whether it be that of
a subject or its attributes, or of the affection which exists
between the two. All other things, which are found in the
whole superior and inferior nature of things, (whether they
be considered simply in themselves, or as they are mutually
affected among themselves,) do not extend to any degree of
this necessity. The truth and necessity of our Theology,
therefore, far exceed the necessity of all other sciences, in
as much as both these [the truth and necessity,] are situated
in the things themselves. The certainty of the mind, while it
is engaged in the act of apprehending and knowing things,
cannot exceed the Truth and Necessity of the thing's
themselves; on the contrary, it very often may not reach
them, [the truth and necessity,] through some defect in its
capacity. For the eyes of our mind are in the same condition
with respect to the pure truth of things, as are the eyes of
owls with respect to the light of the sun. On this account,
therefore, it is of necessity, that the object of no science
can be known with greater certainty than that of Theology;
but it follows rather, that a knowledge of this object may be
obtained with the greatest degree of certainty, if it be
presented in a qualified and proper manner to the inspection
of the understanding according to its capacity. For this
object is not of such a nature and condition as to be
presented to the external senses; nor can its attributes,
properties, affections, actions and passions be known by
means of the observation and experience of the external
senses. It is too sublime for them; and the attributes,
properties, affections, actions and passions, which agree
with it, are so high that the mind, even when assisted by
reason and discourse, can neither know it, investigate its
attributes, nor demonstrate that they agree with the subject,
whatever the principles may be which it has applied, and to
whatever causes it may have had recourse, whether they be
such as arise from the object itself, from its attributes, or
from the agreement which subsists between them. The Object is
known to itself alone; and the whole truth and necessity are
properly and immediately known to Him to whom they belong; to
God in the first place and in an adequate degree; to Christ,
in the second place, through the communication of God. To
itself, in an adequate manner, in reference to the knowledge
which it has of itself; in an inferior degree to God, in
reference to his knowledge of him, [Christ.] Revelation is
therefore necessary by which God may exhibit himself and his
Christ as an object of sight and knowledge to our
understanding; and this exhibition to be made in such a
manner as to unfold at once all their attributes, properties,
affections, actions and passions, as far as it is permitted
for them to be known, concerning God and his Christ, to our
salvation and to their glory; and that God may thus disclose
all and every portion of those theorems in which both the
subjects themselves and all their attending attributes are
comprehended. Revelation is necessary, if it be true that God
and his Christ ought to be known, and both of them be worthy
to receive Divine honours and worship. But both of them ought
to be known and worshipped; the revelation, therefore, of
both of them is necessary; and because it is thus necessary,
it has been made by God. For if nature, as a partaker and
communicator of a good that is only partial, is not deficient
in the things that are necessary; how much less ought we even
to suspect such a deficiency in God, the Author and Artificer
of nature, who is also the Chief Good?
But to inspect this subject a little more deeply and
particularly, will amply repay our trouble; for it is similar
to the foundation on which must rest the weight of the
structure -- the other doctrines which follow. For unless it
should appear certain and evident, that a revelation has been
made, it will be in vain to inquire and dispute about the
word in which that revelation has been made and is contained.
In the first place, then, the very nature of God most clearly
evinces that a revelation has been made of himself and
Christ. His nature is good, beneficent, and communicative of
his blessedness, whether it be that which proceeds from it by
creation, or that which is God himself. But there is no
communication made of Divine good, unless God be made known
to the understanding, and be desired by the affections and
the will. But he cannot become an object of knowledge except
by revelation. A revelation, therefore, is made, as a
necessary instrument of communication.
2. The necessity of this revelation may in various ways be
inferred and taught from the nature and condition of man.
First. By nature, man possesses a mind and understanding. But
it is just that the mind and understanding should be turned
towards their Creator; this, however, cannot be done without
a knowledge of the Creator, and such knowledge cannot be
obtained except by revelation; a revelation has, therefore,
been made. Secondly. God himself formed the nature of man
capable of Divine Good. But in vain would it have had such a
capacity, if it might not at some time partake of this Divine
Good; but of this the nature of man cannot be made a partaker
except by the knowledge of it; the knowledge of this Divine
Good has therefore been manifested. Thirdly. It is not
possible, that the desire which God has implanted within man
should be vain and fruitless. That desire is for the
enjoyment of an Infinite Good, which is God; but that
Infinite Good cannot be enjoyed, except it be known; a
revelation, therefore, has been made, by which it may be
known.
3. Let that relation be brought forward which subsists
between God and man, and the revelation that has been made
will immediately become manifest. God, the Creator of man,
has deserved it as his due, to receive worship and honour
from the workmanship of his hands, on account of the benefit
which he conferred by the act of creation. Religion and piety
are due to God, from man his creature; and this obligation is
coeval with the very birth of man, as the bond which contains
this requisition was given on the very day in which he was
created. But religion could not be a human invention. For it
is the will of God to receive worship according to the rule
and appointment of his own will. A revelation was therefore
made, which exacts from man the religion due to God, and
prescribes that worship which is in accordance with his
pleasure and his honour.
4. If we turn our attention towards Christ, it is amazing how
great the necessity of a manifestation appears, and how many
arguments immediately present themselves in behalf of a
revelation being communicated. Wisdom wishes to be
acknowledged as the deviser of the wonderful attempering and
qualifying of justice and mercy. Goodness and gracious mercy,
as the administrators of such an immense benefit sought to be
worshipped and honoured. And power, as the hand-maid of such
stupendous wisdom and goodness, and as the executrix of the
decree made by both of them, deserved to receive adoration.
But the different acts of service which were due to each of
them, could not be rendered to them without revelation. The
wisdom, mercy and power of God, have, therefore, been
revealed and displayed most copiously in Christ Jesus. He
performed a multitude of most wonderful works, by which we
might obtain the salvation that we had lost; he endured most
horrid torments and inexpressible distress, which, when
pleaded in our favour, served to obtain this salvation for
us; and by the gift of the Father he was possessed of an
abundance of graces, and, at the Divine command, he became
the distributor of them. Having, therefore, sustained all
these offices for us, it is his pleasure to receive those
acknowledgments, and those acts of Divine honour and worship,
which are due to him on account of his extraordinary merits.
But in vain will he expect the performance of these acts from
man, unless he be himself revealed. A revelation of Christ
has, therefore, been made. Consult actual experience, and
that will supply you with numberless instances of this
manifestation. The devil himself, who is the rival of Christ,
has imitated these instances of gracious manifestation, has
held converse with men under the name and semblance of the
true God, has demanded acts of devotion from them, and
prescribed to them a mode of religious worship.
We have, therefore, the truth and the necessity of our
Theology agreeing together in the highest degree; we have an
adequate notion of it in the mind of God and Christ,
according to the word which is called emfutov "engrafted."
(James i, 21.) We have a revelation of this Theology made to
men by the word preached; which revelation agrees both with
the things themselves and with the notion which we have
mentioned, but in a way that is attempered and suited to the
human capacity. And as all these are preliminaries to the
certainty which we entertain concerning this Theology, it was
necessary to notice them in these introductory remarks.
Let us now consider this Certainty itself. But since a
revelation has been made in the word which has been
published, and since the whole of it is contained in that
word, (so that This Word is itself our Theology,) we can
determine nothing concerning the certainty of Theology in any
other way than by offering some explanation concerning our
certain apprehension of that word. We will assume it as a
fact which is allowed and confirmed, that this word is to be
found in no other place than in the sacred books of the Old
and New Testament; and we shall on this account confine this
certain apprehension of our mind to that word. But in
fulfilling this design, three things demand our attentive
consideration: First. The Certainty, and the kind of
certainty which God requires from us, and by which it is his
pleasure that this word should be received and apprehended by
us as the Chief Certainty. Secondly. The reasons and
arguments by which the truth of that word, which is its
divinity, may be proved. Thirdly. How a persuasion of that
divinity may be wrought in our minds, and this Certainty may
be impressed on our hearts.
I. The Certainty "with which God wishes this word to be
received, is that of faith; and it therefore depends on the
veracity of him who utters it." By this Certainty "it is
received," not only as true, but as divine; and it is not of
that involved and mixed kind "of faith" by which any one,
without understanding the meanings expressed by the word as
by a sign, believes that those books which are contained in
the Bible, are divine: for not only is a doubtful opinion
opposed to faith, but an obscure and perplexed conception is
equally inimical. Neither is it that species "of historical
faith" which believes the word to be divine that it
comprehends only by a theoretical understanding. But God
demands that faith to be given to his word, by which the
meanings expressed in this word may be understood, as far as
it is necessary for the salvation of men and the glory of
God; and may be so assuredly known to be divine, that they
may be believed to embrace not only the Chief Truth, but also
the Chief Good of man. This faith not only believes that God
and Christ exist, it not only gives credence to them when
they make declarations of any kind, but it believes in God
and Christ when they affirm such things concerning
themselves, as, being apprehended by faith, create a belief
in God as our Father, and in Christ as our saviour. This we
consider to be the office of an understanding that is not
merely theoretical, but of one that is practical. For this
cause not only is asfaleia (certainty,) attributed in the
Scriptures to true and living faith, but to it are likewise
ascribed both wlhroforia (a full assurance, Heb. vi, 2,) and
wewoiqhsiv (trust or confidence, Cor. iii, 4,) and it is God
who requires and demands such a species of certainty and of
faith.
II. We may now be permitted to proceed by degrees from this
point, to a consideration of those arguments which prove to
us the divinity of the word; and to the manner in which the
required certainty and faith are produced in our minds. To
constitute natural vision we know that, (beside an object
capable of being seen,) not only is an external light
necessary to shine upon it and to render it visible, but an
internal strength of eye is also required, which may receive
within itself the form and appearance of the object which has
been illuminated by the external light, and may thus be
enabled actually to behold it. The same accompaniments are
necessary to constitute spiritual vision; for, beside this
external light of arguments and reasoning, an internal light
of the mind and soul is necessary to perfect this vision of
faith. But infinite is the number of arguments on which this
world builds and establishes its divinity. We will select and
briefly notice a few of those which are more usual, lest by
too great a prolixity we become too troublesome and
disagreeable to our auditory.
1. THE DIVINITY OF SCRIPTURE
Let scripture itself come forward, and perform the chief part
in asserting its own Divinity. Let us inspect its substance
and its matter. It is all concerning God and his Christ, and
is occupied in declaring the nature of both of them, in
further explaining the love, the benevolence, and the
benefits which have been conferred by both of them on the
human race, or which have yet to be conferred; and
prescribing, in return, the duties of men towards their
Divine Benefactors. The scripture, therefore, is divine in
its object.
(2.) But how is it occupied in treating on these subjects? It
explains the nature of God in such a way as to attribute
nothing extraneous to it, and nothing that does not perfectly
agree with it. It describes the person of Christ in such a
manner, that the human mind, on beholding the description,
ought to acknowledge, that "such a person could not have been
invented or devised by any created intellect," and that it is
described with such aptitude, suitableness and sublimnity, as
far to exceed the largest capacity of a created
understanding. In the same manner the scripture is employed
in relating the love of God and Christ towards us, and in
giving an account of the benefits which we receive. Thus the
Apostle Paul, when he wrote to the Ephesians on these
subjects, says, that from his former writings, the extent of
"his knowledge of the mystery of Christ" might be manifest to
them; (Ephes. iii, 4.) that is, it was divine, and derived
solely from the revelation of God. Let us contemplate the law
in which is comprehended the duty of men towards God. What
shall we find, in all the laws of every nation, that is at
all similar to this, or (omitting all mention of "equality,")
that may be placed in comparison with those ten short
sentences? Yet even those commandments, most brief and
comprehensive as they are, have been still further reduced to
two chief heads -- the love of God, and the love of our
neighbour. This law appears in reality to have been sketched
and written by the right hand of God. That this was actually
the case, Moses shews in these words, What nation is there so
great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all
this law, which I set before you this day?" (Deut. iv, 8.)
Moses likewise says, that so great and manifest is the
divinity which is inherent in this law, that it compelled the
heathen nations, after they had heard it, to declare in
ecstatic admiration of it. "Surely this great nation is a
wise and understanding people?" (Deut. iv, 6.) The scripture,
therefore, is completely divine, from the manner in which it
treats on those matters which are its subjects.
(3.) If we consider the End, it will as clearly point out to
us the divinity of this doctrine. That End is entirely
divine, being nothing less than the glory of God and man's
eternal salvation. What can be more equitable than that all
things should be referred to him from whom they have derived
their origin? What can be more consonant to the wisdom,
goodness, and power of God, than that he should restore, to
his original integrity, man who had been created by him, but
who had by his own fault destroyed himself; and that he
should make him a partaker of his own Divine blessedness? If
by means of any word God had wished to manifest himself to
man, what end of manifestation ought he to have proposed that
would have been more honourable to himself and more salutary
to man? That the word, therefore, was divinely revealed,
could not be discerned by any mark which was better or more
legible, than that of its showing to man the way of
salvation, taking him as by the hand and leading him into
that way, and not ceasing to accompany him until it
introduced him to the full enjoyment of salvation: In such a
consummation as this, the glory of God most abundantly shines
forth and displays itself. He who may wish to contemplate
what we are declaring concerning this End, in a small but
noble part of this word, should place "the Lord's Prayer"
before the eyes of his mind; he should look most intently
upon it; and, as far as that is possible for human eyes, he
should thoroughly investigate all its parts and beauties.
After he has done this, unless he confess, that in it this
double end is proposed in a manner that is at once so
nervous, brief, and accurate, as to be above the strength and
capacity of every created intelligence, and unless he
acknowledge, that this form of prayer is purely divine, he
must of necessity have a mind surrounded and enclosed by more
than Egyptian darkness.
2. THE AGREEMENT OF THIS DOCTRINE IN ITS PARTS Let us compare
the parts of this doctrine together, and we shall discover in
all of them an agreement and harmony, even in points the most
minute, that it is so great and evident as to cause us to
believe that it could not be manifested by men, but ought to
have implicit credence placed in it as having certainly
proceeded from God.
Let the Predictions alone, that have been promulgated
concerning Christ in different ages, be compared together.
For the consolation of the first parents of our race, God
said to the serpent, "The seed of the woman shall bruise thy
head." (Gen. iii, 15.) The same promise was repeated by God,
and was specially made to Abraham: "In thy seed shall all the
nations be blessed." (Gen. xxii, 18.) The patriarch Jacob,
when at the point of death, foretold that this seed should
come forth from the lineage and family of Judah, in these
words: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a
lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto
him shall the gathering of the people be." (Gen. xlix, 10.)
Let the alien prophet also be brought forward, and to these
predictions he will add that oracular declaration which he
pronounced by the inspiration and at the command of the God
of Israel, in these words: Balaam said, "There shall come a
star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel,
and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the
children of Sheth." (Num. xxiv, 17.) This blessed seed was
afterwards promised to David, by Nathan, in these words: "I
will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of
thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom." (2 Sam. vii,
12.) On this account Isaiah says, "There shall come forth a
rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of
his roots." (xi, 1.) And, by way of intimating that a virgin
would be his mother, the same prophet says, "Behold a virgin
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel!" (Isa. vii, 14.) It would be tedious to repeat
every declaration that occurs in the psalms and in the other
Prophets, and that agrees most appropriately with this
subject. When these prophecies are compared with those
occurrences that have been described in the New Testament
concerning their fulfillment, it will be evident from the
complete harmony of the whole, that they were all spoken and
written by the impulse of one Divine Spirit. If some things
in those sacred books seem to be contradictions, they are
easily reconciled by means of a right interpretation. I add,
that not only do all the parts of this doctrine agree among
themselves, but they also harmonize with that Universal Truth
which has been spread through the whole of Philosophy; so
that nothing can be discovered in Philosophy, which does not
correspond with this doctrine. If any thing appear not to
possess such an exact correspondence, it may be clearly
confuted by means of true Philosophy and right reason.
Let the Style and Character of the scriptures be produced,
and, in that instant, a most brilliant and refulgent mirror
of the majesty which is luminously reflected in it, will
display itself to our view in a manner the most divine. It
relates things that are placed at a great distance beyond the
range of the human imagination -- things which far surpass
the capacities of men. And it simply relates these things
without employing any mode of argumentation, or the usual
apparatus of persuasion: yet its obvious wish is to be
understood and believed. But what confidence or reason has it
for expecting to obtain the realization of this its desire?
It possesses none at all, except that it depends purely upon
its own unmixed authority, which is divine. It publishes its
commands and its interdicts, its enactments and its
prohibitions to all persons alike; to kings and subjects, to
nobles and plebians, to the learned and the ignorant, to
those that "require a sign" and those that "seek after
wisdom," to the old and the young; over all these, the rule
which it bears, and the power which it exercises, are equal.
It places its sole reliance, therefore, on its own potency,
which is able in a manner the most efficacious to restrain
and compel all those who are refractory, and to reward those
who are obedient.
Let the Rewards and Punishments be examined, by which the
precepts are sanctioned, and there are seen both a promise of
life eternal and a denunciation of eternal punishments. He
who makes such a commencement as this, may calculate upon his
becoming an object of ridicule, except he possess an inward
consciousness both of his own right and power; and except he
know, that, to subdue the wills of mortals, is a matter
equally easy of accomplishment with him, as to execute his
menaces and to fulfill his premises. To the scriptures
themselves let him have recourse who may be desirous to prove
with the greatest certainty its majesty, from the kind of
diction which it adopts: Let him read the charming swan-like
Song of Moses described in the concluding chapters of the
Book of Deuteronomy: Let him with his mental eyes diligently
survey the beginning of Isaiah's prophecy: Let him in a
devout spirit consider the hundred and fourth Psalm. Then,
with these, let him compare whatever choice specimens of
poetry and eloquence the Greeks and the Romans can produce in
the most eminent manner from their archives; and he will be
convinced by the most demonstrative evidence, that the latter
are productions of the human spirit, and that the former
could proceed from none other than the Divine Spirit. Let a
man of the greatest genius, and, in erudition, experience,
and eloquence, the most accomplished of his race -- let such
a well instructed mortal enter the lists and attempt to
finish a composition at all similar to these writings, and he
will find himself at a loss and utterly disconcerted, and his
attempt will terminate in discomfiture. That man will then
confess, that what St. Paul declared concerning his own
manner of speech, and that of his fellow-labourers, may be
truly applied to the whole scripture: "Which things also we
speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things
with spiritual." (1 Cor. ii, 13.)
3. THE PROPHECIES
Let us next inspect the prophecies scattered through the
whole body of the doctrine; some of which belong to the
substance of the doctrine, and others contribute towards
procuring authority to the doctrine and to its instruments.
It should be particularly observed, with what eloquence and
distinctness they foretell the greatest and most important
matters, which are far removed from the scrutinizing research
of every human and angelical mind, and which could not
possibly be performed except by power Divine: Let it be
noticed at the same time with what precision the predictions
are answered by the periods that intervene between them, and
by all their concomitant circumstances; and the whole world
will be compelled to confess, that such things could not have
been foreseen and foretold, except by an omniscient Deity. I
need not here adduce examples; for they are obvious to any
one that opens the Divine volume. I will produce one or two
passages, only, in which this precise agreement of the
prediction and its fulfillment is described. When speaking of
the children of Israel under the Egyptian bondage, and their
deliverance from it according to the prediction which God had
communicated to Abraham in a dream, Moses says, "And it came
to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even
the self-same day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the
Lord went out from the land of Egypt:" (Exod. xii, 41.) Ezra
speaks thus concerning the liberation from the Babylonish
captivity, which event, Jeremiah foretold, should occur
within seventy years: "Now in the first year of Cyrus, king
of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah
might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus,
king of Persia," &c. (Ezra i, 1.) But God himself declares by
Isaiah, that the divinity of the scripture may be proved, and
ought to be concluded, from this kind of prophecies. These
are his words: "Shew the things that are to come hereafter,
that we may know that ye are Gods." (Isa. xli, 23.)
4. MIRACLES
An illustrious evidence of the same divinity is afforded in
the miracles, which God has performed by the stewards of his
word, his prophets and apostles, and by Christ himself, for
the confirmation of his doctrine and for the establishment of
their authority. For these miracles are of such a description
as infinitely to exceed the united powers of all the
creatures and all the powers of nature itself, when their
energies are combined. But the God of truth, burning with
zeal for his own glory, could never have afforded such strong
testimonies as these to false prophets and their false
doctrine: nor could he have borne such witness to any
doctrine even when it was true, provided it was not his, that
is, provided it was not divine. Christ, therefore, said, "If
I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do,
though you believe not me, believe the works." (John x, 37,
38.) It was the same cause also, which induced the widow of
Sarepta to say, on receiving from the hands of Elijah her
son, who, after his death, had been raised to life by the
prophet: "Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and
that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth." (1 Kings
xvii, 24.) That expression of Nicodemus has the same
bearing: "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from
God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except
God be with him." (John iii, 2.) And it was for a similar
reason that the apostle said, "The signs of an apostle were
wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and
mighty deeds." (2 Cor. xii, 12.) There are indeed miracles on
record that were wrought among the gentiles, and under the
auspices of the gods whom they invoked: It is also predicted,
concerning False Prophets, and Antichrist himself, that they
will exhibit many signs and wonders: (Rev. xix, 20.) But
neither in number, nor in magnitude, are they equal to those
which the true God has wrought before all Israel, and in the
view of the whole world. Neither were those feats of their
real miracles, but only astonishing operations performed by
the agency and power of Satan and his instruments, by means
of natural causes, which are concealed from the human
understanding, and escape the cognizance of men. But to deny
the existence of those great and admirable miracles which are
related to have really happened, when they have also the
testimony of both Jews and gentiles, who were the enemies of
the true doctrine -- is an evident token of bare-faced
impudence and execrable stupidity.
5. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE DOCTRINE
Let the antiquity, the propagation, the preservation, and the
truly admirable defense of this doctrine be added -- and they
will afford a bright and perspicuous testimony of its
divinity. If that which is of the highest antiquity possesses
the greatest portion of truth," as Tertullian most wisely and
justly observes, then this doctrine is one of the greatest
truth, because it can trace its origin to the highest
antiquity. It is likewise Divine, because it was manifested
at a time when it could not have been devised by any other
mind; for it had its commencement at the very period when man
was brought into existence. An apostate angel would not then
have proposed any of his doctrines to man, unless God had
previously revealed himself to the intelligent creature whom
he had recently formed: That is, God hindered the fallen
angel, and there was then no cause in existence by which he
might be impelled to engage in such an enterprise. For God
would not suffer man, who had been created after his own
image, to be tempted by his enemy by means of false doctrine,
until, after being abundantly instructed in that which was
true, he was enabled to know that which was false and to
reject it. Neither could any odious feeling of envy against
man have tormented Satan, except God had considered him
worthy of the communication of his word, and had deigned,
through that communication, to make him a partaker of
eternal. felicity, from which Satan had at that period
unhappily fallen.
The Propagation, Preservation, and Defense of this doctrine,
most admirable when separately considered, will all be found
divine, if, in the first place, we attentively fix our eyes
upon those men among whom it is propagated; then on the foes
and adversaries of this doctrine; and, lastly, on the manner
in which its propagation, preservation and defense have
hitherto been and still are conducted. (1.) If we consider
those men among whom this sacred doctrine flourishes, we
shall discover that their nature, on account of its
corruption, rejects this doctrine for a two-fold reason; (i.)
The first is, because in one of its parts it is so entirely
contrary to human and worldly wisdom, as to subject itself to
the accusation of Folly from men of corrupt minds. (ii.) The
second reason is, because in another of its parts it is
decidedly hostile and inimical to worldly lusts and carnal
desires. It is, therefore, rejected by the human
understanding and refused by the will, which are the two
chief faculties in man; for it is according to their orders
and commands that the other faculties are either put in
motion or remain at rest. Yet, notwithstanding all this
natural repugnance, it has been received and believed. The
human mind, therefore, has been conquered, and the subdued
will has been gained, by Him who is the author of both. (2.)
This doctrine has some most powerful and bitter enemies:
Satan, the prince of this world, with all his angels, and the
world his ally: These are foes with whom there can be no
reconciliation. If the subtlety, the power, the malice, the
audacity, the impudence, the perseverance, and the diligence
of these enemies, be placed in opposition to the simplicity,
the inexperience, the weakness, the fear, the inconstancy,
and the slothfulness of the greater part of those who give
their assent to this heavenly doctrine; then will the
greatest wonder be excited, how this doctrine, when attacked
by so many enemies, and defended by such sorry champions, can
stand and remain safe and unmoved. If this wonder and
admiration be succeeded by a supernatural and divine
investigation of its cause, then will God himself be
discovered as the propagator, preserver, and defender of this
doctrine. (3.) The manner also in which its propagation,
preservation and defense are conducted, indicates divinity by
many irrefragible tokens. This doctrine is carried into
effect, without bow or sword -- without horses chariots, or
horsemen; yet it proceeds prosperously along, stands in an
erect posture, and remains unconquered, in the name of the
Lord of Hosts: While its adversaries, though supported by
such apparently able auxiliaries and relying on such powerful
aid, are overthrown, fall down together, and perish. It is
accomplished, not by holding out alluring promises of riches,
glory, and earthly pleasures, but by a previous statement of
the dreaded cross, and by the prescription of such patience
and forbearance as far exceed all human strength and ability.
"He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the
gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel; for I will
shew him How Great Things he must suffer for my name's sake."
(Acts ix, 15, 16.) "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the
midst of wolves." (Matt. x, 16)
Its completion is not effected by the counsels of men, but in
opposition to all human counsels -- whether they be those of
the professors of this doctrine, or those of its adversaries.
For it often happens, that the counsels and machinations
which have been devised for the destruction of this doctrine,
contribute greatly towards its propagation, while the princes
of darkness fret and vex themselves in vain, and are
astonished and confounded, at an issue so contrary to the
expectations which they had formed from their most crafty and
subtle counsels.
St. Luke says, "Saul made havoc of the church, entering into
every house, and, haling men and women, committed them to
prison. Therefore they that were scattered abroad, went every
where preaching the word." (Acts vii, 3, 4.) And by this
means Samaria received the word of God. In reference to this
subject St. Paul also says, "But I would ye should
understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me
have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; so
that my bonds are manifest in all the palace, and in all
other places." (Phil. i, 12, 13.) For the same cause that
common observation has acquired all its just celebrity: "The
blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." What shall
we say to these things? "The stone which the builders
refused, is become the head stone of the corner: This is the
Lord's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes." (Psalm cxviii,
22, 23.)
Subjoin to these the tremendous judgments of God on the
persecutors of this doctrine, and the miserable death of the
tyrants. One of these, at the very moment when he was
breathing out his polluted and unhappy spirit, was inwardly
constrained publicly to proclaim, though in a frantic and
outrageous tone, the divinity of this doctrine in these
remarkable words: "Thou Hast Conquered, O Galilean!"
Who is there, now, that, with eyes freed from all prejudice,
will look upon such clear proofs of the divinity of
Scripture, and that will not instantly confess: the Apostle
Paul had the best reasons for exclaiming, "If our gospel be
hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the God of this
world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not; lest
the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image
of God, should shine unto them." (2 Cor. iv, 3, 4) As if he
had said, "This is not human darkness; neither is it drawn as
a thick veil over the mind by man himself; but it is
diabolical darkness, and spread by the devil, the prince of
darkness, upon the mind of man, over whom, by the just
judgment of God, he exercises at his pleasure the most
absolute tyranny. If this were not the case, it would be
impossible for this darkness to remain; but, how great soever
its density might be, it would be dispersed by this light
which shines with such overpowering brilliancy."
6. THE SANCTITY OF THOSE BY WHOM IT HAS BEEN ADMINISTERED
The sanctity of those by whom the word was first announced to
men and by whom it was committed to writing, conduces to the
same purpose -- to prove its Divinity. For since it appears
that those who were entrusted with the discharge of this
duty, had divested themselves of the wisdom of the world, and
of the feelings and affections of the flesh, entirely putting
off the old man -- and that they were completely eaten up and
consumed by their zeal for the glory of God and the salvation
of men -- it is manifest that such great sanctity as this had
been inspired and infused into them, by Him alone who is the
Holiest of the holy.
Let Moses be the first that is introduced: He was treated in
a very injurious manner by a most ungrateful people, and was
frequently marked out for destruction; yet was he prepared to
purchase their salvation by his own banishment. He said, when
pleading with God, "Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin;
and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou
hast written." (Exod. xxxii, 32.) Behold his zeal for the
salvation of the people entrusted to his charge -- a zeal for
the glory of God! Would you see another reason for this wish
to be devoted to destruction? Read what he had previously
said: "Wherefore should the Egyptians speak and say? For
mischief did the Lord bring them out to slay them in the
mountains," (Exod. xxxii, 12,) "because he was not able to
bring them out unto the land which he swear unto their
Fathers." (Num. xiv, 16.) We observe the same zeal in Paul,
when he wishes that himself "were accursed from Christ for
his brethren the Jews, his kinsmen according to the flesh,"
(Rom. 9) from whom he had suffered many and great
indignities.
David was not ashamed publicly to confess his heavy and
enormous crimes, and to commit them to writing as an eternal
memorial to posterity. Samuel did not shrink from marking in
the records of perpetuity the detestable conduct of his sons;
and Moses did not hesitate to bear a public testimony against
the iniquity and the madness of his ancestors. If even the
least desire of a little glory had possessed their minds,
they might certainly have been able to indulge in
taciturnity, and to conceal in silence these circumstances of
disgrace. Those of them who were engaged in describing the
deeds and achievements of other people, were unacquainted
with the art of offering adulation to great men and nobles,
and of wrongfully attributing to their enemies any unworthy
deed or motive. With a regard to truth alone, in promoting
the glory of God, they placed all persons on an equality; and
made no other distinction between them than that which God
himself has commanded to be made between piety and
wickedness. On receiving from the hand of God their
appointment to this office, they at once and altogether bade
farewell to all the world, and to all the desires which are
in it. "Each of them said unto his father and to his mother,
I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren;
for they observed the word of God, and kept his covenant."
(Deut. xxxiii, 9.)
7. THE CONSTANCY OF ITS PROFESSORS AND MARTYRS
But what shall we say respecting the constancy of the
professors and martyrs, which they displayed in the torments
that they endured for the truth of this doctrine? Indeed, if
we subject this constancy to the view of the most inflexible
enemies of the doctrine, we shall extort from unwilling
judges a confession of its Divinity. But, that the strength
of this argument may be placed in a clearer light, the mind
must be directed to four particulars: the multitude of the
martyrs, and their condition; the torments which their
enemies inflicted on them, and the patience which they
evinced in enduring them.
(1.) If we direct our inquiries to the multitude of them, it
is innumerable, far exceeding thousands of thousands; on this
account it is out of the power of any one to say, that,
because it was the choice of but a few persons, it ought to
be imputed to frenzy or to weariness of a life that was full
of trouble.
(2.) If we inquire into their condition, we shall find nobles
and peasants, those in authority and their subjects, the
learned and the unlearned, the rich and the poor, the old and
the young; persons of both sexes, men and women, the married
and the unmarried, men of a hardy constitution and inured to
dangers, and girls of tender habits who had been delicately
educated, and whose feet had scarcely ever before stumbled
against the smallest pebble that arose above the surface of
their smooth and level path. Many of the early martyrs were
honourable persons of this description, that no one might
think them to be inflamed by a desire of glory, or
endeavouring to gain applause by the perseverance and
magnanimity that they had evinced in the maintenance of the
sentiments which they had embraced.
(3.) Some of the torments inflicted on such a multitude of
persons and of such various circumstances in life, were of a
common sort, and others unusual, some of them quick in their
operation and others of them slow. Part of the unoffending
victims were nailed to crosses and part of them were
decapitated; some were drowned in rivers, whilst others were
roasted before a slow fire. Several were ground to powder by
the teeth of wild beasts, or were torn in pieces by their
fangs; many were sawn asunder, while others were stoned; and
not a few of them were subjected to punishments which cannot
be expressed, but which are accounted most disgraceful and
infamous, on account of their extreme turpitude and
indelicacy. No species of savage cruelty was omitted which
either the ingenuity of human malignity could invent, which
rage the most conspicuous and furious could excite, or which
even the infernal labouratory of the court of hell could
supply.
(4.) And yet, that we may come at once to the patience of
these holy confessors, they bore all these tortures with
constancy and equanimity; nay, they endured them with such a
glad heart and cheerful countenance, as to fatigue even the
restless fury of their persecutors, which has often been
compelled, when wearied out, to yield to the unconquerable
strength of their patience, and to confess itself completely
vanquished. And what was the cause of all this endurance? It
consisted in their unwillingness to recede in the least point
from that religion, the denial of which was the only
circumstance that might enable them to escape danger, and, in
many instances, to acquire glory. What then was the reason of
the great patience which they shewed under their acute
sufferings? It was because they believed, that when this
short life was ended, and after the pains and distresses
which they were called to endure on earth, they would obtain
a blessed immortality. In this particular the combat which
God has maintained with Satan, appears to have resembled a
duel; and the result of it has been, that the Divinity of
God's word has been raised as a superstructure out of the
infamy and ruin of Satan.
8. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH
The divine Omnipotence and Wisdom have principally employed
these arguments, to prove the Divinity of this blessed word.
But, that the Church might not defile herself by that basest
vice, ingratitude of heart, and that she might perform a
supplementary service in aid of God her Author and of Christ
her Head, she also by her testimony adds to the Divinity of
this word. But it is only an addition; she does not impart
Divinity to it; her province is merely an indication of the
Divine nature of this word, but she does not communicate to
it the impress of Divinity. For unless this word had been
Divine when there was no Church in existence, it would not
have been possible for her members "to be born of this word,
as of incorruptible seed," (1 Pet. i, 23,) to become the sons
of God, and, through faith in this word, "to be made
partakers of the Divine Nature." (2 Pet. i, 4.) The very name
of "authority" takes away from the Church the power of
conferring Divinity on this doctrine. For Authority is
derived from an Author: But the Church is not the Author, she
is only the nursling of this word, being posterior to it in
cause, origin, and time. We do not listen to those who raise
this objection: "The Church is of greater antiquity than the
scripture, because at the time when that word had not been
consigned to writing, the Church had even then an existence."
To trifle in a serious matter with such cavils as this, is
highly unbecoming in Christians, unless they have changed
their former godly manners and are transformed into Jesuits.
The Church is not more ancient than this saying: "The seed of
the woman shall bruise the serpent's head ;" (Gen. iii, 15,)
although she had an existence before this sentence was
recorded by Moses in Scripture. For it was by the faith which
they exercised on this saying, that Adam and Eve became the
Church of God; since, prior to that, they were traitors,
deserters and the kingdom of Satan -- that grand deserter and
apostate. The Church is indeed the pillar of the truth, (1
Tim. iii, 15,) but it is built upon that truth as upon a
foundation, and thus directs to the truth, and brings it
forward into the sight of men. In this way the Church
performs the part of a director and a witness to this truth,
and its guardian, herald, and interpreter. But in her acts of
interpretation, the Church is confined to the sense of the
word itself, and is tied down to the expressions of
Scripture: for, according to the prohibition of St. Paul, it
neither becomes her to be wise above that which is written;"
(1 Cor. iv, 6,) nor is it possible for her to be so, since
she is hindered both by her own imbecility, and the depth of
things divine.
But it will reward our labour, if in a few words we examine
the efficacy of this testimony, since such is the pleasure of
the Papists, who constitute "the authority of the Church" the
commencement and the termination of our certainty, when she
bears witness to the scripture that it is the word of God. In
the first place, the efficacy of the testimony does not
exceed the veracity of the witness. The veracity of the
Church is the veracity of men. But the veracity of men is
imperfect and inconstant, and is always such as to give
occasion to this the remark of truth, "All men are liars."
Neither is the veracity of him that speaks, sufficient to
obtain credit to his testimony, unless the veracity of him
who bears witness concerning the truth appear plain and
evident to him to whom he makes the declaration. But in what
manner will it be possible to make the veracity of the Church
plain and evident? This must be done, either by a notion
conceived , long time before, or by an impression recently
made on the minds of the hearers. But men possess no such
innate notion of the veracity of the Church as is tantamount
to that which declares, "God is true and cannot lie." (Tit.
i, 2.) It is necessary, therefore, that it be impressed by
some recent action; such impression being made either from
within or from without. But the Church is not able to make
any inward impression, for she bears her testimony by
external instruments alone, and does not extend to the inmost
parts of the soul. The impression, therefore, will be
external; which can be no other than a display and indication
of her knowledge and probity, as well as testimony, often
truly so called. But all these things can produce nothing
more than an opinion in the minds of those to whom they are
offered. Opinion, therefore, and not knowledge, is the
supreme effect of this efficacy.
But the Papists retort, "that Christ himself established the
authority of his Church by this saying, "He that heareth you,
heareth me." (Luke x, 16.) When these unhappy reasoners speak
thus, they seem not to be aware that they are establishing
the authority of Scripture before that of the Church. For it
is necessary that credence should be given to that expression
as it was pronounced by Christ, before any authority can, on
its account, be conceded to the Church. But the same reason
will be as tenable in respect to the whole Scripture as to
this expression. Let the Church then be content with that
honour which Christ conferred on her when he made her the
guardian of his word, and appointed her to be the director
and witness to it, the herald and the interpreter.
III. Yet since the arguments arising from all those
observations which we have hitherto adduced, and from any
others which are calculated to prove the Divinity of the
scriptures, can neither disclose to us a right understanding
of the scriptures, nor seal on our minds those meanings which
we have understood, (although the certainty of faith which
God demands from us, and requires us to exercise in his word,
consists of these meanings,) it is a necessary consequence,
that to all these things ought to be added something else, by
the efficacy of which that certainty may be produced in our
minds. And this is the very subject on which we are not
prepared to treat in this the third part of our discourse
9. THE INTERNAL WITNESS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
We declare, therefore, and we continue to repeat the
declaration, till the gates of hell re-echo the sound, "that
the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration holy men of God have
spoken this word, and by whose impulse and guidance they
have, as his amanuenses, consigned it to writing; that this
Holy Spirit is the author of that light by the aid of which
we obtain a perception and an understanding of the divine
meanings of the word, and is the Effector of that Certainty
by which we believe those meaning to be truly divine; and
that He is the necessary Author, the all sufficient
Effector." (1.) Scripture demonstrates that He is the
necessary Author, when it says, "The things of God knoweth no
man but the Spirit of God. (1 Cor. ii, 11.) No man can say
that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1 Cor. xii,
3.) (2.) But the Scripture introduced him as the sufficient
and the more than sufficient Effector, when it declares, "The
wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory, he
hath revealed unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth
all things, yea, the deep things of God." (1 Cor. ii, 7, 10.)
The sufficiency, therefore, of the Spirit proceeds from the
plenitude of his knowledge of the secrets of God, and from
the very efficacious revelation which he makes of them. This
sufficiency of the Spirit cannot be more highly extolled than
it is in a subsequent passage, in which the same apostle most
amply commends it, by declaring, "he that is spiritual [a
partaker of this revelation,] judgeth all things," (verse
15,) as having the mind of Christ through his Spirit, which
he has received. Of the same sufficiency the Apostle St. John
is the most illustrious herald. In his general Epistle he
writes these words: "But the anointing which ye have received
of Him, abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach
you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,
and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you,
ye shall abide in Him." (1 John ii, 27.) "He that believeth
on the Son of God, hath the witness in himself." (1 John v,
10.) To the Thessalonians another apostle writes thus: "Our
Gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and
in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance. (1 Thess. i, 3.) In
this passage he openly attributes to the power of the Holy
Ghost the Certainty by which the faithful receive the word of
the gospel. The Papists reply, "Many persons boast of the
revelation of the Spirit, who, nevertheless, are destitute of
such a revelation. It is impossible, therefore, for the
faithful safely to rest in it." Are these fair words? Away
with such blasphemy! If the Jews glory in their Talmud and
their Cabala, and the Mahometans in their Alcoran, and if
both of these boast themselves that they are Churches, cannot
credence therefore be given with sufficient safety to the
scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, when they affirm
their Divine Origin? Will the true Church be any less a
Church because the sons of the stranger arrogate that title
to themselves? This is the distinction between opinion and
knowledge. It is their opinion, that they know that of which
they are really ignorant. But they who do know it, have an
assured perception of their knowledge. "It is the Spirit that
beareth witness that the Spirit is truth" (1 John v, 8,) that
is, the doctrine and the meanings comprehended in that
doctrine, are truth."
"But that attesting witness of the Spirit which is revealed
in us, cannot convince others of the truth of the Divine
word." What then? It will convince them when it has also
breathed on them: it will breathe its Divine afflatus on
them, if they be the sons of the church, all of whom shall be
taught of God: every man of them will hear and learn of the
Father, and will come unto Christ." (John vi, 45.) Neither
can the testimony of any Church convince all men of the truth
and divinity of the sacred writings. The Papists, who
arrogate to themselves exclusively the title of "the Church,"
experience the small degree of credit which is given to their
testimonies, by those who have not received an afflatus from
the spirit of the Roman See.
"But it is necessary that there should be a testimony in the
Church of such a high character as to render it imperative on
all men to pay it due deference." True. It was the incumbent
duty of the Jews to pay deference to the testimony of Christ
when he was speaking to them; the Pharisees ought not to have
contradicted Stephen in the midst of his discourse; and Jews
and Gentiles, without any exception, were bound to yield
credence to the preaching of the apostles, confirmed as it
was by so many and such astonishing miracles. But the duties
here recited, were disregarded by all these parties. What was
the reason of this their neglect? The voluntary hardening of
their hearts, and that blindness of their minds, which was
introduced by the Devil.
If the Papists still contend, that "such a testimony as this
ought to exist in the Church, against which no one shall
actually offer any contradiction," we deny the assertion. And
experience testifies, that a testimony of this kind never yet
had an existence, that it does not now exist, and (if we may
form our judgment from the scriptures,) we certainly think
that it never will exist.
"But perhaps the Holy Ghost, who is the Author and Effector
of this testimony, has entered into an engagement with the
Church, not to inspire and seal on the minds of men this
certainty, except through her, and by the intervention of her
authority." The Holy Ghost does, undoubtedly, according to
the good pleasure of his own will, make use of some organ or
instrument in performing these his offices. But this
instrument is the word of God, which is comprehended in the
sacred books of scripture; an instrument produced and brought
forward by Himself, and instructed in his truth. The Apostle
to the Hebrews in a most excellent manner describes the
efficacy which is impressed on this instrument by the Holy
Spirit, in these words: "For the word of God is quick and
powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even
to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints
and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
the heart." (Heb. iv, 10.) Its effect is called "Faith," by
the Apostle. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God." (Rom. x, 7.) If any act of the Church occurs in
this place, it is that by which she is occupied in the
sincere preaching of this word, and by which she sedulously
exercises herself in promoting its publication. But even this
is not so properly the occupation of the Church, as of "the
Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers," whom
Christ has constituted his labourers "for the edifying of his
body, which is the Church.'" (Ephes. iv, 11.) But we must in
this place deduce an observation from the very nature of
things in genera], as well as of this thing in particular; it
is, that the First Cause can extend much farther by its own
action, than it is possible for an instrumental cause to do;
and that the Holy Ghost gives to the word all that force
which he afterwards employs, such being the great efficacy
with which it is endued and applied, that whomsoever he only
counsels by his word he himself persuades by imparting Divine
meanings to the word, by enlightening the mind as with a
lamp, and by inspiring and sealing it by his own immediate
action. The Papists pretend, that certain acts are necessary
to the production of true faith; and they say that those acts
cannot be performed except by the judgment and testimony of
the Church -- such as to believe that any book is the
production of Matthew or Luke -- to discern between a
Canonical and an Apocryphal verse, and to distinguish between
this or that reading, according to the variation in different
copies. But, since there is a controversy concerning the
weight and necessity of those acts, and since the dispute is
no less than how far they may be performed by the Church --
lest I should fatigue my most illustrious auditory by two
great prolixity, I will omit at present any further mention
of these topics; and will by Divine assistance explain them
at some future opportunity.
My most illustrious and accomplished hearers, we have already
perceived, that both the pages of our sacred Theology are
full of God and Christ, and of the Spirit of both of them. If
any inquiry be made for the Object, God and Christ by the
Spirit are pointed out to us. If we search for the Author,
God and Christ by the operation of the Spirit spontaneously
occur. If we consider the End proposed, our union with God
and Christ offers itself -- an end not to be obtained except
through the communication of the Spirit. If we inquire
concerning the Truth and Certainty of the doctrine; God in
Christ, by means of the efficacy of the Holy Ghost, most
clearly convinces our minds of the Truth, and in a very
powerful manner seals the Certainty on our hearts.
All the glory, therefore, of this revelation is deservedly
due to God and Christ in the Holy Spirit: and most deservedly
are thanks due from us to them, and must be given to them,
through the Holy Ghost, for such an august and necessary
benefit as this which they have conferred on us. But we can
present to our God and Christ in the Holy Spirit no gratitude
more grateful, and can ascribe no glory more glorious, than
this, the application of our minds to an assiduous
contemplation and a devout meditation on the knowledge of
such a noble object. But in our meditations upon it, (to
prevent us from straying into the paths of error,) let us
betake ourselves to the revelation which has been made of
this doctrine. From the word of this revelation alone, let us
learn the wisdom of endeavouring, by an ardent desire and in
an unwearied course, to attain unto that ultimate design
which ought to be our constant aim -- that most blessed end
of our union with God and Christ. Let us never indulge in any
doubts concerning the truth of this revelation; but, "the
full assurance of faith being impressed upon our minds and
hearts by the inspiration and sealing of the Holy Spirit, let
us adhere to this word, "till[at length] we all come in the
unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fullness of Christ." (Ephes. iv, 13.) I most humbly
supplicate and intreat God our merciful Father, that he would
be pleased to grant this great blessing to us, through the
Son of his love, and by the communication of his Holy Spirit.
And to him be ascribed all praise, and honour, and glory,
forever and ever. Amen.
ORATION IV
THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST
The Noble the Lord Rector -- the Very Famous, Reverend,
Skillful, Intelligent, and Learned Men, who are the Fathers
of this Most Celebrated University -- the Rest of You, Most
Worthy Strangers of Every Degree -- and You, Most Noble and
Studious Young Men, who are the Nursery of the Republic and
the Church, and who are Increasing Every Day in Bloom and
vigour:
If there be any order of men in whom it is utterly unbecoming
to aspire after the honours of this world, especially after
those honours which are accompanied by pomp and applause,
that, without doubt, is the order ecclesiastical -- a body of
men who ought to be entirely occupied with a zeal for God,
and for the attainment of that glory which is at his
disposal. Yet, since, according to the laudable institutions
of our ancestors, the usage has obtained in all well
regulated Universities, to admit no man to the office of
instructor in them, who has not previously signalized himself
by some public and solemn testimony of probity and scientific
ability -- this sacred order of men have not refused a
compliance with such public modes of decision, provided they
be conducted in a way that is holy, decorous, and according
to godliness. So far, indeed, are those who have been set
apart to the pastoral office from being averse to public
proceedings of this kind, that they exceedingly covet and
desire them alone, because they conceive them to be of the
first necessity to the Church of Christ. For they are mindful
of this apostolical charge, "Lay hands suddenly on no man ;"
(1 Tim. v, 29,) and of the other, which directs that a Bishop
and a Teacher of the Church be "apt to teach, holding fast
the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be
able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the
gainsayers." (Tit. i, 9.) I do not, therefore, suppose one
person, in this numerous assembly, can be so ignorant of the
public ceremonies of this University, or can hold them in
such little estimation, as either to evince surprise at the
undertaking in which we are now engaged, or wish to give it
an unfavourable interpretation. But since it has always been
a part of the custom of our ancestors, in academic
festivities of this description, to choose some subject of
discourse, the investigation of which in the fear of the Lord
might promote the Divine glory and the profit of the hearers,
and might excite them to pious and importunate supplication,
I also can perceive no cause why I ought not conscientiously
to comply with this custom. And although at the sight of this
very respectable, numerous and learned assembly, I feel
strongly affected with a sense of my defective eloquence and
tremble not a little, yet I have selected a certain theme for
my discourse which agrees well with my profession, and is
full of grandeur, sublimnity and adorable majesty. In making
choice of it, I have not been overawed by the edict of
Horace, which says,
"Select, all ye who write, a subject fit, A subject not too
mighty for your wit! And ere you lay your shoulders to the
wheel, Weigh well their strength, and all their wetness
feel!"
For this declaration is not applicable in the least to
theological subjects, all of which by their dignity and
importance exceed the capacity and mental energy of every
human being, and of angels themselves. A view of them so
affected the Apostle Paul, (who, rapt up into the third
heaven, had heard words ineffable,) that they compelled him
to break forth into this exclamation: "Who is sufficient for
these things," (2 Cor. ii, 16.) If, therefore, I be not
permitted to disregard the provisions of this Horatian
statute, I must either transgress the boundaries of my
profession, or be content to remain silent. But I am
permitted to disregard the terms of this statute; and to do
so, is perfectly lawful.
For whatever things tend to the glory of God and to the
salvation of men, ought to be celebrated in a devout spirit
in the congregations of the saints, and to be proclaimed with
a grateful voice. I therefore propose to speak on THE
PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST: Not because I have persuaded myself of
my capability to declare anything concerning it, which is
demanded either by the dignity of my subject, or by the
respectability of this numerous assembly; for it will be
quite sufficient, and I shall consider that I have abundantly
discharged my duty, if according to the necessity of the case
I shall utter something that will contribute to the general
edification: But I choose this theme that I may obtain, in
behalf of my oration, such grace and favour from the
excellence of its subject, as I cannot possibly confer on it
by any eloquence in the mode of my address. Since, however,
it is impossible for us either to form in our minds just and
holy conceptions about such a sublime mystery, or to give
utterance to them with our lips, unless the power of God
influence our mental faculties and our tongues, let us by
prayer and supplication implore his present aid, in the name
of Jesus Christ our great High Priest. "Do thou, therefore, O
holy and merciful God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Fountain of all grace and truth, vouchsafe to grant thy
favourable presence to us who are a great congregation
assembled together in thy holy name. Sprinkle thou our
spirits, souls, and bodies, with the most gracious dew of thy
immeasurable holiness, that the converse of thy saints with
each other may be pleasing to thee. Assist us by the grace of
thy Holy Spirit, who may yet more and more illuminate our
minds -- imbued with the true knowledge of Thyself and thy
Son; may He also inflame our hearts with a sincere zeal for
thy glory; may He open my mouth and guide my tongue, that I
may be enabled to declare concerning the Priesthood of thy
Son those things which are true and just and holy, to the
glory of thy name and to the gathering of all of us together
in the Lord. Amen."
Having now in an appropriate manner offered up those vows
which well become the commencement of our undertaking, we
will, by the help of God, proceed to the subject posed, after
I have intreated all of you, who have been pleased to grace
this solemn act of ours with your noble, learned and most
gratifying presence, to give me that undivided attention
which the subject deserves, while I speak on a matter of the
most serious importance, and, according to your accustomed
kindness, to shew me that favour and benevolence which are to
me of the greatest necessity. That I may not abuse your
patience, I engage to consult brevity as much as our theme
will allow. But we must begin with the very first principles
of Priesthood, that from thence the discourse may
appropriately be brought down to the Priesthood of Christ, on
which we profess to treat.
First. The first of those relations which subsist between God
and men, has respect to something given and something
received. The latter requires another relation supplementary
to itself -- a relation which taking its commencement from
men, may terminate in God; and that is, an acknowledgment of
a benefit received, to the honour of the munificent Donor. It
is also a debt, due on account of a benefit already
conferred, but which is not to be paid except on the demand
and according to the regulation of the Giver; whose intention
it has always been, that the will of a creature should not be
the measure of his honour. His benignity likewise is so
immense, that he never requires from those who are under
obligations to him, the grateful acknowledgment of the
benefit communicated in the first instance, except when he
has bound them to himself by the larger, and far superior
benefit, of a mutual covenant. But the extreme trait in that
goodness, is, that he has bound himself to bestow on the same
persons favours of yet greater excellence by infinite
degrees. This is the order which he adopts; he wishes himself
first to be engaged to them, before they are considered to be
engaged to Him. For every covenant; that is concluded between
God and men, consists of two parts: (1.) The preceding
promise of God, by which he obliges himself to some duty and
to acts correspondent with that duty: and (2.) The subsequent
definition and appointment of the duty, which, it is
stipulated, shall in return be required of men, and according
to which a mutual correspondence subsists between men and
God. He promises, that he will be to them a king and a God,
and that he will discharge towards them all the offices of a
good King; while he stipulates, as a counter obligation, that
they become his people, that in this relation they live
according to his commands and that they ask and expect all
blessings from his goodness. These two acts -- a life
according to his commands, and an expectation of all
blessings from his goodness -- comprise the duty of men
towards God, according to the covenant into which he first
entered with them.
On the whole, therefore, the duties of two functions are to
be performed between God and men who have entered into
covenant with him: First, a regal one, which is of supreme
authority: Secondly, a religious one, of devoted submission.
(1.) The use of the former is in the communication of every
needful good, and in the imposing of laws or the act of
legislation. Under it we likewise comprehend the gift of
prophecy, which is nothing more than the annunciation of the
royal pleasure, whether it be communicated by God himself, or
by some one of his deputies or ambassadors as a kind of
internuncio to the covenant. That no one may think the
prophetic office, of which the scriptures make such frequent
mention, is a matter of little solicitude to us, we assign it
the place of a substitute under the Chief Architect.
(2.) But the further consideration of the regal duty being at
present omitted, we shall proceed to a nearer inspection of
that which is religious.. We have already deduced its origin
from the act of covenanting; we have propounded it, in the
exercise of the regal office, as something that is due; and
we place its proper action in thanksgiving and intreaty. This
action is required to be religiously performed, according to
their common vocation, by every one of the great body of
those who are in covenant; and to this end they have been
sanctified by the word of the covenant, and have all been
constituted priests to God, that they might offer gifts and
prayers to The Most High. But since God loves order, he who
is himself the only instance of order in its perfection,
willed that, out of the number of those who were sanctified,
some one should in a peculiar manner be separated to him;
that he who was thus set apart should, by a special and
extraordinary vocation, be qualified for the office of the
priesthood; and that, approaching more intimately and with
greater freedom to the throne of God, he should, in the place
of his associates in the same covenant and religion, take the
charge and management of whatever affairs were to be
transacted before God on their account.
From this circumstance is to be traced the existence of the
office of the priesthood, the duties of which were to be
discharged before God in behalf of others -- an office
undoubtedly of vast dignity and of special honour among
mankind. Although the priest must be taken from among men,
and must be appointed in their behalf, yet it does not
appertain to men themselves, to designate whom they will to
sustain that office; neither does it belong to any one to
arrogate that honour to himself. But as the office itself is
an act of the divine pleasure, so likewise the choice of the
person who must discharge its duties, rests with God himself:
and it was his will, that the office should be fulfilled by
him who for some just reason held precedence among his
kindred by consanguinity. This was the father and master of
the family, and his successor was the first born. We have
examples of this in the holy patriarchs, both before and
after the deluge. We behold this expressly in Noah, Abraham,
and Job. There are also those, (not occupying the lowest
seats in judgment,) who say that Cain and Abel brought their
sacrifices to Adam their father, that he might offer them to
the Lord; and they derive this opinion from the word aykh
used in the same passage. Though these examples are selected
from the description of that period when sin had made its
entrance into the world, yet a confirmation of their truth is
obtained in this primitive institution of the human race, of
which we are now treating. For it is peculiar to that period,
that all the duties of the priesthood were confined within
the act of offering only an eucharistic sacrifice and
supplications. Having therefore in due form executed these
functions, the priest, in the name of his compeers, was by
the appeased Deity admitted to a familiar intercourse with
Him, and obtained from Him a charge to execute among his
kindred, in the name of God himself, and as "the messenger,
or angel, of the Lord of Hosts." For the Lord revealed to him
the Divine will and pleasure; that, on returning from his
intercourse with God, he might declare it to the people. This
will of God consisted of two parts: (1.) That which he
required to be performed by his covenant people; and (2.)
That which it was his wish to perform for their benefit. In
this charge, which was committed to the priest, to be
executed by him, the administration of prophecy was also
included; on which account it is said, "They should seek the
LAW at the mouth of the priest, for he is the messenger of
the Lord of Hosts." (Mal. ii, 7.) And since that second part
of the Divine will was to be proclaimed from an assured trust
and confidence in the truth of the Divine promises, and with
a holy and affectionate feeling toward his own species -- in
that view, he was invested with a commission to dispense
benedictions. In this manner, discharging the duties of a
double embassy, (that of men to God, and that of God to men,)
he acted, on both sides, the part of a Mediator of the
covenant into which the parties had mutually entered.
Nevertheless, not content with having conferred this honour
on him whom he had sanctified, our God, all-bountiful,
elevated him likewise to the delegated or vicarious dignity
of the regal office, that he, bearing the image of God among
his brethren, might then be able to administer justice to
them in His Name, and might manage, for their common benefit,
those affairs with which he was entrusted. From this source
arose what may be considered the native union of the Priestly
and the Kingly offices, which also obtained among the holy
patriarchs after the entrance of sin, and of which express
mention is made in the person of Melchizedec. This was
signified in a general manner by the patriarch Jacob, when he
declared Reuben, his first born son, to be "the excellency of
dignity and the excellency of power," which were his due on
account of the right of primogeniture. For certain reasons,
however, the kingly functions were afterwards separated from
the priestly, by the will of God, who, dividing them into two
parts among his people the children of Israel, transferred
the kingly office to Judah and the priestly to Levi.
But it was proper, that this approach to God, through the
oblation of an eucharistic sacrifice and prayers, should be
made with a pure mind, holy affections, and with hands, as
well as the other members of the body, free from defilement.
This was required, even before the first transgression.
"Sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy; for I the Lord your God
am holy." (Lev. xix, 2, &c.) "God heareth not sinners." (John
ix, 31.) "Bring no more vain oblations, for your hands are
full of blood." (Isa. i, 15). The will of God respecting
this is constant and perpetual. But Adam, who was the first
man and the first priest, did not long administer his office
in a becoming manner; for, refusing to obey God, he tasted
the fruit of the forbidden tree; and, by that foul crime of
disobedience and revolt, he at once defiled his soul which
had been sanctified to God, and his body. By this wicked deed
he both lost all right to the priesthood, and was in reality
deprived of it by the Divine sentence, which was clearly
signified by his expulsion from Paradise, where he had
appeared before God in that which was a type of His own
dwelling-place. This was in accordance with the invariable
rule of Divine Justice: "Be it far from me, [that thou
shouldst any longer discharge before me the duties of the
priesthood:] for them that honour me, I will honour; and they
that despise me, shall be lightly esteemed." (1 Sam. ii, 30.)
But he did not fall alone: All whose persons he at that time
represented and whose cause he pleaded, (although they had
not then come into existence,) were with him cast down from
the elevated summit of such a high dignity. Neither did they
fall from the priesthood only, but likewise from the
covenant, of which the priest was both the Mediator and the
Internuncio; and God ceased to be the King and God of men,
and men were no longer recognized as his people. The
existence of the priesthood itself was at an end; for there
was no one capable of fulfilling its duties according to the
design of that covenant. The eucharistic sacrifice, the
invocation of the name of God, and the gracious communication
between God and men, all ceased together.
Most miserable, and deserving of the deepest commiseration,
was the condition of mankind in that state of their affairs,
if this declaration be a true one, "Happy is the people whose
God is the Lord !" (Psalm cxliv, 15.) And this inevitable
misery would have rested upon Adam and his race for ever, had
not Jehovah, full of mercy and commiseration, deigned to
receive them into favour, and resolved to enter into another
covenant with the same parties; not according to that which
they had transgressed, and which was then become obsolete and
had been abolished; but into a new covenant of grace. But the
Divine justice and truth could not permit this to be done,
except through the agency of an umpire and surety, who might
undertake the part of a Mediator between the offended God and
sinners. Such a Mediator could not then approach to God with
an eucharistic sacrifice for benefits conferred upon the
human race, or with prayers which might intreat only for a
continuance and an increase of them: But he had to approach
into the Divine presence to offer sacrifice for the act of
hostility which they had committed against God by
transgressing his commandment, and to offer prayers for
obtaining the remission of their transgressions. Hence arose
the necessity of an Expiatory Sacrifice; and, on that
account, a new priesthood was to be instituted, by the
operation of which the sin that had been committed might be
expiated, and access to the throne of God's grace might be
granted to man through a sinner: this is the priesthood which
belongs to our Christ, the Anointed One, alone.
But God, who is the Supremely Wise Disposer of times and
seasons, would not permit the discharge of the functions
appertaining to this priesthood to commence immediately after
the formation of the world, and the introduction of sin. It
was his pleasure, that the necessity of it should be first
correctly understood and appreciated, by a conviction on
men's consciences of the multitude, heinousness and
aggravated nature of their sins. It was also his will, that
the minds of men should be affected with a serious and
earnest desire for it, yet so that they might in the mean
time be supported against despair, arising from a
consciousness of their sins, which could not be removed
except by means of that Divine priesthood, the future
commencement of which inspired them with hope and confidence.
All these purposes God effected by the temporary institution
of that typical priesthood, the duties of which infirm and
sinful men "after the law of a carnal commandment" could
perform, by the immolation of beasts sanctified for that
service; which priesthood was at first established in
different parts of the world, and afterwards among the
Israelites, who were specially elected to be a sacerdotal
nation. When the blood of beasts was shed, in which was their
life, (Lev. xvii, 14) the people contemplated, in the death
of the animals, their own demerits, for the beasts had not
sinned that they by death should be punished as victims for
transgression. After investigating this subject with greater
diligence, and deliberately weighing it in the equal balances
of their judgment, they plainly perceived and understood that
their sins could not possibly be expiated by those
sacrifices, which were of a species different from their own,
and more despicable and mean than human beings. From these
premises they must of necessity have concluded, that,
notwithstanding they offered those animals, they in such an
act delivered to God nothing less than their own bond,
sealing it in his presence with an acknowledgment of their
personal sins, and confessing the debt which they had
incurred. Yet, because these sacrifices were of Divine
Institution, and because God received them at the hands of
men as incense whose odour was fragrant and agreeable, from
these circumstances the offenders conceived the hope of
obtaining favour and pardon, reasoning thus within
themselves, as did Sampson's mother: "If the Lord were
pleased to kill us, he would not have received burnt-offering
and a meat-offering at our hands." (Judges xiii, 23.) With
such a hope they strengthened their spirits that were ready
to faint, and, confiding in the Divine promise, they expected
in all the ardour of desire the dispensation of a priesthood
which was prefigured under the typical one; "searching what,
or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in
them did signify, when it testified beforehand the Sufferings
of Christ, and the Glory that should follow." (1 Pet. i, 11.)
But, since the mind pants after the very delightful
consideration of this priesthood, our oration hastens towards
it; and, having some regard to the lateness of the hour, and
wishing not to encroach on your comfort, we shall omit any
further allusion to that branch of the priesthood which has
hitherto occupied our attention.
Secondly. In discoursing on the Priesthood of Christ, we will
confine our observations to three points; and, on condition
that you receive the succeeding part of my oration with that
kindness and attention which you have hitherto manifested,
and which I still hope and desire to receive, we will
describe: First. The Imposing of the Office. Secondly. Its
Execution and Administration. And Thirdly. The Fruits of the
Office thus Administered, and the Utility Which We Derive
From It.
I. In respect to the Imposing of the Office, the subject
itself presents us with three topics to be discussed in
order. (1.) The person who imposes it. (2.) The person on
whom it is imposed, or to whom it is entrusted. And (3.) The
manner of his appointment, and of his undertaking this
charge.
1. The person imposing it is God, the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ. Since this act of imposing belongs to the
economy and dispensation of our salvation, the persons who
are comprised under this one Divine Monarchy are to be
distinctly considered according to the rule of the
scriptures, which ought to have the precedence in this
inquiry, and according to the rules and guidance of the
orthodox Fathers that agree with those scriptures. It is J
EHOVAH who imposes this office, and who, while the princes of
darkness fret themselves and rage in vain, says to his
Messiah, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask
of me, and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy
possession." (Psalm ii, 8.) He it is who, when he commanded
Messiah to sit at his right hand, repeated his holy and
revered word with an oath, saying, "Thou art a Priest forever
after the order of Melchizedec." (Psalm cx, 4.) This is He
who imposes the office, and that by a right the most just and
deserved. For "with him we have to do, who, dwelling in the
light unto which no man can approach," remains continually in
the seat of his Majesty. He preserves his own authority safe
and unimpaired to himself, "without any abasement or
lessening of his person," as the voice of antiquity expresses
it; and retains entire, within himself, the right of
demanding satisfaction from the sinner for the injuries which
He has sustained. From this right he has not thought fit to
recede, or to resign any part of it, on account of the rigid
inflexibility of his justice, according to which he hates
iniquity and does not permit a wicked person to dwell in his
presence. This, therefore, is the Divine Person in whose
hands rest both the right and the power of imposition; the
fact of his having also the will, is decided by the very act
of imposition.
But an inquiry must be made into the Cause of this imposition
which we shall not find, except, first, in the conflict
between justice and gracious mercy; and, afterwards, in their
amicable agreement, or rather their junction by means of
wisdom's conciliating assistance.
(1.) Justice demanded, on her part, the punishment due to her
from a sinful creature; and this demand she the more rigidly
enforced, by the greater equity with which she had threatened
it, and the greater truth with which it had been openly
foretold and declared.
Gracious Mercy, like a pious mother, moving with bowels of
commiseration, desired to avert that punishment in which was
placed the extreme misery of the creature. For she thought
that, though the remission of that punishment was not due to
the cause of it, yet such a favour ought to be granted to her
by a right of the greatest equity; because it is one of her
chief properties to "rejoice against judgment." (James ii,
13.)
Justice, tenacious of her purpose, rejoined, that the throne
of grace, she must confess, was sublimely elevated above the
tribunal of justice: but she could not bear with patient
indifference that no regard should be paid to her, and her
suit not to be admitted, while the authority of managing the
whole affair was to be transferred to mercy. Since, however,
it was a part of the oath administered to justice when she
entered into office, "that she should render to every one his
own," she would yield entirely to mercy, provided a method
could be devised by which her own inflexibility could be
declared, as well as the excess of her hatred to sin.
(2.) But to find out that method, was not the province of
Mercy. It was necessary, therefore, to call in the aid of
Wisdom to adjust the mighty difference, and to reconcile by
an amicable union those two combatants that were, in God, the
supreme protectresses of all equity and goodness. Being
called upon, she came, and at once discovered a method, and
affirmed that it was possible to render to each of them that
which belonged to her; for if the punishment due to sin
appeared desirable to Justice and odious to Mercy, it might
be transmuted into an expiatory sacrifice, the oblation of
which, on account of the voluntary suffering of death, (which
is the punishment adjudged to sin,) might appease Justice,
and open such a way for Mercy as she had desired. Both of
them instantly assented to this proposal, and made a decree
according to the terms of agreement settled by Wisdom, their
common arbitrator.
2. But, that we may come to the Second Point, a priest was
next to be sought, to offer the sacrifice: For that was a
function of the priesthood. A sacrifice was likewise to be
sought; and with this condition annexed to it, that the same
person should be both priest and sacrifice. This was required
by the plan of the true priesthood and sacrifice, from which
the typical and symbolical greatly differs. But in the
different orders of creatures neither sacrifice nor priest
could be found.
It was not possible for an angel to become a priest; because
"he was to be taken from among men and to be ordained from
men in things pertaining to God." (Heb. v, 1.) Neither could
an angel be a sacrifice; because it was not just that the
death of an angel should be an expiation for a crime which a
man had perpetrated: And if this had even been most proper,
yet man could never have been induced to believe that an
angelical sacrifice had been offered by an angel for him, or,
if it had been so offered, that it was of the least avail.
Application was then to be made to men themselves. But, among
them, not one could be found in whom it would have been a
becoming act to execute the office of the priesthood, and who
had either ability or inclination for the undertaking. For
all men were sinners; all were terrified with a consciousness
of their delinquency; and all were detained captive under the
tyranny of sin and Satan. It was not lawful for a sinner to
approach to God, who is pure Light, for the purpose of
offering sacrifice; because, being affrighted by his own
internal perception of his crime, he could not support a
sight of the countenance of an incensed God, before whom it
was still necessary that he should appear. Being placed under
the dominion of sin and Satan, he was neither willing, nor
had he the power to will, to execute an office, the duties of
which were to be discharged for the benefit of others, out of
love to them. The same consideration likewise tends to the
rejection of every human sacrifice. Yet the priest was to be
taken from among men, and the oblation to God was to consist
of a human victim.
In this state of affairs, the assistance of Wisdom was again
required in the Divine Council. She declared that a man must
be born from among men, who might have a nature in common
with the rest of his brethren, that, being in all things
tempted as they were, he might be able to sympathize with
others in their sufferings; and yet, that he should neither
be reckoned in the order of the rest, nor should be made man
according to the law of the primitive creation and
benediction; that he should not be under dominion of sin;
that he should be one in whom Satan could find nothing worthy
of condemnation, who should not be tormented by a
consciousness of sin, and who should not even know sin, that
is, one who should be "born in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and yet without sin. For such a high priest became us, who is
holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners." (Heb.
vii, 26.) But, that he might have a community of nature with
men, he ought to be born of a human being; and, that he might
have no participation in crime with them, but might be holy,
he ought to be conceived by the Holy Ghost, because
sanctification is his proper work. By the Holy Spirit, the
nativity which was above and yet according to nature, might
through the virtue of the mystery, restore nature, as it
surpassed her in the transcendent excellence of the miracle.
But the dignity of this priesthood was greater, and its
functions more weighty and important, than man even in his
pure state was competent to sustain or discharge. The
benefits also to be obtained by it, infinitely exceeded the
value of man when in his greatest state of purity. Therefore,
the Word of God, who from the beginning was with God, and by
whom the worlds, and all things visible and invisible, were
created, ought himself to be made flesh, to undertake the
office of the priesthood, and to offer his own flesh to God
as a sacrifice for the life of the world. We now have the
person who was entrusted with the priesthood, and to whom the
province was assigned of atoning for the common offense: It
is Jesus Christ, the Son of God and of man, a high priest of
such great excellence, that the transgression whose demerits
have obtained this mighty Redeemer, might almost seem to have
been a happy circumstance.
3. Let us proceed to the mode of its being imposed or
undertaken. This mode is according to covenant, which, on
God's part, received an oath for its confirmation. As it is
according to covenant, it becomes a solemnity appointed by
God, with whom rests the appointment to the priesthood. For
the Levitical priesthood was conferred on Levi according to
covenant, as the Lord declares by the prophet Malachi: "My
covenant was with him of life and peace." (ii, 5.) It is,
however, peculiar to this priesthood of Christ, that the
covenant on which it is founded, was confirmed by an oath.
Let us briefly consider each of them.
The covenant into which God entered with our High Priest,
Jesus Christ, consisted, on the part of God, of the demand of
an action to be performed, and of the promise of an immense
remuneration. On the part of Christ, our High Priest, it
consisted of an accepting of the Promise, and a voluntary
engagement to Perform the Action. First, God required of him,
that he should lay down his soul as a victim in sacrifice for
sin, (Isa. liii, 11,) that he should give his flesh for the
light of the world, (John vi, 51,) and that he should pay the
price of redemption for the sins and the captivity of the
human race. God "promised" that, if he performed all this,
"he should see a seed whose days should be prolonged," (Isa.
liii, 11,) and that he should be himself "an everlasting
Priest after the order of Melchizedec," (cx, 4,) that is, he
should, by the discharge of his priestly functions, be
elevated to the regal dignity. Secondly, Christ, our High
Priest, accepted of these conditions, and permitted the
province to be assigned to him of atoning for our
transgressions, exclaiming "Lo, I come that I may do thy
will, O my God." (Psalm xl, 8.) But he accepted them under a
stipulation, that, on completing his great undertaking, he
should forever enjoy the honour of a priesthood similar to
that of Melchizedec, and that, being placed on his royal
throne, he might, as King of Righteousness and Prince of
Peace, rule in righteousness the people subject to his sway,
and might dispense peace to his people. He, therefore, "for
the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising
the shame," (Heb. xii, 2,) that, "being anointed with the oil
of gladness above his fellows," (Psalm xlv, 7,) he might sit
forever in the throne of equity at the right hand of the
throne of God.
Great, indeed, was the condescension of the all-powerful God
in being willing to treat with our High Priest rather in the
way of covenant, than by a display of his authority. And
strong were the pious affections of our High Priest, who did
not refuse to take upon himself, on our account, the
discharge of those difficult and arduous duties which were
full of pain, trouble, and misery. Most glorious act,
performed by thee, O Christ, who art infinite in goodness!
Thou great High Priest, accept of the honours due to thy
pious affection, and continue in that way to proceed to
glory, to the complete consecration of our salvation! For it
was the will of God, that the duties of the office should be
administered from a voluntary and disinterested zeal and
affection for his glory and the salvation of sinners; and it
was a deed worthy of his abundant benignity, to recompense
with a large reward the voluntary promptitude which Christ
exhibited.
God added an oath to the covenant, both for the purpose of
confirming it, and as a demonstration of the dignity and
unchangeable nature of that priesthood. Though the constant
and unvarying veracity of God's nature might very properly
set aside the necessity of an oath, yet as he had conformed
to the customs of men in their method of solemnizing
agreements, it was his pleasure by an oath to confirm his
covenant; that our High Priest, relying in assured hope on
the two-fold and immovable anchor of the promise and of the
oath, "might despise the shame and endure the cross." The
immutability and perpetuity of this priesthood have been
pointed out by the oath which was added to the covenant. For
whatever that be which God confirms by an oath, it is
something eternal and immutable.
But it may be asked, "Are not all the words which God speaks,
all the promises which he makes, and all the covenants into
which he enters, of the same nature, even when they are
unaccompanied by the sanctity of an oath ," Let me be
permitted to describe the difference between the two cases
here stated, and to prove it by an important example. There
are two methods or plans by which it might be possible for
man to arrive at a state of righteousness before God, and to
obtain life from him. The one is according to righteousness
through the law, by works and "of debt;" the other is
according to mercy through the gospel, "by grace, and through
faith:" These two methods are so constituted as not to allow
both of them to be in a course of operation at the same time;
but they proceed on the principle, that when the first of
them is made void, a vacancy may be created for the second.
In the beginning, therefore, it was the will of God to
prescribe to man the first of these methods; which
arrangement was required by his righteousness and the
primitive institution of mankind. But it was not his pleasure
to deal strictly with man according to the process of that
legal covenant, and peremptorily to pronounce a destructive
sentence against him in conformity with the rigor of the law.
Wherefore, he did not subjoin an oath to that covenant, lest
such an addition should have served to point out its
immutability, a quality which God would not permit it to
possess. The necessary consequence of this was, that when the
first covenant was made void through sin, a vacancy was
created by the good pleasure of God for another and a better
covenant, in the manifestation of which he employed an oath,
because it was to be the last and peremptory one respecting
the method of obtaining righteousness and life. "By myself
have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in thy seed shall all the
nations of the earth be blessed." (Gen. xxii, 18.) "As I
live, saith the Lord, have I any pleasure at all that the
wicked should die, and not that he should return from his
ways and live" (Ezek. xviii, 23.) "So I swear in my wrath,
They shall not enter into my rest. And to whom swear he that
they should not enter into his rest, but to them that
believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because
of unbelief." (Heb. iii, 11, 18.) For the same reason, it is
said, "The wrath of God, [from which it is possible for
sinners to be liberated by faith in Christ,] abides on those
who are unbelievers." (John iii, 36.) A similar process is
observed in relation to the priesthood. For he did not
confirm with an oath the Levitical priesthood, which had been
imposed until the time of reformation." (Heb. ix, 10.) But
because it was his will that the priesthood of Christ should
be everlasting, he ratified it by an oath. The apostle to the
Hebrews demonstrates the whole of this subject in the most
nervous style, by quotations from the 110th Psalm. Blessed
are we in whose behalf God was willing to swear! but most
miserable shall we be, if we do not believe on him who
swears. The greatest dignity is likewise obtained to this
priesthood, and imparted to it, by the addition of an oath,
which elevates it far above the honour to which that of Levi
attained. "For the law of a carnal commandment maketh men
priests who have infirmities, and are sinners, to offer both
gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him perfect who did
the service, as pertaining to the conscience;" (Heb. ix, 9)
neither could they abolish sin, or procure heavenly
blessings. "But the words of the oath, which was since the
law, constituteth the Son a High Priest consecrated
forevermore, who, after the power of an endless life and
through the Eternal Spirit, offers himself without spot to
God, and by that one offering, he perfects forever them that
are sanctified, their consciences being purified to serve the
living God: by how much also it was a more excellent
covenant, by so much the more ought it to be confirmed, since
it was established upon better promises: (Heb. 7-10,) and
that which God hath deigned to honour with the sanctity of an
oath, should be viewed as an object of the most momentous
importance.
II. We have spoken to the act of Imposing the priesthood, as
long as our circumscribed time will allow us. Let us
contemplate its Execution, in which we have to consider the
duties to be performed, and in them the feeling and condition
of who performs them. The functions to be executed were two:
(1.) The Oblation of an expiatory sacrifice, and (2.) Prayer.
1. The Oblation was preceded by a preparation through the
deepest privation and abasement, the most devoted obedience,
vehement supplications, and the most exquisitely painful
experience of human infirmities, on each of which it is not
now necessary to speak. The oblation consists of two parts
succeeding each other: The First is the immolation or
sacrifice of the body of Christ, by the shedding of his blood
on the altar of the cross, which was succeeded by death --
thus paying the price of redemption for sins by suffering the
punishment due to them. The Other Part consists of the
offering of his body re-animated and sprinkled with the blood
which he shed -- a symbol of the price which he has paid, and
of the redemption which he has obtained. The First Part of
this oblation was to be performed without the Holy of Holies,
that is, on earth, because no effusion of blood can take
place in heaven, since it is necessarily succeeded by death
For death has no more sway in heaven, in the presence and
sight of the majesty of the true God, than sin itself has,
which contains within it the deserts of death, and as death
contains within itself the punishment of sin. For thus says
the scriptures, "The Son of man came, not to be ministered
unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for
many." (Matt. xx, 28.) "For this is my blood of the New
Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
(Matt. xxvi, 28.) "Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for
all, to be testified in due time." (1 Tim. ii, 6). But the
Second Part of this offering was to be accomplished in
heaven, in the Holy of Holies. For that body which had
suffered the punishment of death and had been recalled to
life, was entitled to appear before the Divine Majesty
besprinkled with its own blood, that, remaining thus before
God as a continual memorial, it might also be a perpetual
expiation for transgressions. On this subject, the Apostle
says: "Into the second tabernacle went the High Priest alone
once every year, not without blood, which he offered for
himself, and for the errors of the people. But Christ being
come a High Priest of good things to come, not by the blood
of goat, and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once
into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for
us;" (Heb. ix, 11) that is, by his own blood already poured
out and sprinkled upon him, that he might appear with it in
the presence of God. That act, being once performed, was
never repeated; "for in that he died, he died unto sin once."
But this is a perpetual act; "for in that he liveth, he
liveth unto God." (Rom. vi, 10.) "This man, because he
continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." (Heb. vii,
24) The former was the act of the Lamb to be slain, the
latter, that of the Lamb already slain and raised again from
death to life. The one was completed in a state of the
deepest humiliation, the other in a state of glory; and both
of them out of a consummate affection for the glory of God
and the salvation of sinners. Sanctified by the anointing of
the Spirit, he completed the former act; and the latter was
likewise his work, when he had been further consecrated by
his sufferings and sprinkled with his own blood. By the
former, therefore, he sanctified himself, and made a kind of
preparation on earth that he might be qualified to discharge
the functions of the latter in heaven.
2. The Second of the two functions to be discharged, was the
act of prayer and intercession, the latter of which depends
upon the former. Prayer is that which Christ offers for
himself, and intercession is what he offers for believers;
each of which is most luminously described to us by John, in
the seventeenth chapter of his Gospel, which contains a
perpetual rule and exact canon of the prayers and
intercessions which Christ offers in heaven to his Father.
For although that prayer was recited by Christ while he
remained upon earth, yet it properly belongs to his sublime
state of exaltation in heaven: and it was his will that it
should be described in his word, that we on earth, might
derive from it perpetual consolation. Christ offers up a
prayer to the Father for himself, according to the Father's
command and promise combined, "Ask of me, and I shall give
thee the heathen for thine inheritance." (Psalm ii, 8.)
Christ had regard to this promise, when he said, "Father,
glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee, as thou
hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give
eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." This sort of
intreaty must be distinguished from those "supplications
which Christ, in the days of his flesh, offered up to the
Father, with strong cries and tears;" (Heb. v, 7,) for by
them he intreated to be delivered from anguish, while by the
other he asks, "to see his seed whose days should be
prolonged, and to behold the pleasure of the Lord which
should prosper in his hands." (Isa. liii, 10.) But, for the
faithful, intercession is made, of which the apostle thus
speaks, "Who is he that condemneth, It is Christ that died,
yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right
hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (Rom.
viii, 34) And, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, he says,
"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that
come unto God by him, seeing He ever liveth to make
intercession for them" (vii, 25.) But Christ is said to
intercede for believers, to the exclusion of the world,
because, after he had offered a sacrifice sufficient to take
away the sins of all mankind, he was consecrated a great
"High Priest to preside over the house of God," (Heb. x, 21,)
"which house those are who hold fast the confidence and the
rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." (iii, 6.) Christ
discharges the whole of this part of his function in heaven,
before the face of the Divine Majesty; for there, also, is
the royal seat and the throne of God, to which, when we are
about to pray, we are commanded to lift up our eyes and our
minds. But he executes this part of his office, not in
anguish of spirit, or in a posture of humble genuflection, as
though fallen down before the knees of the Father, but in the
confidence of the shedding of his own blood, which, sprinkled
as it is on his sacred body, he continually presents, as an
object of sight before his Father, always turning it towards
his sacred countenance. The entire efficacy of this function
depends on the dignity and value of the blood effused and
sprinkled over the body; for, by his blood-shedding, he
opened a passage for himself "into the holiest, within the
veil." From which circumstance we may with the greatest
certainty conclude, that his prayers will never be rejected,
and that whatever we shall ask in his name, will, in virtue
of that intercession, be both heard and answered.
The sacerdotal functions being thus executed, God, the
Father, mindful of his covenant and sacred oath, not only
continued the priesthood with Christ forever, but elevated
him likewise to the regal dignity, "all power being given
unto him in heaven and in earth, (Matt. xxviii, 18,) also
power over all flesh: (John xvii, 2,) a name being conferred
on him which is far above all principality, and might, and
dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this
world, but also in that which is to come, (Ephes. i, 21,)
angels, and authorities, and powers being made subject unto
him," (1 Pet. iii, 22,) that he might be the Christ and the
Lord of his whole Israel, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. By
this admirable covenant, therefore, God hath united those two
supreme functions in one, even in Christ Jesus, and has thus
performed his promise, by which he had sworn that this Priest
should be forever after the order of Melchizedec, "who was at
once a King and a Priest; and is to the present time without
beginning of days or end of life," because his genealogy is
not described in the Scriptures, which in this case are
subservient to the figure. This conjunction of the sacerdotal
and regal functions is the highest point and the extreme
limit of all the divine work, a never ending token of the
justice and the mercy of God attempered together for the
economy of our salvation, a very luminous and clear evidence
of the most excellent glory of God, and an immovable
foundation for the certainty of obtaining salvation through
this royal Priest. If man is properly styled "the extreme
Colophon of the creation," "a microcosm," on account of the
union of his body and soul, "an epitome of the whole world,"
and "the marriage of the Universe," what judgment shall we
form of this conjunction, which consists of a most intimate
and inseparable union of the whole church of believers and of
God himself, "who dwells in the light unto which no man can
approach," and by what amplitude of title shall we point out
its divinity. This union hath a name above every name that
can be named. It is ineffable, inconceivable, and
incomprehensible. If, chiefly in respect to this I shall say,
that Christ is styled "the brightness of the Father's glory,"
"the express image of his person" and "the image of the
invisible God," I shall have expressed its excellency as
fully as it is possible to do.
What can be a more illustrious instance of the admixture of
justice with mercy than that even the Son of God, when he had
"made himself of no reputation and assumed the form of a
servant," could not be constituted a King except through a
discharge of the sacerdotal functions; and that all those
blessings which he had to bestow as a King on his subjects,
could not be asked except through the priesthood, and which,
when obtained from God, could not, (except through the
intervention of this royal Mediator,) be communicated by his
vicarious distribution under God? What can be a stronger and
a better proof of the certainty of obtaining salvation
through Christ, than that he has, by the discharge of his
sacerdotal functions in behalf of men, asked and procured it
for men, and that, being constituted a King through the
priesthood, he has received salvation from the Father to be
dispensed to them? In these particulars consists the
perfection of the divine glory.
III. But this consideration, I perceive, introduces us,
almost imperceptibly, to the third and last portion of our
subject, in which we have engaged to treat on THE FRUITS OF
THE SACERDOTAL OFFICE in its administration by Christ. We
will reduce all these fruits, though they are innumerable, to
four chief particulars; and, since we hasten to the end of
this discourse, we bind ourselves down to extreme brevity.
These benefits are, (1.) The concluding and the confirmation
of a New Covenant; (2.) The asking, obtaining, and
application of all the blessings necessary for the salvation
of the human race; (3.) The institution of a new priesthood,
both eucharistic and royal; and (4.) lastly, The extreme and
final bringing to God of all his covenant people.
1. The FIRST UTILITY is the contracting and the confirmation
of a New Covenant, in which is the direct way to solid
felicity.
We rejoice and glory, that this has been obtained by the
priesthood of Christ. For since the first covenant had been
made weak through sin and the flesh, and was not capable of
bringing righteousness and life, it was necessary, either to
enter into another, or that we should be forever expelled
from God's presence. Such a covenant could not be contracted
between a just God and sinful men, except in consequence of a
reconciliation, which it pleased God, the offended party,
should be perfected by the blood of our High Priest, to be
poured out on the altar of the cross. He who was at once the
officiating priest and the Lamb for sacrifice, poured out his
sacred blood, and thus asked and obtained for us a
reconciliation with God. When this great offering was
completed, it was possible for the reconciled parties to
enter into an agreement. Hence, it pleased God, that the same
High Priest who had acted as Mediator and Umpire in this
reconciliation, should, with the very blood by which he had
effected their union, go between the two parties, as a
middle-man, or, in the capacity of an ambassador, and as a
herald to bear tidings of war or peace, with the same blood
as that by which the consciences of those who were included
in the provisions of the covenant, being sprinkled, might be
purged from dead works and sanctified; with the very blood,
which, sprinkled upon himself, might always appear in the
sight of God; and with the same blood as that by which all
things in the heavens might be sprinkled and purified.
Through the intervention, therefore, of this blood, another
covenant was contracted, not one of works, but of faith, not
of the law, but of grace, not an old, but a new one -- and
new, not because it was later than the first, but because it
was never to be abrogated or repealed; and because its force
and vigour should perpetually endure. "For that which
decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away." (Heb.
viii, 13). If such a covenant as is described in this
quotation should be again contracted, in the several ages
which succeed each other, changes ought frequently to occur
in it; and, all former covenants being rendered obsolete,
others more recent ought to succeed. But it was necessary, at
length, that a pause should occur in one of them, and that
such a covenant should at once be made as might endure
forever. It was also to be ratified with blood. But how was
it possible to be confirmed with blood of greater value than
that of the High Priest, who was the Son, both of God and
man. But the covenant of which we are now treating, was
ratified with that blood; it was, therefore, a new one, and
never to be annulled. For the perpetual presence and sight of
such a great High Priest, sprinkled with his own blood, will
not suffer the mind of his Father to be regardless of the
covenant ratified by it, or his sacred breast to be moved
with repentance. With what other blood will it be possible
for the consciences of those in covenant to be cleansed and
sanctified to God, if, after having become parties to the
covenant of grace, they pollute themselves with any crime,
"There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, if any man have
trodden under foot this High Priest, and counted the blood of
the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing."
(Heb. x, 29). The covenant, therefore, which has been
concluded by the intervention of this blood and this. High
Priest, is a new one, and will endure forever.
2. The SECOND FRUIT is the asking, obtaining, and
application, of all the blessings necessary to those who are
in covenant for the salvation both of soul and body. For,
since every covenant must be confirmed by certain promises,
it was necessary that this also should have its blessings, by
which it might be sanctioned, and those in covenant rendered
happy.
(1.) Among those blessings, the remission of sins first
offers itself; according to the tenor of the New Covenant, "I
will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and
their iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb. viii, 12).
But the scripture testifies, that Christ has asked this
blessing by his blood, when it says, "This is my blood of the
New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of
sins." (Matt. xxvi, 28). The scripture also proves his having
obtained such a blessing by the discharge of the same office,
in these words: "By his own blood Christ entered in once into
the holy place, HAVING OBTAINED eternal redemption for us."
(Heb. ix, 12.) It adds its testimony to the application,
saying, "In Christ WE HAVE REDEMPTION through his blood, the
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace."
(Ephes. i, 7.)
(2.) This necessary blessing is succeeded by adoption into
sons and by a right to the heavenly inheritance: And we owe
it to the Priesthood of Christ, that this blessing was asked
and obtained for us, as well as communicated to us. For he
being the proper and only begotten Son of the Father, and the
sole heir of all his Father's blessings, was unwilling to
enjoy such transcendent benefits alone, and desired to have
co-heirs and partners, whom he might anoint with the oil of
his gladness, and might receive into a participation of that
inheritance. He made an offering, therefore, of his soul for
sin, that, the travail of his soul being finished, he might
see his seed prolonged in their days -- the seed of God which
might come into a participation with him both of name and
inheritance. "He was made under the law, to redeem them that
were under the law, that we might receive THE ADOPTION OF
SONS." (Gal. iv, 5). According to the command of the Father,
he asked, that the Heathen might be given to him for an
inheritance. By these acts, therefore, which are peculiar to
his priesthood, he asked for this right of adoption in behalf
of his believing people, and obtained it for the purpose of
its being communicated to them, nay, in fact, he himself
became the donor. "For to as many as believed on his name
Christ gave power to become the sons of God." (John i, 12).
Through him and in regard to him, God has adopted us for
sons, who are beloved in him the Son of his love. He,
therefore, is the sole heir, by whose death the inheritance
comes to others; which circumstance was predicted by the
perfidious husbandmen, (Mark xii, 7,) who, being Scribes and
Pharisees, uttered at that time a remarkable truth, although
they were ignorant of such a great mystery.
(3.) But because it is impossible to obtain benefits of this
magnitude except in union with the High Priest himself, it
was expected of him that he should ask and obtain the gift of
the HOLY SPIRIT, the bond of that union, and should pour it
out on his own people. But since the spirit of grace is the
token as well as the testimony of the love of God towards us,
and the earnest of our inheritance, Christ could not ask this
great gift till a reconciliation had taken place, and to
effect this was the duty of the priest. When, therefore, this
reconciliation was effected, he asked of his Father another
Comforter for his people, and his request was granted. Being
elevated to the right hand of God, he obtained this Paraclete
promised in the terms of the sacerdotal covenant; and, when
he had procured this Spirit, he poured it out in a most
copious manner on his followers, as the scripture says,
"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having
received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath
shed forth this which ye now see and hear." (Acts ii, 33.)
That the asking, the obtaining, and the communication of all
these blessings, have flowed from the functions of the
priesthood, God has testified by a certain seal of the
greatest sanctity, when he constituted Christ the Testator of
these very blessings, which office embraces conjointly both
the full possession of the good things devised as legacies in
the Will, and absolute authority over their distribution.
3. The THIRD FRUIT of Christ's administration is the
institution of a new priesthood both eucharistic and regal,
and our sanctification for the purpose of performing its
duties; for when a New Covenant was concluded, it was needful
to institute a new eucharistic priesthood, (because the old
one had fallen into disuse,) and to sanctify priests to
fulfill its duties.
(1.) Christ, by his own priesthood, completed such an
institution; and he sanctified us by a discharge of its
functions. This was the order in which he instituted it:
First, he constituted us his debtors, and as bound to
thanksgiving on account of the immense benefits procured for
us and bestowed upon us by his priesthood. Then he instructed
us how to offer sacrifices to God, our souls and bodies being
sanctified and consecrated by the sprinkling of his blood and
by the unction of the Holy Spirit, that, if they were offered
as sacrifices to God, they might meet with acceptance. It was
also his care to have an altar erected in heaven before the
throne of grace, which being sprinkled with his own blood he
consecrated to God, that the sacrifices of his faithful
people, being placed upon it, might continually appear before
the face of the Majesty of heaven and in presence of his
throne. Lastly, he placed on that altar an eternal and never-
ceasing fire -- the immeasurable favour of God, with which
the sacrifices on that altar might be kindled and reduced to
ashes.
(2.) But it was also necessary that priests should be
consecrated: the act of consecration, therefore, was
performed by Christ, as the Great High Priest, by his own
blood. St. John says, in the Apocalypse, "He hath loved us,
and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made
us kings and priests unto God and his Father." (i, 6.) "Thou
hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred,
and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our
God kings and priests." (v, 10.) Not content to have us
joint-heirs in the participation of his inheritance, he
willed that we should likewise partake of the same dignity as
that which he enjoyed. But he made us partners with him of
that dignity in such a manner, as in the mean time always to
retain within himself the first place, "as Head of his body
the Church, the first-born among many brethren and the Great
High Priest who presides over the whole of the House of God."
To Him, we, who are "born again," ought to deliver our
sacrifices, that by him they may be further offered to God,
sprinkled and perfumed with the grateful odour of his own
expiatory sacrifice, and may thus through him be rendered
acceptable to the Father. For this cause, the Apostle says,
"By him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to
God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving
thanks to his name." (Heb. xiii, 15). We are indeed, by his
favour "a holy priesthood," to offer up spiritual sacrifices;
but those sacrifices are rendered "acceptable to God, only by
Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. ii, 5.) Not only was it his pleasure
that we should be partakers of this sacerdotal dignity, but
likewise of the eternity attached to it, that we also might
execute the office of the priesthood after the order of
Melchizedec, which by a sacred oath was consecrated to
immortality. For though, at the close of these ages of time,
Christ will not any longer perform the expiatory part of the
priesthood, yet he will forever discharge its eucharistic
duties in our favour. These eucharistic duties we shall also
execute in him and through him, unless, in the midst of the
enjoyment of the benefits received by us from him, we should
desire our memories no longer to retain the recollection,
that through him we obtained those blessings, and through him
we have been created priests to render due thanksgiving to
God the chief Donor of all. But, since we are not able to
offer to God, so long as we remain in this mortal body, the
sacrifices due to him, except by the strenuous resistance
which we offer to Satan, the world, sin, and our own flesh,
and through the victory which we obtain over them, (both of
which are royal acts,) and since, after this life, we shall
execute the sacerdotal office, being elevated with him on the
throne of his Father, and having all our enemies subdued
under us, he hath therefore made us both kings and priests,
yea "a royal priesthood" to our God, that nothing might be
found in the typical priesthood of Melchizedec, in the
enjoyment of which we should not equally participate.
4. The FOURTH, and last FRUIT of the Priesthood of Christ,
proposed to be noticed by us, is the act of bringing to God
all the church of the faithful; which is the end and
completion of the three preceding effects. For with this
intent the covenant was contracted between God and men; with
this intent the remission of sins, the adoption of sons, and
the Spirit of grace were conferred on the church; for this
purpose the new eucharistic and royal priesthood was
instituted; that, being made priests and kings, all the
covenant people might be brought to their God. In most
expressive language the Apostle Peter ascribes this effect to
the priesthood of Christ, in these words: "For Christ also
hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, THAT HE
MIGHT BRING US TO GOD." (1 Pet. iii, 18.) The following are
also the words of an Apostle concerning the same act of
bringing them to God: "Then cometh the end, when he shall
have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." (1
Cor. xv, 24). In Isaiah's prophecy it is said, "Behold I and
the children whom the Lord hath given me!" Let these words be
considered as proceeding out of the mouth of Christ, when he
is bringing his children and addressing the Father; not that
they may be for signs and for wonders" to the people, but "a
peculiar treasure to the Lord."
Christ will therefore bring all his church, whom he hath
redeemed to himself by his own blood, that they may receive,
from the hands of the Father of infinite benignity, the
heavenly inheritance which has been procured by his death,
promised in his word, and sealed by the Holy Spirit, and may
enjoy it forever. He will bring his priests, whom sprinkled
with his blood, he hath sanctified unto God, that they may
serve him forever. He will bring his kings, that they may
with God possess the kingdom forever and ever: for in them,
by the virtue of his Holy Spirit, he has subdued and overcome
Satan the Chief, and his auxiliaries, the world, sin, and
their own flesh, yea, and "death itself, the last enemy that
shall be destroyed."
Christ will bring, and God even the Father will receive. He
will receive the church of Christ, and will command her as
"the bride, the Lamb's wife," on her introduction into the
celestial bride-chamber, to celebrate a perpetual feast with
the Lamb, that she may enjoy the most complete fruition of
pleasure, in the presence of the throne of his glory. He will
receive the priests, and will clothe them with the comely and
beautiful garments of perfect holiness, that they may forever
and ever sing to God a new song of thanksgiving. And then he
will receive the kings, and place them on the throne of his
Majesty, that they may with God and the Lamb obtain the
kingdom and may rule and reign forever.
These are the fruits and benefits which Christ, by the
administration of his priesthood, hath asked and obtained for
us, and communicated to us. Their dignity is undoubtedly
great, and their utility immense. For what could occur of a
more agreeable nature to those who are "alienated from the
life of God, and strangers to the covenants of promise,"
(Ephes. ii, 12,) than to be received by God into the covenant
of grace, and to be reckoned among his people? What could
afford greater pleasure to the consciences which were
oppressed with the intolerable burden of their sins, and
fainting under the weight of the wrath of God, than the
remission and pardon of all their transgressions? What could
prove more acceptable to men, sons of the accursed earth, and
to those who are devoted to hell, than to receive from God
the adoption of sons, and to be written in heaven? What
greater pleasure could those enjoy who he under the dominion
of Satan and the tyranny of sin, than a freedom from such a
state of most horrid and miserable servitude, and a
restoration to true liberty? What more glorious than to be
admitted into a participation of the Priesthood and of the
Monarchy, to be consecrated priests and kings to God, even
royal priests and priestly kings? And, lastly, what could be
more desirable than to be brought to God, the Chief Good and
the Fountain of all happiness, that, in a beautiful and
glorious state, we may spend with him a whole eternity?
This priesthood was imposed by God himself, "with whom we
have to do," on Christ Jesus -- the Son of God and the Son of
man, our first-born brother, formerly encompassed about with
infirmities, tempted in all things, merciful, holy, faithful,
undefiled, and separate from sinners; and its imposition was
accompanied by a sacred oath, which it is not lawful to
revoke. Let us, therefore, rely with assured faith on this
priesthood of Christ, entertaining no doubt that God hath
ratified and confirmed, is now ratifying and confirming, and
will forever ratify and confirm all those things which have
been accomplished, are now accomplishing, and will continue
even to the consummation of this dispensation to be
accomplished, on our account, by a High Priest taken from
among ourselves and placed in the Divine presence, having
received in our behalf an appointment from God, who himself
chose him to that office.
Since the same Christ hath by the administration of his own
priesthood obtained a perpetual expiation and purgation of
our sins, and eternal redemption, and hath erected a throne
of grace for us in heaven, "let us draw near [to this throne
of grace] with a true heart and in full assurance of faith,
having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience," (Heb.
x, 22,) "and our conscience purged from dead works," (ix,
14,) assuredly concluding "that we shall obtain mercy, and
find grace to help in time of need." (iv, 16.)
LASTLY. Since, by the administration of this priesthood, so
many and such excellent benefits have been obtained and
prepared for us of which we have already received a part as
"the first-fruits," and since we expect to reap in heaven the
choicest part of these benefits, and the whole of them in the
mass, and that most complete -- what shall we render to our
God for such a transcendent dignity? What thanks shall we
offer to Christ who is both our High Priest and the Lamb? "We
will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the
Lord." We will offer to God "the calves of our lips," and
will "present to him our bodies, souls, and spirits, a living
sacrifice, holy and acceptable." (Rom. xii, 1.) Even while
remaining in these lower regions, we will sing, with the four
and twenty elders that stand around the throne, this heavenly
song to the God and Father of all: "Thou art worthy, O Lord,
to receive glory, and honour, and power. For thou hast
created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were
created." (Rev. iv, 11.) To Christ our High Priest and the
Lamb, we will, with the same elders, chant the new song,
saying, "Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the
seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to
God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and
people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and
priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (v, 10.) Unto both
of them together we will unite with every creature in
singing, "BLESSING, AND honour, AND GLORY, AND MIGHT BE TO
HIM WHO SITTETH UPON THE THRONE, AND UNTO THE LAMB FOREVER
AND EVER."-I have finished.
After the Academic Act of his promotion to a Doctor's degree
was completed, Arminius, according to the custom at Leyden,
which still obtains in many Universities, briefly addressed
the same audience in the following manner:
Since the countenance necessary for the commencement of every
prosperous action proceeds from God, it is proper that in him
also every one of our actions should terminate. Since,
therefore, his Divine clemency and benignity have hitherto
regarded us in a favourable light, and have granted to this
our act the desired success, let us render thanks to Him for
such a great display of His benevolence, and utter praise to
His holy name.
"O thou Omnipotent and Merciful God, the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, we give thanks to thee for thine infinite
benefits conferred upon us miserable sinners. But we would
first praise thee for having willed that thy Son Jesus Christ
should be the victim and the price of redemption for our
sins; that thou hast out of the whole human race collected
for thyself a church by thy word and Holy Spirit; that thou
hast snatched us also from the kingdom of darkness and of
Satan, and hast translated us into the kingdom of light and
of thy Son; that thou hast called Holland, our pleasant and
delightful country, to know and confess thy Son and to enjoy
communion with him; that thou hast hitherto preserved this
our native land in safety against the machinations and
assaults of a very powerful adversary; that thou hast
instituted, in our renowned city, this university as a
seminary of true wisdom, piety and righteousness; and that
thou hast to this hour accompanied these scholastic exercises
with thy favour. We intreat thee, O holy and indulgent God,
that thou wouldst forever continue to us these benefits; and
do not suffer us, by our ingratitude, to deserve at thy
bands, to be deprived of them. But be pleased rather to
increase them, and to confirm the work which thou hast begun.
Cause us always to reflect with retentive minds on these
things, and to utter eternal praises to thy most holy name on
account of them, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen."
I thank you, Doctor Francis Gomarus, and am grateful to you,
most illustrious man and very learned promoter, for this
great privilege with which you have invested one who is
undeserving of it. I promise at all times to acknowledge with
a grateful mind this favour, and to strive that you may never
have just cause to repent of having conferred this honour
upon me.
To you also, most noble Lord Rector, and to the very
honourable the Senate of the University, (unless I should
desire to defile myself with the crime of an ungrateful
spirit,) I owe greater thanks than I am able to express, for
the honourable judgment which you have formed concerning me,
and for your liberal testimony, which by no deed of mine have
I ever deserved. But I promise and bind myself to exert my
powers to the utmost, that I may not at any time be found to
be entirely unworthy of it. If I thus exert myself, I know
that you will accept it as a payment in full of all the debt
of gratitude which you have a right to demand.
I now address you, most noble, honourable and famous men, to
all and to each of whom I confess myself to be greatly
indebted for your continued and liberal benevolence towards
me, which you have abundantly demonstrated by your wish to
honour this our act with your most noble, honourable, famous
and worthy presence. I would promise to make you a requital
at some future period, did not the feebleness of my powers
shrink from the magnitude of the undertaking implied in that
expression, and did not the eminence of your stations repress
the attempt.
In the duty of returning thanks which I am now discharging, I
must not omit you, most noble and studious youths: For I owe
this acknowledgment to your partial and kind inclination to
me, of which you have given a sufficiently exuberant
declaration in your honourable appearance and modest demeanor
while you have been present at this our act. I give my
promise and solemn undertaking, that if an occasion hereafter
offer itself in which I can render myself serviceable to you,
I will endeavour in every capacity to compensate you for this
your kind partiality. The occurrence of such an opportunity
is at once the object of my hopes and my wishes.
ORATION V
ON RECONCILING RELIGIOUS DISSENSIONS AMONG CHRISTIANS
Never since the first entrance of sin into the world, have
there been any ages so happy as not to be disturbed by the
occurrence of some evil or other; and, on the contrary, there
has been no age so embittered with calamities, as not to have
had a sweet admixture of some good, by the presence of the
divine benevolence renewed towards mankind. The experience of
all ages bears witness to the truth of this observation; and
it is taught by the individual history of every nation. If,
from a diligent consideration of these different histories
and a comparison between them, any person should think fit to
draw a parallel of the blessings and of the calamities which
have either occurred at one and the same period, or which
have succeeded each other, he would in reality be enabled to
contemplate, as in a mirror of the greatest clearness and
brilliancy, how the Benignity of God has at all times
contended with his Just Severity, and what a conflict the
Goodness of The Deity has always maintained with the
Perversity of men. Of this a fair specimen is afforded to us
in the passing events of our own age, within that part of
Christendom with which we are more immediately acquainted. To
demonstrate this, I do not deem it necessary to recount all
the Evils which have rushed, like an overwhelming inundation,
upon the century which has been just completed: for their
infinity would render such an attempt difficult and almost
impossible. Neither do I think it necessary, to enumerate, in
a particular manner, the Blessings which those evils have
been somewhat mitigated.
To confirm this truth, it will be abundantly sufficient to
mention one very remarkable Blessing, and one Evil of great
magnitude and directly opposed to that blessing. This
Blessing is, that the Divine clemency irradiates our part of
the world by the illustrious light of his sacred truth, and
enlightens it with the knowledge of true religion, or
Christianity. The Evil opposed to it is, that either human
ignorance or human perversity deteriorates and corrupts the
clear light of this Divine truth, by aspersing and beclouding
it with the blackest errors; creates separation and division
among those who have devoted themselves exclusively to the
service of religion; and severs them into parties, and even
into shreds of parties, in direct contradiction to the nature
and genius of Christianity, whose Author is called the
"Prince of peace," its doctrine "the Gospel of peace," and
its professors "the Sons of peace." The very foundation of it
is an act of pacification concluded between God and men, and
ratified by the blood of the Prince of peace. The precepts
inculcated in each of its pages, are concerning peace and
concord; its fruits are "righteousness, peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost;" and its end is peace and eternal tranquillity.
But although the light from this torch of truth, which is
diffused through the Christian world, affords no small
refreshment to my mind; and although a view of that clearer
light which shines among the Churches that profess to have
been Reformed from Popery, is most exhilarating; yet I cannot
dissemble the intense grief which I feel at my heart on
account of that religious discord which has been festering
like a gangrene, and pervading the whole of Christianity:
Unhappily, its devastations have not terminated. In this
unfeigned feeling of deep regret, I think, all those who love
Christ and his Church, will partake with me; unless they
possess hearts of greater hardness than Parian marble, and
bowels secured from compassionate attacks by a rigidity
stronger than that of the oak, and by defenses more
impregnable than those of triple brass.
This is the cause which has incited me to offer a few remarks
on religious dissensions in the Christian world; for,
according to that common proverb, "Whenever a man feels any
pain, his hand is almost spontaneously moved to the part
affected." This, therefore, is the subject which I propose to
introduce to the notice of the present celebrated assembly,
in which the province has been awarded to me, of delivering
an oration at this Academic Festival, according to an
established and laudable custom. I shall confine myself to
three particulars: In the first place, I will give a
dissertation on This Discord Itself and The Evils Which
Spring From It. I will then show its Causes; and, lastly, its
Remedies.
The first particular includes within itself the Necessity of
removing such a great evil; and the last prescribes the
Manner in which it may be removed, to which the middle
particular materially contributes. The union of the whole
together explains and justifies the nature of the design
which I have now undertaken.
I humbly pray and intreat the God of peace, that he will, by
his Spirit of truth and peace, be present with me while
engaged in speaking; and that he will govern my mind and
direct my tongue, that I may utter such things as may be
pleasing to him and salutary to the Church of Christ, for the
glory of his name and our mutual instruction.
I likewise prefer a request to you, my very famous and
accomplished hearers, that you will deign to grant me your
favourable attention, while I glance at each of these
particular, with much brevity, and discharge the office of a
director to you rather than that of an orator, lest I
trespass on your patience.
I. Union is a great good: it is indeed the chief good and
therefore the only one, whether we separately consider each
thing of which it is composed, or more of them contained
together by a certain social tie or relation between
themselves. For all things together, and each thing
separately, are what they are by that very thing by which
they are one; and, by this union, they are preserved in what
they really are. And, if they have need and are capable of
further perfection, they are, by the same union, still more
strengthened, increased, and perfected, until they attain to
the utmost boundary prescribed to them by nature or by grace,
or by God the Author of both grace and nature. Of such
certainty is this truth, that even the blessedness of God
consists in that union by which he is ONE and always present
with himself, and having all things belonging to him present
together with him. Nothing, therefore, can be more agreeable
or desirable than Union, whether viewed in reference to
single things or to the whole together; nothing can be more
noxious and detestable than Dissension, by which all things
begin at first to decline from their own condition, are
afterwards diminished by degrees, and, at length, perish. But
as there are differences of Good, so are there likewise of
Union. More excellent than another is that good which in its
own nature obtains the pre-eminence above the other, on
account of its being more general and durable, and on account
of its approaching more nearly to the Chief Good. In like
manner that union is also more excellent which consists of a
thing of greater excellence, belongs to many, is more durable
and unites itself most intimately with the Deity. The union
of true religion is, therefore, one of the greatest
excellence.
But as those evil things which are opposed to the good things
of greatest excellence, are the very worst of their kind, so
no discord is more shocking and hideous than that about
religion. The truth of this remark is confirmed by the inward
nature of this discord; and it is further manifested most
clearly by the effects which proceed from it.
1. We shall see its Nature (1.) in the object of discord,
(2.) in the ready inclination for this object, which is
evinced by the discordant partizans, (3.) in its extensive
range, and (4.) its long continuance.
(1.) The Christian Religion is the Object of this discord or
dissension. When viewed with respect to its form, this
religion contains the true knowledge of the true God and of
Christ; and the right mode in which both of them may be
worshipped. And when viewed with regard to its end, it is the
only medium by which we can be bound and united to God and
Christ, and by which on the other hand God and Christ can be
bound and united to us. From this idea of connecting the
parties together, the name of religion is derived, in the
opinion of Lactantius. In the term "Religion," therefore, are
contained true wisdom and true virtue, and the union of both
with God as the Chief Good, in all of which is comprehended
the supreme and the only happiness of this world and of that
which is to come. And not only in reality, but in the
estimation also of every one on whose mind a notion of
religion has been impressed, (that is, on the whole of
mankind,) men are distinguished from other animals, not by
reason, but by a genuine character much more appropriate and
indeed peculiar to them, and that is Religion, according to
the authority of the same Lactantius.
(2.) But if bounds be imposed on the desire towards any thing
by such an opinion of its value as is preconceived in the
mind, an inclination or propensity towards religion is
deservedly entitled to the highest consideration, and holds
the preeminence in the mind of a religious person. Nay, more
than this, if, according to St. Bernard and to truth itself,
"the measure to be observed in loving God, is to love him
without measure," a propensity or inclination towards
religion, (of which the chief and choicest part consists of
love to God and Christ,) is itself without bounds: For it is
at once illimitable and immeasurable. This is tantamount to
the declaration of Christ, the Author of our religion, who
said, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father and
mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea,
and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke xiv,
26.) This strong affection for religion answers equally to
that immeasurable love by which any one desires the union of
himself with God, that is, desires the greatest happiness,
because he knows that Religion is the strongest bond and the
most adhesive cement of this union. Most serious, therefore,
is religious discord when it is engaged in disputes about the
altar itself.
(3.) Besides, it spreads and diffuses itself most
extensively; for it involves within its vortex all the
persons that have been initiated in the sacred rites of the
Christian religion. No one is permitted to profess
neutrality; nay, it is impossible for any man to remain
neutral in the midst of religious dissension. For he who
makes no advances towards the opposite sentiments of each of
the dissidents, is induced thus to act from one of these four
causes: (i.) He either cherishes a third opinion in the
Christian Religion, far removed from both the others: (ii.)
He thinks some other religion better than Christianity.
(iii.) He places Christianity and other systems of religion
on an equality: Or, (iv.) He entertains an equal disregard
for the Christian system and all other modes of religion. The
first of these characters is not neutral, but becomes a third
party among the disputants. The second and the third dissent
entirely from the Christian Religion, the axioms of which
are, "that it is true, and that it alone is true:" for it is
not so accommodating as Paganism, it admits of no other
system to be its associate. Besides, the second of these
characters is an Atheist according to the Christian Religion,
one of the statutes of which, is, that "whosoever denieth
Christ the Son, the same hath not God the Father." (1 John
ii, 23.) Against the third party this sentence is pronounced:
"He that gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad." (Matt.
xii, 30.) The fourth is considered an Atheist by all mankind,
and is deemed a second and adverse party in that most general
kind of dissension which exists between true religion and its
adversaries.
(4.) Lastly. This discord is very long in its continuance and
almost incapable of reconciliation. For these traits in it,
two causes may, I think, be assigned, and both of them
deducible from the very nature of religion.
The first is, that since religion is both in reality a matter
that belongs to the Deity, and is so accounted by every one,
being subject to his sole pleasure and management, and exempt
from the jurisdiction of men; and since it has been bestowed,
that it may exercise authority as a rule for the direction of
life, and for prescribing some limits to liberty, and not
that it may be slavishly subservient to the wills of men,
like a Lesbian rule, which may be accommodated to every
condition; since these are some of the properties of
religion, man is not permitted to stipulate concerning it,
and scarcely any one has had the audacity to arrogate to
himself such an assumption of authority.
The other cause is, that the parties individually think, if
they concede even the smallest particle of the matter of
discord, such a concession is nearly connected with the peril
of their own salvation. But this is the genius of all
separatists, not to enter into any treaties of concord with
their adversaries, unless they be permitted to have life at
least, and liberty, secured to them inviolate. But every one
thinks, that his life, (that is, his spiritual life,) and the
liberty which is proper for that life, are included in
religion and its exercise.
To these a third cause may be added, which consists of the
opinion, that each party supposes life and eternal salvation
to be denied to them by their opponents, from this
circumstance, because those opponents disapprove of their
religion, and when it is compared with their own, they treat
it with the utmost contempt. This injury appears to be the
most grievous and aggravating. But every act of pacification
has its commencement in the oblivion of all injuries, and its
foundation in the omission of those injuries which (to an eye
that is jaundiced with such a prejudice as that which we have
just stated,) seem to be continued and perpetual grievances.
When the nature and tendency of this species of discord have
become quite apparent to worldly-minded Rulers, they have
often employed it, or at least the semblance of it, for the
purpose of involving their subjects in enmities, dissensions
and wars, in which they had themselves engaged for other
reasons. Having in this manner frequently implicated the
people committed to his charge, a prince has become at
pleasure prodigal of their property and their persons. These
were readily sacrificed by the people to the defense of the
ancient religion; but they were perverted by their rulers, to
obtain the fulfillment of their desires, which they would
never have procured, had they been deprived of such popular
assistance. The magnitude of the dissension induces the
willing parties cheerfully to make contributions of their
property to their prince; the multitude of the Dissidents
ensures their ability to contribute as much as may be
sufficient; and the obstinate spirit which is indigenous to
dissension, causes the parties never to grow weary of giving,
while they retain the ability.
We have now in some sort delineated the nature of this
discord or dissension, and have shewn that it is most
important in its bearings, most extensive in its range, and
most durable in its continuance.
2. Let us further see what have been, and what still are, the
Effects of an evil of such a magnitude, in this part of the
Christian world. We may, I think, refer the infinitude of
these effects to two chief kinds. The first kind is derived
from the force of the dissension on the Minds of men; and the
second kind has its commencement in the operation of the same
dissension on their Hearts and affections.
First. From the force of this dissension on the Minds of men,
arises, (1.) a degree of doubtful uncertainty respecting
religion. When the people perceive that there is scarcely any
article of Christian doctrine concerning which there are not
different and even contradictory opinions; that one party
calls that "horrid blasphemy" which another party has laid
down as a "complete summary of the truth;" that those points
which some professors consider the perfection of piety,
receive from others the contumelious appellation of "cursed
idolatry;" and that controversies of this description are
objects of warm discussion between men of learning,
respectability, experience and great renown. When all these
things are perceived by the people, and when they do not
observe any discrepancy in the life and manners of the
opposite disputants, sufficiently great to induce them to
believe that God vouchsafes assistance by "the spirit of his
truth," to one of these parties, in preference to the other,
on account of any superior sanctity, they begin then to
indulge in the imagination, that they may esteem the
principles of religion alike obscure and uncertain.
(2.) If an intense desire to institute an inquiry into some
subject shall succeed this dubious uncertainty about
religion, its warmth will abate and become cool, as soon as
serious difficulties arise in the search, and an utter
despair of being able to discern the truth will be the
consequence. For what simple person can hope to discover the
truth, when he understands that a dispute exists about its
very principles -- whether they be contained in the
scriptures alone, or in traditions not committed to writing?
What hope can he entertain when he sees that, question often
arises concerning the translation of some passage of
scripture, which can be solved only by a knowledge of the
Hebrew and Greek languages? How can he hope to find out the
truth, when he remarks, that the opinions of learned men, who
have written on religious subjects, are not unfrequently
quoted in the place of evidence -- while he is ignorant of
all languages except that of the country in which he was
born, is destitute of all other books, and possesses only a
copy of the scriptures translated into the vernacular
language? How can such a person be prevented from forming an
opinion, that nothing like certainty respecting the chief
doctrines of religion can be evident to any one, except that
man who is well skilled in the two sacred languages, has a
perfect knowledge of all traditions, has perused with the
closest attention the writings of all the great Doctors of
the Church, and has thoroughly instructed himself in the
sentiments which they held respecting each single principle
of religion?
(3.) But what follows this despair? Either a most perverse
opinion concerning all religion, an entire rejection of every
species of it, or Atheism. These produce Epicurism, a still
more pestilent fruit of that ill-fated tree. For when the
mind of man is in despair about discovering the truth, and
yet is unable to throw aside at the first impulse all care
concerning religion and personal salvation, it is compelled
to devise a cunning charm for appeasing conscience: (i.) The
human mind in such a state will either conclude, that it is
not only unnecessary for common people to understand the
axioms of religion , and to be well assured of what they
believe; but that the attainment of these objects is a duty
incumbent on the clergy alone, to the faith of whom, as of
"them that must give account" to God for the salvation of
souls, (Heb. xiii, 17,) it is quite sufficient for the people
to signify their assent by a blind concurrence in it. The
clergy also themselves, with a view to their own advantage,
not unfrequently discourage all attempts, on the part of the
people, to gain such a knowledge of religion and such an
assured belief. (ii.) Or the mind in such circumstances will
persuade itself, that all worship paid to God, with the good
intention of a devout mind, is pleasing to him; and therefore
under every form of religion, (provided such good intention
be conscientiously observed,) a man may be saved, and all
sects are to be considered as placed in a condition of
equality. The men who have imbibed such notions as these,
which point out an easy mode of pacifying the conscience, and
one that in their opinion is neither troublesome nor
dangerous -- these men not only desert all study of divine
things themselves, but lay folly to the charge of that person
who institutes a labourious inquiry and search for that which
they imagine can never be discovered, as though he purposely
sought something on which his insanity might riot.
But not less steep and precipitous is the descent from this
state of despair to absolute Atheism. For since these persons
despair of offering to the Deity the adoration of true
religion, they think they may abstain from all acts of
worship to him without incurring any greater harm or
punishment; because God considers no worship agreeable to him
except that which he has prescribed, and he bestows a reward
on no other. The efficacy of this despair is increased by
their religion which seems to be interwoven with the natural
dispositions of some men, and which, eagerly seizing on every
excuse for sin, deceives itself, and veils its native
profaneness and want of reverence for the Deity under the
cloak of the grievous dissensions which have been introduced
about religion. But other two reasons may be adduced why
Religious differences are, in the Christian world, the
fruitful causes of Atheism. (i.) The first is, that by this
battering-ram of dissensions, the foundations of Divine
Providence, which constitute the basis of all Religion,
experience a violent concussion. When this thought enters the
mind, that "it appears to be the first duty of providence,
(if it actually have an existence,) to place her dearest
daughter, Religion, in such a luminous light, that she may
stand manifest and apparent to the view of all who do not
willingly drag their eyes out of their sockets." (ii.) The
other is, that when men are not favoured with Christian
prophecy, which comprises religious instruction, and are
destitute of the exercise of Divine worship, they first
almost imperceptibly slide into ignorance and into the
complete disuse of all worship, and afterwards prolapse into
open impiety. But it has not unfrequently been the case, that
men have suffered themselves to be deprived of these
blessings, sometimes by the prohibition of their own
consciences, and sometimes by those of others. (i.) By the
prohibition of their own consciences, when they do not think
it lawful for them to be present at the public sermons and
other religious ordinances of a party that is adverse to
them. (ii.) By that of the consciences of others, when the
prevailing party forbid their weaker opponents to assemble
together as a congregation, to hear what they account most
excellent truths, and to perform their devotions with such
rites and ceremonies as are agreeable to themselves. In this
manner, therefore, even conscience, when resting on the
foundation of religion, becomes the agent of impiety, where
discord reigns in a religious community. From Atheism, as a
root, Epicurism buds forth, which dissolves all the ties of
morality, is ruinous to it, and causes it to degenerate into
licentiousness. All this, Epicurism effects, by previously
breaking down the barriers of the fear of God, which alone
restrain men within the bounds of their duty.
Secondly. All these evils proceed from religious dissension
when its operation is efficacious on the Mind. Most sincerely
do I wish that it would remain there, content itself with
displaying its insolence in the hall of the mind where
discord has its proper abode, and would not attack the
Affections of the Heart. But, vain is my wish! For so
extensively does it pervade the heart and subdue all its
affections, that it abuses at pleasure the slaves that act as
assistants.
1. For since all similarity in manners, studies and opinions,
possesses very great power in conciliating love and regard;
and since any want of resemblance in these particulars is of
great potency in engendering hatred, it often happens that
from religious dissension arise Enmities more deadly than
that hatred which Vatinius conceived against Cicero, and such
exasperations of heart as are utterly irreconcilable. When
religious discord makes its appearance, even amongst men the
most illustrious in name and of the greatest celebrity, who
had been previously bound together and united among
themselves by a thousand tender ties of nature and affection,
they instantly renounce, one against another, all tokens of
friendship, and burst asunder the strictest bands of amity.
This is signified by Christ, when he says, "I came not to
send peace on earth, but a sword. For I am come to set a man
at variance against his father, and the daughter against her
mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matt.
x, 31-36.) These words do not indicate the end and purpose of
the coming of Christ, but an event which would succeed his
coming; because he was then about to introduce into the world
a religion which differed greatly from that which was
publicly established, and concerning which many dissensions
would afterwards arise, through the vicious corruption of
mankind.
This dissimilarity was the origin of the rancor of the Jews
against the Samaritans, which displayed itself in not
allowing themselves to derive any benefit from the services
of the Samaritans, even in matters that were necessary for
their own convenience. It was the existence of this feeling
which caused the woman of Samaria to wonder, concerning
Jesus, "how he, who was a Jew, could ask drink of her, a
Samaritan woman." (John iv, 9.) Indeed, it is the utmost
stretch of hatred, to be unwilling to derive any advantage
from another person that is an enemy.
2. Enmities and dissensions of the heart and affections
branch out and become Schisms, factions and secessions into
different parties. For as love is an affection of union, so
is hatred an affection of separation. Thus synagogues are
erected, consecrated and thronged with people, in opposition
to other synagogues, churches against churches, and alters
against altars, when neither party wishes to have intercourse
with the other. This also is the reason why we frequently
hear expressions, entirely similar to those which were
clamorously echoed through the assembled multitude of the
Children of Israel when they were separating into parties,
"To your tents, O Israel! for our adversaries have no portion
in God, nor any inheritance in his Son Christ Jesus." (1
Kings xii, 16.) For both factions equally appropriate to
themselves the renowned name of "the true Israel," which they
severally deny to their adversaries, in such a peremptory
manner as might induce one to imagine each of them
exclusively endowed with a plenary power of passing judgment
upon the other, and as though it had been previously
concluded, that the name of ISRAEL, by which God accosts in a
most gracious manner the whole of his Church, cannot encircle
within its embrace those who differ in any point from the
rest of their brethren.
3. But the irritation of inflamed hearts does not prescribe a
boundary to itself in schism alone. For if it happen, that
one party considers itself the more powerful, it will not be
afraid of instituting Persecutions against the party opposed
to it, and of attempting its entire extermination. In
effecting this, it spares no injury, which either human
ingenuity can devise, the most notable fury can dictate, or
even the office of the infernal regions can supply. Rage is
excited and cruelty exercised against the reputation, the
property, and the persons of the living; against the ashes,
the sepulchers, and the memory of the dead; and against the
souls both of the living and the dead. Those who differ from
the stronger party are attacked with all kinds of weapons;
with cruel mockings, calumnies, execrations, curses,
excommunications, anathemas, degrading and scandalous libels,
prisons and instruments of torture. They are banished to
distant or uninhabited islands, condemned to the mines,
prohibited from having any communication with their fellow-
creatures by land or sea, and excluded from a sight of either
heaven or earth. They are tormented by water, fire and the
sword, on crosses and stakes, on wheels of torture and
gibbets, and by the claws of wild beasts, without any
measure, bounds or end, until the party thus oppressed have
been destroyed, or have submitted themselves to the pleasure
of the more powerful, by rejecting with abjurations the
sentiments which they formerly held, and by embracing with
apparent devotion those of which they had previously
disapproved; that is, by destroying themselves through the
hypocritical profession which had been extolled from them by
violence. Call to mind how the Heathens persecuted the
Christians; and the persecuting conduct of the Aryans against
the orthodox, of the worshippers of images against the
destroyers of images, and vice versa. That we may wander to
no great distance let us look at what has occurred within the
period of our recollection and that of our fathers, in Spain,
Portugal, France, England, and the Low Countries; and we
shall confess with tears, that these remarks are lamentably
too true.
4. But if it happen that the contending parties are nearly
equal in power, or that one of them has been long oppressed,
wearied out by persecutions, and inflamed with a desire for
liberty, after having had their patience converted into fury,
(as it is called,) or rather into just indignation, and if
the pressed party assume courage, summon all its strength,
and collect its forces, then most mighty wars arise,
grievances are repeated, after a flourish of trumpets the
herald's hostile spear is sent forth in defiance, war is
proclaimed, the opposing armies charge each other, and the
struggle is conducted in a most bloody and barbarous manner.
Both the belligerents observe a profound silence about
entering into negotiations for peace, lest that party which
first suggests such a course, should, from that very
circumstance, create a prejudice against its own cause and
make it appear the weaker of the two and the more unjust.
Nay, the strife is carried on with such willful obstinacy,
that he can scarcely be endured who for a moment suspends
their mutual animosities by a mention of peace, unless he
have placed a halter around his neck, and be prepared to be
suspended by it on a gibbet, in case his discourse on this
topic happens to displease. For such a lover of peace would
be stigmatized as a deserter from the common cause, and
considered guilty of heresy, a favourer of heretics, an
apostate and a traitor.
Indeed, all these Enmities, Schisms, Persecutions and Wars,
are commenced, carried on, and conducted with the greater
animosity, on account of every one considering his adversary
as the most infectious and pestilent fellow in the whole
Christian world, a public incendiary, a murderer of souls, an
enemy of God, and a servant of the devil -- as a person who
deserves to be suddenly smitten and consumed by fire
descending from heaven -- and as one, whom it is not only
lawful to hate, to curse and to murder without incurring any
guilt, but whom it is also highly proper to treat in that
manner, and to be entitled to no slight commendation for such
a service, because no other work appears in his eyes to be
more acceptable to God, of greater utility in the salvation
of man, more odious to Satan, or more pernicious to his
kingdom. Such a sanguinary zealot professes to be invited,
instigated and constrained to deeds like these, by a zeal for
the house of God, for the salvation of men, and for the
divine glory. This conduct of violent partizans is what was
predicted by the Judge and the Master of our religion: "When
they shall persecute you and kill you for my sake, they will
think that they do God service." (John xvi, 2.) When the very
conscience, therefore, arouses, assists and defends the
affections, no obstacle can offer a successful resistance to
their impetuosity. Thus we see, that religion itself, through
the vicious corruption of men, has been made a cause of
dissension, and has become the field in which they may
perpetually exercise themselves in cruel and bloody contests.
If, in addition to these things, some individual arrogate to
himself, and, with the consent of a great multitude, usurp
authority to prescribe laws with respect to religion, to
strike with the thunderbolt of excommunication whomsoever he
pleases, to dethrone kings, to absolve subjects from their
oaths of allegiance and fidelity, to arm them against their
lawful rulers, to transfer the right over the dominions of
one prince to others who are his sworn confederates, or to
such as are prepared to seize upon them in the first
instance, to pardon crimes however great their enormity may
be, and whether already perpetrated or to be hereafter
committed, and to canonize ruffians and assassins -- the mere
nod of such a man as is here described, must be instantly
obeyed with blind submission, as if it were the command of
God. Blessed God! what a quantity of most inflammable matter
is thus thrown upon the fire of enmities, persecutions and
wars. What an Iliad of disasters is thus introduced into the
Christian world! It is, therefore, not without just reason
that a man may exclaim, "Is it possible, that Religion can
have persuaded men to introduce this great mass of evils?"
But all the ills which we have enumerated do not only proceed
from real dissensions, in which some fundamental truth is the
subject of discussion, but also from those which are
imaginary, when things affect the mind not as they are in
reality, but according to their appearances. I call these
imaginary dissensions. (i.) Either, because they exist among
parties that have only a fabulous religion, which is at as
great a distance from the true one, as the heaven is distant
from the earth, or as the followers of such a phantom are
from God himself. Differences of this description are found
among the Mahomedans, some parties of whom, (as the Turks,)
follow the interpretation of Omar; while others, (as the
Persians,) are proselytes to the commentaries of Ali. (ii.)
Or, because the discordant parties believe these imaginary
differences to be in the substance of the true doctrine, when
they have it in no existence whatever. Of such a difference
Victor, the Bishop of Rome, afforded an instance, when he
wished to excommunicate all the Eastern Churches, because
they dissented from him in the proper time of celebrating the
Christian festival of Easter.
But, to close this part of my discourse, the very summit and
conclusion of all the evils which arise from religious
discord, is, the destruction of that very religion about
which all the controversy has been raised. Indeed, religion
experiences almost the same fate, as the young lady mentioned
by Plutarch, who was addressed by a number of suitors; and
when each of them found that she could not become entirely
his own, they divided her body into parts, and thus not one
of them obtained possession of her whole person. This is the
nature of discord, to disperse and destroy matters of the
greatest consequence. Of this a very mournful example is
exhibited to us in certain extensive dominions and large
kingdoms, the inhabitants of which were formerly among the
most flourishing professors of the Christian Religion; but
the present inhabitants of those countries have
unchristianized themselves by embracing Mahomedanism -- a
system which derived its origin, and had its chief means of
increase, from the dissensions which arose between the Jews
and the Christians, and from the disputes into which the
Orthodox entered with the Sabellians, the Aryans, the
Nestorians, the Eutychians, and with the Monothelites.
II. Let us proceed to contemplate the Causes of this
Dissention. Philosophers generally divide causes, into those
which directly and of themselves produce an effect, and into
those which indirectly and by accident contribute to the same
purpose. The consideration of each of these classes will
facilitate our present inquiries.
1. The accidental cause of this dissension is (1.) the very
nature of the Christian religion, which not only transcends
the human mind and its affections or passions, but appears to
be altogether contrary to both it and to them. (i.) For the
Christian Religion has its foundation in the Cross of Christ;
and it holds forth this humbling truth, "JESUS THE CRUCIFIED,
IS THE saviour OF THE WORLD," as an axiom most worthy of all
acceptation. For this reason also, the word of which this
religion is composed, is termed "the doctrine of the cross."
(1 Cor. i, 18.) But what can appear to the mind more absurd
or foolish, than for a crucified and dead person to be
accounted the saviour of the world, and for men to believe
that salvation centers in the cross? On this account the
Apostle declares in the same passage, that the doctrine of
the cross, [or, the preaching of Christ Crucified,] is unto
the Jews a stumbling-block and unto the Greeks foolishness.
(ii.) What is more opposed to the human affections than "for
a man to hate and deny himself, to despise the world and the
things that are in the world, and to mortify the flesh with
the affections and lusts?" Yet this is another axiom of the
Christian Religion, to which he who does not give a cheerful
assent in mind, in will and in deed, is excluded from the
discipleship of Christ Jesus. This indispensable requisite is
the cause why he who is alienated in mind from the Christian
Religion, does not yield a ready compliance with these its
demands; and why he who has enrolled his name with Christ,
and who is too weak and pusillanimous to inflict every
species of violence on his nature, invents certain fictions,
by which he attempts to soften and mitigate a sentence, the
exact fulfillment of which fills him with horror. From these
circumstances, after men have turned aside from purity of
doctrine, dissensions are excited against religion and its
firm and constant professors.
(2.) In the scriptures, as in the only authentic document,
the Christian Religion is at present registered and sealed;
yet even they are seized upon as an occasion of error and
dissension, when, as the Apostle Peter says, "the unlearned
and unstable wrest them unto their own destruction," because
they contain "some things hard to be understood." (2 Pet.
iii, 16.) The figurative expressions and ambiguous sentences,
which occur in certain parts of the scriptures, are
undesignedly forced to conduce to the adulteration of the
truth among those persons, "who have not their senses
exercised" in them.
2. But omitting any further notice of these matters, let us
take into our consideration the proper causes of this
dissension: (1.) In the front of these, Satan appears, that
most bitter enemy of truth and peace, and the most wily
disseminator of falsehood and dissension, who acts as leader
of the hostile band. Envying the glory of God and the
salvation of man, and attentively looking out on all
occasions, he marks every movement; and whenever an
opportunity occurs, during the Lord's seed time, he sows the
tares of heresies and schisms among the wheat. From such a
malignant and surreptitious mode of sowing while men are
sleeping, (Matt. xiii, 23,) he often obtains a most abundant
harvest. (2.) Man himself follows next in this destructive
train, and is easily induced to perform any service for
Satan, however pernicious its operation may prove to his own
destruction; and that most subtle enemy, the serpent, finds
in man several instruments most appropriately fitted for the
completion of his purposes.
First. The mind of man is the first in subserviency to Satan,
both with regard to its blindness and its vanity. First. The
Blindness of the mind is of two kinds, the one a native
blindness, the other accidental. The former of these grows up
with us even from the birth: our very origin is tainted with
the infection of the primitive offense of the Old Adam, who
turned away from God the Great Source of all his light. This
blindness has so fascinated our eyes, as to make us appear
like owls that become dim-sighted when the light of truth is
seen. Yet this truth is not hidden in a deep well; but though
it is placed in the heavens, we cannot perceive it, even when
its beams are clearly shining upon us from above. The latter
is an accidental and acquired blindness, which man has chosen
for himself to obscure the few beams of light which remain
him. "The God of this world hath blinded the minds of them
which believe not; lest the light of the glorious gospel of
Christ should shine unto them." (2 Cor. iv, 4.) God himself,
the just punisher of those who hate the truth, has inflicted
on them this blindness, by giving efficacy to error. This is
the cause why the veil that remains upon the mind, operates
as a preventive and obstructs the view of the gospel; (2 Cor.
3,) and why he on whom the truth has shone in vain, "believes
a lie." (2 Thess. ii, 11.) But assent to a falsehood is a
dissent and separation from those who are the assertors of
truth. Secondly. The vanity of the mind succeeds its
blindness, and is prone to turn aside from the path of true
religion, in which no one can continue to walk except by a
firm and invariable purpose of heart. This vanity is also
inclined to invent to itself such a Deity as may be most
agreeable to its own vain nature, and to fabricate a mode of
worship that may be thought to please that fictitious Deity.
Each of these ways constitutes a departure from the unity of
true religion, on deserting which men rush heedlessly into
dissensions.
Secondly. But the affections of the mind are, of all others,
the most faithful and trusty in the assistance which they
afford to Satan, and conduct themselves like abject slaves
devoted to his service; although it must be acknowledged that
they are frequently brought thus to act, under a false
conception that they are by such deeds promoting their own
welfare and rendering good service to God himself. Love and
Hatred, the two chief affections, and the fruitful parents
and instigators of all the rest, occupy the first, second,
third, and indeed all the places, in this slavish employment.
Each of them is of a three-fold character, that nothing might
be wanting which could contribute to the perfection of their
number.
The Former of them consists of the love of glory, of riches,
and of pleasures, which the disciple whom Jesus loved, thus
designates, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes,
and the pride of life." (1 John ii, 16.) The Latter consists
of hatred to the truth, to peace, and to the professors of
the truth.
(i.) Pride, then, that most prolific mother of dissensions in
religion, produces its fetid offspring in three different
ways: For, First, either it "exalteth itself against the
knowledge of God," (2 Cor. x, 5,) and does not suffer itself
to be brought into captivity by the truth to obey God, being
impatient of the yoke which is imposed by Christ, though it
is both easy and light. Pride says in reality, "Let us break
their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."
(Psalm ii, 3.) From this baneful source arose the sedition
of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who arrogantly claimed for
themselves a share in the priesthood, which God had given
exclusively to Aaron. (Num. 16.) Or, Secondly, it loveth to
have the pre-eminence in the Church of God, and "to have
dominion over another's faith;" the very crime of which St.
John accuses Diotrephes, when he complains that "neither doth
he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that
would, and casteth them out of the Church." (3 John 9, 10.)
Or, Lastly, having usurped an impotent sovereignty over the
souls of men by appointing and altering at its pleasure the
laws concerning Religion, and over the bodies of men by
employing menaces and force to bring into subjection to it
the consciences of men, it compels those churches which
cannot with a safe conscience bear this most iniquitous
tyranny, to depart from the rest and to assume to themselves
the management of their own affairs. The Greek Church
declared itself to be influenced by this cause, in refusing
to hold communion with the Latin Church, because the Roman
Pontiff had, in opposition to all right and law, and in
defiance of the rule of Christ and of the decrees of the
Fathers, "arrogated to himself a plenitude of power." From
the same fountain has flowed that immense schism which in
this age distracts and divides all Europe. This has been ably
manifested to the whole world by the just complaints and
allegations of Protestant States and Protestant Princes.
But envy, anger, and an eager desire to know all things, are
other three darts, which Pride hurls against concord in
religion. For, first, if any one excels his fellows in the
knowledge of divine things, and in holiness of life, and if
by these means he advances in favour and authority with the
people, pride immediately injects envy into the minds of some
persons, which contaminates all that is fair and lovely;
asperses and defiles whatever is pure; obscures, by vile
calumnies, either his course of life or the doctrines which
he professes; puts a wrong construction, by means of a
malevolent interpretation, on what was well intended and
correctly expressed by him; commences disputes with him who
is thus high in public estimation; and endeavours to lay the
foundations of its own praise on the mass of ignominy which
it heaps upon his name and reputation. If by such actions as
these it cannot obtain for itself a situation equal to its
desires, it then invents new dogmas and draws away the people
after it; that it may enjoy such a dignity, among some
individuals who have separated from the rest of the body,
which it was impossible for it to obtain from the whole while
they lived together in concord and harmony. Secondly. Pride
is also the parent of anger, which may stimulate any one to
revenge, if he think himself injured even in the slightest
degree by a professor of the truth. Such a person reckons
scarcely any injury better suited to his purpose or more
pernicious to the affairs of his adversary, than to speak
contumeliously and in disparagement of his sentiments, and
publicly to proclaim him a Heretic -- than which no term can
be more opprobrious or an object of greater hatred among
mortals. Because, as this crime does not consist of deeds,
but of sentiments, the aspersions cast upon them cannot be so
completely washed away as to leave no stains adhering to
them, or as to create a possibility at least for the
calumniator to remove from himself by some evasive subterfuge
the infamy which attaches itself to him who is an utterer of
slanders. The third weapon which pride employs in this
warfare, is a passionate desire to explore and know all
things. This passion leaves no subject untouched, that its
learning may be displayed to advantage; and, (not to lose the
reward of its labour,) it obtrusively palms upon others as
things necessary to be known, those matters which, by means
of great exertion, it seems to have drawn out from behind the
darkness of ignorance, and accompanies all its remarks by
great boldness of assertion. From such a disposition and
conduct as this, offenses. and schisms must arise in the
Church.
(ii.) Avarice, likewise, or, the love of money, which is
termed by the Apostle, "the root of all evil," (1 Tim. vi,
10,) brings its hostile standard into this embattled field.
For, since the doctrine of truth is not a source of profit,
when those who have faithfully taught it are succeeded by
unbelieving teachers, "who are ravening wolves, and suppose
gain to be godliness," the latter effect a great change in
it, (1.) either by "binding heavy burdens, and grievous to be
borne, and laying them on the shoulders of the disciples,"
(Matt. xxiii, 4,) for whose redemption votive offerings may
be daily made; (2.) by inventing profitable plans for
expiating sins; or, lastly, by preaching, in soft and
complimentary language, such things as are agreeable to the
ears of the people, for the purpose of gaining their favour,
which, according to the expression of the Apostle, is a
"corrupting of the word of God," or making a gain of it. (2
Cor. ii, 17.) From these causes dissensions have often
arisen; (1.) either when the faithful teachers that are in
the church, or those whom God raises up for the salvation of
his people, marshal themselves in opposition to the doctrine
which is prepared for the sake of profit; or, (2.) when the
people themselves, growing weary of impositions and rapine,
become seceders from these pastors, by uniting themselves
with such as are really better, or by receiving those as
their substitutes who are in their estimation better. This
was the torch of dissension between the Pharisees and Christ,
who opposed their avarice and came to loose all those
grievous burdens. This was also the primary consideration by
which Luther was excited to obstruct the sale of Popish
indulgencies; and from that small beginning, he gradually
proceeded to reforms of greater importance.
(iii.) Nor only that Pleasure or "lust of the flesh," which
specially comes under this denomination, and which denotes a
feeling or disposition for carnal things, takes its part in
the performance of this tragedy, but that also which in a
general sense contains a desire to commit sin without any
remorse of conscience: and both these kinds of pleasure most
assiduously employ themselves in collecting inflammable
materials for augmenting the flame of discord in religion.
For this passion or affection, having had some experience in
the important "doctrine of the cross," desires as the very
summit of all its wishes, both to riot, while here, in the
pleasures of voluptuousness, and yet to cherish some hopes of
obtaining the happiness of heaven. With two such incompatible
objects in view this passion chooses teachers for itself, who
may in an easy manner "place under the arm-holes of their
disciples, pillows sewed and filled with soft feathers,"
(Ezek. xiii, 18,) on which they may recline themselves and
take sweet repose, although their sins, like sharply pointed
thorns, continue to sting and molest them in every direction.
They flatter them with the idea of easily obtaining pardon,
provided they purchase the favour of the Deity, by means of
certain exercises apparently of some importance, but
possessing in reality no consequence whatever, and by means
of great donations with which they may fill his sanctuary.
This is the complaint of the Apostle, who, when writing to
Timothy, says, "For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they
heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they
shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be
turned unto fables." To this is subjoined an admonition, that
Timothy should watch and discharge with fidelity the duties
of his ministry. (2 Tim. iv, 3-5). According to this
quotation, a difference must of necessity exist between
Timothy and those teachers.
But these three capital vices are serviceable to Satan, their
author, in another way, and contribute under his direction to
introduce changes in religion, and, consequently, to excite
discord among Christians. In both sacred and profane history,
egregious examples are recorded of princes and private men,
who, being instigated by such a desire of power as partook at
once of ambition and avarice, have invented new modes of
religion, and accommodated them to the capacities, the
wishes, and the opinions of their people; by means of which
they might either restrain their own subjects within the
bounds of their duty, or might subdue to their way the people
that were under the rule of other princes. Ambition and
avarice suggest to such aspiring persons the desire of
inventing those modes of religious worship; while an itching
for novelty, a wish to enjoy their pleasures, and the obvious
agreement of the new doctrine with their preconceived
opinions, influence the people to embrace the modish
religion. With these intentions, and under the impulse of
these views, Jeroboam was the first author of a change of
religion in the Israelitish Church. He built altars in Dan
and Bethel, and made golden calves, that he might prevent the
people from proceeding at stated periods to Jerusalem, for
the purpose of offering sacrifice, according to the command
of God, and from returning to the house of David, from which
they had rent themselves. The same reasons also induced
Mahomet to invent a new religion. By his frequent intercourse
with Jews and Christian, he had learned from both parties
those things which were most agreeable to them; he therefore
adopted the very crafty counsel of Sergius, the monk, and
devised a new mode of religion, which was gratifying to the
human senses, and which, as it was digested in his Alcoran,
he persuaded many people to embrace. The few individuals with
whom he was able to prevail, were the foundation from which
arose the immense Ottoman empire, and those extensive
dominions which are to the present time in possession of the
Turks.
2. We have now seen in what manner the love of glory, of
riches, and pleasure, performs its several parts in this
theater of religious dissensions. Let Hatred next appear and
exhibit to us its actions, which, from the very nature of the
cause, have a proper and direct tendency to excite discord.
(1.) The first of its actors that appears upon the stage, is
a hatred of the truth, and of true doctrine. This species of
hatred is conceived, partly from an anticipated notion of the
mind, which, since it cannot be reconciled to the doctrine of
truth, and yet is with difficulty drawn away from it, excites
hatred against a sentiment that is opposed to itself. It is
also partly conceived, because the true doctrine becomes the
accuser of man, forbidding those things which are the objects
of his desires, and commanding those things which he is most
reluctant to perform. While it urges its precepts so rigidly,
that every one who does not seriously regulate and conform
his life to the conditions which they contain, is excluded
from all hope of salvation.
(2.) The next in order, is the hatred of peace and concord.
For there are men of a certain description who cannot exist
without having an enemy, which Trogus Pompeius declares to
have been a trait in the character of the ancient Spaniards.
To such persons concord or amity is so offensive, that, out
of pure hatred to it, they willingly expose themselves to the
enmity of others. If such characters happen to obtain a
station of some honour in the Church, it is amazing what
scruples and difficulties they will not raise, what intricate
sophisms they will not frame and contrive, and what
accusations they will not institute, that they may have an
opportunity of raising a contest about the articles of
religion, from which proceed private enmity and rancor that
can never be appeased, and dissensions of a more deadly kind
than the greatest of those which relate to the present life.
(3.) The last which comes forward, is a hatred against the
professors of the true doctrine, from which the descent is
very rapid downwards to a dissent from that doctrine which
those good men profess; because it is the anxious study of
every one that hates another, not to have anything in common
with his adversary. Of this the Arabians afford an example.
Out of hatred to Heraclius Cæsar, and to the stipendiary
Greek and Latin troops who served under him, they, who had
long before departed from them in will and affection,
effected a still more serious separation from them in
religion; for, although they had previously been professors
of Christianity, from that period they embraced the doctrines
of the Alcoran and became followers of Mahomet.
But the professors of the true doctrine incur this species of
hatred, either through some fault of their own, or through
the pure malice of men. (i.) They incur this hatred by their
own fault, if they do not administer the doctrine of the
truth, with that prudence and gentleness which are
appropriate to it; if they appear to have a greater regard
for their own advantage, than for the advancement of
religion, and, lastly, if their manner of life is in
opposition to the doctrine. From all these circumstances a
bad opinion is entertained of them, as though they scarcely
believed the principles which they inculcate. (ii.) This
hatred is also incurred by the fault of another, because the
delicate and lascivious hearts of men cannot bear to have
their ulcers sprinkled and purified by the sharp salt of
truth, and because they with difficulty admit any censors on
their life and manners. With a knowledge of this trait of the
human heart, the Apostle inquires, "Am I therefore become
your enemy, because I tell you the truth ," (Gal. iv, 16.)
For truth is almost invariably productive of hatred, while an
obsequious complaisance obtains friends as its reward.
3. The preceding appear to be the procuring causes of
dissensions in religion; and as long as their efficacy
endures, they tend to perpetuate these dissensions. There are
other causes that we may justly class among those which
perpetuate discord when once it has arisen, and which prevent
the restoration of peace and unity.
(1.) Among these perpetuating and preventing causes, the
first place is claimed for the various prejudices by which
the minds of the Dissidents are occupied, concerning our
adversaries and their opinions, concerning our parents and
ancestors, and the Church to which we belong, and, lastly,
concerning ourselves and our teachers.
(i.) The prejudice against our adversaries is, not that we
think them under the influence of Error, but under that of
pure malice, and because their minds have indulged their
humour in thus dissenting. This cuts off all hope of leading
them to adopt correct sentiments, and despair refuses to make
the attempt. (ii.) The prejudice against the opinions of our
adversary is, that we condemn them ourselves not only for
being false, but for having been already condemned by the
public judgment of the Church; we therefore consider them
unworthy of being again brought into controversy, and
subjected anew to examination. (iii.) But the preconceived
opinion which we have formed concerning our parents and
ancestors, is also a preventive of reconciliation, both
because we account them to have been possessed of such a
great share of wisdom and piety, as rendered it improbable
that they could ever have been guilty of error; and because
we conceive favourable hopes of their salvation, which is
very properly an object of our most earnest wishes in their
behalf. But these hopes we seem to call in question, if, in
an opinion opposed to theirs, we acknowledge any portion of
the truth appertaining to salvation, of which they have
either been ignorant or have disapproved. It is on this
principle that parents leave their posterity heirs as of
their property so also of their opinions and dissensions.
(iv.) Besides, the splendour of the Church, to which we have
bound ourselves by an oath, dazzles our eyes in such a manner
that we cannot suffer any persuasion whatever to induce us to
believe the possibility, in former times or at present, of
that church having deviated in any point from the right way.
(v.) Lastly. Our thoughts and sentiments concerning ourselves
and our teachers are so exalted, that our minds can scarcely
conceive it possible either for them to have been ignorant,
or not to have had a sufficiently clear perception of things,
or for us to err in judgment when we approve of their
opinions. So prone is the human understanding to exempt from
all suspicion of error itself and those whom it loves and
esteems!
(2.) It is no wonder if these prejudices produce a
pertinacity in eagerly defending a proposition once laid
down, which is a most powerful impediment to reconciliation.
Two kinds of fear render this pertinacity the more obstinate:
(i.) One is a fear of that disgrace which, we foolishly
think, will be incurred if we acknowledge ourselves to have
been at all in error. (ii.) The other is a fear which causes
us to think, that the whole doctrine is exposed to the utmost
peril, if we discover it even in one point to be erroneous.
(3.) In addition to these, the mode of action commonly
adopted both towards an adversary and his opinion, is no
small obstacle to reconciliation, although that mode may seem
to have been chosen for conciliatory purposes.
(i.) An adversary is treated in a perverse manner, when he is
overwhelmed by curses and reproaches, assailed with
detractions and calumnies, and when he is menaced with
threats of violence. If he despises all these things, which
is not an uncommon occurrence when "the testimony of his
conscience" is in opposition to them, (2 Cor. i, 19,) they
produce no effect whatever. But if his spirit broods over
them, his mind becomes disturbed, and, like one stricken by
the Furies, he is driven to madness, and is thus much worse
qualified than before to acknowledge his error. In both these
ways he is confirmed rather the more in his own opinion;
either because he perceives, that those who use arms of this
kind openly betray the weakness as well as the injustice of
their cause; or, because he draws this conclusion in his own
mind, that it is not very probable that those persons are
instructed by the Spirit of truth, who adopt such a course of
conduct.
(ii.) But contention is rashly instituted against the opinion
of an adversary, first, when it is not proposed according to
the mind and intention of him who is the assertor; Secondly,
when it is discussed beyond all due bounds, and its deformity
is unseasonably exaggerated; and, lastly, when its refutation
is attempted by arguments ill calculated to produce that
effect.
The first occurs when we do not attend to the words of an
adversary, with a becoming tranquillity of mind and suitable
patience; but immediately and at the mention of the first
word, we are accustomed to guess at his meaning. The second
arises from the circumstance of no one wishing it to appear
as if he had begun to contend about a thing of trifling
importance. The last proceeds from ignorance or from too
great impetuosity, which, on being precipitously impelled
into fury, augments its mischievous capabilities. It then
seizes upon anything for a weapon, and hurls it against the
adversary. When the first mode is adopted, the person whose
meaning is misrepresented, thinks that an opinion, not his
own, has been calumniously attributed to him. The second
course, according to his judgment, has been pursued for the
purpose of affixing an envious mark upon his opinion, and
upon the dignity which it has acquired. When the last is put
in practice, be considers his opinion to be incapable of
refutation, because he observes that it remains uninjured
amidst all the arguments which have been directed against it.
All and each of these add fuel to the flame of dissensions,
and render the blazing fire inextinguishable.
III. We have now considered the Nature, the Effects and the
Causes of religious dissension. It remains for us to inquire
into the Remedies for such a great evil. While I attempt this
in a brief manner, I beg that you will favour me with that
degree of attention which you have already manifested. The
professors of medicine describe the nature of all remedies
thus, "they are never used without some effect." For if they
be true remedies, they must prove beneficial; and, if they do
not profit, they prove hurtful. This latter circumstance
reminds me, that I ought first to remove certain corrupt
remedies which have been devised by some persons and
occasionally employed.
1. The first of these false remedies which obtrudes itself,
is the fable of the sufficiency of implicit faith, by which
people are called upon, without any knowledge of the matter,
to believe that which is an object of belief with the Church
and the Prelates. But the Scripture places righteousness "in
the faith of the heart," and salvation "in the confession of
the mouth;" (Rom. x, 10,) and says, "The just shall live by
his faith," (Heb. ii, 4,) and "I believe and therefore have
spoken." (2 Cor. iv, 13.) This monstrous absurdity is,
therefore, exploded by the scripture. Not only does this
fable take away all cause of religious dissension, but it
also destroys religion itself, which, when it is destitute of
Knowledge and Faith, can have no existence.
2. The next figment is nearly allied to this; it concludes,
that every one may be saved in his own religion. But while
this remedy professes to cure one evil, it produces another
much more hurtful and of greater magnitude; and that is, the
certain destruction of those who are held in bondage by this
error. Because this opinion renders the error incurable;
since no one will give himself any trouble to lay it aside or
to correct it. This was Mahomet's devise, for the purpose of
establishing his Alcoran free from all liability of its
becoming an object of dispute. The same doctrine obtained in
Paganism, where the worship of demons flourished, as is
evident from the title on a certain altar among the
Athenians, the high stewards of Pagan wisdom. That altar bore
the following inscription, "To The Gods of Asia, Europe, and
Africa; To The Unknown and Foreign Gods:" which was after the
manner of the Romans, at that period, "the masters of the
world," who were accustomed to invoke the tutelary deities of
an enemy's city before they commenced hostilities against it.
In this manner has Satan exerted himself, lest his "kingdom,
being divided against itself should fall."
3. The third false remedy is a prohibition of all
controversies respecting religion, which lays down the most
stupid ignorance for a foundation, and raises upon it the
superstructure of religious concord: In Russia, where such an
ordinance is in operation, this is obvious to every one that
contemplates its effects. Yet it is hurtful, whether it be
true religion that flourishes, or it be false. In the first
case, on account of the inconstancy of the human mind; and in
the second case, because it stamps perpetuity on error,
unless the preceding fiction concerning the equality of all
religions meet with approval, for on that foundation, Mahomet
raised this prohibition against religious controversies.
4. Next to this in absurdity is the advice, not to explain
the sacred Scriptures, but only to read them: which is not
only pernicious, on account of the omission of their
particular application, and repugnant to the usage both of
the ancient Jewish Church and of the primitive Church of
Christ; but it is also of no avail in the cure of the evil,
since any one might, by reading, discover the meaning for
himself, according to his own fancy; and that reading which
is instituted at the will of the reader, would act the part
of an explanation, on account of the parallelism of similar
and dissimilar passages.
But the Popish Church exhibits to us Three Remedies.
First, that, for the sake of certainty, we mall have recourse
to the Church Universal. However, since the whole of this
church cannot meet together, the court of Rome has appointed
in its place a representative assembly, consisting of the
Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops, and the rest of the
prelates who are devoted to the Roman See, and subject to the
Pontiff. But, in addition to this, because it believes that
it is possible for all the Cardinals, Bishops and Prelates to
err, even when united together in one body, and because it
considers the Pope alone to be placed beyond the possibility
of error, it declares that we must apply to him for the sake
of obtaining a decisive judgment concerning Religion. This
remedy is not only vain and inefficient, but it is far more
difficult to induce the rest of the Christian world to adopt
it than any controverted article in the whole circle of
religion: And since the Papists endeavour to prove this point
from the scriptures, by that very circumstance they declare
that the scriptures are the only sanctuary to which we can
repair for religious information.
Secondly. Their next remedy is proposed, if I may, be allowed
the expression, merely for the sake of form, and lies in the
writings and agreement of the ancient Fathers. But, since the
Christian Fathers have not all been authors, and few of those
who have written, have concerned themselves with
controversies, (which takes away from us the universal
consent of all of them together,) this remedy is also
useless, because it is a fact to the truth of which the
Papists themselves assent, that it was possible for each of
these Fathers to err. From this circumstance, therefore, we
conclude, that the consent of all of them is not free from
the risk of error, even if each had separately declared his
own individual opinion in his writings. Besides, this general
agreement is no easy matter; nay, it is to be obtained with
the greatest difficulty; because it is in the power of very
few persons, (if of any man whatever,) to make themselves
acquainted with such universal consent, both on account of
the bulky and almost innumerable volumes in which the
writings of the Fathers are contained, and because the
dispute among different parties is no less concerning the
meaning of those Fathers than concerning that of the
Scriptures, the contents of which are comprised in a book of
small size when compared with the dimensions of their massy
tomes. We are thus sent forth on an endless excursion, that
we may at length be compelled to return to the Sovereign
Pontiff.
Thirdly. The other remedy of the papists is not much
dissimilar to the preceding one. It is thus stated: The
decrees of former councils may be consulted; from which, if
it should appear that the controversy has been decided, the
judgment then passed upon it must stand in the place of a
definitive sentence: nor must any matter, the merits of which
have been once decided, be brought again into judgment. But
of what avail would this be, if a good cause had been badly
defended, and had been overpowered and borne down, not by any
defect in itself, but through the fault of those who were its
defenders, and who were either awed into silence through
fear, or betrayed their trust by an incompetent, foolish and
injudicious defense? And of what consequence does such a
remedy appear, if one and the same spirit of error have
conducted on such an occasion both the attack and the
defense. But grant that it has been fairly defended: Yet, I
declare that The Cause Of Religion, Which Is The Cause Of
God, Is Not An Affair To Be Submitted To Human Decision, or
to be judged of man's judgment."
The Papists add a Fourth remedy, which, on account of its
fierce and most violent efficacy, will not easily be
forgotten by us as a people who have been called to endure
some of its cruelties. It acts like the fulcrum of a lever
for confirming all the preceding suggestions, and is the
foundation of the whole composition. It is this: "Whosoever
refuses to listen to the councils and writings of the
fathers, and to receive them as explained by the Church of
Rome -- whosoever refuses to listen to the Church, and
especially to her husband, that High Priest and Prophet, the
vicar of Christ and the successor of St. Peter, let that soul
be cut off from among his people: And he who is unwilling to
yield to an authority so sacred, must be compelled, under the
sword of the executioner, to express his consent, or he must
be avoided," which, in their language, signifies that he must
be deprived of life. To murder and utterly to destroy the
adverse and gainsaying parties is indeed, a most compendious
method of removing all dissensions!
In the midst of these difficulties, some persons have
invented other remedies, which, since they are not within the
power of man, ought, according to their views, to be asked of
God in prayer.
1. One is, that God would be pleased to raise some one from
the dead, and send him to men: From such a messenger, they
might then hope to know what is God's decisive judgment
concerning the clashing opinions of the various dissidents.
But this remedy is discountenanced by Christ when he says,
"If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they
be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke xvi, 31.)
2. Another of these remedies is, that God would by a miracle
distinguish that party of whose sentiments he approves; which
appears to have been a practice in the times of Elijah. But
if no sect be entirely free from every particle of error, can
it be expected that God will set the seal of his approval on
any portion of falsity? But this wish is unnecessary, since
the things which Christ did and spoke "are written that we
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
that, believing, we might have life through his name." (John
xx, 31.) But the remedy itself, if applied, would prove to
be inefficacious. For even in the days of Christ and his
apostles, dissensions existed; and many of them were excited
against the primitive heralds of the gospel, although they
had acquired great renown by the benevolent exercise of the
miraculous powers with which they were endued. To this remark
I must add that the approaching advent of Antichrist is
predicted to be "with all power, and signs, and lying
wonders." (2 Thess. ii, 9.)
3. A third remedy, of a horrid description, remains to be
noticed, which, nevertheless, is resorted to by some persons.
It is an adjuration of the devil, to induce him by means of
incantations and exorcisms to deliver an answer, from the
bodies of deceased persons, concerning the truth of such
doctrines as are at any period the existing subjects of
controversy. This method is both a mark of the utmost
desperation, and an execrable and insane love of demons.
But, dismissing all these violent medicines, that are of a
bad character and import, I proceed to notice such as are
holy, true and saving; these I distribute into preparatives
and aphæretics or removers, of this dissension.
1. To the class of preparatives belong, (1.) in the first
place, Prayers and Supplications to God, that we may obtain a
knowledge of the truth, and that the peace of the Church may
be preserved: and these religious acts are to be performed,
at the special command of the magistrates, with fasting, and
in dust and ashes, with seriousness, in faith, and with
assiduity. These services, when thus performed, cannot fail
of being efficacious; because they are done according to the
ordinance of God, whose command it is, that "we pray for the
peace of Jerusalem," (Psalm cxxii, 6,) and according to the
promise of Christ, who has graciously engaged that "the
Spirit of truth shall be given to those who ask him." (Luke
xi, 13.)
(2.) Let a serious amendment of life and a conscientious
course of conduct be added: For, without these, all our
prayers are rendered ineffectual, because they are
displeasing to God, on the ground, that "he who misemploys
that portion of knowledge which he possesses, becomes, by his
own act, unworthy of all further communications and increase
of knowledge." This is in accordance with that saying of
Christ: "Unto every one that hath, shall be given; and from
him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken
away from him." (Luke xix, 26.) But to all those who employ
and improve the knowledge which is given to them, Christ
promises the spirit of discernment. in these words: "If any
man will do the will of my Father, he shall know of the
doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of
myself." (John viii, 17.)
2. But amongst the very first removals, let those causes be
put away which, as we have previously stated, have their
origin in the affections, and which are not only the
instigators of this dissension, but tend to perpetuate and
keep it alive. Let humility overcome pride; let a mind
contented with its condition become the successor of avarice;
let the love of celestial delights expel all carnal
pleasures; let good will and benevolence occupy the place of
envy; let patient forbearance subdue anger; let sobriety in
acquiring wisdom prescribe bounds to the desire of knowledge,
and let studious application take the place of learned
ignorance. Let all hatred and bitterness be laid aside; and,
on the contrary, "let us put on bowels of mercies" towards
those who differ from us, and who appear either to wander
about in the paths of error, or to scatter its noxious seeds
among others.
These necessary concessions we shall obtain from our minds
without much difficulty, if the following four considerations
become the objects of our sedulous attention:
First. How extremely difficult it is to discover the truth an
all subjects, and to avoid error. On this topic, St.
Augustine most beautifully descants, when he thus addresses
those worst of heretics, the Manichees: "Let those persons be
enraged against you, who are ignorant of the immense labour
that is required for the discovery of truth, and how
difficult it is to guard against error. Let those be enraged
against you who know not how uncommon a circumstance and how
arduous a toil it is to overcome carnal fantasies, when such
a conquest is put in comparison with serenity of mind. Let
those be enraged against you who are not aware of the great
difficulty with which the eye of "the inner man" is healed,
so as to be able to look up to God as the sun of the system.
Let those be enraged against you, who are personally
unconscious of the many sighs and groans which must be
uttered before we are capable of understanding God in the
slightest degree. And, lastly, let them be enraged against
you, who have never been deceived by an error of such a
description as that under which they see you labouring. But
how angry soever all these persons may be, I cannot be in the
least enraged against you, whose weaknesses it is my duty to
bear, as those who were near me at that period bore with
mine; and I ought now to treat you with as much patience as
that which was exercised towards me when, frantic and blind,
I went astray in the errors of your doctrine."
Secondly. That those who hold erroneous opinions have been
induced through ignorance to adopt them, is far more
probable, than that malice has influenced them to contrive a
method of consigning themselves and other people to eternal
destruction.
Thirdly. It is possible that they who entertain these
mistaken sentiments, are of the number of the elect, whom
God, it is true, may have permitted to fall, but only with
this design, that he may raise them up with the greater
glory. How then can we indulge ourselves in any harsh or
unmerciful resolutions against these persons, who have been
destined to possess the heavenly inheritance, who are our
brethren, the members of Christ, and not only the servants
but the sons of the Lord Most High?
Lastly. Let us place ourselves in the circumstances of an
adversary, and let him in return assume the character which
we sustain; since it is as possible for us, as it is for him,
to hold wrong principles. When we have made this experiment,
we may be brought to think, that the very person whom we had
previously thought to be in error, and whose mistakes in our
eyes had a destructive tendency, may perhaps have been given
to us by God, that out of his mouth we may learn the truth
which has hitherto been unknown to us.
To these four reflections, let there be added, a
consideration of all those articles of religion respecting
which there exists on both sides a perfect agreement. These
will perhaps be found to be so numerous and of such great
importance, that when a comparison is instituted between
them, and the others which may properly be made the subjects
of controversy, the latter will be found to be few in number
and of small consequence. This is the very method which a
certain famous prince in France is reported to have adopted,
when Cardinal Lorraine attempted to embroil the Lutherans, or
those who adhered to the Augustan Confession, with the French
Protestants, that he might interrupt and neutralize the
salutary provisions of the Conference at Poissy, which had
been instituted between the Protestants and the Papists.
But since it is customary after long and grievous wars, to
enter into a truce, or a cessation from hostilities, prior to
the conclusion of a treaty of peace and its final
ratification; and, since, during the continuance of a truce,
while every hostile attempt is laid aside, peaceful thoughts
are naturally suggested, till at length a general solicitude
is expressed with regard to the method in which a firm peace
and lasting reconciliation may best be effected; it is my
special wish, that there may now be among us a similar
cessation from the asperitics of religious warfare, and that
both parties would abstain from writings full of bitterness,
from sermons remarkable only for the invectives which they
contain, and from the unchristian practice of mutual
anathematizing and execration. Instead of these, let the
controversialists substitute writings full of moderation, in
which the matters of controversy may, without respect of
persons, be clearly explained and proved by cogent arguments:
Let such sermons be preached as are calculated to excite the
minds of the people to the love and study of truth, charity,
mercy, long-suffering, and concord; which may inflame the
minds both of Governors and people with a desire of
concluding a pacification, and may make them willing to carry
into effect such a remedy as is, of all others, the best
accommodated to remove dissensions.
That remedy is, an orderly and free convention of the parties
that differ from each other: In such an assembly, (called by
the Greeks a Synod and by the Latins a Council,) after the
different sentiments have been compared together, and the
various reasons of each have been weighed, in the fear of the
Lord, and with calmness and accuracy, let the members
deliberate, consult and determine what the word of God
declares concerning the matters in controversy, and
afterwards let them by common consent promulge and declare
the result to the Churches.
The Chief Magistrates, who profess the Christian religion,
will summon and convene this Synod, in virtue of the Supreme
official authority with which they are divinely invested, and
according to the practice that formerly prevailed in the
Jewish Church, and that was afterwards adopted by the
Christian Church and continued nearly to the nine hundredth
year after the birth of Christ, until the Roman Pontiff began
through tyranny to arrogate this authority to himself. Such
an arrangement is required by the public weal, which is never
committed with greater safety to the custody of any one than
to his whose private advantage is entirely unconnected, with
the issue.
But men endued with wisdom will be summoned to this Synod,
and will be admitted into it -- men who are well qualified
for a seat in it by the sanctity of their lives, and their
general experience -- men burning with zeal for God and for
the salvation of their mankind, and inflamed with the love of
truth and peace. Into such a choice assembly all those
persons will be admitted who are acknowledged for any
probable reason to possess the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit
of discernment between truth and falsehood, between good and
evil, and those who promise to abide by the Scriptures, that
have been inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Not only will
ecclesiastics be admitted, but also laymen, whether they be
entitled to any superiority on account of the dignity of the
office which they sustain, or whether they be persons in
private stations. Not only will the representatives of one
party, or of some parties, be admitted, but deputies from all
the parties that disagree, whether they have been defenders
of the conflicting opinions that are at issue, or whether
they have never publicly explained their own sentiments
either in discourse or by writing. But it is of the utmost
consequence, that this sentence should, after the manner of
Plato, be inscribed in letters of gold on the porch of the
building in which this sacred meeting holds its sittings:
"Let no one that is not desirous of promoting the interests
of truth and peace, enter this hallowed dome" It is my
sincere and earnest wish, that God would "place his angel
with a flaming two-edged sword at the entrance of this
paradise," in which Divine Truth and the lovely Concord of
the Church will be the subjects of discussion; and that he
would by his Angel drive away all those who might be animated
with a spirit averse to truth and concord, while the sacred
guardian repeats, in tones terrific and a voice of thunder,
the warning words used by the followers of Pythagoras and
Orpheus preparatory to the commencement of their sacred
rites:
Far, far from hence, ye multitude profane!
The situation and other circumstances of the town or city
appointed for holding such a Council, must not be neglected.
It should be so accommodated to the convenience of those who
have to assemble in it, that neither the difficulty of
approaching it, nor the length of the journey to it, should
operate as a hindrance on any of the members deputed. It
should be a place free from danger and violence, and secured
against all surprise and ambuscades, in order that those who
are summoned may come to it, remain in it, and return to
their homes, in perfect safety. To secure these benefits, it
will be necessary for a public pledge to be given to all the
members and solemnly observed.
In this council the subjects of discussion will not be, the
jurisdiction, honours, and rights of precedence on the part
of princes, the wealth, power and privileges of Bishops, the
commencement of war against the Turks, or any other political
matters. But its discussions will relate solely to those
things which pertain to Religion: Of this description are the
doctrines which concern faith and manners, and ecclesiastical
order. (1.) In these doctrines, there are two objects worthy
of consideration, which are indeed of the greatest
consequence: (i.) Their truth, and (ii.) The degree of
necessity which exists for knowing, believing and practicing
ecclesiastical order, because a good part of it is positive
and only requires to be accommodated to persons, places and
seasons, it will be easily dispatched.
The end of such a holy convention will be the illustration,
preservation, and propagation of the truth; the extirpation
of existing errors, and the concord of the Church. The
consequence of all which, will be the glory of God and the
eternal salvation of men.
The presidency of that assembly belongs to HIM ALONE who is
the Head and the Husband of the Church, to Christ by his Holy
Spirit. For he has promised to be present in a company that
may consist only of two or three individuals gathered
together in his name: His assistance, therefore, will be
earnestly implored at the beginning and end of each of their
sessions. But for the sake of order, moderation, and good
government, and to avoid confusion, it will be necessary to
have presidents subordinate to Christ Jesus. It is my sincere
wish that the magistrates would themselves undertake that
office in the Council; and this might be obtained from them
as a favour. But in case of their reluctance, either some
members deputed from their body, or some persons chosen by
the whole Synod, ought to act in that capacity. The duties of
these Presidents will consist in convening the assembly,
proposing the subjects of deliberation, putting questions to
the vote, collecting the suffrages of each member by means of
accredited secretaries, and in directing the whole of the
proceedings. The course of action to be adopted in the Synod
itself, is this; (1.) a regular and accurate debate on the
matters in controversy, (2.) mature consultation concerning
them, and (3.) complete liberty for every one to declare his
opinion. The rule to be observed in all these transactions is
the Word of God, recorded in the books of the Old and New
Testament. The power and influence which the most ancient
Councils ascribed to this sacred rule, were pointed out by
the significant action of placing a copy of the Gospels in
the first and most honourable seat in the assembly. On this
point the parties between whom the difference subsists,
should be mutually agreed. (1.) The debates will not be
conducted according to the rules of Rhetoric, but according
to Dialectics. But a logical and concise mode of reasoning
will be employed; and all precipitancy of speech and
extempore effusions will be avoided. To each of the parties
such an equal space of time will be allowed as may appear
necessary for due meditation: and, to avoid many
inconveniences and absurdities, every speech intended for
delivery will be comprised in writing, and will be recited
from the manuscript. No one shall be permitted to interrupt
or to close a disputation, unless, in the opinion of the
whole assembly, it appear that sufficient reasons have been
advanced to satisfy the subject under discussion. (2.) When a
disputation is finished, a grave and mature deliberation will
be instituted both concerning the controversies themselves
and the arguments employed by both sides; that, the limits of
the matter under dispute being laid down with great
strictness, and the amplitude of debate being contracted into
a very narrow compass, the question on which the assembly has
to decide and pronounce may be perceived as at one glance
with complete distinctness. (3.) To these will succeed, in
the proper course, a free declaration of opinion -- a right,
the benefit of which will belong equally to all that are
convened of each party, without excluding from it any of
those who though not invited, may have voluntarily come to
the town or city in which the Synod is convened, and who may
have been admitted into it by the consent of the members.
And since nothing to the present period has proved to be a
greater hindrance to the investigation of truth or to the
conclusion of an agreement, than this circumstance -- that
those who have been convened were so restricted and confined
to received opinions as to bring from home with them the
declaration which they were to make on every subject in the
Synod: it is, therefore, necessary that all the members
assembled, should, prior to the commencement of any
proceedings, take a solemn oath, not to indulge in
prevarication or calumny. By this oath they ought to promise
that every thing shall be transacted in the fear of the Lord,
and according to a good conscience; the latter of which
consists, in not asserting that which they consider to be
false, in not concealing that which they think to be the
truth, (how much soever such truth may be opposed to them and
their party,) and in not pressing upon others for absolute
certainties those points which seem, even to themselves, to
be doubtful. By this oath they should also promise that every
thing shall be conducted according to the rule of the word of
God, without favour or affection, and without any partiality
or respect of persons; that the whole of their attention in
that assembly shall be solely directed to promote an inquiry
after truth and to consolidate Christian concord; and that
they will acquiesce in the sentence of the Synod on all those
things of which they shall be convinced by the word of God.
On which account let them be absolved from all other oaths,
either immediately or indirectly contrary to this by which
they have been bound either to Churches and their
confessions, or to schools and their masters, or even to
princes themselves, with an exception in favour of the right
and jurisdiction which the latter have over their subjects.
Constituted after this manner, such a Synod will truly be a
free assembly, most suitable and appropriate for the
investigation of truth and the establishment of concord. This
is an opinion which is countenanced by St. Augustine, who,
expostulating with the Manichees, in continuation of the
passage which we have just quoted, proceeds thus: "But that
you may become milder and may be the more easily pacified, O
Manicheans, and that you may no longer place yourselves in
opposition to me, with a mind full of hostility which is most
pernicious to yourselves, it is my duty to request of you
(whoever he may be that shall judge betwixt us,) that all
arrogance be laid aside by both parties; and that none of us
say, that he has discovered the truth. But rather let us seek
it, as though it were unknown to each of us. For thus it will
be possible for each of us to be engaged in a diligent and
amicable search for it, if we have not by a premature and
rash presumption believed that it is an object which we had
previously discovered, and with which we are well
acquainted."
From a Synod thus constructed and managed, those who rely on
the promise of God may expect most abundant profit and the
greatest advantages. For, though Christ be provoked to anger
by our manifold trespasses and offenses, yet the thought must
not be once indulged, that his church will be neglected by
him; or, when his faithful servants and teachable disciples
are, with simplicity of heart, engaged in a search after
truth and peace, and are devoutly imploring the grace of his
Holy Spirit, that He will on any account suffer them to fall
into such errors as are opposed to truths accounted
fundamental, and to persevere in them when their tendency is
thus injurious. From the decisions of a Synod that is
influenced by such expectations, unanimity and agreement will
be obtained on all the doctrines, or at least on the
principal part of them, and especially on those which are
supported by clear testimonies from the Scriptures.
But if it should happen, that a mutual consent and agreement
cannot be obtained on some articles, then, it appears to me,
one of these two courses must be pursued. First. It must
become a matter of deep consideration, whether a fraternal
concord in Christ, cannot exist between the two parties, and
whether one cannot acknowledge the other for partakers of the
same faith and fellow-heirs of the same salvation, although
they may both hold different sentiments concerning the nature
of faith and the manner of salvation. If either party refuse
to extend to the other the right hand of fellowship, the
party so offending shall, by the unanimous declaration of all
the members, be commanded to prove from plain and obvious
passages of scripture, that the importance attached to the
controverted articles is so great as not to permit those who
dissent from them to be one in Christ Jesus. Secondly. After
having made every effort toward producing a Christian and
fraternal union, if they find that this cannot be effected,
in such a state of affairs the second plan must be adopted,
which indeed the conscience of no man can under any pretext
refuse. The right hand of friendship should be extended by
both parties, and all of them should enter into a solemn
engagement, by which they should bind themselves, as by oath,
and under the most sacred obligations, to abstain in future
from all bitterness, evil speaking, and railing; to preach
with gentleness and moderation, to the people entrusted to
their care, that truth which they deem necessary; and to
confute those falsities which they consider to be inimical to
salvation and injurious to the glory of God; and, while
engaged in such a confutation of error, (however great their
earnestness may be,) to let their zeal be under the direction
of knowledge and attempered with kindness. On him who shall
resolve to adopt a course of conduct different to this, let
the imprecations of an incensed God and his Christ be
invoked, and let the magistrates not only threaten him with
deserved punishment, but let it be actually inflicted.
But the Synod will not assume to itself the authority of
obtruding upon others, by force, those resolutions which may
have been passed by unanimous consent. For this reflection
should always suggest itself, "Though this Synod appears to
have done all things conscientiously, it is possible, that,
after all, it has committed an error in judgment. Such a
diffidence and moderation of mind will possess greater power,
and will have more influence, than any immoderate or
excessive rigor can have, on the consciences both of the
contumacious dissidents, and of the whole body of the
faithful; because, according to Lactantius, "To recommend
faith to others, we must make it the subject of persuasion,
and not of compulsion." Tertullian also says, "Nothing is
less a religious business than to employ coercion about
religion." For these disturbers will either then (1.) desist
from creating further trouble to the Church by the frequent,
unreasonable and outrageous inculcation of their opinions,
which, with all their powers of persuasion, they were not
able to prevail with such a numerous assembly of impartial
and moderate men to adopt. Or, (2.) being exposed to the just
indignation of all these individuals, they will scarcely find
a person willing to lend an ear to teachers of such a
refractory and obstinate disposition. If this should not
prove to be the result, then it must be concluded that there
are no remedies calculated to remove all evils; but those
must be employed which have in them the least peril. The mild
and affectionate expostulation of Christ our saviour, must
also live in our recollections. He addressed his disciples
and said, "Will ye also go away ," (John vi, 67.) We must use
the same interrogation; and must rest at that point and cease
from all ulterior measures.
My very famous, most polite and courteous hearers, these are
the remarks which have been impressed on my mind, and which I
have accounted it my duty at this time to declare concerning
the reconciliation of religious differences. The short time
usually allotted to the delivery of an address on this
occasion, and the defects of my own genius, have prevented me
from treating this subject according to its dignity and
amplitude.
May the God of truth and peace inspire the hearts of the
magistrates, the people and the ministers of religion, with
an ardent desire for truth and peace. May He exhibit before
their eyes, in all its naked deformity, the execrable and
polluting nature of dissension concerning religion; and may
He affect their hearts with a serious sense of these evils
which flow so copiously from it; that they may unite all
their prayers, counsels, endeavours, and desires, and may
direct them to one point, the removal of the causes of such a
great evil, the adoption of a mild and sanatory process, and
the application of gentle remedies for healing this
dissension, which are the only description of medicines of
which the very weak and sickly condition of the body of the
Church, and the nature of the malady, will admit. "The God of
peace," who dignifies "the peace makers" alone with the ample
title of "children,"(Matt. v, 9,) has called us to the
practice of peace. Christ, "the Prince of peace," who by his
precious blood, procured peace for us, has bequeathed and
recommended it to us with a fraternal affection. (John xiv,
27.) It has also been sealed to us by the Holy Spirit, who is
the bond of peace, and who has united all of us in one body
by the closest ties of the new covenant. (Ephes. iv, 3.)
Let us be ashamed of contaminating such a splendid title as
this by our petty contentions; let it rather be to us an
object of pursuit, since God has called us to such a course.
Let us not suffer that which has been purchased at such a
great price to be consumed, and wasted away in the midst of
our disputes and dissensions; but let us embrace it, because
our Lord Christ has given it the sanction of his
recommendation. Let us not permit a covenant of such great
sanctity to be made void by our factious divisions; but,
since it is sealed to us by the Holy Spirit, let us attend to
all its requisitions and preserve the terms inviolate.
Fabius, the Roman ambassador, told the Carthaginians, "that
he carried to them in his bosom both War and Peace, that they
might choose either of them that was the object of their
preference." Depending not on my own strength, but on the
goodness of God, the promises of Christ, and on the gentle
attestations of the Holy Spirit, I venture to imitate his
expressions, (full of confidence although they be,) and to
say, "Only let us choose peace and God will perfect it for
us." Then will the happy period arrive when with gladness we
shall hear the voices of brethren mutually exhorting each
other, and saying, "Let us go into the house of the Lord,"
that he may explain to us his will; that "our feet may
joyfully stand within the gates of Jerusalem;" that in an
ecstasy of delight we may contemplate the Church of Christ,"
as a city that is compact together, whither the tribes go up,
the tribes of the Lord, unto the testimony of Israel to give
thanks unto the name of the Lord:" that with thanksgiving we
may admire "the thrones of judgment which are set there, the
thrones of the house of David," the thrones of men of
veracity, of princes who in imitation of David's example are
peace makers, and of magistrates who conform themselves to
the similitude of the man after God's own heart. Thus shall
we enjoy the felicity to accost each other in cheerful
converse, and by way of encouragement sweetly to whisper in
the ears of each other, "pray for the peace of the Church
Universal," and in our mutual prayers let us invoke
"prosperity on them that love her;" that with unanimous
voice, from the inmost recesses of our hearts, we may
consecrate to her these votive intercessions and promises.
"Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy
palaces: for our brethren and companions' sakes, we will now
say, peace be within thee! Because of the house of the Lord
our God we will seek thy good." (Psalm 122.) Thus at length
shall it come to pass, that, being anointed with spiritual
delights we shall sing together in jubilant strains, that
most pleasant Song of Degrees, "Behold how good and how
pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity," &c.
And, from a sight of the orderly walk and peaceable conduct
of the faithful in the house of God, filled with the hopes of
consummating these acts of pacification in heaven, we may
conclude in these words of the Apostle, "And as many as walk
according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy upon the
Israel of God." (Gal. vi, 16.) Mercy, therefore, and Peace,
be upon the Israel of God. I have concluded.
A DECLARATION OF THE SENTIMENTS OF ARMINIUS ON
On predestination, Divine Providence, the freedom of the
will, the grace of God, the Divinity of the Son of God, and
the justification of man before God.
To the noble and most potent the states of Holland and West
Friezland, my Supreme Governor,
my most noble, potent, wise and prudent Lords:
After the conference which, by the command of your
mightinesses, was convened here at the Hague, between Gomarus
and myself, had been held in the presence of four ministers
and under the superintendence of their Lordships the
Counselors of the Supreme Court, the result of that meeting
was reported to your highnesses. Some allusion having been
made in that report to the nature and importance of the
controversy between us, it soon afterward, seemed good to
your highnesses to cite each of us, with those four
ministers, to appear openly before you in your honourable
assembly, and in that public manner to intimate to all of us
whatever you then judged to be expedient. After we had
appeared before Your mightinesses, Gomarus affirmed, "that
the controversy between him and me, was of such immense
importance, that, with the opinions which I professed, he
durst not appear in the presence of his maker." He likewise
asserted, "that, unless some mode of prevention were promptly
devised, the consequence would be, that the various
provinces, churches, and cities of our native land, and even
the citizens themselves, would be placed in a state of mutual
enmity and variance, and would rise up in arms against each
other." To all those allegations I then made no reply, except
"that I certainly was not conscious of entertaining any such
atrocious sentiments in religion, as those of which he had
spoken; and I confidently expressed a hope, that I should
never afford either cause or occasion for schism and
separation, in the Church of God or in our common country."
In confirmation of which, I added, "that I was prepared to
make an open and bona fide declaration of all my sentiments,
views, and designs on every subject connected with religion,
whenever I might receive a summons to appear before this
august assembly, and even prior to my retiring at that time
from your presence." Your highnesses having since deliberated
upon the proposal and offer which I then made, deem it proper
now to summon me before you, for the purpose of redeeming, in
this hall, the pledge which I had previously given. To
fulfill that promise, I now appear in this place, and will
with all due fidelity discharge my duty, whatever it be that
is demanded of me in relation to this affair.
Yet since a sinister report, has for a long time been
industriously and extensively circulated about me, not only
among my own countrymen but also among foreigners, in which
report, I am represented to have hitherto refused, after
frequent solicitations, to make an open profession of my
sentiments on the matter of religion and my designs
concerning it; and since this unfounded rumor has already
operated most injuriously against me, I importunately intreat
to be favoured with your gracious permission to make an
ingenuous and open declaration of all the circumstances which
relate to this business, before I proceed to the discussion
of other topics.
1. Account of a Conference proposed to me, but which I
refused.
On the 30th of June, in the year 1605, three Deputies of the
Synod of South Holland came to me at Leyden; they were
Francis Lansbergius, Libertus Fraxinus, and Daniel Dolegius
of pious memory, each of them the minister of their
respective churches at Rotterdam, the Hague, and Delft. Two
members of the Synod of North Holland accompanied them-John
Bogardus, minister of the Church at Haerlem, and James
Rolandus of the Church at Amsterdam. They told me, "they had
heard, that at the regular meetings of certain of their
classes, in the examination to which candidates for holy
orders must submit prior to their admission into the
Christian ministry, some of the students of the University of
Leyden had returned such answers to the questions propounded
to them as were of a novel description and contrary to the
common and received doctrine of the Churches. Those
novelties," it was said, "the young men affirmed to have been
instilled into them while under my tuition." In such a
situation of affairs, they desired me "to engage in a
friendly conference with them, by which they might have it in
their power to perceive if there were any truth in this
charge, and that they might afterwards be the better
qualified to consult the interests of the Church." To these
suggestions I replied, "that I could by no means approve of
the mode of proceeding which they recommended: For such a
course would inevitably subject me to frequent and almost
incessant applications for a friendly interview and
conversation, if any one thought it needful to pester me in
that manner whenever a student made use of a new or uncommon
answer, and in excuse pretended to have learned it from me.
The following therefore appeared to me a plan of greater
wisdom and prudence: As often as a student during his
examination returned any answer, which, according to his
affirmation, had been derived from my instructions, provided
the brethren considered such answer to stand in opposition to
the confession and catechism of the Belgic Churches, they
should immediately confront that student with me; and, for
the sake of investigating such an affair, I was ready to
proceed at my own expense to any town, however distant, which
it might please the brethren to appoint for that purpose. The
obvious consequence of this method would be, that, after it
had been resorted to a few times, it would cause it clearly
and evidently to appear whether the student's assertion were
the truth or only a calumny.
But when Francis Lansbergius, in the name of the rest of his
brethren, continued to urge and solicit a conference I gave
it as a further reason why I could not see the propriety of
entering into a conference with them, that they appeared
before me in the character of deputies, who had afterwards to
render to the Synod an account of all their proceedings; and
that I was not therefore at liberty to accede to their
wishes, unless, not only with the knowledge and consent, but
at the express command of others who were my superiors, and
whom I was equally with them bound to obey. Besides, it would
be connected with no small risk and danger to me, if, in the
relation of the event of our conference which they might
hereafter give to the Synod, I should leave that relation
entirely to their faithfulness and discretion. They had
likewise no cause for demanding any thing of this kind from
me, who was quite unconscious of having propounded a single
doctrine, either at Leyden or Amsterdam, that was contrary to
the word of God or to the Confession and Catechism of the
Churches in the Low Countries. For no such accusation had
ever yet been brought against me by any person; and, I was
confident, no attempt would be made to substantiate against
me a charge of this description, if he who preferred such a
charge were bound at the same time either to establish it by
proofs, or, in failure of his proofs, to confess his
uncharitable offense."
2. An offer on my part, of a conference with these Deputies,
which they refused.
I then told these five gentlemen, "that, notwithstanding all
this, if they would consent to relinquish the title Deputies,
and would each in his own private capacity enter into a
conference with me, I was ready at that very moment to engage
in it." The conditions which I proposed to be mutually
observed by us, were these: (i.) That they should explain
their opinions on every single article and then I would
explain mine; (ii.) They should adduce their proofs, and I
would adduce mine; and (iii.) That they should at last
attempt a refutation of my sentiments and reasons, and I
would in return try to refute theirs. (iv.) If in this manner
either party could afford complete satisfaction to the other,
the result would be agreeable: but, if neither party could
satisfy the other, then no mention of the subjects discussed
in our private conference, or of its unfavourable
termination, should be made in any place or company whatever,
until the whole affair should be referred to a national
Synod."
But when to this proposition they had given a direct refusal,
we should have separated from each other without further
discourse, had I not requested "that they would offer a
conference in the same manner to Gomarus, as well as to
Trelcatius of pious memory, because it did not appear to me,
that I had given them any cause for making such a demand upon
me, rather than upon either of my two colleagues." At the
same time I enforced my concluding expressions with several
arguments, which it would be too tedious now to repeat in the
presence of your mightinesses. When I had finished, the
deputies replied, "that they would comply with my request,
and would wait on the two other professors of divinity and
make them a similar offer:" and prior to their departure from
Leyden, they called and assured me, that they had in this
particular fulfilled their promise.
This, then, is the first of the many requests that have been
preferred to me. It was the cause of much conversation at the
time when it occurred: For many persons spoke about it. Some
of them related it imperfectly, and in a manner very
different from what were the real circumstances of the whole
transaction; while others suppressed many essential
particulars, and studiously concealed the counter-proposal
which I had tendered to the deputies and the strong reasons
which I produced in its support.
3. Another application is made to me.
A few days afterwards, that is, on the 28th of July in the
same year, 1605, a request of a similar character was
likewise presented to me, in the name of the Presbytery of
the Church of Leyden: but on this condition, that if I
approved of it, other persons, whom such a request equally
concerned, should also be summoned before the same
ecclesiastical tribunal: but if this offer did not receive my
approbation, nothing further should be attempted. But when I
had intimated, that I did not clearly perceive, how this
request could possibly obtain approval from me, and when I
had subjoined my reasons which were of the same description
as those which I had employed on the preceding occasion, my
answer was perfectly satisfactory to Bronchovius the
Burgomaster [of Leyden] and Merula of pious memory, both of
whom had come to me in the name of that Church of which they
were the elders, and they determined to abandon all ulterior
proceedings in that business.
4. The request of the Deputies of the Synod of South Holland
to their Lordships, the ,visitors of the University, and the
answer which they received.
On the ninth of November, in the same year, 1605, the
deputies of the Synod of South Holland, Francis Lansbergius,
Festus Hommius, and their associates, presented nine
questions to their Lordships, the curators of the University
of Leyden; these were accompanied with a petition, "that the
Professors of Divinity might be commanded to answer them."
But the curators replied, "that they could on no account
sanction by their consent the propounding of any questions to
the Professors of Divinity; and if any one supposed that
something was taught in the University contrary to truth and
rectitude, that person had it in his power to refer the
matter of his complaint to a national Synod, which, it was
hoped, would, at the earliest opportunity be convened, when
it would come regularly under the cognizance of that
assembly, and receive the most ample discussion." When this
answer had been delivered, the deputies of the Synod did not
hesitate earnestly to ask it as a particular favour, "that,
by the kind permission of their Lordships, they might
themselves propose those nine questions to the Professors of
Divinity, and might, without troubling their Lordships,
personally inform themselves what answer of his own accord,
and without reluctance, each of those three Divines would
return." But, after all their pleading, they were unable to
obtain the permission which they so strenuously desired. The
whole of this unsuccessful negotiation was conducted in such
a clandestine manner, and so carefully concealed from me,
that I was totally ignorant even of the arrival of those
reverend deputies in our city; yet soon after their
departure, I became acquainted with their mission and its
failure.
5. A fourth request of the same kind.
After this, a whole year elapsed before I was again called to
an account about such matters. But I must not omit to
mention, that in the year 1607, a short time before the
meeting of the Synod of South Holland at Delft, John
Bernards, minister of the Church at Delft, Festus Hommius,
minister of Leyden, and Dibbetius of Dort, were deputed by
the Synod to come to me and inquire what progress I had made
in the refutation of the Anabaptists. When I had given them a
suitable reply concerning that affair, which was the cause of
much conversation among us on both sides, and when they were
just on the point of taking their leave, they begged "that I
would not hesitate to reveal to them whatever views and
designs I had formed on the subject of religion, for the
purpose of their being communicated to the Synod, by the
Deputies, for the satisfaction of the brethren." But I
refused to comply with their intreaties, "because the desired
explanation could not be given either conveniently or to
advantage; and I did not know any place in which it was
possible to explain these matters with greater propriety,
than in the national Synod; which, according to the
resolution of their most noble and high mightinesses, the
States General, was expected very shortly to assemble." I
promised "that I would use every exertion that I might be
enabled in that assembly openly to profess the whole of my
sentiments; and that I would employ none of that alleged
concealment or dissimulation about any thing of which they
might then complain." I concluded by saying, "that if I were
to make my profession before them as deputies of the Synod of
South Holland, I could not commit to their fidelity the
relation of what might transpire, because, in matters of this
description, every one was the most competent interpreter of
his own meaning." After these mutual explanations, we parted
from each other.
6. The same request is privately repeated to me, and my
answer to it.
In addition to these different applications, I was privately
desired, by certain ministers, "not to view it as a hardship
to communicate my views and intentions to their colleagues,
the brethren assembled in Synod:" while others intreated me
"to disclose my views to them, that they might have an
opportunity of pondering and examining them by themselves, in
the fear of the Lord," and they gave me an assurance "that
they would not divulge any portion of the desired
communication" To the first of these two classes, I gave in
common my usual answer, "that they had no reason for
demanding such an account from me, rather than from others,
but to one of these ministers, who was not among the last of
the two kinds of applicants, I proposed a conference at three
different times, concerning all the articles of our religion;
in which we might consider and devise the best means that
could possibly be adopted for establishing the truth on the
most solid foundation, and for completely refuting every
species of falsehood. It was also a part of my offer that
such conference should be held in the presence of certain of
the principal men of our country; but he did not accept of
this condition. To the rest of the inquirers, I returned
various answers; in some of which I plainly denied what they
requested of me, and in others, I made some disclosures to
the inquirers. My sole rule in making such a distinction,
was, the more intimate or distant degree of acquaintance
which I had with the parties. In the mean time it frequently
happened, that, a short time after I had thus revealed any
thing in confidence to an individual, it was slanderously
related to others -- how seriously soever he might have
asserted in my presence, that what I had then imparted to him
was, according to his judgment, agreeable to the truth, and
although he had solemnly pledged his honour that he would on
no account divulge it.
7. What occurred relative to the same subject in the
Preparatory Convention.
To these it is also necessary to add a report which has been
spread abroad by means of letters, not only within these
provinces, but far beyond their confines: it is, "that, in
the preparatory convention which was held at the Hague, in
the month of June, 1607, by a company of the brethren who
were convened by a summons from their high mightinesses, the
States General, after I had been asked in a manner the most
friendly to consent to a disclosure, before the brethren then
present, of my views on the subject of the Christian faith, I
refused; and although they promised to endeavour, as far as
it was possible, to give me satisfaction, I still declined to
comply with their wishes." But since I find by experience
that this distorted version of the matter has procured for me
not a few proofs of hatred and ill will from many persons who
think that far more honourable deference ought to have been
evinced by me towards that assembly, which was a convention
of Divines from each of the United Provinces. I perceive a
necessity is thus imposed upon me to commence at the very
origin of this transaction, when I am about to relate the
manner in which it occurred:
Before my departure from Leyden for the convention at the
Hague which has just been mentioned, five articles were put
into my hands, said to have been transmitted to some of the
provinces, to have been perused by certain ministers and
ecclesiastical assemblies, and considered by them as
documents which embraced my sentiments on several points of
religion. Those points of which they pretended to exhibit a
correct delineation, were Predestination, the Fall of Adam,
Free-will, Original Sin, and the Eternal Salvation of
Infants. When I had read the whole of them, I thought that I
plainly perceived, from the style in which they were written,
who was the author of them; and as he was then present,
(being one of the number summoned on that occasion,) I
accosted him on this subject, and embraced that opportunity
freely to intimate to him that I had good reasons for
believing those articles to have been of his composition. He
did not make any attempt to deny the correctness of this
supposition, and replied, ,that they had not been distributed
precisely as my articles, but as those on which the students
at Leyden had held disputations." In answer to this remark, I
told him, "of one thing he must be very conscious, that, by
the mere act of giving circulation to such a document, he
could not avoid creating a grievous and immediate prejudice
against my innocence, and that the same articles would soon
be ascribed to me, as if they had been my composition: when,
in reality," as I then openly affirmed, "they had neither
proceeded from me, nor accorded with my sentiments, and, as
well as I could form a judgment they appeared to me to be at
variance with the word of God."
After he and I had thus discoursed together in the presence
of only two other persons, I deemed it advisable to make some
mention of this affair in the convention itself, at which
certain persons attended who had read those very articles,
and who had, according to their own confession, accounted
them as mine. This plan I accordingly pursued; and just as
the convention was on the point of being dissolved, and after
the account of our proceedings had been signed, and some
individuals had received instructions to give their high
mightinesses the States General a statement of our
transactions, I requested the brethren "not to consider it an
inconvenience to remain a short time together, for I had
something which I was desirous to communicate." They assented
to this proposal, and I told them "that I had received the
five articles which I held in my hand and the tenor of which
I briefly read to them; that I discovered they had been
transmitted by a member of that convention, into different
provinces; that I was positive concerning their distribution
in Zealand and the diocese of Utrecht; and that they had been
read by some ministers in their public meetings, and were
considered to be documents which comprehended my sentiments."
Yet, notwithstanding, I protested to the whole of that
assembly, with a good conscience, and as in the presence of
God, "that those articles were not mine, and did not contain
my sentiments." Twice I repeated this solemn asseveration,
and besought the brethren "not so readily to attach credit to
reports that were circulated concerning me, nor so easily to
listen to any thing that was represented as proceeding from
me or that had been rumored abroad to my manifest injury."
To these observations, a member of that convention answered,
"that it would be well for me, on this account, to signify to
the brethren what portion of those articles obtained my
approbation, and what portion I disavowed, that they might
thus have an opportunity of becoming acquainted in some
degree with my sentiments." Another member urged the same
reasons; to which I replied, "that the convention had not
been appointed to meet for such a purpose, that we had
already been long enough detained together, and that their
high mightinesses, the States General were now waiting for
our determination," in that manner, we separated from each
other, no one attempting any longer to continue the
conversation, neither did all the members of the convention
express a joint concurrence in that request, nor employ any
kind of persuasion with me to prove that such an explanation
was in their judgment quite equitable. Besides, according to
the most correct intelligence which I have since gained, some
of those who were then present, declared afterwards, "that it
was a part of the instructions which had been previously
given to them, not to enter into any conference concerning
doctrine; and that, if a discussion of that kind had arisen,
they must have instantly retired from the convention." These
several circumstances therefore prove that I was very far
from being "solicited by the whole assembly" to engage in the
desired explanation.
8. My reasons for refusing a Conference.
Most noble and potent Lords, this is a true narration of
those interviews and conferences which the brethren have
solicited, and of my continued refusal: from the whole of
which, every person may, in my opinion, clearly perceive that
there is no cause whatever for preferring an accusation
against me on account of my behaviour throughout these
transactions; especially when he considers their request,
with the manner in which it was delivered, and at the same
time my refusal with the reasons for it; but this is still
more obvious from my counter-proposal.
1. Their request, which amounted to a demand upon me for a
declaration on matters of faith, was not supported by any
reasons, as far as I am enabled to form a judgment. For I
never furnished a cause to any man why he should require such
a declaration from me rather than from other people, by my
having taught any thing contrary to the word of God, or to
the Confession and Catechism of the Belgic Churches. At no
period have I ceased to make this avowal, and I repeat it on
this occasion. I am likewise prepared to consent to an
inquiry being instituted into this my profession, either by a
Provincial or a National Synod, that the truth of it may by
that means, be made yet more apparent -- if from such an
examination it may be thought possible to derive any
advantage.
2. The manner in which their request was delivered, proved of
itself to be a sufficient obstacle, because it was openly
made by a deputation. I was also much injured by the way in
which the Synod prejudged my cause; for we may presume that
it would not through its deputies invite any man to a
conference, unless he had given strong grounds for such an
interview. For this reason I did not consider myself at
liberty to consent to a conference of this description, lest
I should, by that very act, and apparently through a
consciousness of guilt, have confessed that I had taught
something that was wrong or unlawful.
3. The reasons of my refusal were these:
First. Because as I am not subject to the jurisdiction either
of the North Holland Synod or that of South Holland, but have
other superiors to whom I am bound to render an account of
all my concerns, I could not consent to a conference with
deputies, except by the advice of those superiors and at
their express command: especially since a conference of this
kind was not incumbent on me in consequence of the ordinary
discharge of my duty. It was also not obscurely hinted by the
deputies, that the conference, [in 1605,] would by no means
be a private one; but this they discovered in a manner
sufficiently intelligible, when they refused to enter into a
conference with me, divested of their title of "deputies." I
should, therefore, have failed in obedience to my superiors,
if I had not rejected a conference which was in this manner
proposed. I wish the brethren would remember this fact, that
although every one of our ministers is subject as a member to
the jurisdiction of the particular Synod to which he belongs,
yet not one of them has hitherto dared to engage in a
conference, without the advice and permission of the
magistrates under whom he is placed; that no particular
magistrates have ever allowed any minister within their
jurisdiction to undertake a conference with the deputies of
the Churches, unless they had themselves previously granted
their consent; and that it was frequently their wish, to be
present at such conference, in the persons of their own
deputies. Let it be recollected what transpired at Leyden, in
the case of Coolhasius [Koolhaes,] at Gouda with Herman
Herberts, at Horn in the case of Cornelius Wiggeri,
[Wiggerston,] and at Medenblick in the case of Tako,
[Sybrants.]
The second reason by which I was dissuaded from a conference,
is this: I perceived that there would be a great inequality
in the conference which was proposed, when, on the contrary,
it is necessary that the greatest equality should exist
between the parties who are about to confer together on any
subject. For (l.) they came to me armed with public
authority; while, with respect to myself, everything partook
of a private character. And I am not so ignorant in these
matters as not to perceive the powerful support which that
man enjoys who transacts any business under the sanction of
the public authority. (2.) They were themselves three in
number, and had with them two deputies of the Synod of North
Holland. On the other hand, I was alone, and destitute not
only of all assistance, but also of persons who might act as
witnesses of the proceedings that were then to have
commenced, and to whom they as well as myself might have
safely entrusted our several causes. (3.) They were not
persons at their own disposal, but compelled to depend on the
judgment of their superiors; and they were bound most
pertinaciously to contend for those religious sentiments,
which their superiors had within their own minds determined
to maintain. To such a length was this principle extended,
that they were not even left to their own discretion -- to
admit the validity of the argument which I might have
adduced, however cogent and forcible they might have found
them to be, and even if they had been altogether
unanswerable. From these considerations I could not see by
what means both parties could obtain that mutual advantage,
which ought properly to accrue from such a conference. I
might have gained some beneficial result from it; because I
was completely at liberty, and, by employing my own
conscience alone in forming a decision, I could, without
prejudice to any one, have made those admissions which my
conviction of the truth might have dictated to me as correct.
Of what great importance this last circumstance might be,
your Lordships would have most fully discovered by
experience, had any of you been present in the Preparatory
Convention, as the representatives of your own august body.
My third reason is, that the account which they would have
rendered to their superiors after the conference, could not
but have operated in many ways to my injury, whether I had
been absent or present at the time when they delivered their
report. (1.) Had I been absent, it might easily have happened
either through the omission or the addition of certain words,
or through the alteration of others, in regard to their sense
or order, that some fact or argument would be repeated in a
manner very different from that in which it really occurred.
Such an erroneous statement might also have been made, either
through the inconsiderateness which arises from a defect in
the intellect, through the weakness of an imperfect memory,
or through a prejudice of the affections. (2.) And indeed by
my presence, I could with difficulty have avoided or
corrected this inconvenience; because a greater degree of
credit would have been given to their own deputies, than to
me who was only a private individual.
Lastly. By this means I should have conveyed to that
assembly, [the Provincial Synod,] a right and some kind of
prerogative over me; which, in reference to me, it does not
actually possess; and which, consistently with that office
whose duties I discharge, it would not be possible for me to
transfer to the Synod without manifest injustice towards
those persons under whose jurisdiction it has been the
pleasure of the general magistracy of the land to place me.
Imperious necessity, therefore, as well as equity, demanded
of me to reject the terms on which this conference was
offered.
4. But however strong my sentiments might be on this subject,
I gave these deputies an opportunity of gaining the
information which they desired. If it had been their wish to
accept the private conference which I proposed, they would
have become possessed of my sentiments on every article of
the Christian Faith. Besides, this conference would have been
much better adapted to promote our mutual edification and
instruction, than a public one could be; because it is
customary in private conferences, for each person to speak
everything with greater familiarity and freedom, than when
all the formalities of deputations are observed, if I may so
express myself. Neither had they the least reason to manifest
any reluctance on this point; because every one of them was
at liberty, (if he chose,) to enter into a private conference
between him and me alone. But when I made this offer to all
and to each of them, I added as one of my most particular
stipulations, that, whatever the discussions might be which
arose between us, they should remain within our bosoms, and
no particle of them should be divulged to any person living.
If on these terms they had consented to hold a conference
with me, I entertain not the smallest doubt that we should
either have given each other complete satisfaction: or we
should at least have made it apparent, that, from our mutual
controversy, no imminent danger could easily arise, to injure
either that truth which is necessary to salvation, piety, or
Christian peace and amity.
9. The complaint concerning my refusal to make a declaration
of my sentiments, does not agree with the rumors concerning
me which are in general circulation.
But omitting all further mention of those transactions, I am
not able entirely to satisfy myself by what contrivance these
two complaints appear consistent with each other. (1.) That I
refuse to make a profession of my sentiments; and yet (2.)
Invectives are poured forth against me, both in foreign
countries and at home, as though I am attempting to introduce
into the Church and into the Christian religion, novel,
impure and false doctrines. If I do not openly profess my
sentiments, from what can their injurious tendency be made
evident? If I do not explain myself, by what method can I be
introducing false doctrines? If they be mere groundless
suspicions that are advanced against me, it is uncharitable
to grant them entertainment, or at least to ascribe to them
such great importance.
But it is cast upon me as a reproach, "that I do certainly
disclose a few of my opinions, but not all of them; and that,
from the few which I thus make known, the object at which I
aim is no longer obscure, but becomes very evident."
In reference to this censure, the great consideration ought
to be, "can any of those sentiments which I am said to have
disclosed, be proved to stand in contradiction either to the
word of God, or the Confession of the Belgic Churches" (1.)
If it be decided, that they are contrary to the Confession,
then I have been engaged in teaching something in opposition
to a document, "against which never to propound any
doctrine," was the faithful promise which I made, when I
signed it with my own hand. If, therefore, I be found thus
criminal, I ought to be visited with merited punishment. (2.)
But if it can be proved, that any of those opinions are
contrary to the word of God, then I ought to experience a
greater degree of blame, and to suffer a severer punishment,
and compelled either to utter a recantation or to resign my
office, especially if those heads of doctrine which I have
uttered, are of such a description as to be notoriously
prejudicial to the honour of God and the salvation of
mankind. (3.) But if those few sentiments which I am accused
of having advanced, are found neither to be at variance with
the word of God nor with the Confession, which I have just
mentioned, then those consequences which are elicited from
them, or seem dependent on them, cannot possibly be
contradictory either to the word of God or to the Belgic
Confession. For, according to the rule of the schoolmen, "if
the consectaries or consequences of any doctrine be false, it
necessarily follows that the doctrine itself is also false,
and vice versa." The one of these two courses, therefore,
ought to have been pursued towards me, either to have
instituted an action against me, or to have given no credit
to those rumors. If I might have my own choice, the latter
course is that which I should have desired; but of the former
I am not at all afraid. For, how extensively soever and in
all directions those Thirty-One Articles which concern me
have been dispersed to my great injury and disparagement, and
though they have been placed in the hands of several men of
great eminence, they afford sufficient internal testimony,
from the want of sense and of other requisites visible in
their very composition, that they are charged upon me through
a total disregard to justice, honour and conscience.
10. The principal reasons why I durst not disclose to the
deputies my opinions on the subject of Religion.
But some person will perhaps say: "for the sake of avoiding
these disturbances, and partly in order by such a measure to
give some satisfaction to a great number of ministers, you
might undoubtedly have made to your brethren an open and
simple declaration of your sentiments on the whole subject of
religion, either for the purpose of being yourself maturely
instructed in more correct principles, or that they might
have been able in an opportune manner to prepare themselves
for a mutual conference."
But I was deterred from adopting that method, on account of
three inconveniences, of which I was afraid:
First,. I was afraid that if I had made a profession of my
sentiments, the consequence would have been, that an inquiry
would be instituted on the part of others, with regard to the
manner in which an action might be framed against me from
those premises. Secondly. Another cause of my fear, was, that
such a statement of my opinions would have furnished matter
for discussion and refutation, in the pulpits of the Churches
and the scholastic exercises of the Universities. Thirdly. I
was also afraid, that my opinions would have been transmitted
to foreign Universities and Churches, in hopes of obtaining
from them a sentence of condemnation, and the means of
oppressing me." That I had very weighty reasons to fear every
one of these consequences together, it would not be difficult
for me clearly to demonstrate from the Thirty-One Articles,
and from the writings of certain individuals.
With respect to "the personal instruction and edification,"
which I might have hoped to derive from such a disclosure, it
is necessary to consider, that not only I but many others,
and even they themselves, have peculiar views which they have
formed on religious topics; and, therefore, that such
instruction cannot be applied to any useful purpose, except
in some place or other where we may all hereafter appear
together, and where a definitive sentence, as it is called,
both may and must be pronounced. With respect to "the
opportune and benefiting preparation which my brethren ought
in the mean time to be making for a conference," I declare
that it will at that time be most seasonable and proper when
all shall have produced their views, and disclosed them
before a whole assembly, that thus an account may be taken of
them all at once, and they may be considered together.
Since none of these objections have any existence in this
august assembly, I proceed to the declaration of my
sentiments.
Having in this manner refuted all those objections which have
been made against me, I will now endeavour to fulfill my
promise, and to execute those commands which your Lordships
have been pleased to lay upon me. I entertain a confident
persuasion, that no prejudice will be created against me or
my sentiments from this act, however imperfectly I may
perform it, because it has its origin in that obedience which
is due from me to this noble assembly, next to God, and
according to the Divine pleasure.
I. ON PREDESTINATION
The first and most important article in religion on which I
have to offer my views, and which for many years past has
engaged my attention, is the Predestination of God, that is,
the Election of men to salvation, and the Reprobation of them
to destruction. Commencing with this article, I will first
explain what is taught concerning it, both in discourses and
writings, by certain persons in our Churches, and in the
University of Leyden. I will afterwards declare my own views
and thoughts on the same subject, while I shew my opinion on
what they advance.
On this article there is no uniform and simple opinion among
the teachers of our Churches; but there is some variation in
certain parts of it in which they differ from each other.
1. The first opinion, which I reject, but which is espoused
by those [Supralapsarians] who assume the very highest ground
of this Predestination.
The opinion of those who take the highest ground on this
point, as it is generally contained in their writings, is to
this effect:
"I. God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated,
from among men, (whom he did not consider as being then
created, much less as being fallen,) certain individuals to
everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without
any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or
disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to
demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy; or, (as
others assert,) to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and
free uncontrollable power.
"II. In addition to this decree, God has pre-ordained certain
determinate means which pertain to its execution, and this by
an eternal and immutable decree. These means necessarily
follow by virtue of the preceding decree, and necessarily
bring him who has been predestinated, to the end which has
been fore-ordained for him. Some of these means belong in
common both to the decree of election and that of rejection,
and others of them are specially restricted to the one decree
or to the other.
"III. The means common to both the decrees, are three: the
first is, the creation of man in the upright [or erect] state
of original righteousness, or after the image and likeness of
God in righteousness and true holiness. The second is, the
permission of the fall of Adam, or the ordination of God that
man should sin, and become corrupt or vitiated. The third is,
the loss or the removal of original righteousness and of the
image of God, and a being concluded under sin and
condemnation.
"IV. For unless God had created some men, he would not have
had any upon whom he might either bestow eternal life, or
superinduce everlasting death. Unless he had created them in
righteousness and true holiness, he would himself have been
the author of sin, and would by this means have possessed no
right either to punish them to the praise of his justice, or
to save them to the praise of his mercy. Unless they had
themselves sinned, and by the demerit of sin had rendered
themselves guilty of death, there would have been no room for
the demonstration either of justice or of mercy.
"V. The means pre-ordained for the execution of the decree of
election, are also these three. The first is, the pre-
ordination, or the giving of Jesus Christ as a Mediator and a
saviour, who might by his meet deserve, [or purchase,] for
all the elect and for them only, the lost righteousness and
life, and might communicate them by his own power [Or
virtue]. The second is, the call [or vocation] to faith
outwardly by the word, but inwardly by his Spirit, in the
mind, affections and will; by an operation of such efficacy
that the elect person of necessity yields assent and
obedience to the vocation, in so much that it is not possible
for him to do otherwise than believe and be obedient to this
vocation. From hence arise justification and sanctification
through the blood of Christ and his Spirit, and from them the
existence of all good works. And all that, manifestly by
means of the same force and necessity. The third is, that
which keeps and preserves the elect in faith, holiness, and a
zeal for good works; or, it is the gift of perseverance; the
virtue of which is such, that believing and elect persons not
only do not sin with a full and entire will, or do not fall
away totally from faith and grace, but it likewise is neither
possible for them to sin with a full and perfect will, nor to
fall away totally or finally from faith and grace.
"VI. The two last of these means [vocation and perseverance,]
belong only to the elect who are of adult age. But God
employs a shorter way to salvation, by which he conducts
those children of believers and saints who depart out of this
life before they arrive at years of maturity; that is,
provided they belong to the number of the elect, (who are
known to God alone,) for God bestows on them Christ as their
saviour, and gives them to Christ, to save them by his blood
and Holy Spirit, without actual faith and perseverance in it
[faith]; and this he does according to the promise of the
covenant of grace, I will be a God unto you, and unto your
seed after you.
"VII. The means pertaining to the execution of the decree of
reprobation to eternal death, are partly such as peculiarly
belong to all those who are rejected and reprobate, whether
they ever arrive at years of maturity or die before that
period; and they are partly such as are proper only to some
of them. The mean that is common to all the reprobate, is
desertion in sin, by denying to them that saving grace which
is sufficient and necessary to the salvation of any one. This
negation [or denial,] consists of two parts. For, in the
first place, God did not will that Christ should die for them
[the reprobate,] or become their saviour, and this neither in
reference to the antecedent will of God, (as some persons
call it,) nor in reference to his sufficient will, or the
value of the price of reconciliation; because this price was
not offered for reprobates, either with respect to the decree
of God, or its virtue and efficacy. (1.) But the other part
of this negation [or denial] is, that God is unwilling to
communicate the Spirit of Christ to reprobates, yet without
such communication they can neither be made partakers of
Christ nor of his benefits.
"VIII. The mean which belongs properly only to some of the
reprobates, is obduration, [or the act of hardening,] which
befalls those of them who have attained to years of maturity,
either because they have very frequently and enormously
sinned against the law of God, or because they have rejected
the grace of the gospel. (1.) To the execution of the first
species of induration, or hardening, belong the illumination
of their conscience by means of knowledge, and its conviction
of the righteousness of the law. For it is impossible that
this law should not necessarily detain them in
unrighteousness, to render them inexcusable. (2.) For the
execution of the second species of induration, God employs a
call by the preaching of his gospel, which call is
inefficacious and insufficient both in respect to the decree
of God, and to its issue or event. This calling is either
only an external one, which it is neither in their desire nor
in their power to obey. Or it is likewise an internal one, by
which some of them may be excited in their understandings to
accept and believe the things which they hear; but yet it is
only with such a faith as that with which the devils are
endowed when they believe and tremble. Others of them are
excited and conducted still further, so as to desire in a
certain measure to taste the heavenly gift. But the latter
are, of all others, the most unhappy, because they are raised
up on high, that they may be brought down with a heavier
fall. And this fate it is impossible for them to escape, for
they must of necessity return to their vomit, and depart or
fall away from the faith. "9.
"IX. From this decree of Divine election and reprobation, and
from this administration of the means which pertain to the
execution of both of them, it follows, that the elect are
necessarily saved, it being impossible for them to perish --
and that the reprobate are necessarily damned, it being
impossible for them to be saved; and all this from the
absolute purpose [or determination] of God, which is
altogether antecedent to all things, and to all those causes
which are either in things themselves or can possibly result
from them."
These opinions concerning predestination are considered, by
some of those who advocate them, to be the foundation of
Christianity, salvation and of its certainty. On these
sentiments they suppose, "is founded the sure and undoubted
consolation of all believers, which is capable of rendering
their consciences tranquil; and on them also depends the
praise of the grace of God, so that if any contradiction be
offered to this doctrine, God is necessarily deprived of the
glory of his grace, and then the merit of salvation is
attributed to the free will of man and to his own powers and
strength, which ascription savours of Pelagianism."
These then are the causes which are offered why the advocates
of these sentiments labour with a common anxiety to retain
the purity of such a doctrine in their churches and why they
oppose themselves to all those innovations which are at
variance with them.
2. MY SENTIMENTS ON THE PRECEDING SCHEME OF PREDESTINATION.
But, for my own part, to speak my sentiments with freedom,
and yet with a salvo in favour of a better judgment, I am of
opinion, that this doctrine of theirs contains many things
that are both false and impertinent, and at an utter
disagreement with each other; all the instances of which, the
present time will not permit me to recount, but I will
subject it to an examination only in those parts which are
most prominent and extensive. I shall, therefore, propose to
myself four principal heads, which are of the greatest
importance in this doctrine; and when I have in the first
place explained of what kind they are, I will afterwards
declare more fully the judgment and sentiments which I have
formed concerning them. They are the following:
"I. That God has absolutely and precisely decreed to save
certain particular men by his mercy or grace, but to condemn
others by his justice: and to do all this without having any
regard in such decree to righteousness or sin, obedience or
disobedience, which could possibly exist on the part of one
class of men or of the other.
"II. That, for the execution of the preceding decree, God
determined to create Adam, and all men in him, in an upright
state of original righteousness; besides which he also
ordained them to commit sin, that they might thus become
guilty of eternal condemnation and be deprived of original
righteousness.
"III. That those persons whom God has thus positively willed
to save, he has decreed not only to salvation but also to the
means which pertain to it; (that is, to conduct and bring
them to faith in Christ Jesus, and to perseverance in that
faith ;) and that He also in reality leads them to these
results by a grace and power that are irresistible, so that
it is not possible for them to do otherwise than believe,
persevere in faith, and be saved.
"IV. That to those whom, by his absolute will, God has fore-
ordained to perdition, he has also decreed to deny that grace
which is necessary and sufficient for salvation, and does not
in reality confer it upon them; so that they are neither
placed in a possible condition nor in any capacity of
believing or of being saved."
After a diligent contemplation and examination of these four
heads, in the fear of the Lord, I make the following
declaration respecting this doctrine of predestination.
3. I REJECT THIS PREDESTINATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
I. Because it is not the foundation of Christianity, of
Salvation, or of its certainty.
1. It is not the foundation of Christianity: (1.) For this
Predestination is not that decree of God by which Christ is
appointed by God to be the saviour, the Head, and the
Foundation of those who will be made heirs of salvation. Yet
that decree is the only foundation of Christianity. (2.) For
the doctrine of this Predestination is not that doctrine by
which, through faith, we as lively stones are built up into
Christ, the only corner stone, and are inserted into him as
the members of the body are joined to their head.
2. It is not the foundation of Salvation: (1.) For this
Predestination is not that decree of the good pleasure of God
in Christ Jesus on which alone our salvation rests and
depends. (2.) The doctrine of this Predestination is not the
foundation of Salvation: for it is not "the power of God to
salvation to every one that believeth :" because through it
"the righteousness of God" is not "revealed from faith to
faith."
3. Nor is it the foundation of the certainty of salvation:
For that is dependent upon this decree, "they who believe,
shall be saved :" I believe, therefore, I shall be saved. But
the doctrine of this Predestination embraces within itself
neither the first nor the second member of the syllogism.
This is likewise confessed by some persons in these words:
"we do not wish to state that the knowledge of this
[Predestination] is the foundation of Christianity or of
salvation, or that it is necessary to salvation in the same
manner as the doctrine of the Gospel," &c.
II. This doctrine of Predestination comprises within it
neither the whole nor any part of the Gospel. For, according
to the tenor of the discourses delivered by John and Christ,
as they are described to us by the Evangelist, and according
to the doctrine of the Apostles and Christ after his
ascension, the Gospel consists partly of an injunction to
repent and believe, and partly of a promise to bestow
forgiveness of sins, the grace of the Spirit, and life
eternal. But this Predestination belongs neither to the
injunction to repent and believe, nor to the annexed promise.
Nay, this doctrine does not even teach what kind of men in
general God has predestinated, which is properly the doctrine
of the Gospel; but it embraces within itself a certain
mystery, which is known only to God, who is the
Predestinater, and in which mystery are comprehended what
particular persons and how many he has decreed to save and to
condemn. From these premises I draw a further conclusion,
that this doctrine of Predestination is not necessary to
salvation, either as an object of knowledge, belief, hope, or
performance. A Confession to this effect has been made by a
certain learned man, in the theses which he has proposed for
discussion on this subject, in the following words:
"Wherefore the gospel cannot be simply termed the book or the
revelation of Predestination, but only in a relative sense.
Because it does not absolutely denote either the matter of
the number or the form; that is, it neither declares how many
persons in particular, nor (with a few exceptions,) who they
are, but only the description of them in general, whom God
has predestinated."
III. This doctrine was never admitted, decreed, or approved
in any Council, either general or particular, for the first
six hundred years after Christ.
1. Not in the General Council of Nice, in which sentence was
given against Arius and in favour of the Deity and
Consubstantiality of the Son of God. Not in the first Council
of Constantinople, in which a decree was passed against
Macedonius, respecting the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Not in
the Council of Ephesus, which determined against Nestorius,
and in favour of the Unity of the Person of the Son of God.
Not in that of Chalcedon, which condemned Eutyches, and
determined, "that in one and the same person of our Lord
Jesus Christ, there were two distinct natures, which differ
from each other in their essence." Not in the second Council
of Constantinople, in which Peter, Bishop of Antioch, and
Anthymus, Bishop of Constantinople, with certain other
persons, were condemned for having asserted "that the Father
had likewise suffered," as well as the Son. Nor in the third
Council of Constantinople, in which the Monothelites were
condemned for having asserted "that there was only one will
and operation in Jesus Christ."
2. But this doctrine was not discussed or confirmed in
particular Councils, such as that of Jerusalem, Orange, or
even that of Mela in Africa, which was held against Pelagius
and his errors, as is apparent from the articles of doctrine
which were then decreed both against his person and his false
opinions.
But so far was Augustine's doctrine of Predestination from
being received in those councils, that when Celestinus, the
Bishop of Rome, who was his contemporary, wrote to the
Bishops of France, and condemned the doctrines of the
Pelagians, he concluded his epistle in these words: "but as
we dare not despise, so neither do we deem it necessary to
defend the more profound and difficult parts of the questions
which occur in this controversy, and which have been treated
to a very great extent by those who opposed the heretics.
Because we believe, that whatever the writings according to
the forementioned rules of the Apostolic See have taught us,
is amply sufficient for confessing the grace of God, from
whose work, credit and authority not a little must be
subtracted or withdrawn," &c. In reference to the rules which
were laid down by Celestinus in that epistle, and which had
been decreed in the three preceding particular Councils, we
shall experience no difficulty in agreeing together about
them, especially in regard to those matters which are
necessary to the establishment of grace in opposition to
Pelagius and his errors.
IV. None of those Doctors or Divines of the Church who held
correct and orthodox sentiments for the first six hundred
years after the birth of Christ, ever brought this doctrine
forward or gave it their approval. Neither was it professed
and approved by a single individual of those who shewed
themselves the principal and keenest defenders of grace
against Pelagius. Of this description, it is evident, were
St. Jerome, Augustine, the author of the treatise entitled,
De Vocatione Gentium, ["The calling of the Gentiles,"]
Prosper of Aquitaine, Hilary, Fulgentius, and Orosius. This
is very apparent from their writings.
V. It neither agrees nor corresponds with the Harmony of
those confessions which were printed and published together
in one volume at Geneva, in the name of the Reformed and
Protestant Churches. If that harmony of Confessions be
faithfully consulted, it will appear that many of them do not
speak in the same manner concerning Predestination; that some
of them only incidentally mention it; and that they evidently
never once touch upon those heads of the doctrine, which are
now in great repute and particularly urged in the preceding
scheme of Predestination, and which I have already adduced.
Nor does any single Confession deliver this doctrine in the
same manner as it has just now been propounded by me. The
Confessions of Bohemia, England and Wirtemburgh, and the
first Helvetian [Swiss] Confession, and that of the four
cities of Strasburgh, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau, make
no mention of this Predestination. Those of Basle and Saxony,
only take a very cursory notice of it in three words. The
Augustan Confession speaks of it in such a manner as to
induce the Genevan editors to think, that some annotation was
necessary on their part, to give us a previous warning. The
last of the Helvetian [Swiss] Confessions, to which a great
portion of the Reformed Churches have expressed their assent
and which they have subscribed, likewise speaks of it in such
a strain as makes me very desirous to see what method can
possibly be adopted to give it any accordance with that
doctrine of Predestination which I have just now advanced.
Yet this [Swiss] Confession is that which has obtained the
approbation of the Churches of Geneva and Savoy.
VI. Without the least contention or caviling, it may very
properly be made a question of doubt, whether this doctrine
agrees with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg
Catechism; as I shall briefly demonstrate.
1. In the 14th Article of the Dutch Confession, these
expression soccur: "Man knowingly and willingly subjected
himself to sin, and, consequently, to death and cursing,
while he lent an ear to the deceiving words and impostures of
the devil," &c. From this sentence I conclude, that man did
not sin on account of any necessity through a preceding
decree of Predestination: which inference is diametrically
opposed to that doctrine of Predestination against which I
now contend. Then, in the 16th Article, which treats of the
eternal election of God, these words are contained: "God
shewed himself Merciful, by delivering from damnation, and by
saving, those persons whom, in his eternal and immutable
counsel and cording to his gratuitous goodness, he chose in
Christ Jesus our Lord, without any regard to their works. And
he shewed himself just, in leaving others in that their fall
and perdition into which they had precipitated themselves."
It is not obvious to me, how these words are consistent with
this doctrine of Predestination.
2. In the 20th question of the Heidelberg Catechism, we read:
"salvation through Christ is not given [restored] to all them
who had perished in Adam, but to those only who are engrafted
into Christ by the faith, and who embrace his benefits." From
this sentence I infer, that God has not absolutely
Predestinated any men to salvation; but that he has in his
decree considered [or looked upon] them as believers. This
deduction is at open conflict with the first and third points
of this Predestination. In the 54th question of the same
Catechism, it is said: "I believe that, from the beginning to
the end of the world, the Son of God out of the entire race
of mankind doth by his word and Spirit gather or collect unto
himself a company chosen unto eternal life and agreeing
together in the true faith." In this sentence "election to
eternal life," and "agreement in the faith," stand in mutual
juxtaposition; and in such a manner, that the latter is not
rendered subordinate to the former, which, according to these
sentiments on Predestination ought to have been done. In that
case the words should have been placed in the following
order: "the son of God calls and gathers to himself, by his
word and Spirit, a company chosen to eternal life, that they
may believe and agree together in the true faith."
Since such are the statements of our Confession and
Catechism, no reason whatever exists, why those who embrace
and defend these sentiments on Predestination, should either
violently endeavour to obtrude them on their colleagues and
on the Church of Christ; or why they should take it amiss,
and put the worst construction upon it, when any thing is
taught in the Church or University that is not exactly
accordant with their doctrine, or that is opposed to it.
VII. I affirm, that this doctrine is repugnant to the Nature
of God, but particularly to those Attributes of his nature by
which he performs and manages all things, his wisdom,
justice, and goodness.
1. It is repugnant to his wisdom in three ways. (1.) Because
it represents God as decreeing something for a particular end
[or purpose] which neither is nor can be good: which is, that
God created something for eternal perdition to the praise of
his justice. (2.) Because it states, that the object which
God proposed to himself by this Predestination, was, to
demonstrate the glory of his mercy and justice: But this
glory he cannot demonstrate, except by an act that is
contrary at once to his mercy and his justice, of which
description is that decree of God in which he determined that
man should sin and be rendered miserable. (3.) Because it
changes and inverts the order of the two-fold wisdom of God,
as it is displayed to us in the Scriptures. For it asserts,
that God has absolutely predetermined to save men by the
mercy and wisdom that are comprehended in the doctrine of the
cross of Christ, without having foreseen this circumstance,
that it was impossible for man (and that, truly, through his
own fault,) to be saved by the wisdom which was revealed in
the law and which was infused into him at the period of his
creation: When the scripture asserts, on the contrary, that
"it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe;" that is, "by the doctrine of the cross, after
that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God."
(1 Cor. i, 21.)
2. It is repugnant to the justice of God, not only in
reference to that attribute denoting in God a love of
righteousness and a hatred of iniquity, but also in reference
to its being a perpetual and constant desire in him to render
to every one that which is his due. (1.) It is at variance
with the first of these ideas of justice in the following
manner: Because it affirms, that God has absolutely willed to
save certain individual men, and has decreed their salvation
without having the least regard to righteousness or
obedience: The proper inference from which, is, that God
loves such men far more than his own justice [or
righteousness.] (2.) It is opposed to the second idea of his
justice: Because it affirms, that God wishes to subject his
creature to misery, (which cannot possibly have any existence
except as the punishment of sin,) although, at the same time,
he does not look upon [or consider] the creature as a sinner,
and therefore as not obnoxious either to wrath or to
punishment. This is the manner in which it lays down the
position, that God has willed to give to the creature not
only something which does not belong to it, but which is
connected with its greatest injury. Which is another act
directly opposed to his justice. In accordance, therefore,
with this doctrine, God, in the first place, detracts from
himself that which is his own, [or his right,] and then
imparts to the creature what does not belong to it, to its
great misery and unhappiness.
3. It is also repugnant to the Goodness of God. Goodness is
an affection [or disposition] in God to communicate his own
good so far as his justice considers and admits to be fitting
and proper. But in this doctrine the following act is
attributed to God, that, of himself, and induced to it by
nothing external, he wills the greatest evil to his
creatures; and that from all eternity he has pre-ordained
that evil for them, or pre-determined to impart it to them,
even before he resolved to bestow upon them any portion of
good. For this doctrine states, that God willed to damn; and,
that he might be able to do this, be willed to create;
although creation is the first egress [or going forth] of
God's goodness towards his creatures. How vastly different
are such statements as these from that expansive goodness of
God by which he confers benefits not only on the unworthy,
but also on the evil, the unjust and on those who are
deserving of punishment, which trait of Divine beneficence in
our Father who is in heaven, we are commanded to imitate.
(Matt. v, 45.)
VIII. Such a doctrine of Predestination is contrary to the
nature of man, in regard to his having been created after the
Divine image in the knowledge of God and in righteousness, in
regard to his having been created with freedom of will, and
in regard to his having been created with a disposition and
aptitude for the enjoyment of life eternal. These three
circumstance, respecting him, may be deduced from the
following brief expressions: "Do this, and live :" (Rom. x,
5) "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely
die." (Gen. ii, 17.) If man be deprived of any of these
qualifications, such admonitions as these cannot possibly be
effective in exciting him to obedience.
1. This doctrine is inconsistent with the Divine image, which
consists of the knowledge of God and holiness. For according
to this knowledge and righteousness man was qualified and
empowered, he was also laid under an obligation to know God,
to love, worship, and serve him. But by the intervention, or
rather by the prevention, of this Predestination, it was pre-
ordained that man should be formed vicious and should commit
sin, that is, that he should neither know God, love, worship,
nor serve him; and that he should not perform that which by
the image of God, he was well qualified and empowered to do,
and which he was bound to perform. This is tantamount to such
a declaration as the following, which any one might make:
"God did undoubtedly create man after his own image, in
righteousness and true holiness; but, notwithstanding this,
he fore-ordained and decreed, that man should become impure
and unrighteous, that is, should be made conformable to the
image of Satan."
2. This doctrine is inconsistent with the freedom of the
will, in which and with which man was created by God. For it
prevents the exercise of this liberty, by binding or
determining the will absolutely to one object, that is, to do
this thing precisely, or to do that. God, therefore,
according to this statement, may be blamed for the one or the
other of these two things, (with which let no man charge his
Maker!) either for creating man with freedom of will, or for
hindering him in the use of his own liberty after he had
formed him a free agent. In the former of these two cases,
God is chargeable with a want of consideration, in the latter
with mutability. And in both, with being injurious to man as
well as to himself.
3. This Predestination is prejudicial to man in regard to the
inclination and capacity for the eternal fruition of
salvation, with which he was endowed at the period of his
creation. For, since by this Predestination it has been pre-
determined, that the greater part of mankind shall not be
made partakers of salvation, but shall fall into everlasting
condemnation, and since this predetermination took place even
before the decree had passed for creating man, such persons
are deprived of something, for the desire of which they have
been endowed by God with a natural inclination. This great
privation they suffer, not in consequence of any preceding
sin or demerit of their own, but simply and solely through
this sort of Predestination.
IX. This Predestination is diametrically opposed to the Act
of Creation.
1. For creation is a communication of good according to the
intrinsic property of its nature. But, creation of this
description, whose intent or design is, to make a way through
itself by which the reprobation that had been previously
determined may obtain its object, is not a communication of
good. For we ought to form our estimate and judgment of every
good, from the mind and intention of Him who is the Donor,
and from the end to which or on account of which it is
bestowed. In the present instance, the intention of the Donor
would have been, to condemn, which is an act that could not
possibly affect any one except a creature; and the end or
event of creation would have been the eternal perdition of
the creature. In that case creation would not have been a
communication of any good, but a preparation for the greatest
evil both according to the very intention of the Creator and
the actual issue of the matter; and according to the words of
Christ, "it had seen good for that man, if he had never been
born!" (Matt. xxvi, 24.)
2. Reprobation is an act of hatred, and from hatred derives
its origin. But creation does not proceed from hatred; it is
not therefore a way or means, which belongs to the execution
of the decree of reprobation.
3. Creation is a perfect act of God, by which he has
manifested his wisdom, goodness and omnipotence: It is not
therefore subordinate to the end of any other preceding work
or action of God. But it is rather to be viewed as that act
of God, which necessarily precedes and is antecedent to all
other acts that he can possibly either decree or undertake.
Unless God had formed a previous conception of the work of
creation, he could not have decreed actually to undertake any
other act; and until he had executed the work of creation, he
could by no means have completed any other operation.
4. All the actions of God which tend to the condemnation of
his creatures, are strange work or foreign to him; because
God consents to them, for some other cause that is quite
extraneous. But creation is not an action that is foreign to
God, but it is proper to him. It is eminently an action most
appropriate to Him, and to which he could be moved by no
other external cause, because it is the very first of the
Divine acts, and, till it was done, nothing could have any
actual existence, except God himself; for every thing else
that has a being, came into existence through this action.
5. If creation be the way and means through which God willed
the execution of the decree of his reprobation, he was more
inclined to will the act of reprobation than that of
creation; and he consequently derived greater satisfaction
from the act of condemning certain of his innocent creatures,
than in the act of their creation.
6. Lastly. Creation cannot be a way or means of reprobation
according to the absolute purpose of God: because, after the
creation was completed, it was in the power of man still to
have remained obedient to the divine commands, and not to
commit sin; to render this possible, while God had on one
part bestowed on him sufficient strength and power, he had
also on the other placed sufficient impediments; a
circumstance most diametrically opposed to a Predestination
of this description.
X. This doctrine is at open hostility with the Nature of
Eternal Life, and the titles by which it is signally
distinguished in the Scriptures. For it is called "the
inheritance of the sons of God ;" (Tit. iii, 7,) but those
alone are the sons of God, according to the doctrine of the
Gospel, "who believe in the name of Jesus Christ." (John i,
12.) It is also called, "the reward of obedience," (Matt. v,
12,) and of "the labour of love;" (Heb. vi, 10,) "the
recompense of those who fight the good fight and who run
well, a crown of righteousness," &c. (Rev. ii, 10; 2 Tim. iv,
7, 8.) God therefore has not, from his own absolute decree,
without any consideration or regard whatever to faith and
obedience, appointed to any man, or determined to appoint to
him, life eternal.
XI This Predestination is also opposed to the Nature of
Eternal Death, and to those appellations by which it is
described in Scripture. For it is called "the wages of sin;
(Rom. vi, 23,) the punishment of everlasting destruction,
which shall be recompensed to them that know not God, and
that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; (2 Thess.
i, 8, 9,) the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his
angels, (Matt. xxv, 41,) a fire which shall devour the
enemies and adversaries of God." (Heb. x, 27.) God,
therefore, has not, by any absolute decree without respect to
sin and disobedience, prepared eternal death for any person.
XII This Predestination is inconsistent with the Nature and
Properties of Sin in two ways: (1.) Because sin is called
"disobedience" and "rebellion," neither of which terms can
possibly apply to any person who by a preceding divine decree
is placed under an unavoidable necessity of sinning. (2.)
Because sin is the meritorious cause of damnation. But the
meritorious cause which moves the Divine will to reprobate,
is according to justice; and it induces God, who holds sin in
abhorrence, to will reprobation. Sin, therefore, which is a
cause, cannot be placed among the means, by which God
executes the decree or will of reprobation.
XIII. This doctrine is likewise repugnant to the Nature of
Divine Grace, and as far as its powers permit, it effects its
destruction. Under whatever specious pretenses it may be
asserted, that "this kind of Predestination is most admirably
adapted and quite necessary for the establishment of grace,"
yet it destroys it in three ways:
1. Because grace is so attempered and commingled with the
nature of man, as not to destroy within him the liberty of
his will, but to give it a right direction, to correct its
depravity, and to allow man to possess his own proper
notions. While, on the contrary, this Predestination
introduces such a species of grace, as takes away free will
and hinders its exercise.
2. Because the representations of grace which the scriptures
contain, are such as describe it capable of "being resisted,
(Acts, vii, 51,) and received in vain;" (2 Cor. vi, 1,) and
that it is possible for man to avoid yielding his assent to
it; and to refuse all co-operation with it. (Heb. xii, 15;
Matt. xxiii, 37; Luke vii, 30.) While, on the contrary, this
Predestination affirms, that grace is a certain irresistible
force and operation.
3. Because, according to the primary intention and chief
design of God, grace conduces to the good of those persons to
whom it is offered and by whom it is received: while, on the
contrary, this doctrine drags along with it the assertion,
that grace is offered even to certain reprobates, and is so
far communicated to them as to illuminate their
understandings and to excite within them a taste for the
heavenly gifts, only for this end and purpose, that, in
proportion to the height to which they are elevated, the
abyss into which they are precipitated may be the deeper, and
their fall the heavier; and that they may both merit and
receive the greater perdition.
XIV. The doctrine of this Predestination is Injurious to the
Glory of God, which does not consist of a declaration of
liberty or authority, nor of a demonstration of anger and
power, except to such an extent as that declaration and
demonstration may be consistent with justice, and with a
perpetual reservation in behalf of the honour of God's
goodness. But, according to this doctrine, it follows that
God is the author of sin, which may be proved by four
arguments:
1. One of its positions is, that God has absolutely decreed
to demonstrate his glory by punitive justice and mercy, in
the salvation of some men, and in the damnation of others,
which neither was done, nor could have possibly been done,
unless sin had entered into the world.
2. This doctrine affirms, that, in order to obtain his
object, God ordained that man should commit sin, and be
rendered vitiated; and, from this Divine ordination or
appointment, the fall of man necessarily followed.
3. It asserts that God has denied to man, or has withdrawn
from him, such a portion of grace as is sufficient and
necessary to enable him to avoid sin, and that this was done
before man had sinned: which is an act that amounts to the
same as if God had prescribed a law to man, which it would be
utterly impossible for him to fulfill, when the nature in
which he had been created was taken into consideration.
4. It ascribes to God certain operations with regard to man,
both external and internal, both mediate (by means of the
intervention of other creatures) and immediate -- which
Divine operations being once admitted, man must necessarily
commit sin, by that necessity which the schoolmen call "a
consequential necessity antecedent to the thing itself," and
which totally destroys the freedom of the will. Such an act
does this doctrine attribute to God, and represents it to
proceed from his primary and chief intention, without any
foreknowledge of an inclination, will, or action on the part
of man.
From these premises, we deduce, as a further conclusion, that
God really sins. Because, according to this doctrine, he
moves to sin by an act that is unavoidable, and according to
his own purpose and primary intention, without having
received any previous inducement to such an act from any
preceding sin or demerit in man.
From the same position we might also infer, that God is the
only sinner. For man, who is impelled by an irresistible
force to commit sin, (that is, to perpetrate some deed that
has been prohibited,) cannot be said to sin himself.
As a legitimate consequence it also follows, that sin is not
sin, since whatever that be which God does, it neither can be
sin, nor ought any of his acts to receive that appellation.
Besides the instances which I have already recounted, there
is another method by which this doctrine inflicts a deep
wound on the honour of God -- but these, it is probable, will
be considered at present to be amply sufficient.
XV. This doctrine is highly dishonourable to Jesus Christ our
saviour. For, 1. It entirely excludes him from that decree
of Predestination which predestinates the end: and it
affirms, that men were predestinated to be saved, before
Christ was predestinated to save them; and thus it argues,
that he is not the foundation of election. 2. It denies,
that Christ is the meritorious cause, that again obtained for
us the salvation which we had lost, by placing him as only a
subordinate cause of that salvation which had been already
foreordained, and thus only a minister and instrument to
apply that salvation unto us. This indeed is in evident
congruity with the opinion which states "that God has
absolutely willed the salvation of certain men, by the first
and supreme decree which he passed, and on which all his
other decrees depend and are consequent." If this be true, it
was therefore impossible for the salvation of such men to
have been lost, and therefore unnecessary for it to be
repaired and in some sort regained afresh, and discovered, by
the merit of Christ, who was fore-ordained a saviour for them
alone.
XVI. This doctrine is also hurtful to the salvation of men.
1. Because it prevents that saving and godly sorrow for sins
that have been committed, which cannot exist in those who
have no consciousness of sin. But it is obvious, that the man
who has committed sin through the unavoidable necessity of
the decree of God, cannot possibly have this kind of
consciousness of sin. (2 Cor. vii, 10.)
2. Because it removes all pious solicitude about being
converted from sin unto God. For he can feel no such concern
who is entirely passive and conducts himself like a dead man,
with respect not only to his discernment and perception of
the grace of God that is exciting and assisting, but also to
his assent and obedience to it; and who is converted by such
an irresistible impulse, that he not only cannot avoid being
sensible of the grace of God which knocks within him, but he
must likewise of necessity yield his assent to it, and thus
convert himself, or rather be converted. Such a person it is
evident, cannot produce within his heart or conceive in his
mind this solicitude, except he have previously felt the same
irresistible motion. And if he should produce within his
heart any such concern, it would be in vain and without the
least advantage. For that cannot be a true solicitude, which
is not produced in the heart by any other means except by an
irresistible force according to the absolute purpose and
intention of God to effect his salvation. (Rev. ii, 3; iii,
2.)
3. Because it restrains, in persons that are converted, all
zeal and studious regard for good works, since it declares
"that the regenerate cannot perform either more or less good
than they do." For he that is actuated or impelled by saving
grace, must work, and cannot discontinue his labour; but he
that is not actuated by the same grace, can do nothing, and
finds it necessary to cease from all attempts. (Tit. iii,
14.)
4. Because it extinguishes the zeal for prayer, which yet is
an efficacious means instituted by God for asking and
obtaining all kinds of blessings from him, but principally
the great one of salvation. (Luke xi, 1-13.) But from the
circumstance of it having been before determined by an
immutable and inevitable decree, that this description of men
[the elect] should obtain salvation, prayer cannot on any
account be a means for asking and obtaining that salvation.
It can only be a mode of worshipping God; because according
to the absolute decree of his Predestination he has
determined that such men shall be saved.
5. It takes away all that most salutary fear and trembling
with which we are commanded to work out our own salvation.
(Phil. ii, 12) for it states "that he who is elected and
believes, cannot sin with that full and entire willingness
with which sin is committed by the ungodly; and that they
cannot either totally or finally fall away from faith or
grace."
6. Because it produces within men a despair both of
performing that which their duty requires and of obtaining
that towards which their desires are directed. For when they
are taught that the grace of God (which is really necessary
to the performance of the least portion of good) is denied to
the majority of mankind, according to an absolute and
peremptory decree of God -- - and that such grace is denied
because, by a preceding decree equally absolute, God has
determined not to confer salvation on them but damnation;
when they are thus taught, it is scarcely possible for any
other result to ensue, than that the individual who cannot
even with great difficulty work a persuasion within himself
of his being elected, should soon consider himself included
in the number of the reprobate. From such an apprehension as
this, must arise a certain despair of performing
righteousness and obtaining salvation.
XVII. This doctrine inverts the order of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. For in the Gospel God requires repentance and faith
on the part of man, by promising to him life everlasting, if
he consent to become a convert and a believer. (Mark i, 15;
xvi, 16.) But it is stated in this [Supralapsarian] decree of
Predestination, that it is God's absolute will, to bestow
salvation on certain particular men, and that he willed at
the same time absolutely to give those very individuals
repentance and faith, by means of an irresistible force,
because it was his will and pleasure to save them. In the
Gospel, God denounces eternal death on the impenitent and
unbelieving. (John iii, 36.) And those threats contribute to
the purpose which he has in view, that he may by such means
deter them from unbelief and thus may save them. But by this
decree of Predestination it is taught, that God wills not to
confer on certain individual men that grace which is
necessary for conversion and faith because he has absolutely
decreed their condemnation.
The Gospel says, "God so loved the world that he gave his
only-begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should
have everlasting life." (John iii, 16.)
But this doctrine declares; "that God so loved those whom he
had absolutely elected to eternal life, as to give his son to
them alone, and by an irresistible force to produce within
them faith on him." To embrace the whole in few words, the
Gospel says, "fulfill the command, and thou shalt obtain the
promise; believe, and thou shalt live." But this
[supralapsarian] doctrine says, "since it is my will to give
thee life, it is therefore my will to give thee faith:" which
is a real and most manifest inversion of the Gospel.
XVIII. This Predestination is in open hostility to the
ministry of the Gospel.
1. For if God by an irresistible power quicken him who is
dead in trespasses and sins, no man can be a minister and "a
labourer together with God," (1 Cor. iii, 9,) nor can the
word preached by man be the instrument of grace and of the
Spirit, any more than a creature could have been an
instrument of grace in the first creation, or a dispenser of
that grace in the resurrection of the body from the dead.
2. Because by this Predestination the ministry of the gospel
is made "the savour of death unto death" in the case of the
majority of those who hear it, (2 Cor. ii, 14-16,) as well as
an instrument of condemnation, according to the primary
design and absolute intention of God, without any
consideration of previous rebellion.
3. Because, according to this doctrine, baptism, when
administered to many reprobate children, (who yet are the
offspring of parents that believe and are God's covenant
people,) is evidently a seal [or ratification] of nothing,
and thus becomes entirely useless, in accordance with the
primary and absolute intention of God, without any fault [or
culpability] on the part of the infants themselves, to whom
it is administered in obedience to the Divine command.
4. Because it hinders public prayers from being offered to
God in a becoming and suitable manner, that is, with faith,
and in confidence that they will be profitable to all the
hearers of the word; when there are many among them, whom God
is not only unwilling to save, but whom by his absolute,
eternal, and immutable will, (which is antecedent to all
things and causes whatever,) it is his will and pleasure to
damn: In the mean time, when the apostle commands prayers and
supplications to be made for all men, he adds this reason,
"for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our
saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto
the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. ii, 1-4.)
5. The constitution of this doctrine is such, as very easily
to render pastors and teachers slothful and negligent in the
exercise of their ministry: Because, from this doctrine it
appears to them as though it were impossible for all their
diligence to be useful to any persons, except to those only
whom God absolutely and precisely wills to save, and who
cannot possibly perish; and as though all their negligence
could be hurtful to none, except to those alone whom God
absolutely wills to destroy, who must of necessity perish,
and to whom a contrary fate is impossible.
XIX. This doctrine completely subverts the foundation of
religion in general, and of the Christian Religion in
particular.
1. The foundation of religion considered in general, is a
two-fold love of God; without which there neither is nor can
be any religion: The first of them is a love for
righteousness [or justice] which gives existence to his
hatred of sin. The second is a love for the creature who is
endowed with reason, and (in the matter now before us,) it is
a love for man, according to the expression of the Apostle to
the Hebrews. "for he that cometh to God must believe that he
is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek
Him." (xi, 6.) God's love of righteousness is manifested by
this circumstance, that it is not his will and pleasure to
bestow eternal life on any except on "those who seek him."
God's love of man consists in his being willing to give him
eternal life, if he seek Him.
A mutual relation subsists between these two kinds of love,
which is this. The latter species of love, which extends
itself to the creatures, cannot come into exercise, except so
far as it is permitted by the former, [the love of
righteousness]: The former love, therefore, is by far the
most excellent species; but in every direction there is
abundant scope for the emanations of the latter, [the love of
the creature,] except where the former [the love of
righteousness] has placed some impediment in the range of its
exercise. The first of these consequences is most evidently
proved from the circumstance of God's condemning man on
account of sin, although he loves him in the relation in
which he stands as his creature; which would by no means have
been done, had he loved man more than righteousness, [or
justice,] and had he evinced a stronger aversion to the
eternal misery of man than to his disobedience. But the
second consequence is proved by this argument, that God
condemns no person, except on account of sin; and that he
saves such a multitude of men who turn themselves away [or
are converted] from sin; which he could not do, unless it was
his will to allow as abundant scope to his love for the
creatures, as is permitted by righteousness [or justice]
under the regulation of the Divine judgment.
But this [Supralapsarian] doctrine inverts this order and
mutual relation in two ways: (1.) The one is when it states,
that God wills absolutely to save certain particular men,
without having had in that his intention the least reference
or regard to their obedience. This is the manner in which it
places the love of God to man before his love of
righteousness, and lays down the position -- that God loves
men (as such) more than righteousness, and evinces a stronger
aversion to their misery than to their sin and disobedience.
(2.) The other is when it asserts, on the contrary, that God
wills absolutely to damn certain particular men without
manifesting in his decree any consideration of their
disobedience. In this manner it detracts from his love to the
creature that which belongs to it; while it teaches, that God
hates the creature, without any cause or necessity derived
from his love of righteousness and his hatred of iniquity. In
which case, it is not true, "that sin is the primary object
of God's hatred, and its only meritorious cause."
The great influence and potency which this consideration
possesses in subverting the foundation of religion, may be
appropriately described by the following simile: Suppose a
son to say, "My father is such a great lover of righteousness
and equity, that, notwithstanding I am his beloved son, he
would disinherit me if I were found disobedient to him.
Obedience, therefore, is a duty which I must sedulously
cultivate, and which is highly incumbent upon me, if I wish
to be his heir." Suppose another son to say: "My father's
love for me is so great, that he is absolutely resolved to
make me his heir. There is, therefore, no necessity for my
earnestly striving to yield him obedience; for, according to
his unchangeable will, I shall become his heir. Nay, he will
by an irresistible force draw me to obey him, rather than not
suffer me to be made his heir." But such reasoning as the
latter is diametrically opposed to the doctrine contained in
the following words of John the Baptist: "And think not to
say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father: For I
say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up
children unto Abraham." (Matt. iii, 9.)
2. But the Christian religion also has its superstructure
built upon this two-fold love as a foundation. This love,
however, is to be considered in a manner somewhat different,
in consequence of the change in the condition of man, who,
when he had been created after the image of God and in his
favour, became by his own fault a sinner and an enemy to God.
(1.) God's love of righteousness [or justice] on which the
Christian religion rests, is, first, that righteousness which
he declared only once, which was in Christ; because it was
his will that sin should not be expiated in any other way
than by the blood and death of his Son, and that Christ
should not be admitted before him as an Advocate, Deprecator
and Intercessor, except when sprinkled by his own blood. But
this love of righteousness is, secondly, that which he daily
manifests in the preaching of the gospel, in which he
declares it to be his will to grant a communication of Christ
and his benefits to no man, except to him who becomes
converted and believes in Christ. (2.) God's love of
miserable sinners, on which likewise the Christian religion
is founded, is, first, that love by which he gave his Son for
them, and constituted him a saviour of those who obey him.
But this love of sinners is, secondly, that by which he hath
required obedience, not according to the rigor and severity
to which he was entitled by his own supreme right, but
according to his grace and clemency, and with the addition of
a promise of the remission of sins, provided fallen man
repent.
The [supralapsarian] doctrine of Predestination is, in two
ways, opposed to this two-fold foundation: first, by stating,
"that God has such a great love for certain sinners, that it
was his will absolutely to save them before he had given
satisfaction, through Christ Jesus, to his love of
righteousness, [or justice,] and that he thus willed their
salvation even in his own fore-knowledge and according to his
determinate purpose." Besides, it totally and most completely
overturns this foundation, by teaching it to be "God's
pleasure, that satisfaction should be paid to his justice,
[or righteousness,] because he willed absolutely to save such
persons:" which is nothing less, than to make his love for
justice, manifested in Christ, subordinate to his love for
sinful man whom it is his will absolutely to save. Secondly.
It opposes itself to this foundation, by teaching, "that it
is the will of God absolutely to damn certain sinners without
any consideration of their impenitency;" when at the same
time a most plenary and complete satisfaction had been
rendered, in Christ Jesus, to God's love of righteousness [or
justice] and to his hatred of sin. So that nothing now can
hinder the possibility of his extending mercy to the sinner,
whosoever he may be, except the condition of repentance.
Unless some person should choose to assert, what is stated in
this doctrine, "that it has been God's will to act towards
the greater part of mankind with the same severity as he
exercised towards the devil and his angels, or even with
greater, since it was his pleasure that neither Christ nor
his gospel should be productive of greater blessings to them
than to the devils, and since, according to the first
offense, the door of grace is as much closed against them as
it is against the evil angels." Yet each of those angels
sinned, by himself in his own proper person, through his
individual maliciousness, and by his voluntary act; while men
sinned, only in Adam their parent, before they had been
brought into existence.
But, that we may more clearly understand the fact of this
two-fold love being the foundation of all religion and the
manner in which it is so, with the mutual correspondence that
subsists between each other, as we have already described
them, it will be profitable for us to contemplate with
greater attention the following words of the Apostle to the
Hebrews: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is and
that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." In
these words two things are laid down as foundations to
religion, in opposition to two fiery darts of Satan, which
are the most pernicious pests to it, and each of which is
able by itself to overturn and extirpate all religion. One of
them is security, the other despair. Security operates, when
a man permits himself, that, how inattentive soever he may be
to the worship of God, he will not be damned, but will obtain
salvation. Despair is in operation, when a person entertains
a persuasion, that, whatever degree of reverence he may
evince towards God, he will not receive any remuneration. In
what human mind soever either of these pests is fostered, it
is impossible that any true and proper worship of God can
there reside. Now both of them are overturned by the words of
the Apostle: For if a man firmly believes, "that God will
bestow eternal life on those alone who seek Him, but that He
will inflict on the rest death eternal," he can on no account
indulge himself in security. And if he likewise believes,
that "God is truly a rewarder of those who diligently seek
Him," by applying himself to the search he will not be in
danger of falling into despair. The foundation of the former
kind of faith by which a man firmly believes, "that God will
bestow eternal life on none except on those who seek Him," is
that love which God bears to his own righteousness, [or
justice,] and which is greater than that which he entertains
for man. And, by this alone, all cause of security is
removed. But the foundation of the latter kind of faith,
"that God will undoubtedly be a rewarder of those who
diligently seek Him," is that great love for man which
neither will nor can prevent God from effecting salvation for
him, except he be hindered by his still greater love for
righteousness or justice. Yet the latter kind of love is so
far from operating as a hindrance to God from becoming a
rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, that on the
contrary, it promotes in every possible way the bestowment of
that reward. Those persons, therefore, who seek God, can by
no means indulge in a single doubt concerning his readiness
to remunerate. And it is this which acts as a preservative
against despair or distrust. Since this is the actual state
of the case, this two-fold love, and the mutual relation
which each part of it bears to the other and which we have
just unfolded, are the foundations of religion, without which
no religion can possibly exist. That doctrine, therefore,
which is in open hostility to this mutual love and to the
relation that mutually subsists between them, is, at the same
time, subversive of the foundation of all religion.
XX. Lastly. This doctrine of Predestination has been rejected
both in former times and in our own days, by the greater part
of the professors of Christianity.
1. But, omitting all mention of the periods that occurred in
former ages, facts themselves declare, that the Lutheran and
Anabaptist Churches, as well as that of Rome, account this to
be an erroneous doctrine.
2. However highly Luther and Melancthon might at the very
commencement of the reformation, have approved of this
doctrine, they afterwards deserted it. This change in
Melancthon is quite apparent from his latter writings: And
those who style themselves "Luther's disciples," make the
same statement respecting their master, while they contend
that on this subject he made a more distinct and copious
declaration of his sentiments, instead of entirely abandoning
those which he formerly entertained. But Philip Melancthon
believed that this doctrine did not differ greatly from the
fate of the Stoics: This appears from many of his writings,
but more particularly in a certain letter which he addressed
to Gasper Peucer, and in which, among other things, he
states: "Lælius writes to me and says, that the controversy
respecting the Stoical Fate is agitated with such uncommon
fervour at Geneva, that one individual is cast into prison
because he happened to differ from Zeno. O unhappy times!
When the doctrine of salvation is thus obscured by certain
strange disputes!"
3. All the Danish Churches embrace a doctrine quite opposed
to this, as is obvious from the writings of Nicholas
Hemmingius in his treatise on Universal Grace, in which he
declares that the contest between him and his adversaries
consisted in the determination of these two points: "do the
Elect believe ," or, "are believers the true elect?" He
considers "those persons who maintain the former position, to
hold sentiments agreeable to the doctrine of the Manichees
and Stoics; and those who maintain the latter point, are in
obvious agreement with Moses and the Prophets, with Christ
and his Apostles."
4. Besides, by many of the inhabitants of these our own
provinces, this doctrine is accounted a grievance of such a
nature, as to cause several of them to affirm, that on
account of it, they neither can nor will have any communion
with our Church. Others of them have united themselves with
our Churches, but not without entering a protest, "that they
cannot possibly give their consent to this doctrine." But, on
account of this kind of Predestination, our Churches have
been deserted by not a few individuals, who formerly held the
same opinions as ourselves: Others, also, have threatened to
depart from us, unless they be fully assured that the Church
holds no opinion of this description.
5. There is likewise no point of doctrine which the Papists,
Anabaptists, and Lutherans oppose with greater vehemence than
this, and through whose sides they create a worse opinion of
our Churches or procure for them a greater portion of hatred,
and thus bring into disrepute all the doctrines which we
profess. They likewise affirm "that of all the blasphemies
against God which the mind of man can conceive or his tongue
can express, there is none so foul as not to be deduced by
fair consequence from this opinion of our doctors."
6. Lastly. Of all the difficulties and controversies which
have arisen in these our Churches since the time of the
Reformation, there is none that has not had its origin in
this doctrine, or that has not, at least, been mixed with it.
What I have here said will be found true, if we bring to our
recollection the controversies which existed at Leyden in the
affair of Koolhaes, at Gouda in that of Herman Herberts, at
Horn with respect to Cornelius Wiggerston, and at Mendenblich
in the affair of Tako Sybrants. This consideration was not
among the last of those motives which induced me to give my
most diligent attention to this head of doctrine, and
endeavour to prevent our Churches from suffering any
detriment from it; because, from it, the Papists have derived
much of their increase. While all pious teachers ought most
heartily to desire the destruction of Popery, as they would
that of the kingdom of Antichrist, they ought with the
greatest zeal, to engage in the attempt, and as far as it is
within their power, to make the most efficient preparations
for its overthrow.
The preceding views are, in brief, those which I hold
respecting this novel doctrine of Predestination. I have
propounded it with all good faith from the very expressions
of the authors themselves, that I might not seem to invent
and attribute to them any thing which I was not able clearly
to prove from their writings.
2. A SECOND KIND OF PREDESTINATION.
But some other of our doctors state the subject of God's
Predestination in a manner somewhat different. We will
cursorily touch upon the two modes which they employ. Among
some of them the following opinion is prevalent:
1. God determined within himself, by an eternal and immutable
decree, to make (according to his own good pleasure,) the
smaller portion out of the general mass of mankind partakers
of his grace and glory, to the praise of his own glorious
grace. But according to his pleasure he also passed by the
greater portion of men, and left them in their own nature,
which is incapable of every thing supernatural, [or beyond
itself,] and did not communicate to them that saving and
supernatural grace by which their nature, (if it still
retained its integrity,) might be strengthened, or by which,
if it were corrupted, it might be restored -- for a
demonstration of his own liberty. Yet after God had made
these men sinners and guilty of death, he punished them with
death eternal -- for a demonstration of his own justice.
2. Predestination is to be considered in respect to its end
and to the means which tend to it. But these persons employ
the word "Predestination" in its special acceptation for
election and oppose it to reprobation. (1.) In respect to its
end, (which is salvation, and an illustration of the glorious
grace of God,) man is considered in common and absolutely,
such as he is in his own nature. (2.) But in respect to the
means, man is considered as perishing from himself and in
himself, and as guilty in Adam.
3. In the decree concerning the end, the following gradations
are to be regarded. (1.) The prescience of God, by which he
foreknew those whom he had predestinated. Then (2.) The
Divine prefinition, [or predetermination,] by which he
foreordained the salvation of those persons by whom he had
foreknown. First, by electing them from all eternity: and
secondly, by preparing for them grace in this life, and glory
in the world to come.
4. The means which belong to the execution of this
Predestination, are (1.) Christ himself: (2.) An efficacious
call to faith in Christ, from which justification takes its
origin: (3.) The gift of perseverance unto the end.
5. As far as we are capable of comprehending their scheme of
reprobation it consists of two acts, that of preterition and
that of predamnatian. It is antecedent to all things, and to
all causes which are either in the things themselves or which
arise out of them; that is, it has no regard whatever to any
sin, and only views man in an absolute and general aspect.
6. Two means are fore-ordained for the execution of the act
of preterition: (1.) Dereliction [or abandoning] in a state
of nature, which by itself is incapable of every thing
supernatural: and (2.) Non-communication [or a negation] of
supernatural grace, by which their nature (if in a state of
integrity,) might be strengthened, and (if in a state of
corruption,) might be restored.
7. Predamnation is antecedent to all things, yet it does by
no means exist without a fore-knowledge of the causes of
damnation. It views man as a sinner, obnoxious to damnation
in Adam, and as on this account perishing through the
necessity of Divine justice.
8. The means ordained for the execution of this predamnation,
are (1.) Just desertion, which is either that of exploration,
[or examination,] in which God does not confer his grace, or
that of punishment when God takes away from a man all his
saving gifts, and delivers him over to the power of Satan.
(2.) The second means are induration or hardening, and those
consequences which usually follow even to the real damnation
of the person reprobated.
3. A THIRD KIND OF PREDESTINATION.
But others among our doctors state their sentiments on this
subject in the following manner:
1. Because God willed within himself from all eternity to
make a decree by which he might elect certain men and
reprobate the rest, he viewed and considered the human race
not only as created but likewise as fallen or corrupt, and on
that account obnoxious to cursing and malediction. Out of
this lapsed and accursed state God determined to liberate
certain individuals and freely to save them by his grace, for
a declaration of his mercy; but he resolved in his own just
judgment to leave the rest under the curse [or malediction]
for a declaration of his justice. In both these cases God
acts without the least consideration of repentance and faith
in those whom he elects, or of impenitence and unbelief in
those whom he reprobates.
2. The special means which relate particularly to the
execution both of election and reprobation, are the very same
as those which we have already expounded in the first of
these kinds of Predestination, with the exception of those
means which are common both to election and reprobation;
because this [third] opinion places the fall of man, not as a
means fore-ordained for the execution of the preceding decree
of Predestination, but as something that might furnish a
fixed purpose or occasion for making this decree of
Predestination.
4. MY JUDGMENT RESPECTING THE TWO LAST DESCRIBED SCHEMES OF
PREDESTINATION.
Both these opinions, as they outwardly pretend, differ from
the first in this point -- that neither of them lays down the
creation or the fall as a mediate cause fore-ordained by God
for the execution of the preceding decree of Predestination.
Yet, with regard to the fall, some diversity may be perceived
in the two latter opinions. For the second kind of
Predestination places election, with regard to the end,
before the fall; it also places before that event
preterition, [or passing by,] which is the first part of
reprobation. While the third kind does not allow any part of
election and reprobation to commence till after the fall of
man. But, among the causes which seem to have induced the
inventors of the two latter schemes to deliver the doctrine
of Predestination in this manner, and not to ascend to such a
great height as the inventors of the first scheme have done,
this is not the least -- that they have been desirous of
using the greatest precaution, lest it might be concluded
from their doctrine that God is the author of sin, with as
much show of probability as, (according to the intimation of
some of those who yield their assent to both the latter
kinds,) it is deducible from the first description of
Predestination.
Yet if we be willing to inspect these two latter opinions a
little more closely, and in particular if we accurately
examine the second and third kind and compare them with other
sentiments of the same author concerning some subjects of our
religion, we shall discover, that the fall of Adam cannot
possibly, according to their views, be considered in any
other manner than as a necessary means for the execution of
the preceding decree of Predestination.
1. In reference to the second of the three, this is apparent
from two reasons comprised in it:
The first of these reasons is that which states God to have
determined by the decree of reprobation to deny to man that
grace which was necessary for the confirmation and
strengthening of his nature, that it might not be corrupted
by sin; which amounts to this, that God decreed not to bestow
that grace which was necessary to avoid sin; and from this
must necessarily follow the transgression of man, as
proceeding from a law imposed on him. The fall of man is
therefore a means ordained for the execution of the decree of
reprobation.
The second of these reasons is that which states the two
parts of reprobation to be preterition and predamnation.
These two parts, according to that decree, are connected
together by a necessary and mutual bond, and are equally
extensive. For, all those whom God passed by in conferring
Divine grace, are likewise damned. Indeed no others are
damned, except those who are the subjects of this act of
preterition. From this therefore it may be concluded, that
"sin must necessarily follow from the decree of reprobation
or preterition, because, if it were otherwise, it might
possibly happen, that a person who had been passed by, might
not commit sin, and from that circumstance might not become
liable to damnation; since sin is the sole meritorious cause
of damnation: and thus certain of those individuals who had
been passed by, might neither be saved nor damned -- which is
great absurdity.
This second opinion on Predestination, therefore, falls into
the same inconvenience as the first. For it not only does not
avoid that [conclusion of making God the author of sin,] but
while those who profess it make the attempt, they fall into a
palpable and absurd self-contradiction -- while, in reference
to this point, the first of these opinions is alike
throughout and consistent with itself.
2. The third of these schemes of Predestination would escape
this rock to much better effect, did not the patrons of it,
while declaring their sentiments on Predestination and
providence, employ certain expressions, from which the
necessity of the fall might be deduced. Yet this necessity
cannot possibly have any other origin than some degree of
Predestination.
(1.) One of these explanatory expressions is their
description of the Divine permission, by which God permits
sin. Some of them describe it thus: "permission is the
withdrawing of that Divine grace, by which, when God executes
the decrees of his will through rational creatures, he either
does not reveal to the creature that divine will of his own
by which he wills that action to be performed, or does not
bend the will of the creature to yield obedience in that act
to the Divine will." To these expressions, the following are
immediately subjoined: "if this be a correct statement, the
creature commits sin through necessity, yet voluntarily and
without restraint." If it be objected that "this description
does not comport with that permission by which God permitted
the sin of Adam:" We also entertain the same opinion about
it. Yet it follows, as a consequence, from this very
description, that "other sins are committed through
necessity."
(2.) Of a similar tendency are the expressions which some of
them use, when they contend, that the declaration of the
glory of God, which must necessarily be illustrated, is
placed in "the demonstration of mercy and of punitive
justice." But such a demonstration could not have been made,
unless sin, and misery through sin, had entered into the
world, to form at least some degree of misery for the least
sin. And in this manner is sin also necessarily introduced,
through the necessity of such a demonstration of the Divine
glory. Since the fall of Adam is already laid down to be
necessary, and, on that account, to be a means for executing
the preceding decree of Predestination; creation itself is
likewise at the same time laid down as a means subservient to
the execution of the same decree. For the fall cannot be
necessarily consequent upon the creation, except through the
decree of Predestination, which cannot be placed between the
creation and the fall, but is prefixed to both of them, as
having the precedence, and ordaining creation for the fall,
and both of them for executing one and the same decree -- to
demonstrate the justice of God in the punishment of sin, and
his mercy in its remission. Because, if this were not the
case, that which must necessarily ensue from the act of
creation had not seen intended by God when he created, which
is to suppose an impossibility.
But let it be granted, that the necessity of the fall of Adam
cannot be deduced from either of the two latter opinions, yet
all the preceding arguments which have been produced against
the first opinion, are, after a trifling modification to suit
the varied purpose, equally valid against the two latter.
This would be very apparent, if, to demonstrate it, a
conference were to be instituted.
5. MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION.
I have hitherto been stating those opinions concerning the
article of Predestination which are inculcated in our
Churches and in the University of Leyden, and of which I
disapprove. I have at the same time produced my own reasons,
why I form such an unfavourable judgment concerning them; and
I will now declare my own opinions on this subject, which are
of such a description as, according to my views, appear most
conformable to the word of God.
I. The first absolute decree of God concerning the salvation
of sinful man, is that by which he decreed to appoint his
Son, Jesus Christ, for a Mediator, Redeemer, saviour, Priest
and King, who might destroy sin by his own death, might by
his obedience obtain the salvation which had been lost, and
might communicate it by his own virtue.
II. The second precise and absolute decree of God, is that in
which he decreed to receive into favour those who repent and
believe, and, in Christ, for his sake and through Him, to
effect the salvation of such penitents and believers as
persevered to the end; but to leave in sin, and under wrath,
all impenitent persons and unbelievers, and to damn them as
aliens from Christ.
III. The third Divine decree is that by which God decreed to
administer in a sufficient and efficacious manner the means
which were necessary for repentance and faith; and to have
such administration instituted (1.) according to the Divine
Wisdom, by which God knows what is proper and becoming both
to his mercy and his severity, and (2.) according to Divine
Justice, by which He is prepared to adopt whatever his wisdom
may prescribe and put it in execution.
IV. To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed
to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has
its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew
from all eternity those individuals who would, through his
preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace
would persevere, according to the before described
administration of those means which are suitable and proper
for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he
likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.
Predestination, when thus explained, is
1. The foundation of Christianity, and of salvation and its
certainty.
2. It is the sum and the matter of the gospel; nay, it is the
gospel itself, and on that account necessary to be believed
in order to salvation, as far as the two first articles are
concerned.
3. It has had no need of being examined or determined by any
council, either general or particular, since it is contained
in the scriptures clearly and expressly in so many words; and
no contradiction has ever yet been offered to it by any
orthodox Divine.
4. It has constantly been acknowledged and taught by all
Christian teachers who held correct and orthodox sentiments.
5. It agrees with that harmony of all confessions, which has
been published by the protestant Churches.
6. It likewise agrees most excellently with the Dutch
Confession and Catechism. This concord is such, that if in
the Sixteenth article these two expressions "those persons
whom" and "others," be explained by the words "believers" and
"unbelievers" these opinions of mine on Predestination will
be comprehended in that article with the greatest clearness.
This is the reason why I directed the thesis to be composed
in the very words of the Confession, when, on one occasion, I
had to hold a public disputation before my private class in
the University. This kind of Predestination also agrees with
the reasoning contained in the twentieth and the fifty-fourth
question of the Catechism.
7. It is also in excellent accordance with the nature of God
-- with his wisdom, goodness, and righteousness; because it
contains the principal matter of all of them, and is the
clearest demonstration of the Divine wisdom, goodness, and
righteousness [or justice]
8. It is agreeable in every point with the nature of man --
in what form soever that nature may be contemplated, whether
in the primitive state of creation, in that of the fall, or
in that of restoration.
9. It is in complete concert with the act of creation, by
affirming that the creation itself is a real communication of
good, both from the intention of God, and with regard to the
very end or event; that it had its origin in the goodness of
God; that whatever has a reference to its continuance and
preservation, proceeds from Divine love; and that this act of
creation is a perfect and appropriate work of God, in which
he is at complaisance with himself, and by which he obtained
all things necessary for an unsinning state.
10. It agrees with the nature of life eternal, and with the
honourable titles by which that life is designated in the
scriptures.
11. It also agrees with the nature of death eternal, and with
the names by which that death is distinguished in scripture.
12. It states sin to be a real disobedience, and the
meritorious cause of condemnation; and on this account, it is
in the most perfect agreement with the fall and with sin.
13. In every particular, it harmonizes with the nature of
grace, by ascribing to it all those things which agree with
it, [or adapted to it,] and by reconciling it most completely
to the righteousness of God and to the nature and liberty of
the human will.
14. It conduces most conspicuously to declare the glory of
God, his justice and his mercy. It also represents God as the
cause of all good and of our salvation, and man as the cause
of sin and of his own damnation.
15. It contributes to the honour of Jesus Christ, by placing
him for the foundation of Predestination and the meritorious
as well as communicative cause of salvation.
16. It greatly promotes the salvation of men: It is also the
power, and the very means which lead to salvation -- by
exciting and creating within the mind of man sorrow on
account of sin, a solicitude about his conversion, faith in
Jesus Christ, a studious desire to perform good works, and
zeal in prayer -- and by causing men to work out their
salvation with fear and trembling. It likewise prevents
despair, as far as such prevention is necessary.
17. It confirms and establishes that order according to which
the gospel ought to be preached, (1.) By requiring repentance
and faith -- (2.) And then by promising remission of sins,
the grace of the spirit, and life eternal.
18. It strengthens the ministry of the gospel, and renders it
profitable with respect to preaching, the administration of
the sacraments and public prayers.
19. It is the foundation of the Christian religion; because
in it, the two-fold love of God may be united together --
God's love of righteousness [or justice], and his love of
men, may, with the greatest consistency, be reconciled to
each other.
20. Lastly. This doctrine of Predestination, has always been
approved by the great majority of professing Christians, and
even now, in these days, it enjoys the same extensive
patronage. It cannot afford any person just cause for
expressing his aversion to it; nor can it give any pretext
for contention in the Christian Church.
It is therefore much to be desired, that men would proceed no
further in this matter, and would not attempt to investigate
the unsearchable judgments of God -- at least that they would
not proceed beyond the point at which those judgments have
been clearly revealed in the scriptures.
This, my most potent Lords, is all that I intend now to
declare to your mightinesses, respecting the doctrine of
Predestination, about which there exists such a great
controversy in the Church of Christ. If it would not prove
too tedious to your Lordships, I have some other propositions
which I could wish to state, because they contribute to a
full declaration of my sentiments, and tend to the same
purpose as that for which I have been ordered to attend in
this place by your mightinesses.
There are certain other articles of the Christian religion,
which possess a close affinity to the doctrine of
Predestination, and which are in a great measure dependent on
it: Of this description are the providence of God, the free-
will of man, the perseverance of saints, and the certainty of
salvation. On these topics, if not disagreeable to your
mightinesses, I will in a brief manner relate my opinion.
II. THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD
I consider Divine Providence to be "that solicitous,
continued, and universally present inspection and oversight
of God, according to which he exercises a general care over
the whole world, but evinces a particular concern for all his
[intelligent] creatures without any exception, with the
design of preserving and governing them in their own essence,
qualities, actions, and passions, in a manner that is at once
worthy of himself and suitable to them, to the praise of his
name and the salvation of believers. In this definition of
Divine Providence, I by no means deprive it of any particle
of those properties which agree with it or belong to it; but
I declare that it preserves, regulates, governs and directs
all things and that nothing in the world happens fortuitously
or by chance. Beside this, I place in subjection to Divine
Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a
rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the
will of God, not even any of those things which are done in
opposition to it; only we must observe a distinction between
good actions and evil ones, by saying, that "God both wills
and performs good acts," but that "He only freely permits
those which are evil." Still farther than this, I very
readily grant, that even all actions whatever, concerning
evil, that can possibly be devised or invented, may be
attributed to Divine Providence Employing solely one caution,
"not to conclude from this concession that God is the cause
of sin." This I have testified with sufficient clearness, in
a certain disputation concerning the Righteousness and
Efficacy of Divine Providence concerning things that are
evil, which was discussed at Leyden on two different
occasions, as a divinity-act, at which I presided. In that
disputation, I endeavoured to ascribe to God whatever actions
concerning sin I could possibly conclude from the scriptures
to belong to him; and I proceeded to such a length in my
attempt, that some persons thought proper on that account to
charge me with having made God the author of sin. The same
serious allegation has likewise been often produced against
me, from the pulpit, in the city of Amsterdam, on account of
those very theses; but with what show of justice such a
charge was made, may be evident to any one, from the contents
of my written answer to those Thirty-one Articles formerly
mentioned, which have been falsely imputed to me, and of
which this was one.
III. THE FREE-WILL OF MAN
This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his
primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his
creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge,
holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem,
consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to
the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts
could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace.
But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of
and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which
is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated
and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all
his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he
may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider,
will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a
partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that,
since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking,
willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the
continued aids of Divine Grace.
IV. THE GRACE OF GOD
In reference to Divine Grace, I believe, 1. It is a
gratuitous affection by which God is kindly affected towards
a miserable sinner, and according to which he, in the first
place, gives his Son, "that whosoever believers in him might
have eternal life," and, afterwards, he justifies him in
Christ Jesus and for his sake, and adopts him into the right
of sons, unto salvation. 2. It is an infusion (both into the
human understanding and into the will and affections,) of all
those gifts of the Holy Spirit which appertain to the
regeneration and renewing of man -- such as faith, hope,
charity, &c.; for, without these gracious gifts, man is not
sufficient to think, will, or do any thing that is good. 3.
It is that perpetual assistance and continued aid of the Holy
Spirit, according to which He acts upon and excites to good
the man who has been already renewed, by infusing into him
salutary cogitations, and by inspiring him with good desires,
that he may thus actually will whatever is good; and
according to which God may then will and work together with
man, that man may perform whatever he wills.
In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the
continuance and the consummation of all good, and to such an
extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already
regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at
all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing
and exciting, this following and co-operating grace. From
this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do
injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me,
too much to man's free-will. For the whole controversy
reduces itself to the solution of this question, "is the
grace of God a certain irresistible force?" That is, the
controversy does not relate to those actions or operations
which may be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and
inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man
ever did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation,
whether it be irresistible or not. With respect to which, I
believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons
resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.
V. THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are,
that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true
faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving
Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight
against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to
gain the victory over these enemies -- yet not without the
assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ
also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and
affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they
stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not
wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So
that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning
craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged
out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will
be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to
institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it
is not possible for some individuals through negligence to
desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to
cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the
sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a
good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual.
Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught
that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away
from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that
there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this
aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted
to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on
all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain
passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of
unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much
consideration.
VI. THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION
With regard to the certainty [or assurance] of salvation, my
opinion is, that it is possible for him who believes in Jesus
Christ to be certain and persuaded, and, if his heart condemn
him not, he is now in reality assured, that he is a son of
God, and stands in the grace of Jesus Christ. Such a
certainty is wrought in the mind, as well by the action of
the Holy Spirit inwardly actuating the believer and by the
fruits of faith, as from his own conscience, and the
testimony of God's Spirit witnessing together with his
conscience. I also believe, that it is possible for such a
person, with an assured confidence in the grace of God and
his mercy in Christ, to depart out of this life, and to
appear before the throne of grace, without any anxious fear
or terrific dread: and yet this person should constantly
pray, "O lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant!"
But, since "God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all
things," and since a man judges not his own self -- yea,
though a man know nothing by himself, yet is he not thereby
justified, but he who judgeth him is the Lord, (1 John iii,
19; 1 Cor. iv, 3,) I dare not [on this account] place this
assurance [or certainty] on an equality with that by which we
know there is a God, and that Christ is the saviour of the
world. Yet it will be proper to make the extent of the
boundaries of this assurance, a subject of inquiry in our
convention.
VII. THE PERFECTION OF BELIEVERS IN THIS LIFE
Beside those doctrines on which I have treated, there is now
much discussion among us respecting the perfection of
believers, or regenerated persons, in this life; and it is
reported, that I entertain sentiments on this subject, which
are very improper, and nearly allied to those of the
Pelagians, viz: "that it is possible for the regenerate in
this life perfectly to keep God's precepts." To this I reply,
though these might have been my sentiments yet I ought not on
this account to be considered a Pelagian, either partly or
entirely, provided I had only added that "they could do this
by the grace of Christ, and by no means without it." But
while I never asserted, that a believer could perfectly keep
the precepts of Christ in this life, I never denied it, but
always left it as a matter which has still to be decided. For
I have contented myself with those sentiments which St.
Augustine has expressed on this subject, whose words have
frequently quoted in the University, and have usually
subjoined, that I had no addition to make to them.
Augustine says, "four questions may claim our attention on
this topic. The first is, was there ever yet a man without
sin, one who from the beginning of life to its termination
never committed sin? The second, has there ever been, is
there now, or can there possibly be, an individual who does
not sin, that is, who has attained to such a state of
perfection in this life as not to commit sin, but perfectly
to fulfill the law of God? The third, is it possible for a
man in this life to exist without sin? The fourth, if it be
possible for a man to be without sin, why has such an
individual never yet been found?" St. Augustine says, that
such a person as is described in the first question never yet
lived, or will hereafter be brought into existence, with the
exception of Jesus Christ. He does not think, that any man
has attained to such perfection in this life as is portrayed
in the second question. With regard to the third, he thinks
it possible for a man to be without sin, by means of the
grace of Christ and free-will. In answer to the fourth, man
does not do what it is possible for him by the grace of
Christ to perform, either because that which is good escapes
his observation, or because in it he places no part of his
delight." From this quotation it is apparent, that St.
Augustine, one of the most strenuous adversaries of the
Pelagian doctrine, retained this sentiment, that "it is
possible for a man to live in this world without sin."
Beside this, the same Christian father says, "let Pelagius
confess, that it is possible for man to be without sin, in no
other way than by the grace of Christ, and we will be at
peace with each other." The opinion of Pelagius appeared to
St. Augustine to be this -- "that man could fulfill the law
of God by his own proffer strength and ability; but with
still "greater facility by means of the grace of Christ." I
have already most abundantly stated the great distance at
which I stand from such a sentiment; in addition to which I
now declare, that I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be
heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of
Christ, "Without me ye can do nothing:" (John xv, 5.) It is
likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound
on the glory of Christ.
I cannot see that anything is contained in all I have
hitherto produced respecting my sentiments, on account of
which any person ought to be "afraid of appearing in the
presence of God," and from which it might be feared that any
mischievous consequences can possibly arise. Yet because
every day brings me fresh information about reports
concerning me, "that I carry in my breast destructive
sentiments and heresies," I cannot possibly conceive to what
points those charges can relate, except perhaps they draw
some such pretext from my opinion concerning the Divinity of
the Son of God, and the justification of man before God.
Indeed, I have lately learnt, that there has been much public
conversation, and many rumors have been circulated,
respecting my opinion on both these points of doctrine,
particularly since the last conference [between Gomarus and
myself] before the Counselors of the Supreme Court. This is
one reason why I think, that I shall not be acting
unadvisedly if I disclose to your mightinesses the real state
of the whole matter.
VIII. THE DIVINITY OF THE SON OF GOD
With regard to the Divinity of the Son of God and the word
autoqeov both of which have been discussed in our University
in the regular form of scholastic disputations, I cannot
sufficiently wonder what the motive can be, which has created
a wish in some persons to render me suspected to other men,
or to make me an object of suspicion to themselves. This is
still more wonderful, since this suspicion has not the least
ground of probability on which to rest, and is at such an
immense distance from all reason and truth, that, whatever
reports have been spread abroad respecting this affair to the
prejudice of my character, they can be called nothing better
than "notorious calumnies." At a disputation held one
afternoon in the University, when the thesis that had been
proposed for disputation was the Divinity of the Son of God,
one of the students happened to object, "that the Son of God
was autotheos, and that he therefore had his essence from
himself and not from the Father." In reply to this I
observed, "that the word autotheos was capable of two
different acceptations, since it might signify either "one
who is truly God," or "one who is God of himself;" and that
it was with great propriety and correctness attributed to the
Son of God according to the former signification, but not
according to the latter." The student, in prosecution of his
argument, violently contended, that the word was justly
applicable to the Son of God, principally according to the
second of these significations: and that the essence of the
Father could not be said to be communicated to the Son and to
the Holy Spirit, in any other than in an improper sense; but
that it was in perfect correctness and strict propriety
common alike to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." He
added "that he asserted this with the greater confidence
because he had the younger Trelcatius of pious memory, [but
who was then living,] as an authority in his favour on this
point; for that learned Professor had written to the same
purport in his Common Places." To these observations I
answered, "that this opinion was at variance with the word of
God, and with the whole of the ancient Church, both Greek and
Latin, which had always taught, that the Son had His Deity
from the Father by eternal generation." To these remarks I
subjoined, "that from such an opinion as this, necessarily
followed the two mutually conflicting errors, Tri-theism and
Sabellianism; that is, (1.) It would ensue as a necessary
consequence, from these premises, that there are three Gods,
who have together and collaterally the Divine essence,
independently of this circumstance -- that one of them (being
only personally distinguished from the rest) has that essence
from another of the persons. Yet the proceeding of the origin
of one person from another, (that is, of the Son from the
Father,) is the only foundation that has ever been used for
defending the Unity of the Divine Essence in the Trinity of
Persons. (2.) It would likewise follow as another
consequence, that the Son would himself be the Father,
because he would differ from the Father in nothing but in
regard to name, which was the opinion of Sabellius. For,
since it is peculiar to the Father to derive his Deity from
himself, or (to speak more correctly,) to derive it from no
one, if, in the sense of being "God of himself," the Son be
called autotheos, it follows that he is the Father." Some
account of this disputation was dispersed abroad in all
directions, and it reached Amsterdam. A minister of that
city, who now rests in the Lord, having interrogated me
respecting the real state of this affair, I related the whole
of it to him plainly, as I have now done: and I requested him
to make Trelcatius of blessed memory acquainted with it as it
had actually occurred, and to advise him in a friendly manner
to amend his opinion, and to correct those inappropriate
words in his Common Places: this request the minister from
Amsterdam engaged to fulfill in his own way.
In all this proceeding I am far from being liable to any
blame; for I have defended the truth and the sentiments of
the Catholic and Orthodox Church. Trelcatius undoubtedly was
the person most open to animadversion; for he adopted a mode
of speaking which detracted somewhat from the truth of the
matter. But such has always been either my own infelicity or
the zeal of certain individuals that, as soon as any
disagreement arises, all the blame is instantly cast upon me,
as if it was impossible for me to display as much veracity
[or orthodoxy] as any other person. Yet on this subject I
have Gomarus himself consenting with me; for, soon after
Trelcatius had published his common places, a disputation on
the Trinity having been proposed in the University, Gomarus
did in three several parts of his theses express himself in
such terms as were diametrically opposed to those of
Trelcatius. The very obvious difference in opinion between
those two Professors I pointed out to the Amsterdam minister,
who acknowledged its existence. Yet, notwithstanding all
these things, no one endeavoured to vindicate me from this
calumny; while great exertion was employed to frame excuses
for Trelcatius, by means of a qualified interpretation of his
words, though it was utterly impossible to reconcile their
palliative explanations with the plain signification of his
unperverted expressions. Such are the effects which the
partiality of favour and the fervour of zeal can produce!
The milder and qualified interpretation put upon the words of
Trelcatius, was the following: "the Son of God may be styled
autotheos, or may be said to have his Deity from himself, in
reference to his being God, although he has his Deity from
the Father, in reference to his being the Son." For the sake
of a larger explanation, it is said, "God, or the Divine
Essence, may be considered both absolutely and relatively.
When regarded absolutely, the Son has his Divine essence from
himself; but, when viewed relatively, he derives it from the
Father." But these are new modes of speaking and novel
opinions, and such as can by no means consist together. For
the Son, both in regard to his being the Son, and to his
being God, derives his Deity from the Father. When he is
called God, it is then only not expressed that he is from the
Father; which derivation is particularly noted when the word
Son is employed. Indeed, the essence of God can in no manner
come under our consideration, except it be said, "that the
Divine Essence is communicated to the Son by the Father." Nor
can it possibly in any different respect whatever be said,
that this essence is both "communicated to him" and "not
communicated;" because these expressions are contradictory,
and can in no diverse respect be reconciled to each other. If
the Son have the Divine Essence from himself in reference to
its being absolutely considered, it cannot be communicated to
him. If it be communicated to him in reference to its being
relatively considered, he cannot have it from himself in
reference to its being absolutely considered.
I shall probably be asked, "do you not acknowledge, that, to
be the Son of God, and to be God, are two things entirely
distinct from each other?" I reply, undoubtedly I subscribe
to such distinction. But when those who make it proceed still
further, and say, "since to be the Son of God signifies that
he derives his essence from the Father, to be God in like
manner signifies nothing less than that he has his essence
from himself or from no one;" I deny this assertion, and
declare, at the same time, that it is a great and manifest
error, not only in sacred theology, but likewise in natural
philosophy. For, these two things, to be the Son and to be
God, are at perfect agreement with each other; but to derive
his essence from the Father, and, at the same time, to derive
it from no one, are evidently contradictor, and mutually
destructive the one of the other.
But, to make this fallacy still more apparent, it must be
observed, how equal in force and import are certain double
ternary and parallel propositions, when standing in the
following juxta-position:
God is from eternity, possessing the Divine Essence from
eternity. The Father is from no one, having the Divine
Essence from no one. The Son is from the Father, having the
Divine Essence from the Father.
The word "God" therefore signifies, that He has the true
Divine Essence; but the word "Son" signifies, that he has the
Divine Essence from the Father. On this account, he is
correctly denominated both God and the Son of God. But since
he cannot be styled the Father, he cannot possibly be said to
have the Divine Essence from himself or from no one. Yet much
labour is devoted to the purpose of excusing these
expressions, by saying, "that when the son of God in
reference to his being God is said to have his essence from
that form of speech signifies nothing more, than that the
Divine essence is not derived from any one." But if this be
thought to be the most proper mode of action which should be
adopted, there will be no depraved or erroneous sentiment
which can be uttered that may not thus find a ready excuse.
For though God and the divine Essence do not differ
substantially, yet whatever may be predicated of the Divine
Essence can by no means be equally predicated of God; because
they are distinguished from each other in our mode of framing
conceptions, according to which mode all forms of speech
ought to be examined, since they are employed only with a
design that through them we should receive correct
impressions. This is very obvious from the following
examples, in which we speak with perfect correctness when we
say, "Deum mortuum esse," and "the Essence of God is
communicated;" but very incorrectly when we say, "God is
communicated." That man who understands the difference
existing between concrete and abstract, about which there
were such frequent disputes between us and the Lutherans will
easily perceive what a number of absurdities will ensue, if
explanations of this description be once tolerated in the
Church of God. Therefore, in no way whatever can this phrase,
"the Son of God is autotheos," ["God of himself," or "in his
own right,"] be excused as a correct one, or as having been
happily expressed. Nor can that be called a proper form of
speech which says, "the Essence of God is common to three
persons;" but it is improper, since the Divine Essence is
declared to be communicated by one of them to another.
The observations which I now make, I wish to be particularly
regarded, because it may appear from them how much we are
capable of tolerating in a man whom we do not suspect of
heresy; and, on the contrary, with what avidity we seize upon
any trivial circumstance by which we may inculpate another
man whom we hold under the ban of suspicion. Of such
partiality, this incident affords two manifest examples.
IX. THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN BEFORE GOD
I am not conscious to myself, of having taught or entertained
any other sentiments concerning the justification of man
before God, than those which are held unanimously by the
Reformed and Protestant Churches, and which are in complete
agreement with their expressed opinions.
There was lately a short controversy in relation to this
subject, between John Piscator, Professor of Divinity in the
University of Herborn in Nassau, and the French Churches. It
consisted in the determination of these two questions: (1.)
"is the obedience or righteousness of Christ, which is
imputed to believers and in which consists their
righteousness before God, is this only the passive obedience
of Christ?" which was Piscator's opinion. Or (2.) "is it
not, in addition to this, that active righteousness of Christ
which he exhibited to the law of God in the whole course of
his life, and that holiness in which he was conceived?" Which
was the opinion of the French Churches. But I never durst
mingle myself with the dispute, or undertake to decide it;
for I thought it possible for the Professors of the same
religion to hold different opinions on this point from others
of their brethren, without any breach of Christian peace or
the unity of faith. Similar peaceful thoughts appear to have
been indulged by both the adverse parties in this dispute;
for they exercised a friendly toleration towards each other,
and did not make that a reason for mutually renouncing their
fraternal concord. But concerning such an amicable plan of
adjusting differences, certain individuals in our own country
are of a different judgment.
A question has been raised from these words of the Apostle
Paul: "Faith is imputed for righteousness." (Rom. 4) The
inquiry was, (1.) Whether those expressions ought to be
properly understood, "so that faith itself, as an act
performed according to the command of the gospel, is imputed
before God for or unto righteousness -- and that of grace;
since it is not the righteousness of the law." (2.) Whether
they ought to be figuratively and improperly understood,
"that the righteousness of Christ, being apprehended by
faith, is imputed to us for righteousness." Or (3.) Whether
it is to be understood "that the righteousness, for which, or
unto which, faith is imputed, is the instrumental operation
of faith;" which is asserted by some persons. In the theses
on justification, which were disputed under me when I was
moderator, I have adopted the former of these opinions not in
a rigid manner, but simply, as I have likewise done in
another passage which I wrote in a particular letter. It is
on this ground that I am accounted to hold and to teach
unsound opinions concerning the justification of man before
God. But how unfounded such a supposition is, will be very
evident at a proper season, and in a mutual conference. For
the present, I will only briefly say, "I believe that sinners
are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ;
and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious
cause on account of which God pardons the sins of believers
and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly
fulfilled the law. But since God imputes the righteousness of
Christ to none except believers, I conclude that, in this
sense, it may be well and properly said, to a man who
believes, faith is imputed for righteousness through grace,
because God hath set forth his Son, Jesus Christ, to be a
propitiation, a throne of grace, [or mercy seat] through
faith in his blood." Whatever interpretation may be put upon
these expressions, none of our Divines blames Calvin or
considers him to be heterodox on this point; yet my opinion
is not so widely different from his as to prevent me from
employing the signature of my own hand in subscribing to
those things which he has delivered on this subject, in the
third book of his Institutes; this I am prepared to do at any
time, and to give them my full approval. Most noble and
potent Lords, these are the principal articles, respecting
which I have judged it necessary to declare my opinion before
this august meeting, in obedience to your commands.
X. THE REVISION OF THE DUTCH CONFESSION, AND THE HEIDELBERG
CATECHISM
But, besides these things, I had some annotations to make on
the Confession of the Dutch Churches and on the Heidelberg
Catechism; but they will be discussed most appropriately in
our Synod, which at the first opportunity we hope to obtain
through your consent, or rather by means of your summons.
This is the sole request which I prefer to your mightinesses,
that I may be permitted to offer a few brief remarks on a
certain clause, subject to which their high mightinesses, the
States General, gave their consent to the convening of a
National Synod in this province, (Holland,) and the substance
of which was, that in such Synod the Confession and Catechism
of the Dutch Churches should be subjected to examination.
This clause has given great umbrage to many persons, not only
because they account it unnecessary, but likewise unjust, to
subject the Confession and Catechism to examination. They
also suppose, that I and a certain individual of great
reputation, are the persons who prevailed with the States
General to have such a clause inserted. But it is by no means
true that the revision of the Confession and Catechism is
unnecessary and unjust, or that we were the instigators of
their high mightinesses in this affair. With regard to the
last of these two suppositions, so far were we from having
any concern with the origin of that clause, that, eleven or
twelve years ago, at the pressing importunity of the Churches
that prayed for a National Synod, the States of South Holland
and West Friezland at last judged it proper to consent to it
by their decree, on no other condition than that in such
Synod the Confession of the Dutch Churches should be
subjected to examination. Yet we, at that time, neither
endeavoured by our advice, nor by our influence, to promote
any such measure. But if we had with all our might made the
attempt, we should have been doing nothing but what was
compatible with our official duties; because it is obviously
agreeable to reason as well as to equity, and quite necessary
in the present posture of affairs, that such a measure should
be adopted.
First. That it may openly appear to all the world that we
render to the word of God alone such due and suitable honour,
as to determine it to be beyond (or rather above) all
disputes, too great to be the subject of any exception, and
worthy of all acceptation.
Secondly. Because these pamphlets are writings that proceed
from men, and may, on that account, contain within them some
portion of error, it is, therefore, proper to institute a
lawful inquiry, that is, in a National Synod, whether or not
there be any thing in those productions which requires
amendment.
1. The first inquiry may be, whether these human writings are
accordant, in every part, with the word of God, with regard
to the words themselves, the construction of the sentences
and the correct meaning.
2. Whether they contain whatever is necessary to be believed
unto salvation, so that salvation is, according to this rule,
not denied to those things to which it appertains.
3. Whether it [the rule of these formularies] does not
contain far too many particulars, and embrace several that
are not necessary to be believed unto salvation, so that
salvation is consequently attributed to those things to which
it does not belong.
4. Whether certain words and forms of speech are not employed
in them, which are capable of being understood in different
ways and furnishing occasion for disputes. Thus, for example,
in the Fourteenth article of the Confession, we read the
following words, "nothing is done without God's ordination,"
[or appointment]: if by the word "ordination" is signified,
"that God appoints things of any kind to be done," this mode
of enunciation is erroneous, and it follows as a consequence
from it, that God is the author of sin. But if it signify,
that "whatever it be that is done, God ordains it to a good
end," the terms in which it is conceived are in that case
correct.
5. Whether things utterly repugnant to each other may not be
discovered in them. For instance, a certain individual who is
highly honoured in the Church, addressed a letter to John
Piscator, Professor of Divinity in the University of Herborn
in Nassau, and in it he exhorted him to confine himself
within the opinion of the Heidelberg Catechism on the
doctrine of Justification. For this purpose he cited three
passage, which he considered to be at variance with
Piscator's sentiments. But the learned Professor replied,
that he confined himself completely within the doctrinal
boundaries of the Catechism; and then quoted out of that
formulary ten or eleven passages as proofs of his sentiments.
But I solemnly declare, I do not perceive by what method
these several passages can possibly be reconciled with each
other.
6. Whether every thing in these writings is digested in that
due order in which the Scripture requires them to be placed.
7. Whether all things are disposed in a manner the most
suitable and convenient for preserving peace and unity with
the rest of the reformed Churches.
Thirdly. The third reason is, because a National Synod is
held for the purpose of discovering whether all things in the
Church are in a proper state or right condition. One of the
chief duties which appertains to such an assembly, is, the
examination of doctrine, whether it be that which is admitted
by unanimous consent, or that for which particular Divines
contend.
Fourthly. The fourth reason is, because an examination of
this description will obtain for these writings a greater
degree of authority, when after a mature and rigid
examination they shall be found to agree with the word of
God, or shall be made conformable to it in a still greater
measure. Such an examination will also excite within the
minds of men a greater value for Christian ministers, when
they perceive that these sacred functionaries hold in the
highest estimation that truth which is revealed in Scripture,
and that their attachment to it is so great as to induce them
to spare no labour in order to render their own doctrine more
and more conformable to that revealed truth.
Fifthly. The fifth reason why at this, if at any period, it
is necessary to adopt the suggestion which we have mentioned,
is, (1.) Because there are several individuals in the
ministry who have certain views and considerations respecting
some points contained in these writings, which they reserve
in secret and reveal to no one, because they hope that such
points will become subjects of discussion in a National
Synod. Because such a convention has been promised, some of
them have suffered themselves to be persuaded not to give the
least publicity to any of the views or considerations which
they have formed on these subjects.
(2.) Besides, this will be the design of a National Synod --
That their high mightinesses the States General may be
pleased to establish and arm with public authority certain
ecclesiastical sanctions, according to which every one may be
bound to conduct himself in the Church of God. That this
favour may be obtained from their high mightinesses and that
they may execute such a measure with a good conscience, it is
necessary that they be convinced in their own understandings,
that the doctrine contained in the formulary of union is
agreeable to the word of God. This is a reason which ought to
induce us spontaneously to propose an examination of our
Confession before their high mightinesses, and to offer
either to shew that it is in accordance with the word of God,
or to render it conformable to that Divine standard.
Sixthly. The sixth reason is drawn from the example of those
who are associated together under the Augustan Confession,
and from the conduct of the Swiss and the French Churches,
that have within two or three years enriched their
Confessions with one entirely new article. And the Dutch
Confession has itself been subjected to examination since it
was first published: some things having been taken away from
it and others added, while some of the rest have undergone
various alterations.
Numerous other reasons might be produced, but I omit them;
because I consider those already mentioned to be quite
sufficient for proving, that the clause concerning
examination and revision, as it is termed, was with the
greatest justice and propriety inserted in the instrument of
consent of which we have made previous mention.
I am not ignorant, that other reasons are adduced, in
opposition to these; and one in particular, which is made a
principal subject of public conversation, and is accounted of
all others the most solid. To it, therefore I consider it
necessary to offer a brief reply. It is thus stated: "by such
an examination as this, the doctrine of the Church will be
called in question; which is neither an act of propriety nor
of duty.
"I. Because this doctrine has obtained the approbation and
suffrages of many respectable and learned men; and has been
strenuously defended against all those who have offered it
any opposition.
"II. Because it has been sealed with the blood of many
thousand martyrs.
"III. Because from such an examination will arise, within the
Church, confusion, scandal, offenses, and the destruction of
consciences; and, out of the Church, ridicule, calumnies and
accusations."
To all these I answer:
1. It would be much better, not to employ such odious forms
of speech, as to call in question, and others of that class,
when the conversation is only respecting some human
composition, which is liable to have error intermixed with
its contents. For with what right can any writing he said to
be called in question or in doubt, which was never of itself
unquestionable, or ought to be considered as indubitable?
2. The approbation of Divines, the defense of a composition
against its adversaries, and the sealing of it with the blood
of martyrs, do not render any doctrine authentic or place it
beyond the limits of doubt: because it is possible both for
Divines and martyrs to err -- a circumstance which can admit
of no denial in this argument.
3. A distinction ought to be made between the different
matters contained in the Confession. For while some of them
make a near approach to the foundation of salvation and are
fundamental articles of the Christian religion, others of
them are built up as a superstructure on the foundation, and
of themselves are not absolutely necessary to salvation. The
doctrines of this former class are approved by the unanimous
consent of all the Reformed, and are effectually defended
against all gainsaying adversaries. But those of the latter
class become subjects of controversy between different
parties: and some of these are attacked by enemies not
without some semblance of truth and justice.
The blood of martyrs has sealed those of the former class but
by no means those of the latter. In reference to this affair,
it ought to be diligently observed, what was proposed by the
martyrs of our days, and on what account they shed their
blood. If this be done, it will be found, that no man among
them was even interrogated on that subject which I consider
it equitable to make a prominent part in the deliberations of
a Synod, and, therefore, that no martyr ever sealed it with
his blood. I will produce an example: when a question was
raised about the meaning of the seventh chapter of the
epistle to the Romans, one individual said, "that the passage
was quoted in the margin of the Confession exactly in the
same sense as he had embraced it, and that the martyrs had
with their own blood sealed this Confession." But, in reply
to this, it was stated, "that if the strictest search be
instituted throughout the entire large history of the
martyrs, as it is published by the French, it will be
discovered, that no martyr has at any period been examined on
that passage, or has shed his blood on that account."
To sum up the whole: the blood of the martyrs tends to
confirm this truth, that they have made profession of their
faith "in simplicity and sincerity of conscience." But it is
by no means conclusive, that the Confession which they
produced is free from every degree of reprehension or
superior to all exception; unless they had been led by Christ
into all truth and therefore rendered incapable of erring.
4. If the Church be properly instructed in that difference
which really does and always ought to exist between the word
of God and all human writings, and if the Church be also
rightly informed concerning that liberty which she and all
Christians possess, and which they will always enjoy, to
measure all human compositions by the standard rule of God's
word, she will neither distress herself on that account, nor
will she be offended on perceiving all human writings brought
to be proved at the touch-stone of God's word. On the
contrary, she will rather feel far more abundant delight,
when she sees, that God has bestowed on her in this country
such pastors and teachers, as try at the chief touch-stone
their own doctrine, in a manner at once suitable, proper,
just, and worthy of perpetual observance; and that they do
this, to be able exactly and by every possible means to
express their agreement with the word of God, and their
consent to it even in the most minute particulars.
5. But it is no less proper, that the doctrine once received
in the Church should be subjected to examination, however
great the fear may be "lest disturbances should ensue, and
lest evil disposed persons should make such revision an
object of ridicule, calumny or accusation," or should even
turn it to their own great advantage, [by representing the
matter so as to induce a persuasion,] "that those who propose
this examination are not sufficiently confirmed in their own
religion ;" when, on the contrary, this is one of God's
commands, "search and try the spirits whether they be of
God." (1 John iv, 1.) If cogitations of that description had
operated as hindrances on the minds of Luther, Zuinglius, and
others, they would never have pried into the doctrine of the
Papists, or have subjected it to a scrutinizing examination.
Nor would those who adhere to the Augustan Confession have
considered it proper to submit that formulary again to a new
and complete revision, and to alter it in some particulars.
This deed of theirs is an object of our praise and approval.
And we conclude, that, when Luther towards the close of his
life was advised by Philip Melancthon to bring the
eucharistic controversy on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper
to some better state of concord, (as it is related in the
writings of our own countrymen,) he acted very improperly in
rejecting that counsel, and in casting it back as a reproach
on Philip, for this reason, as they state his declaration,
"lest by such an attempt to effect an amicable conclusion,
the whole doctrine should be called in question." Besides, if
reasons of this kind ought to be admitted, the Papists with
the best right and the greatest propriety formerly
endeavoured to prevent the doctrine, which had for many
preceding centuries been received in the Church, from being
called in question or subjected again to examination.
But it has been suggested, in opposition to these reasons,
"that if the doctrine of the Churches be submitted to an
entirely new revision as often as a National Synod shall be
held, the Church would never have any thing to which it might
adhere or on which it might fully depend, and it will be
possible to declare with great justice, concerning Churches
thus circumstanced, that, they have an anniversary faith: are
tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of
doctrine. (Ephes. iv, 14.)
1. My first answer to these remarks, is, the Church always
has Moses and the Prophets, the Evangelists and the Apostles,
that is, the Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament;
and these Scriptures fully and clearly comprehend whatever is
necessary to salvation. Upon them the Church will lay the
foundation of her faith, and will rest upon them as on an
immovable basis, principally because, how highly soever we
may esteem Confessions and Catechisms every decision on
matters of faith and religion must obtain its final
resolution in the Scriptures.
2. Some points in the Confession are certain and do not admit
of a doubt: these will never be called in question by any
one, except by heretics. Yet there are other parts of its
contents which are of such a kind, as may with the most
obvious utility become frequent subjects of conference and
discussion between men of learning who fear God, for the
purpose of reconciling them with those indubitable articles
as nearly as is practicable.
3. Let it be attempted to make the Confession contain as few
articles as possible; and let it propose them in a very brief
form, conceived entirely in the expressions of Scripture. Let
all the more ample explanations, proofs, digressions,
redundancies, amplifications and exclamations, be omitted;
and let nothing be delivered in it, except those truths which
are necessary to salvation. The consequences of this brevity
will be, that the Confession will be less liable to be filled
with errors, not so obnoxious to obloquy, and less subject to
examination. Let the practice of the ancient Church be
produced as an example, that comprehended, in as brief a form
of words as was practicable, those articles which she judged
necessary to be believed.
Some individuals form a distinction between the Confession
and the Catechism with respect to revision; and, since the
Confession is the peculiar property of the Dutch Churches,
and is on that account found in the hands of comparatively
few people, they conclude, "that it is possible without any
difficulty to revise it in a Synod and subject it to
examination., But since the Catechism belongs not only to us,
but likewise and principally to the Churches of the
Palatinate, and is therefore to be found in the hands of all
men, the same persons consider the examination of it "to be
connected with great peril." But to this I reply, if we be
desirous of constituting the Heidelberg Catechism a formulary
of concord among the teachers of the Churches, and if they be
obliged to subscribe it, it is still necessary to subject it
to examination. For no Churches whatever ought to hold such a
high station in our esteem, as to induce us to receive any
writing of their composition without, at the same time,
reserving to ourselves the liberty of submitting it to a nice
scrutiny. And I account this to be the principal cause, why
the Churches of different provinces, although at perfect
agreement with each other on the fundamental points of
Christian doctrine, have each composed for themselves their
own Confessions. But if the Heidelberg Catechism be not
allowed, to become a formulary of this kind, and if a
suitable liberty be conceded in the explanation of it, it
will not then be necessary either to revise it or subject it
to examination; provided, I repeat, that the obligatory
burden of subscription be removed, and a moderate liberty be
conceded in its explanation.
This is all that I had to propose to your mightinesses, as to
my most noble, potent, wise and prudent masters. While I own
myself bound to render an account of all my actions, to the
members of this most noble and potent assembly, (next after
God,) I at the same time present to them my humble and
grateful acknowledgments, because they have not disdained to
grant me a courteous and patient audience. I embrace this
opportunity solemnly to declare, that I am sincerely prepared
to institute an amicable and fraternal conference with my
reverend brethren, (at whatever time or place and on whatever
occasion this honourable assembly may judge proper to
appoint,) on all the topics which I have now mentioned, and
on any other concerning which it will be possible for a
controversy to exist, or at some future period to arise. I
also make this additional promise, that I will in every
conference conduct myself with equanimity, moderation and
docility, and will shew myself not less actuated by the
desire of being taught, than by that of communicating to
others some portion of instruction. And, since in the
discussion of every topic on which it will be possible to
institute a conference, two points will become objects of
attention. First. "Whether that be true which is the subject
of the controversy," and, secondly, "Whether it be necessary
to be believed unto salvation," and since both these points
ought to be discussed and proved out of the Scriptures, I
here tender my sacred affirmation, and solemnly bind myself
hereafter to observe it, that, however cogently I may have
proved by the most solid [human] arguments any article to be
agreeable to the word of God, I will not obtrude it for an
article of belief on those of my brethren who may entertain a
different opinion respecting it, unless I have plainly proved
it from the word of God and have with equal clearness
established its truth, and the necessity unto salvation that
every Christian should entertain the same belief.
If my brethren will be prepared to act in this manner, as far
as I know the complexion of my own opinions, there will not
easily arise among us any schism or controversy. But, that I
may on my part remove every cause of fear that can possibly
invade this most noble assembly, occupied and engaged as its
honourable members now are with important concerns on which
in a great measure depends the safety of our native country
and of the Reformed Churches, I subjoin this remark, "that to
hinder my toleration of any matters in my brethren, they must
be very numerous and very important. For I am not of the
congregation of those who wish to have dominion over the
faith of another man, but am only a minister to believers,
with the design of promoting in them an increase of
knowledge, truth, piety, peace and joy in Jesus Christ our
Lord."
But if my brethren cannot perceive how they can possibly
tolerate me, or allow me a place among them, in reference to
myself I indulge in no hope that a schism will on this
account be formed. May God avert any such catastrophe, since
far too many schisms have already arisen and spread
themselves abroad among Christians. It ought rather to be the
earnest endeavour of every one, to diminish their number and
destroy their influence. Yet, even under such circumstances,
[when I shall be rejected from the communion of my brethren,]
in patience willlpossess my soul; and though in that case I
shall resign my office, yet I will continue to live for the
benefit of our common Christianity as long as it may please
God to lengthen out my days and prolong my existence. Never
forgetting this sentiment, Sat Ecclesæ, sat Patriæ daturm,
Enough has been done to satisfy the Church of Christ and my
country!
THE APOLOGY OR DEFENSE OF JAMES ARMINIUS
CERTAIN articles relating to the Christian Religion are now
in a course of circulation. In a paper which was not long
since delivered into my hands, the number of them is
distinguished into two series, one consisting of twenty and
the other of eleven articles. Some of them are attributed to
me, others to Adrian Borrius, and several both to him and me.
Those persons by whom they were first disseminated, attempt
in them to render us suspected of having introduced into the
church and the University of Leyden, novelties and heretical
instructions, and to accuse us of error and heresy, that both
the students of Divinity and the common people may stand on
their guard against us, who have this black mark imprinted on
us, lest they become infected with the same envenomed
disorder, and that those persons who enjoy the supremacy both
in Church and State, may seasonably interpose their
authority, to prevent the evil from extending any further, or
rather to extinguish it in its very commencement; which, if
"they neglect to do, they will be instrumental in producing
the greatest detriment to Divine Truth, and to the Political
and Ecclesiastical concord of these Provinces."
The dispersion of some of these articles is not a very recent
circumstance; for, above two years ago, seventeen out of
these thirty-one came into my hands, expressed exactly in the
same words as those that occur in the writing which is the
subject of my present remarks. But I was silent, and
concealed my regret; for I thought that those articles would,
in their very infancy, die a natural death, since part of
them were destitute of the truth of historical narration, by
not being attributed to those who had been the authors of
them; and part of them were void of all real theological
sense, by the strange intermixture of truth and falsehood.
But the issue did not answer my expectation. For they not
only remained without diminution, but gained an increase, by
the addition of other fourteen to the former seventeen
articles, and by a far wider dispersion of the whole than had
at first been made. This unexpected result had the effect of
inducing me to think that I ought to oppose their progress by
a moderate answer, lest my continued silence should be
interpreted as tantamount to a confession. If this be the
interpretation which, on many occasions is given to silence,
it is an easy matter thus to construe it respecting any
doctrine that is aspersed as. a heresy, "under which
imputation," it is said in a vaunting tone, "St. Jerome would
have no man to remain patient."
In this reply I will use candour and conscience. Whatever I
know to be true, I will confess and defend. On whatever
subjects I may feel hesitation, I will not conceal my
ignorance; and whatever my mind dictates to be false, I will
deny and refute. May the God of truth and peace direct my
mind and my hand by his Holy Spirit! Amen.
ARTICLES I & II
I. Faith, that is, justifying faith, is not peculiar to the
elect.
II. It is possible for believers finally to decline and fall
away from faith and salvation.
ANSWER
The connection between these two articles is so intimate,
that when the first of them is granted, the second is
necessarily inferred; and, in return, when the latter is
granted, the former is to be inferred, according to the
intention of those persons who framed these articles. For if
"faith be not peculiar to the elect," and if perseverance in
faith and salvation belong to the elect alone, it follows
that believers not only can, but that some of them actually
do, "fall away from faith and salvation." And, on the
contrary, if it be "possible for believers finally to fall
away from faith and salvation," it follows that "faith is not
peculiar to the elect," they being the individuals concerning
whom the framers of these articles assert, that it is
impossible for them not to be saved. The reason of the
consequence is, because the words FAITH and BELIEVERS,
according to this hypothesis, have a wider signification than
the words ELECTION and THE ELECT. The former comprehend some
persons that are not elect, that is, "some who finally fall
away from faith and salvation." No necessity, therefore,
existed for composing both these articles; it was quite
sufficient to have proposed one. And if the authors of them
had sought for such amplification, as had no real existence,
but consisted of mere words, it was possible to deduce the
Second from the First in the form of a consectary. Thus it is
evident that the multitude of the articles, was the great
object to be attempted for the purpose of making it appear as
if those persons ERRED IN VERY MANY POINTS, whom the too
sedulous curiosity of the brethren is desirous without cause,
of rendering suspected of heresy.
I. But, to treat of each article singly, I declare,
respecting THE FIRST, that I never said, either in public or
in private, "Faith is not peculiar to the elect." This
article, therefore, is not attributed to its proper author;
and thus is committed a historical error.
I add, even if I had made such a declaration as this, a
defense of it would have been ready. For I omit the
scriptures, from which a more prolix discussion of this
subject might be formed; and since the Christian Fathers have
with great semblance of truth defended their sentiments from
that divine source, I might employ the consent of those
Fathers as a shield to ward off from myself the charge of
NOVELTY; and the Harmony of Confessions, which are severally
the composition of those Churches that have seceded from
Popery, and that come under the denomination of" Protestants"
and "the Reformed," I might adopt for a polished breast-
plate, to intercept or turn aside the dart of HERESY which is
hurled against me. Neither should I be much afraid of this
subject being placed for adjudication in the balances of the
Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.
1. Let St. Augustine, Prosper, and the author of the book
entitled The Vocation of the Gentiles, be brought forward to
bear testimony respecting "the consent of the Fathers."
(1.) AUGUSTINE says, "It is wonderful, and indeed most
wonderful, that God does not bestow perseverance on certain
of his sons, whom he hath regenerated in Christ, and to whom
he has given faith, hope and love; while he pardons such
great acts of wickedness in sons that are alienated from him,
and, by imparting his grace, makes them his children." (De
Corrept. et Gratia, cap. 8.)
(2.) PROSPER says, "It is a lamentable circumstance which is
proved by many examples, that some of those persons who were
regenerated in Christ Jesus, have relinquished the faith,
and, ceasing to preserve their former sanctity of manners,
have apostatized from God, and their ungodly course has been
terminated under his displeasure and aversion." (Ad Capita
Galatians resp. 7.) (3.) The author of The Vocation of the
Gentiles says, "God bestows the power of willing to obey him,
in such a manner as not to take away, even from those who
will persevere, that mutability by which it is possible for
them to be unwilling [to obey God]. If this were not the
case, none of the believers would have departed from the
faith." (Lib. ii, c. 9.)
2. The HARMONY OF CONFESSIONS might in the following manner,
contribute to my defense: This dogma states that "faith is
the peculiar property of the elect," and that "it is
impossible for believers finally to decline from faith and
salvation." Now, if this be a dogma necessary to salvation,
then that Confession which does not contain it, or which
asserts some thing contradictory to it, cannot be considered
as harmonizing with the rest on the subject of religion. For
wherever there is harmony, it is proper that there should be
neither defect nor contradiction in things pertaining to
salvation. But the Augustan or Lutheran Confession says that
"it condemns the Anabaptists, who deny that those persons who
have once been justified, can lose the Holy Spirit." Besides,
Philip Melancthon with his followers, and the greater portion
of the Lutheran Churches, are of opinion, that faith is
bestowed even on the non-elect." Yet we are not afraid of
acknowledging these Lutherans for brethren.
3. The BELGIC Confession does not contain this dogma, that
"faith is peculiar to the elect ;" and without controversy it
cannot be deduced from our CATECHISM. For when it is said, in
the article on the Church, "I believe that I shall
perpetually remain a member of the Church;" and, in the first
question, "God keeps and preserves me in such a manner, as to
make all things necessarily subservient to my salvation;"
those expressions are to be understood of a believer, in
reference to his actual believing. For he who is truly such a
one, answers to the character of a Christian. But no man is
such except through faith. Faith is therefore presupposed in
both the expressions.
II. With regard to the SECOND Article, I say, that a
distinction ought to be made between power and action. For it
is one thing to declare, that "it is possible for the
faithful to fall away from faith and salvation," and it is
another to say, that "they do actually fall away." This
distinction is of such extensive observance, that even
antiquity itself was not afraid of affirming, concerning the
elect and those who were to be saved, "that it was possible
for them not to be saved;" and that "the mutability by which
it was possible for them not to be willing to obey God, was
not taken away from them," although it was the opinion of the
ancients, "that such persons never would in reality be
damned." On this very subject, too, the greater part of our
own doctors lay down a difference. For they say, "that it is
possible for such persons to fall away, if their nature,
which is inclined to lapses and defection, and if the
temptations of the world and Satan, be the only circumstances
taken into consideration: but that they will not finally fall
away, because God will bring back to himself his own elect
before the end of life." If any one asserts, "that it is not
possible for believers, in consideration of their being elect
persons, finally to fall away from salvation, because God has
decreed to save them," I answer, the decree concerning saving
does not take away the possibility of damning, but it removes
damnation itself. For "to be actually saved," and "a
possibility of not being saved," are two things not contrary
to each other, but in perfect agreement.
I therefore add, that in this way I have hitherto
discriminated these two cases. And at one time I certainly
did say, with an explanation subjoined to it, "that it was
possible for believers finally to decline or fall away from
faith and salvation." But at no period have I asserted, "that
believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or
salvation." This article, therefore, is ascribed to one who
is not its author; and it is another offense against
historical veracity.
I subjoin, that there is a vast difference between the
enunciation of these two sentences. (1.) "It is possible for
believers to decline from the FAITH ;" and (2.) "It is
possible for believers to decline from SALVATION." For the
latter, when rigidly and accurately examined, can scarcely be
admitted; it being impossible for believers, as long as they
remain believers, to decline from salvation. Because, were
this possible, that power of God would be conquered which he
has determined to employ in saving believers. On the other
hand, if believers fall away from the faith and become
unbelievers, it is impossible for them to do otherwise than
decline from salvation, that is, provided they still continue
unbelievers. Therefore, whether this hypothesis be granted or
not, the enunciation cannot be accurately expressed. For if
this hypothesis (their perseverance in faith) be granted,
they cannot decline; but if it be not granted, they cannot do
otherwise than decline. (2.) But that first enunciation
includes no hypothesis; and therefore an answer may be given
to it simply, either that it is possible, or that it is
impossible. For this cause, the second article ought to be
corrected in the following manner: "It is possible for
believers finally to fall away or decline from the faith;" or
rather, "Some believers finally fall away and decline from
the faith." This being granted, the other can be necessarily
inferred, "therefore they also actually decline from
salvation." Respecting the truth of this [Second] article, I
repeat the same observations which I made about the First.
For the following expressions are reciprocal to each other,
and regular consequences: "Faith is peculiar to the elect,"
and "believers do not finally fall away from the faith." In
like manner, "Faith is not peculiar to the elect," and "Some
believers finally decline from the faith."
ARTICLE III
It is a matter of doubt, whether the faith by which Abraham
is said to be justified, was a faith in Jesus Christ who was
still to come. No proof can be adduced of his having
understood the promises of God in any other manner, than that
he should be the heir of the world.
ANSWER
There are two members in this article, or rather, those
members are two distinct articles, each of which presents
itself to be separately considered by us, after I have
observed, that in this passage no affirmation or negation,
each of which properly constitutes a heretic, is attributed
to us, but a mere doubt alone, that betokens a consciousness
of ignorance and infirmity, which those who arrogate to
themselves the knowledge of all these things, ought to
endeavour to remove by a mild course of instruction, and not
to make it a subject of reviling or provocation.
I. To the FIRST MEMBER I reply:
First. I never uttered this expression; but have, on more
occasions than one, taught both in public and private a
contrary doctrine. Yet I remember, when a certain minister at
Leyden had boasted of the clearness of this article, and was
astonished how any persons could be found who entertained a
different opinion about it, I told him, that the proof of it
would not be a very easy occupation to him if he had to
encounter a powerful adversary, and I challenged him to make
a trial, which challenge I now repeat. I wish him to prove
this assertion by such plain arguments, as will not leave a
man just reasons for doubting any longer about the matter.
This is a point on which the labours of a divine will be more
profitably expended, than on publishing and magnifying the
doubts of the infirm, whose confidence in themselves is not
equal to that which he manifests.
Secondly. "Faith in Christ" may be received in two
acceptations. Either according to promise, which was involved
in the types, figures and shadows of words and things, and
proposed in that manner: Or, it is according to the gospel,
that is clearly manifested. The difference between these two
is so great, that with regard to it the Jews are said "to
have been detained or kept under the law before faith came,
concluded or shut up unto that faith which should afterwards
be revealed." (Gal. iii, 23.) And the Apostle says, "the
children of Israel were prevented, by the veil placed over
the countenance of Moses, from steadfastly looking to the end
of that which is abolished," (2 Cor. iii, 13,) that is, to
the end of the law, as is evident from the whole chapter, and
from Romans x, 4, where Christ is said to be "the end of the
law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Let the
whole description of the faith of Abraham, which the Apostle
gives at great length in Romans 4, be attentively considered,
and it will appear, that no express mention of Jesus Christ
is made in it, but it is implied in such a way as it is not
easy for any one to explain.
Let it be added that faith in Jesus Christ seems to some
persons to be used by metonymy, for "that faith which is
concerning the types and figures which adumbrate and
prefigure Jesus Christ," although it has not united with it
an understanding of those types, unless it be a very obscure
one, and such as appears suitable to the infant Church,
according to the economy of the times and ages which God in
his wisdom employs. Let a comparison be instituted between
that servitude under which the heir, so long as he is a
child, is said by the Apostle to be held, (Gal. iv, 1-3,) and
that bondage from which the Spirit of the Lord is declared to
liberate the man whose heart is converted to Him; (2 Cor.
iii, 16-18,) and this doubting will then be considered
ascribable to the proper fear of a trembling [scrupulous]
conscience, rather than to a disposition that has a powerful
propensity towards heresy.
II. TO THE SECOND MEMBER OF THIS ARTICLE, I ANSWER:
First. I never made such an assertion.
Secondly. If even I had, it would not have called for any
deserved reprehension, except from a man that was desirous by
that very act to betray at once the weakness of his judgment
and his want of experience. (1.) It is a sign of a judgment
not the most accurate, to blame any man for saying that
which, it is possible to prove, has been written by the
Apostle himself in so many words. For if the heir-ship of the
world was promised to Abraham in these words, "Thou shalt be
the father of many nations," what wonder is there if Abraham
understood the promises in no other manner than as they had
been divinely pronounced? (2.) It is a mark of great
inexperience in the men who framed these articles, to suppose
that the heir-ship of the world which was promised to
Abraham, appertained to this animal life and to carnal
benefits; because the world of which mention is made in that
passage, is that future world to which belongs the calling of
the Gentiles, by which vocation Abraham was made the father
of many nations. This is apparent from the consideration,
that he is said to have been made the heir of the world by
the righteousness of faith, of which St. Paul (Rom. iv, 13,)
proves the Gentiles likewise to be partakers; and in Ephes.
iii, 1-11, the Apostle treats on the vocation of the
Gentiles, and says, it belongs to "the grace of the gospel,
and to the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning
of the world hath been hidden in God and is now brought to
light by Christ, by whom God created all things." I repeat
it, that vocation does not belong to the wisdom by which God
formed the world, but to that by which he constituted Christ
his wisdom and power to salvation to them that believe; and
by which he founded the Church, which will endure forever.
See 1 Corinthians i, 21-23; ii, 6-8; Ephes. iii, 1-11. If the
forgers of this article say, "that they have likewise
perceived this, but had supposed that my opinion was
different;" I reply, it is not the part of a prudent man to
frame a foolish adversary for himself.
ARTICLE IV
Faith is not an effect of election, but is a necessary
requisite foreseen by God in those who are to be elected. And
the decree concerning the bestowing of faith precedes the
decree of election.
ANSWER
Of this article also there are two entire members:
I. In the FIRST of them, three assertions are included. (1.)
"Faith is not an effect of election." (2.) "Faith is a
necessary requisite in those who are to be elected or saved."
(3.) "This requisite is foreseen by God in the persons to be
elected." I confess, all these, when rightly understood and
correctly explained, agree entirely with my opinion, on the
subject. But the last of the members is proposed in terms too
odious, since it makes no mention of God, whose benefit and
gift I acknowledge faith to be.
I will now proceed to explain myself on each of these
assertions:
1. With regard to the FIRST, the word "Election" is
ambiguous. For it either signifies "the election by which God
determines to justify believers, while those who are
unbelievers or workers are rejected from righteousness and
salvation: "Or it signifies "the election by which he
determines to save certain particular persons, as such, and
to bestow faith on them in order to their salvation, other
particular persons being also rejected, merely in reference
to their being such particular individuals." Election is
received according to this latter signification, by those who
charge me with these articles. I take it in the former
acceptation, according to Romans ix, 11: "For the children
being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,
that the purpose of God according to election might stand,
not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her,
the elder shall serve the younger."
I will not now enter into a prolix disputation, whether or
not the sense in which I receive it, be the correct one. It
is evident, at least, that there is some decree of God by
which he determines to justify believers; and which, since it
excludes unbelievers from righteousness and salvation, is
appropriately called "the decree according to election" or
"with election," as being that which does not include all men
within its embrace. This decree I consider as the foundation
of Christianity, of man's salvation, and of his assurance of
salvation; and it is this of which the Apostle treats in the
ninth, tenth and eleventh chapters of his Epistle to the
Romans, and in the first chapter to the Ephesians.
But I have not yet declared what my sentiments in general are
about that decree by which God is said "to have determined
absolutely to save certain particular persons, and to bestow
faith upon them in order to their salvation, while others are
reprobated from salvation and faith;" although I have
confessed, that there is a certain decree of God, according
to which he determines to administer the means to faith and
salvation, as he knows them to be suitable and proper to his
righteousness, mercy and severity. From these premises it is
deduced as a most manifest consequence, that faith is not an
effect of that election by which God determines to justify
those who believe.
2. With regard to the SECOND assertion, from the particulars
thus explained it is concluded, that "faith is a necessary
requisite in those who shall be partakers of salvation
according to the election of God ;" or, that "it is a
condition prescribed and required by God, to be performed by
those who shall obtain his salvation." "This is the will of
God, that whosoever believeth in the Son hath eternal life;
he that believeth not, shall be condemned." The propositions
contained in this passage cannot be resolved into any other
than this brief one, which is likewise used in the Scripture,
"Believe, and thou shalt be saved." In which the word
"believe" has the force of a demand or requirement; and the
phrase "thou shalt be saved" has that of a suasion, by means
of a good that is promised. This truth is so clear and
perspicuous, that the denial of it would be a proof of great
perversity or of extreme unskilfullness. If any one say, "It
is a condition, but yet an evangelical one, which God may
himself perform in us, or, (as it is better expressed,) which
he may by his grace cause us to perform; "the man who speaks
thus, does not contradict this truth, but confirms it when he
adds this explanation, "of what description soever that
condition may be."
3. With regard to the THIRD, I say that we must distinguish
between the condition by which it is required, that by which
it is performed, and that by which it is seen or foreseen as
performed. This third member, therefore, is proposed in a
manner much too confused. Yet, when this confusion is
corrected by the distinction which we have stated, nothing of
absurdity will be apparent even in that member. Because
foreseeing or seeing, in the very nature and order of things
follows the performance itself; the performance has its own
causes into which it is to be resolved; and the efficiency of
those causes is not necessary, unless faith be prescribed and
required by the law of faith and the gospel. Since therefore
faith is said "to be foreseen by God in those who are to be
saved," those causes, without the intervention of which there
could be no faith, are not removed, but are rather appointed.
Among those causes, I consider the preventing, accompanying
and succeeding [subsequent] grace of God, as the principal.
And I say, with Fulgentius, "Those persons will be saved, or
they have been predestinated and elected, who, God foreknew,
would believe by the assistance of his preventing grace, (I
add and of his accompanying grace,) and would persevere by
the aid of his subsequent grace." In this first member, then,
there is nothing except truth of the greatest purity.
II. The second member is, "The decree concerning the gift of
faith, precedes the decree of election;" in the explanation
of which I employ the same distinction as in the former, and
say, "The decree of election, by which God determines to
justify and save believers, precedes the decree concerning
the bestowment of faith." For faith is unnecessary, nay it is
useless, without this previous decree. And the decree of
election, by which God resolves to justify and save this or
that particular person, is subsequent to that decree
according to which he determines to administer the means
necessary and efficacious to faith, that is, the decree
concerning the gift of faith.
If any one says, "God wills first absolutely to save some
particular person; and, since he wills that, he also wills to
bestow faith on him, because without faith, it is not
possible for him to be saved." I tell him, that he lays down
contradictory propositions -- that "God wills absolutely to
save some one without regard to faith," and yet that,
"according to the will of God, he cannot be saved without
faith." Through the will of God it has been revealed to us,
without faith it is impossible for any man to please God, or
to be saved. There is, therefore, in God no other will, by
which he wills any one to be absolutely saved without
consideration of faith. For contradictory wills cannot be
attributed to God. If any person replies, "God wills the end
before he wills the means leading to the end; but salvation
is the end, and faith the means leading to the end," I
answer, first, Salvation is not the end of God; but salvation
and faith are the gifts of God, bound and connected together
in this order between themselves through the will of God,
that faith should precede salvation, both with regard to God,
the donor of it; and in reality. Secondly. Faith is a
CONDITION required by God to be performed by him who shall be
saved, before it is MEANS of obtaining that salvation. Since
God will not bestow salvation on any one, except on him who
believes, man is on this account incited to be willing to
believe, because he knows that his chief good is placed in
salvation. Man, therefore, tried by faith, as the means, to
attain to salvation as the end; because he knows that he
cannot possibly obtain salvation except through that means.
And this knowledge he does not acquire except through the
declaration of the divine Will, by which God requires faith
from those who wish to be saved, that is, by which he places
faith as a condition in the object, that is, in the person to
be saved.
ARTICLE V
Naught among things contingent can be said to be NECESSARILY
done in respect to the Divine decree.
ANSWER
My opinion concerning Necessity and Contingency is "that they
can never be applicable at once to one and the same event."
But I speak of the necessity and contingency that are both of
the same kind, not those which are different in their genus.
The schoolmen state, that there is one necessitas
consequentis -- an absolute necessity -- , and another,
necessitas consequentiæ -- a hypothetical necessity. The
former is, when the necessity arises from a cause antecedent
to the thing itself. But necessitas consequentiæ -- a
hypothetical necessity -- arises from certain premises, or
principles, antecedent to the conclusion. A consequent, or
absolute contingency cannot consist with a consequent, or
absolute necessity; nor can they meet together in one event.
In the same manner, one conclusion cannot be both necessary
and contingent in regard to its consequence; that is, it
cannot have, at the same time, a necessity and a contingency
that are hypothetical. But the cause why one thing cannot be
necessary and contingent at the same time, is this "that what
is necessary, and what is contingent, divide the whole
amplitude of being. For every being is either necessary or
contingent. But those things which divide the whole of being,
cannot coincide or meet together in any single being.
Otherwise they would not divide the whole range of being.
What is contingent, and what is necessary, likewise, differ
in their entire essences and in the whole of their
definition. For that is necessary which cannot possibly not
be or not be done. And that is contingent which is possible
not to be or to be done. Thus contradictorily are they
opposed to each other; and this opposition is infinite, and,
therefore, always dividing truth from falsehood: as, "this
thing is either a man or it is not a man;" it is not possible
for any thing to be both of these at once -- that is, it is
impossible for any thing of one essence. Otherwise, in
another sense," Christ is a man," as proceeding from his
mother, Mary; "he is not a man," in reference to his having
been begotten of the Father from all eternity; but these are
two things and two natures.
But they say: "It is possible for one and the same event to
be necessary and contingent in different respects --
necessary with regard to the first cause, which is God -- and
contingent in respect to second causes." I answer, FIRST.
Those things which differ in their entire essences, do not
coincide in respects. SECONDLY. The necessity or contingency
of an event is to be estimated, not from one cause, but from
all the causes united together. For after ten causes have
been fixed, from which a thing is produced, not necessarily
but contingently, if one be added from which the thing may be
necessarily completed, the whole of that thing is said to
have been done not contingently but necessarily. Because,
when all these causes were together appointed, it was
impossible for that thing to hinder itself from being
produced, and from being brought into existence. That thing,
I confess indeed, when distinctly compared by our mind with
each of its causes, has a different relation to them
respectively. But since none of those causes is the total
cause of that event, and since all of them united together
form the total cause, the thing ought itself to be accounted
and declared to have been done from that total cause, either
necessarily or contingently.
It is not only a rash saying, but a false and an ignorant
one, "that a thing which, in regard to second causes, is done
contingently is said to be done necessarily in regard to the
divine decree." For the divine decree itself, being an
internal action of God, is not immediately the cause of the
thing; but, whatever effects it may produce, it performs them
by power, according to the mode of which a thing will be said
to be either necessarily or contingently. For if God resolve
to use an irresistible power in the execution of his decree,
or if he determine to employ such a quantum of power as
nothing can resist or can hinder it from completing his
purpose, it will follow that the thing will necessarily be
brought into existence. Thus, "wicked men who persevere in
their sins, will necessarily perish," for God will by an
irresistible force, cast them down into the depths of hell.
But if he resolve to use a force that is not irresistible,
but that can be resisted by the creature, then that thing is
said to be done, not necessarily but contingently, although
its actual occurrence was certainly foreknown by God,
according to the infinity of his understanding, by which he
knows all results whatever, that will arise from certain
causes which are laid down, and whether those causes produce
a thing necessarily or contingently. From whence the school-
men say that "all things are done by a necessity of
infallibility," which phrase is used in a determinate sense,
although the words in which its enunciation is expressed are
ill-chosen. For infallibility is not an affection of a being,
which exists from causes; but it is an affection of a Mind
that sees or that foresees what will be the effect of certain
causes. But I readily endure a catachrestic metalepsis, when
it is evident concerning a thing, although it is my wish that
our enunciations were always the best accommodated to the
natures of the things themselves.
But the inventors of these articles try to prove by the
examples which they produce, that "one and the same thing,
which, with respect to second causes, is done contingently,
is, in respect to the Divine Decree, done necessarily." They
say "It was possible for the bones of Christ to be broken, or
not to be broken. It was possible for them to be broken, if
any person considers the nature of bones; for they were
undoubtedly fragile. But they could not be broken, if the
decree of God be taken into the account." In answer to this,
I deny that in respect of the DIVINE DECREE, they could not
be broken. For God did not decree that it was impossible for
them to be broken, but that they should not be broken. This
is apparent from the manner in which the transaction was
actually conducted. For God did not employ an irresistible
power by which he might prevent the bones of Christ from
being broken by those who approached to break them; but by a
mild kind of suasion, he caused that they should not will to
break the bones of Christ, by an argument drawn from its
inutility. For, since Christ had already given up the ghost,
before those who broke the legs had arrived at the cross,
they were not at all inclined to undertake a vain and
fruitless labour in breaking the legs of our saviour. Because
the breaking of legs, with the design to hasten death, was
only done lest the bodies should remain suspended on the
cross on a festival or sacred day, contrary to the divine
law. Indeed, if the divine Wisdom knows how to effect that
which it has decreed, by employing causes according to their
nature and motion -- whether their nature and motion be
contingent or free, the praise due to such Wisdom is far
greater than if it employ a power which no creature can
possibly resist. Although God can employ such a power
whensoever it may seem expedient to his Wisdom. I am
therefore, of opinion that I committed no offense when I
said, "No contingent thing -- that is, nothing which is done
or has been done CONTINGENTLY -- can be said to be or have
been done NECESSARILY, with regard to the divine decree."
ARTICLE VI
All things are done contingently.
ANSWER
This Article is expressed in such a stupid and senseless
manner, that they who attribute it to me, declare by this
very circumstance, that they do not perceive under how many
falsities this expression labours; nay, they do not
understand what is the meaning of the words which they
employ. For if that is said to be done contingently which it
is possible not to do, or which may not be done, after all
the causes required for its being done have been fixed; and,
on the other hand, if that is said to be done necessarily
which cannot be left undone which cannot but be done-after
all the causes required for its performance have been fixed;
and if I grant, that, after some causes have been fixed, it
is impossible for any other event to ensue than that the
thing should be done and exist, how then can I be of opinion
that" all things are done, or happen, contingently?." But
they have deceived themselves by their own ignorance; from
which it would be possible for them to be liberated, if they
would bestow a becoming and proper attention on sentiments
that are more correct, and would in a friendly manner obtain
from the author a knowledge of his views and opinions.
I have both declared and taught that "necessity, in reference
to its being said to be or to happen necessarily, is either
absolute or relative." It is an absolute necessity, in
relation to a thing being said simply "to be or to happen
necessarily," without any regard being had to the
supposition, or laying down, of any cause whatever. It is a
relative necessity, when a thing is said "to be or to happen
necessarily," after some cause had been laid down or fixed.
Thus, God exists by an absolute necessity; and by the same
absolute necessity, he both understands and loves himself.
But the world, and all things produced from it, are,
according to an absolute consideration, contingent, and are
produced contingently by God, freely operating. But it being
granted that God wills to form the world by his infinite
power, to which NOTHING ITSELF must be equal to matter in the
most perfect state of preparation -- and it being likewise
granted that God actually employs this power -- it will then
be said, "It was impossible for the world to do otherwise
than exist from this cause;" or, "from this cause, the world
could not but exist." And this is a relative necessity, which
is so called from the hypothesis of an antecedent cause being
laid down or fixed.
I will explain my meaning in a different manner. Two things
in this place come under our consideration, the CAUSE and the
EFFECT. If both of them be necessarily fixed, that is, if not
only the effect be fixed necessarily when the cause fixed,
but if the cause also necessarily exist and be necessarily
supposed to operate, the necessity of the effect is in that
case simple and absolute. In this manner arises the absolute
necessity of the Divine effect, by which God is said to know
and love himself; for the Divine understanding and the Divine
will cannot be inoperative, [cannot but operate]. This
operation of God is not only an internal one, but it is also
ad intra, [inwards,] tending towards an object, which is
himself. But whatever God may do ad extra, [externally,] that
is, when acting on an object which is something beside
himself, [or something different from himself,] whether this
object be united to him in understanding and he tend towards
it by an internal act, or whether it be in reality separated
from him and towards which he tends by an external act, the
whole of this he does freely, and the whole of it is,
therefore, said to be absolutely contingent. Thus God freely
decreed to form the world, and did freely form it. And, in
this sense, all things are done contingently in respect to
the ]Divine decree; because no necessity exists why the
decree of God should be appointed, since it proceeds from his
own pure and free [or unconstrained] will.
Or, to express it in another form: That is called the simple
and absolute necessity of any effect, "when the cause
necessarily exists, necessarily operates, and employs that
power through which it is impossible for the thing not to
exist," [or through which it cannot but exist]. In the nature
of things, such an effect as this cannot be contemplated. For
the intellect of the Deity, by which he understands himself,
proceeds from a cause that necessarily exists and that
necessarily understands itself; but it does not proceed from
a cause which employs a power of action for such an
understanding.
Under this consideration, the relative necessity of any event
is two-fold. FIRST. When a cause that necessarily exists, but
does not necessarily operate, uses a power of action that
cannot be resisted. Thus it being fixed, that "God, who is a
necessary being, wills to create a world by his omnipotence,"
a world must in that case necessarily come into existence.
SECONDLY. When a cause that does not necessarily exist and
yet necessarily operates, acts with such efficacy as is
impossible to be resisted by the matter or subject on which
it operates. Thus, straw is said to be necessarily burnt [or
consumed] by the fire, if it be cast into the flame. Because
it is impossible either for the fire to restrain its power of
burning so as not actually to burn, or for the straw to
resist the fire. But because God can prevent the fire from
burning any combustible matter that is brought near it or put
into it, this kind of necessity is called partial in respect
to the cause, and only according to the nature of the things
themselves and the mutual affection [or relation] between
them.
When these matters have been thus explained, I could wish to
see what can possibly be said in opposition.lam desirous,
that we should in preference contend FOR THE NECESSITY OF GOD
ALONE, that is, for his necessary existence and for the
necessary production of his ad intra [internal] acts, and
that we should contend for the CONTINGENCY OF ALL OTHER
THINGS AND EFFECTS. Such a procedure on our part would
conduce far more to the glory of God; to whom by this method
would be attributed both the GLORY of his necessary
existence, that is, of his eternity, according to which it is
a pure act without [the exercise of] power, and the GLORY of
his free creation of all other things, by which also his
goodness becomes a supreme object of our commendation.
ARTICLE VII
God has not by his eternal decree determined future and
contingent things to the one part or the other.
ANSWER
A calumny which lies concealed under ambiguous terms, is
capable of inflicting a deep injury with the greatest
security; but after such equivocal expressions are explained,
the slander is exposed, and loses all its force among men of
skill and experience.
The word "DETERMINED" is of this ambiguous description. For
it signifies (1.) either "the determination of God by which
he resolves that something shall be done; and when such a
determination is fixed, (by an action, motion and impulse of
God, of whatever kind it may be,) the second cause, both with
regard to its power and the use of that power, remains free
either to act or not to act, so that, if it be the pleasure
of this second cause, it can suspend [or defer] its own
action." Or it signifies (2.) "such a determination, as, when
once it is fixed, the second cause (at least in regard to the
use of its power,) remains no longer free so as to be able to
suspend its own action, when God's action, motion and impulse
have been fixed; but by this determination, it [the second
cause] is necessarily bent or inclined to the one course or
the other, all indifference to either part being completely
removed before this determined act be produced by a free and
unconstrained creature."
1. If the word "DETERMINED," in the article here proposed, be
interpreted according to this first method, far be it from me
to deny such a sort of Divine determination. For I am aware
that it is said, in the fourth chapter of the. Acts of the
Apostles, "Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles
and the people of Israel, were gathered together against
Jesus, to do whatsoever God's hand and counsel determined
before (or previously appointed) to be done." But I also
know, that Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the Jews, freely
performed those very actions; and (notwithstanding this
"fore-determination of God," and though by his power every
Divine action, motion and impulse which was necessary for the
execution of this "fore-determination," were all fixed,) yet
it was possible for this act (the crucifixion of Christ,)
which had been "previously appointed" by God, not to be
produced by those persons, and they might have remained free
and indifferent to the performance of this action, up to the
moment of time in which they perpetrated the deed. Let the
narrative of the passion of our Lord be perused, and let it
be observed how the whole matter was conducted, by what
arguments Herod, Pontius Pilate and the Jews were moved and
induced, and the kind of administration [or management] that
was employed in the use of those arguments, and it will then
be evident, that it is the truth which I here assert.
2. But if the word "DETERMINED" be received according to the
second acceptation, I confess, that I abominate and detest
that axiom (as one that is FALSE, ABSURD, and preparing the
way for MANY BLASPHEMIES,) which, declares that "God by his
eternal decree has determined to the one part or to the other
future contingent things." By this last phrase understand
"those things which are performed by the free will of the
creature."
(1.) I execrate it as a FALSEHOOD: Because God in the
administration of his Providence conducts all things in such
a manner that when he is pleased to employ his creatures in
the execution of his decrees, he does not take away from them
their nature, natural properties or the use of them, but
allows them to perform and complete their own proper motions.
Were it otherwise, Divine Providence, which ought to be
accommodated to the creation, would be in direct opposition.
(2.) I detest it as AN ABSURDITY: Because it is contradictory
in the adjunct, that "something is done contingently," that
is, it is done in such a manner as makes it POSSIBLE not to
be done; and yet this same thing is determined to the one
part or the other in such a manner, as makes it IMPOSSIBLE to
leave undone that which has been determined to be done. What
the patrons of such a doctrine advance about "that liberty
not being taken away which belongs to the nature of the
creature," is not sufficient to destroy this contradiction:
Because it is not sufficient for the establishment of
contingency and liberty to have the presence of a power which
can freely act according to nature; but it is requisite that
the use and employment of that power and liberty should on no
account be impeded. What insanity therefore is it, [according
to the scheme of these men,] to confer at the creation a
power on the creature of acting freely or of suspending its
action, and yet to take away the use of such a power when the
liberty comes at length to be employed. That is, to grant it
when there is no use for it, but when it becomes both useful
and necessary, then in the very act to prevent the exercise
of its liberty. Let Tertullian against Marcion be examined,
(lib. ii. c. 5, 6, 7,) where he discusses this matter in a
most erudite and nervous manner. I yield my full assent to
all that he advances.
(3.) I abhor it as CONDUCING TO MULTIPLIED BLASPHEMIES. For I
consider it impossible for any art or sophistry to prevent
this dogma concerning "such a previous determination" from
producing the following consequences: FIRST. It makes God to
be the author of sin, and man to be exempt from blame.
SECONDLY. It constitutes God as the real, proper and only
sinner: Because when there is a fixed law which forbids this
act, and when there is such "a fore-determination" as makes
it "impossible for this act not to be committed," it follows
as a natural consequence, that it is God himself who
transgresses the law, since he is the person who performs
this deed against the law. For though this be immediately
perpetrated by the creature, yet, with regard to it, the
creature cannot have any consideration of sin; because this
act was unavoidable on the part of man, after such "fore-
determination" had been fixed. THIRDLY. Because, according to
this dogma, God needed sinful man and his sin, for the
illustration of his justice and mercy. FOURTHLY. And, from
its terms, sin is no longer sin.
I never yet saw a refutation of those consequences which have
been deduced from this dogma by some other persons. I wish
such a refutation was prepared, at least that it would be
seriously attempted. When it is completed, if I am not able
to demonstrate, even then, that these objections of mine are
not removed, I will own myself to be vanquished, and will ask
pardon for my offense. Although I am not accustomed to charge
and oppress this sentiment [of theirs] with such consequences
before other people, yet I usually confess this single
circumstance, (and this, only when urged by necessity,) that
"I cannot possibly free their opinion from those objections."
ARTICLE VIII
Sufficient grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed on those to
whom the gospel is preached, whosoever they may be; so that,
if they will, they may believe: otherwise, God would only be
mocking mankind.
ANSWER
At no time, either in public or in private, have I delivered
this proposition in these words, or in any expressions that
were of equivalent force, or that conveyed a similar meaning.
This assertion I confidently make, even though a great number
of persons might bear a contrary testimony. Because, unless
this Article received a modified explanation, I neither
approve of it at present, nor has it at any time obtained any
portion of my approval. Of this fact it is in my power to
afford evidence, from written conferences which I have had
with other people on the same subject.
In this Article there are three topics concerning which I am
desirous of giving a suitable explanation.
FIRST. Concerning the difference which subsists among the
persons to whom the gospel is preached. Frequent mention of
this difference is made in the scriptures, and particularly
in the following passages. "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of
heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the
wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." (Matt.
xi, 25.) The explanation of these words may be discovered in
1 Corinthians 1 and 2. "Into whatsoever city or town ye shall
enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye
go thence. And when ye come into a house, salute it. And if
the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it; but. if it
be not worthy, let your peace return to you." (Matt. x, 11-
13.) The Jews of Berea "were more noble than those in
Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all
readiness of mind," &c. (Acts xvii, 11.) "Pray for us, that
the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified,
even as it is with you; and that we may be delivered from
unreasonable and wicked men. For all men have not faith. But
the Lord is faithful," &c. (2 Thess. iii, 1, 2.)
SECONDLY. Concerning the bestowing of sufficient grace what
is to be understood by such a gift? It is well known, that
there is habitual grace, and [the grace of] assistance. Now
the phraseology of the article might be understood according
to this acceptation, as though some kind of habitual grace
were infused into all those to whom the gospel is preached,
which would render them apt or inclined to give it credence,
or believe the gospel. But this interpretation of the. phrase
is one of which I do not approve. But this SUFFICIENCY, after
all that is said about it, must, in my opinion, be ascribed
to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, by which he assists the
preaching of the gospel, as the organ, or instrument, by
which He, the Holy Spirit, is accustomed to be efficacious in
the hearts of the hearers. But it is possible to explain this
operation of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, in a manner
so modified and appropriate, and such sufficiency may be
ascribed to it, as to keep at the greatest possible distance
from Pelagianism.
THIRDLY. Concerning the expression, "By this grace they may
believe, if they will." These words, when delivered in such a
crude and undigested form, are capable of being brought to
bear a very bad interpretation, and a meaning not at all
agreeable to the scriptures, as though, after that power had
been bestowed, the Holy Spirit and Divine Grace remain
entirely quiescent, waiting to see whether the man will
properly use the power which he has received, and will
believe the gospel. When, on the contrary, he who wishes to
entertain and to utter correct sentiments on this subject,
will account it necessary to ascribe to Grace its own
province, which, indeed, is the principal one, in persuading
the human will that it may be inclined to yield assent to
those truths which are preached.
This exposition completely frees me from the slightest
suspicion of heresy on the point here mentioned; and proves
it to be a report not entitled to the least credit, that I
have employed such expressions, as I am unwilling to admit,
except with the addition of a sound and proper explanation.
In reference to the REASON which is appended to this
proposition, that, otherwise, God would only be mocking
mankind, I confess it to be a remark which several
adversaries employ against the opinion entertained by many of
our divines, to convict it of absurdity. And it is not used
without just cause, which might easily have been
demonstrated, had it pleased the inventors of these Articles,
(instead of ascribing them to me,) to occupy themselves in
openly declaring on this subject their own sentiments, which
they keep carefully concealed within their own bosoms.
ARTICLE IX
The temporal afflictions of believers are not correctly
termed "CHASTISEMENTS," but are PUNISHMENTS for sins. For
Christ has rendered satisfaction only for eternal
punishments.
ANSWER
This Article is attributed to me by a double and most
flagrant falsehood: the first of which will be found in the
Article itself, and the second in the reason appended.
1. Concerning the FIRST. Those who are mere novices in
Divinity know that the afflictions and calamities of this
animal life, are either punishments, chastisements, or
trials. That is, in sending them, God either intends
punishment for sins, in regard to their having been already
committed, and without any other consideration; or, He
intends chastisement, that those who are the subjects of it
may not afterwards fall into the commission of other or
similar offenses; or, in sending afflictions and calamities,
God purposes to try the faith, hope, charity, patience, and
the like conspicuous virtues and graces of his people. What
man would be so silly as to say, when the Apostles were
called before the Jewish Council, and were beaten with rods,
that "it was a PUNISHMENT!" although "they departed from the
presence of the Council, that they were counted worthy to
suffer shame for his name." (Acts v, 41.) Is not the
following expression of the Apostle familiar to every one?
"For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many
sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be
judged. But when we are judged, we are CHASTENED, (reproved
and instructed,) OF THE LORD, that we should not be condemned
with the world." (1 Cor. xi, 30-32.) By not reflecting on
these and similar passages of scripture, the persons who
attributed these articles to me betrayed their ignorance, as
well as their audacity. If they had bestowed the least
reflection upon such texts, by what strange infatuation of
mind has it happened, that they ascribe to me a sentiment
which is thus confuted by plain and obvious quotations from
the word of God?
On one occasion, when the subject of discussion was the
calamities inflicted on the house of David on account of
criminal conduct towards Uriah; and when the passages of
scripture which were adduced tended with great semblance of
truth to prove, that those calamities bore some relation to
PUNISHMENT, I stated, that "no necessity whatever existed for
as to allow ourselves to be brought into such straits by our
adversaries the Papists, from which we could with difficulty
escape; since the words appear to make against the opinion
which asserts that they have by no means any reference to
punishment. And because sin merits both an eternal punishment
corresponding with its grievous enormity, and a temporal
punishment, (if indeed God be pleased to inflict the latter,
which is not always his practice even with respect to those
who persevere in their transgressions, as may be seen in
Psalm 73, and Job 21,) it might, not unseasonably, be said,
that, after God has pardoned the guilt so far as it is
meritorious of eternal punishment, he reserves or retains it
in reference to temporal punishment." And I shewed, that,
"from these premises, no patronage could be obtained for the
Popish dogma of a Purgatory," which was the subject of that
discussion.
2. With regard to the REASON appended, it is supported by the
same criminal falsehood as the preceding part of the Article,
and with no less absurdity of object, as I will demonstrate.
For I affirm, in the first place, that this expression at no
time escaped from my lips, and that such a thought never
entered my imagination. My opinion on this subject is,
"Christ is our Redeemer and saviour from sins, which merit
both temporal and eternal death; and He delivers us not only
from death eternal, but from death temporal, which is the
separation of the soul from the body." But it is amazing,
that this opinion "Christ has rendered satisfaction for
temporal punishments alone," could possibly have been
attributed to me by men of discretion, when the scriptures
expressly declare, "Christ was also a partaker of flesh and
blood, that, through death, he might destroy him that had the
power of death, that is, the devil." (Heb. ii, 14.) By the
term DEATH in this place must be understood either "the death
of the body alone," or "that in conjunction with eternal
death. "The Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy
the works of the devil." (1 John iii, 8.) And among those
works to be destroyed, we must reckon death temporal. For "by
the envy of the devil, death entered into the world." In
another passage it is said, "For since by man came death, by
MAN came also the resurrection of the dead;" this man is
Christ. (1 Cor. xv, 21.) "Christ shall change our vile body,
that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,
according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue
all things unto himself." (Phil. iii, 21.) The greatest
necessity exists for that man to become conversant with the
scriptures, who denies, that "by the death, of Christ we are
redeemed from temporal death, and obtain a right and title to
a happy resurrection."
The following is an affirmation which I have made: "We are
not actually delivered from temporal death, except by the
resurrection from the dead, through which our last enemy,
death, will be destroyed. These two truths, therefore, are,
in my judgment, to be considered and taught, (1.) Christ, by
his death, immediately took away from death the authority or
right which he had over us, that of detaining us under his
power, even as it was not possible that Christ himself should
be holden by t]he bonds [pains] of death. (Acts ii, 24.) But
(2.) Christ will in his own time deliver us from its actual
dominion, according to the administration or appointment of
God, whose pleasure it is to concede to the soul an early
period of liberation, and to the body one that is later."
But, I confess, that I cannot with an unwavering conscience
assert, and therefore, dare not do it as if it were an object
of certain knowledge, that temporal death, which is imposed
or inflicted on the saints, is not a punishment, or has no
regard to punishment," when it is styled "an ENEMY that is to
be destroyed" by the Omnipotence of Christ.
The contrary opinion to this is not proved by the argument,
that "our corporeal death is a passage into eternal life:"
because it is a passage of the soul, and not of the body; the
latter of which, while it remains buried in the earth, is
held under the dominion of death. Nor is it established by
the remark that "the saints long for the death of the body."
(Phil. i, 21, 23.) For when they "have a desire to be
dissolved [to depart] and be with Christ," that desire is
according to the soul; the body in the mean time remaining
under the dominion of death its enemy, until it likewise,
(after being again united to its own soul,) be glorified with
it. The address of Christ to Peter may also be stated in
opposition: "When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth
thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee
whither thou wildest not. This spake he, signifying by what
death he should glorify God." (John xxi, 19.)
The framers of these articles, therefore, have imputed this
opinion to me, not only without truth, but without a
sufficient sanction from their own discretion. Of this
weakness of their judgment I observe, in this Article, other
two tokens:
FIRST. They do not distinguish between the magnitude of each
error in a proper manner. For he falls into a far greater
error who DENIES, that "Christ has rendered satisfaction for
corporeal punishments," that is, for the punishment of death
temporal, than is his who ASSENTS, that "the death of the
body has regard to punishment, since it is inflicted even on
holy persons." But they have placed the latter error as the
proposition; and the former one is brought, as a reason, for
its confirmation. When they ought to have adopted an opposite
mode of stating them, according to the relative estimate of
each of these errors thus, "Christ has rendered satisfaction
for eternal punishment alone. Therefore, the temporal
afflictions of believers are not correctly called
chastisements, but are punishments for sins."
SECONDLY. Because they make me employ an argument, which I
cannot discover to be possessed of any force towards proving
the proposition. For I grant, that Christ has rendered
satisfaction even for temporal punishments; and yet I say,
"It may likewise be true that temporal death has a reference
to PUNISHMENT, even when it is inflicted on believers."
THIRDLY. From these considerations, a third mark of an
inconstant and wavering judgment discovers itself. For when
they employ this mode of argumentation, "Christ has liberated
us from temporal punishments. Therefore our death cannot have
any respect to punishment," they do not perceive that I might
with equal facility draw from the same premises the following
conclusion, "Therefore, it is not equitable that the saints
should die a temporal death." My method of reasoning is
[direct] a re ad rem, from subject to subject, "Because
Christ has borne the death of the body, it is not to be borne
by us." Their method is [relative] a re ad respectum rei,
from the subject to its relation, thus, "Because Christ has
borne the death of the body, it is indeed inflicted on us,
but not so as to have any reference to punishment."
God will himself approve and verify this argument a re ad
rem, from subject to subject, by the effect which He will
give to it at some future period. But the argument will be
prepared and stated in a legitimate form, thus, "Christ has
borne the death of the body; and, (secondly,) has taken it
away, which fact is apparent from his resurrection.
Therefore, God will take away death from us in his own good
time."
ARTICLE X
It cannot be proved from Scripture, that believers under the
Old Testament, before the ascension of Christ, were in
Heaven.
ANSWER
I never taught such a doctrine as this in public, and I never
asserted it affirmatively in private. I recollect, however,
that I said, on one occasion, to a minister of God's word, in
reference to a sermon which he had then delivered, "there are
many passages of Scripture which seem to prove, that
believers under the Old Testament, before the ascension of
Christ, were not in Heaven." I produced some of those
passages, against which he had little to object. But I added,
that I thought it could not now be propounded with much
usefulness to any church that held a contrary opinion; but
that, after it has been diligently examined and found to be
true, it may be taught with profit to the church and to the
glory of Christ, when the minds of men have been duly
prepared. I am still of the same opinion. But, about the
matter itself, I affirm nothing on either side. I perceive
that each of these views of the subject has arguments in its
favour, not only in passages of scripture and in conclusions
deduced from them, but likewise in the sentiments of divines.
Having investigated all of them to the best of my ability, I
confess that I hesitate, and declare that neither view seems
to me to be very evident [or to have the preponderance.] In
this opinion I have the assent of a vast majority of divines,
especially those of our own age. Most of the Christian
Fathers place the souls of the Patriarchs under the Old
Testament beyond or out of Heaven, either in the lower
regions, in Purgatory, or in some other place, which yet is
situated out of the verge of what is properly called Heaven.
With St. Augustine, therefore, "I prefer doubting about
secret things, to litigation about those which are
uncertain." Nor is there the least necessity. For why should
I, in these our days, when Christ, by his ascension into
Heaven, having become our Forerunner, hath opened for us a
way and entrance into that holy place, why should I now
contend about the place in which the souls of the Fathers
rested in the times of the Old Testament?
But lest, as is usual in my case, a calumnious report should
be raised on the consequences to be deduced from this
opinion, as though I was favourable to the Popish dogma of a
Purgatory, or as though I approach nearly to those who think
that the souls of the dead sleep or have slept, or, which is
the worst of all, as though I seem to identify myself with
those who say, "the Fathers were like swine that were fed and
fattened without any hope of a better life," lest such
reports as these should be fabricated, I will openly declare
what my opinion is about the state of the Fathers prior to
Christ's ascension into Heaven. (1.) I believe that human
souls are immortal, that is, they will never die. (2.) From
this I deduce, that souls do not sleep. (3.) That, after this
life, a state of felicity or of misery is opened for all men,
into the one or the other of which they enter immediately on
their departure out of this world. (4.) That the souls of the
Fathers, who passed their days of sojourning on earth in
faith and in waiting for the Redeemer, departed into a place
of quiet, joy, and blessedness, and began to enjoy the
blissful presence of God, as soon as they escaped out of the
body. (5.) I dare not venture to determine where that place
of quiet is situated, whether in Heaven, properly so called,
into which Christ ascended, or somewhere out of it. If any
other person be more adventurous on this subject, I think he
ought to be required to produce reasons for his opinion, or
be enjoined to keep silence. (6.) I add, that, in my opinion,
the felicity of those souls was much increased by the
ascension of Christ into Heaven, and that it will be fully
consummated after the resurrection of the body, and when all
the members of the Church universal are introduced into
Heaven.
I know certain passages of Scripture which are produced, as
proofs that the souls of the Old Testament Saints have been
in Heaven. (1.) "The spirit shall return unto God who gave
it." (Eccl. xii, 7.) But this expression must either be
understood in reference to all the spirits of men of every
description, and thus will afford no assistance to this
argument; or, if it be understood as relating to the souls of
good men alone, it does not even then follow, that, because
"the spirit returns unto God," it ascends into Heaven
property so called. I prefer, however, the former mode of
interpretation, a return to God the Creator and the Preserver
of spirits, and the Judge of the deeds done in the body. (2.)
Enoch is said to have been taken to God, (Gen. v, 24) and
Elijah to have ascended by a whirlwind into Heaven. (2 Kings
ii, 11.) But, beside the fact of these examples being out of
the common order, it does not follow of course that because
Enoch was taken to God, he was translated into the highest
heaven. For the word "Heaven" is very wide in its
signification. The same observation applies to Elijah. See
Peter Martyr and Vatablus on 2 Kings ii, 13. (3.) "Christ is
now become the first fruits of them that slept." (1 Cor. xv,
20.) This would not appear to be correct, if Enoch and Elijah
ascended into the highest Heaven, clothed in bodies endued
with immortality. (4.) "Lazarus was carried by the angels
into Abraham's bosom," where he enjoyed consolation. (Luke
xvi, 22.) But it is not proved, that Heaven itself is
described by the term, "Abraham's bosom." It is intimated,
that Lazarus was gathered into the bosom of his father
Abraham, in which he might rest in hope of a full
beatification in Heaven itself, which was to be procured by
Christ. For this reason the Apostle, after the ascension of
Christ into Heaven, "had a desire to be with Christ." (Phil.
i, 23.) (5.) "Many shall come from the East and the West, and
shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom
of Heaven." (Matt. viii, 11.) But it does not thence follow,
that the Fathers have been in Heaven, properly so called,
before they, who are to be called from among the Gentiles,
sit down with them. (6.) It appears from Matthew 25, that
there are only two places, one destined for the pious, the
other for the wicked. But it does not hence necessarily
follow, that the place destined for the pious has always been
Heaven supreme. There have never been more places, because
there have never been more states. But it is not necessary,
that they should always be the same places without any
change. The authority of this declaration is preserved
inviolate, provided a third place be never added to the
former two. (7.) "The reward" which awaits the pious "in
heaven," is said to be "great." (Matt. v, 12.) Let this be
granted. Therefore, [will some reasoner say,] they must
instantly after death be translated into the supreme heaven."
This does not necessarily follow. For it is well known, that
the Scriptures have in these promises a reference to the
period which immediately succeeds the last judgment,
according to the following expression: "Behold I come
quickly, and my reward is with me." The spouse replies, "Even
so come, Lord Jesus!" (Rev. xxii, 12, 20) In the same manner
must be understood that passage in Luke, "They may receive
you into everlasting habitations;" (Luke xvi, 9;) that is,
after the last judgment, at least after [the ascension of]
Christ, whose office it was to prepare those mansions for his
people. (John xiv, 2.) (8.) "The Fathers are said to have
been justified by the same faith as we are." (Acts xiii, 33.)
I acknowledge this. "Therefore they have always been in
Heaven even before [the ascension of] Christ, and we shall be
after Him." This is not a necessary consequence. For there
are degrees in glorification. Nor is it at all wonderful, if
they be said to be rendered more blessed and glorious after
the ascension of Christ into Heaven. (9.) "But Jesus said to
the malefactor, to-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise."
(.Luke xxiii, 43.) I reply, FIRST, It is not necessary that
by "Paradise" should here be understood the third heaven, or
the eternal abode of the blessed. For it denotes in general a
place of felicity. SECONDLY, St. Chrysostom says, the
crucified thief was the first person whose spirit entered
into heaven. Yet he did not ascend there before Christ, nor
before the vail of the temple had been rent in twain."
But to these passages is opposed that admirable dispensation
or economy of God, which is distinguished according to the
times preceding Christ, and those which followed. Of this
dispensation the temple at Jerusalem was an illustrious
[exemplar] pattern. For its external part, by means of an
interposing vail, was separated and divided from that in
which the priests daily appeared, and which was called "The
Holy of Holies," in contradistinction to that which is called
"The Sanctuary," (Heb. ix, 2, 3.) Heaven itself is designated
by "The Holy of Holies" in Heb. ix, 24. It was shut as long
as the former tabernacle stood, and until Christ entered into
it by his own blood. (Heb. ix, 8-12.) It was his province as
"our Forerunner" to precede us, that we also might be able to
enter into those things which are within the vail. (Heb. vi,
19.) For this purpose it was necessary that liberty should be
granted to us of "entering into the Holiest by the blood of
Jesus, by that new and living way which he hath consecrated
for us through the vail, that is to say, his flesh." (Heb. x,
19, 20.) On this account the ancient worthies, who, "through
faith have" most evidently "gained this testimony that they
pleased God," are said, "not to have received or obtained the
promise; God having provided some better thing for us," who
follow Christ, "that they without us should not be made
perfect." (Heb. xi, 40.) These passages of scripture, and a
view of the dispensation which they describe, are among the
principal reasons why I cannot give my assent to the opinion
which affirms, that the Fathers have been in Heaven properly
so called.
But, that our brethren may not so highly blame me, I will
oppose to them one or two of the approved divines of our
church. CALVIN, in his INSTITUTES," (lib. iv, c. 1, s. 12,)
says: "For what churches would dissent from each other on
this account alone -- that one of them, without any of the
licentiousness of contention or the obstinacy of assertion,
holds the opinion that souls, when they leave their bodies,
soar up to Heaven; while another church does not venture to
define anything about the place, but only maintains with
certainty that they still live in the Lord." Peruse also the
following passage in his "Institutes," (lib. iii, c. 25, s.
6.) "Many persons torment themselves by disputing about the
place which departed souls occupy, and whether they be now in
the enjoyment of heavenly glory or not. But it is foolish and
rash to inquire about things unknown, more deeply than God
permits us to know them." Behold, Calvin here says, that it
is frivolous to contend whether the souls of the dead already
enjoy celestial glory or not; and, in his judgment, it ought
not to be made a subject of contention. Yet I am condemned,
or at least am accused, because I dare not positively affirm
"that the souls of the Fathers before Christ, were in Heaven,
properly so called." PETER MARTYR proceeds still further, and
is bold enough to assert, in his observations on 2 Kings ii,
13, "that the souls of the Fathers before Christ, were not in
Heaven properly so called." He says, "Now if I be asked, to
what place were Enoch and Elijah translated? I will say
simply that I do not know, because that circumstance is not
delivered in the divine volume. Yet if we might follow a very
probable analogy, I would say, they were conducted to the
place of the Fathers, or into Abraham's bosom, that they
might there pass their time with the blessed Patriarchs in
expectation of the resurrection of Christ, and that they
might afterwards be elevated above the Heavens with Him when
he was raised up again." Where it is to be noted, that Martyr
entertains doubts concerning Enoch and Elijah, but speaks
decisively about those who are in Abraham's bosom, that is,
about the Fathers, "that they were raised up above the
heavens with Christ at his resurrection." This likewise
appears from what he mentions a little afterwards. With
regard to that sublime ascension, we grant that no one
enjoyed it before Christ. Enoch, therefore, and Elijah went
to the Fathers, and there with them waited for Christ, upon
whom, in company with the rest, they were attendants when he
entered into heaven." See also BULLINGER on Luke xvi, 23;
Heb. ix, 8; 1 Pet. iii, 19.
From the preceding explanation and extracts, I have, I think,
rendered it evident, that not only had I just causes for
being doubtful concerning this matter, but that I likewise
ought not therefore to be blamed, even though I had uttered
what they here charge upon me as an error; nay, what is still
more, that I ought to be tolerated had I simply asserted,
"that the souls of the Fathers were not in Heaven prior to
the ascension of Christ to that blissful abode."
ARTICLE XI
It is a matter of doubt, whether believers under the Old
Testament understood that the legal ceremonies were types of
Christ and of his benefits.
ANSWER
I do not remember to have said this at any time: nay, I am
conscious that I have never said it, because I never yet
durst utter any such expression. But I have said, that an
inquiry not altogether unprofitable might be instituted, "how
far the ancient Jews understood the legal ceremonies to be
types of Christ?" At least I feel myself well assured, that
they did not understand those ceremonies, as we do to whom
the mystery of the Gospel is revealed. Nor do I suppose that
any one will venture to deny this. But I wish our brethren
would take upon themselves the task of proving, that
believers under the Old Testament understood the legal
ceremonies to be types of Christ and his benefits. For they
not only know that this opinion of theirs is called in
question by some persons, but that it is likewise confidently
denied. Let them make the experiment, and they will perceive
how difficult an enterprise they have undertaken. For the
passages which seem to prove their proposition, are taken
away from them in such a specious manner by their
adversaries, that a man who is accustomed to yield assent to
those things alone which are well supported by proofs, may be
easily induced to doubt whether the believers under the Old
Testament had any knowledge of this matter; especially if he
consider, that, according to Gal. iv, 3, the whole of the
ancient [Jewish] Church was in a state of infancy or
childhood, and therefore possessed only the understanding of
a child. Whether an infant be competent to perceive in these
corporal things the spiritual things which are signified by
them, let those decide who are acquainted with that passage,
"When I was a child, I understood as a child." (1 Cor. xiii,
11.) Let those passages also be inspected which, we will
venture to say, have a typical signification, because we have
been taught so to view them by Christ and his Apostles; and
it will be seen whether they be made so plain and obvious,
as, without the previous interpretation of the Messiah, to
have enabled us to understand them according to their
spiritual meaning. It is said, (John viii, 56,) "Abraham saw
the day of Christ, and was glad." Those who are of a contrary
sentiment, interpret this passage as if it was to be
understood by a metonymy, because, Abraham saw the day of
Isaac, who was a type of Christ, and therefore his day was
"the day of Christ." It is an undoubted fact, that no mention
is made in the scriptures of any other rejoicing than of
this. The faith of Abraham and its object occupy nearly the
whole of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Let
what is there said be compared together; and let it be
demonstrated from this comparison, that Abraham saw Christ in
those promises which he apprehended by faith. Who would
understand "the sign of Jonah," to have been instituted to
typify the three days in which Christ remained in the bowels
of the earth, unless Christ had himself given that
explanation? What injury does this opinion produce, since
those who hold it do not deny, that the Fathers were saved by
the infantile faith which they possessed? For an infant is as
much the heir of his father's property, as an adult son.
Should any one say, it follows as a necessary consequence,
that "the Fathers were saved without faith in Christ." I
reply, the faith which has respect to the salvation of God
that has been promised by him, and "waits for the redemption
of Israel," understood under a general notion, is "faith in
Christ," according to the dispensation of that age. This is
easily perceived from the following passages: "I have waited
for thy salvation, or thy saving mercy, O Lord! (Gen. xlix,
18.) "And the same man, (Simeon,) was just and devout,
waiting for the consolation of Israel." (Luke ii, 25.) In the
same chapter it is said, "Anna, a prophetess, spake of him to
all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem."
But if we consider the "faith in Christ," which is that of
the New Testament, and which has regard to Him as a Spiritual
and Heavenly King, who bestows upon his followers those
celestial benefits which he has procured for them by his
passion and death; then a greater difficulty will hence
arise. What man ever received more promises concerning the
Messiah than David, or who has prophesied more largely about
Him? Yet any one may with some show of reason, entertain
doubts, whether David really understood that the Messiah
would be a Spiritual and Heavenly Monarch; for when he seemed
to be pouring out his whole soul before the Lord, (2 Sam. 7,)
he did not suffer a single word to escape that might indicate
the bent of his understanding to this point, which,
nevertheless, would have been of great potency in magnifying
Jehovah and in confirming his own confidence.
The knowledge which all Israel had of the Messiah and of his
kingdom, in the days when Christ was himself on earth,
appears not only from the Pharisees and the whole of the
populace, but also from his own disciples after they had for
three years and more enjoyed constant opportunities of
communication with him, and had heard from his own lips
frequent and open mention of the kingdom of Heaven. Nay, what
is still more wonderful, immediately after the resurrection
of Christ from the dead, they did not even then comprehend
his meaning. (Luke xxiv, 21-25.) From this, it seems, we must
say, either "that the knowledge which they formerly possessed
had gradually died away," or "that the Pharisees, through
their hatred against Jesus, had corrupted that knowledge."
But neither of these assertions appears to be at all
probable. (1.) The former is not; because the nearer those
times were to the Messiah, the clearer were the prophecies
concerning him, and the more manifest the apprehension of
them. And this for a good reason, because it then began to be
still more necessary for men to believe that person to be the
Messiah, or at least the time was fast approaching in which
such a faith would become necessary. (2.) The latter is not
probable; because the Pharisees conceived that hatred against
him on account of his preaching and miracles. But it was at
the very commencement of his office that he called into his
service those twelve disciples. There are persons, I am
aware, who produce many things from the Rabbinical writers of
that age, concerning the spiritual kingdom of Christ; but I
leave those passages to the authors of them, because it is
out of my power to pronounce a decision on the subject.
While I have been engaged in the contemplation of this topic,
and desirous to prove from the preceding prophecies, that the
kingdom of Christ the Messiah, was to be spiritual, no small
difficulty has arisen, especially after consulting most of
those who have written upon it. Let those who on this point
do not allow any one to indulge in a single doubt, try an
experiment. Let them exhibit a specimen of the arguments by
which they suppose their doctrine can be proved, even in this
age, which is illuminated with the light of the New
Testament. I will engage, that, after this experiment, they
will not pass such a sinister judgment on those who confess
to feel some hesitation about this point.
These observations have been adduced by me, not with the
design of denying that the opinion of the brethren on this
matter is true, much less for the purpose of confuting it.
But I adduce them, to teach others to bear with the weakness
of that man who dares not act the part of a dogmatist on this
subject.
ARTICLE XII
Christ has died for all men and for every individual.
ANSWER
This assertion was never made by me, either in public or
private, except when it was accompanied by such an
explanation as the controversies which are excited on this
subject have rendered necessary. For the phrase here used
possesses much ambiguity. Thus it may mean either that "the
price of the death of Christ was given for all and for every
one," or that "the redemption, which was obtained by means of
that price, is applied and communicated to all men and to
every one." (1.) Of this latter sentiment I entirely
disapprove, because God has by a peremptory decree resolved,
that believers alone should be made partakers of this
redemption. (2.) Let those who reject the former of these
opinions consider how they can answer the following
scriptures, which declare, that Christ died for all men; that
He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; (1
John ii, 2;) that He took away the sin of the world; (John i,
29;) that He gave his flesh for the life of the world; (John
vi, 51;) that Christ died even for that man who might be
destroyed with the meat of another person; (Rom. xiv, 15;)
and that false teachers make merchandise even of those who
deny the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves
swift destruction; (2 Pet. ii, 1, 3.) He therefore who speaks
thus, speaks with the Scriptures; while he who rejects such
phraseology, is a daring man, one who sits in judgment on the
Scriptures and is not an interpreter of them. But he who
explains those passages agreeably to the analogy of faith,
performs the duty of a good interpreter and prophesier [or
preacher] in the Church of God.
All the controversy, therefore, lies in the interpretation.
The words themselves ought to be simply approved, because
they are the words of Scripture. I will now produce a passage
or two from Prosper of Aquitain, to prove that this
distinction was even in his time employed: "He who says that
the saviour was not crucified for the redemption of the whole
world, has regard, not to the virtue of the sacrament, but to
the case of unbelievers, since the blood of Jesus Christ is
the price paid for the whole world. To that precious ransom
they are strangers, who, either being delighted with their
captivity, have no wish to be redeemed, or, after they have
been redeemed, return to the same servitude." (Sent. 4, super
cap. Gallorum.) In another passage he says, "With respect
both to the magnitude and potency of the price, and with
respect to the one general cause of mankind, the blood of
Christ is the redemption of the whole world. But those who
pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and
without the sacrament of regeneration, are utter strangers to
redemption." Such is likewise the concurrent opinion of all
antiquity. This is a consideration to which I wish to obtain
a little more careful attention from many persons, that they
may not so easily fasten the crime of novelty on him who says
anything which they had never before heard, or which was
previously unknown to them.
ARTICLES XIII AND XIV
Original Sin will condemn no man.
In every nation, all infants who die without [having
committed] actual sins, are saved.
ANSWER
These articles are ascribed to Borrius. To augment their
number, they have made them two, when one would have been
sufficient, from which the other necessarily follows, even
according to their own opinion. For if "original sin condemns
no one," it is a necessary consequence that "all those will
be saved who have not themselves committed actual
transgressions." Of this class are all infants without
distinction; unless some one will invent a state between
salvation and damnation, by a folly similar to that by which,
according to St. Augustine, Pelagius made a distinction
between salvation and the kingdom of heaven.
But Borrius denies having ever publicly taught either the one
or the other. He conferred indeed in private on this subject,
with some candidates for Holy Orders: and he considers that
it was not unlawful for him so to do, or to hold such an
opinion, under the influence of reasons which he willingly
submits to the examination of his brethren; who, when they
have confuted them, may teach him more correct doctrine, and
induce him to change his opinion. His reasons are the
following:
1. Because God has taken the whole human race into the grace
of reconciliation, and has entered into a covenant of grace
with Adam, and with the whole of his posterity in him. In
which he promises the remission of all sins to as many as
stand steadfastly, and deal not treacherously, in that
covenant. But God not only entered into it with Adam, but
also afterwards renewed it with Noah, and at length confirmed
and perfected it through Christ Jesus. And since infants have
not transgressed this covenant, they do not seem to be
obnoxious to condemnation; unless we maintain, that God is
unwilling to treat with infants, who depart out of this life
before they arrive at adult age, on that gracious condition
under which, notwithstanding, they are also comprehended as
parties to the covenant; and therefore that their condition
is much worse than that of adults, to whom is tendered the
remission of all sins, not only of that which they
perpetrated in Adam, but likewise, of those which they have
themselves personally committed. The condition of infants,
however is, in this case, much worse, by no fault or demerit
of their own, but because it was God's pleasure thus to act
towards them. From these premises it would follow, that it
was the will of God to condemn them for the commission of
sin, before He either promised or entered into a covenant of
grace; as though they had been excluded and rejected from
that covenant by a previous decree of God, and as though the
promise concerning the saviour did not at all belong to them.
2. When Adam sinned in his own person and with his free will,
God pardoned that transgression. There is no reason then why
it was the will of God to impute this sin to infants, who are
said to have sinned in Adam, before they had any personal
existence, and therefore, before they could possibly sin at
their own will and pleasure.
3. Because, in this instance, God would appear to act towards
infants with far more severity than towards the very devils.
For the rigor of God against the apostate angels was extreme,
because he would not pardon the crime which they had
perpetrated. There is the same extreme rigor displayed
against infants, who are condemned for the sin of Adam. But
it is much greater; for all the [evil] angels sinned in their
own persons, while infants sinned in the person of their
first father Adam. On this account, the angels themselves
were in fault, because they committed an offense which it was
possible for them to avoid; while infants were not in fault,
only so far as they existed in Adam, and were by his will
involved in sin and guilt.
These reasons are undoubtedly of such great importance, that
I am of opinion those who maintain the contrary are bound to
confute them, before they can affix to any other person a
mark of heresy. I am aware, that they place antiquity in
opposition, because [they say] its judgment was in their
favour. Antiquity, however, cannot be set up in opposition by
those who, on this subject, when the salvation of infants is
discussed, are themselves unwilling to abide by the judgment
of the ancients. But our brethren depart from antiquity, on
this very topic, in two ways:
(1.) Antiquity maintains, that all infants who depart out of
this life without having been baptized, would be damned; but
that such as were baptized and died before they attained to
adult age, would be saved. St. Augustine asserts this to be
the Catholic doctrine in these words: "If you wish to be a
Catholic, be unwilling to believe, declare, or teach, that
infants who are prevented by death from being baptized, can
attain to the remission of original sins." (De anima et ejus
Orig., lib. 3, cap. 9.) To this doctrine our brethren will by
no means accede; but they contradict both parts of it.
(2.) Antiquity maintains that the grace of baptism takes away
original sin, even from those who have not been
predestinated; according to this passage from Prosper of
Aquitain: "That man is not a Catholic who says, that the
grace of baptism, when received, does not take away original
sin from those who have not been predestinated to life." (Ad
Cap. Gallorum, Sent. 2.) To this opinion also our brethren
strongly object. But it does not appear equitable, that,
whenever it is agreeable to themselves, they should be
displeased with those who dissent from them, because they
dissent from the Fathers; and again, that, whenever it is
their good pleasure, the same parties do themselves dissent
from the Fathers on this very subject.
But with respect to the sentiments of the ancient Christian
Fathers, about the damnation of the unbaptized solely on
account of original sin, they and their successors seem to
have mitigated, or at least, to have attempted to soften down
such a harsh opinion. For some of them have declared, "that
the unbaptized would be in the mildest damnation of all;" and
others, "that they would be afflicted, not with the
punishment of feeling, but only with that of loss." To this
last opinion some of them have added, "that this punishment
would be inflicted on them without any stings from their own
consciences." Though it is a consequence of not being
baptized, that the parties are said to endure only the
punishment of loss, and not that of feeling; yet this feeling
exists wherever the stings or gnawings of conscience exists,
that is, where the gnawing worm never dies. But let our
brethren consider what species of damnation that is which is
inflicted on account of sin, and from which no gnawing
remorse proceeds.
From these observations, thus produced, it is apparent what
opinion ought to be formed of the Fourteenth Article. It is
at least so dependent on the Thirteenth, that it ought not to
have been composed as a separate article, by those who
maintain that there is no cause why infants should perish,
except original sin which they committed in Adam, or which
they received by propagation from Adam. But it is worth the
trouble to see, on this subject, what were the sentiments of
Dr. Francis Junius, who a few years ago was Professor of
Divinity in this our University. He affirms, that "all
infants who are of the covenant and of election, are saved;"
but he presumes, in charity, that "those infants whom God
calls to himself, and timely removes out of this miserable
vale of sins, are rather saved." (De Natura et Gratia, R.
28.) Now, that which this divine either "affirms according to
the doctrine of faith," or "presumes through charity," may
not another man be allowed, without the charge of heresy, to
hold within his own breast as a matter of opinion, which he
is not in the least solicitous to obtrude on others or
persuade them to believe? Indeed, "this accepting of men's
persons" is far too prevalent, and is utterly unworthy of
wise men. And what inconvenience, I pray, results from this
doctrine? Is it supposed to follow as a necessary consequence
from it, that, if the infants of unbelievers are saved, they
are saved without Christ and his intervention?. Borrius,
however, denies any such consequence, and has Junius
assenting with him on this subject. If the brethren dissent
from this opinion, and think that the consequences which they
themselves deduce are agreeable to the premises, then all the
children of unbelievers must be subject to condemnation, the
children of unbelievers, I repeat, who are "strangers from
the covenant." For this conclusion no other reason can be
rendered, than their being the children of those who are
"strangers from the covenant." From which it seems, on the
contrary, to be inferred, that all the children of those who
are in the covenant are saved, provided they die in the age
of infancy. But since our brethren deny this inference,
behold the kind of dogma which is believed by them. "All the
infants of those who are strangers from the covenant are
damned; and of the offspring of those parents who are in the
covenant, some infants th