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 that die are damned, while others are
saved." I leave it to those who are deeply versed in these
matters, to decide, whether such a dogma as this ever
obtained in any church of Christ.
ARTICLE XV
If the Heathen, and those who are strangers to the true
knowledge of God, do those things which by the powers of
nature they are enabled to do, God will not condemn them, but
will reward these their works by a more enlarged knowledge,
by which they may be bought to salvation.
ANSWER
This was never uttered by me, nor indeed by Borrius, under
such a form, and in these expressions. Nay, it is not very
probable, that any man, how small soever his skill might be
in sacred things, would deliver the apprehensions of his mind
in a manner so utterly confused and indigested, as to beget
the suspicion of a falsehood in the very words in which he
enunciates his opinion. For what man is there, who, as a
stranger to the true knowledge of God, will do a thing that
can in any way be acceptable to God? It is necessary that the
thing which will please God, be itself good, at least, in a
certain respect. It is further necessary, that he who
performs it knows it to be good and agreeable to God. "For
whatsoever is not of faith, is sin," that is, whatsoever is
done without an assured knowledge that it is good and
agreeable to God. Thus far, therefore, it is needful for him
to have a true knowledge of God, which the Apostle attributes
even to the Gentiles. (Rom. i, 18-21, 25, 28; ii, 14, 15.)
Without this explanation there will be a contradiction in
this enunciation. "He who is entirely destitute of the true
knowledge of God, can perform something which God considers
to be so grateful to Himself as to remunerate it with some
reward." These, our good brethren, either do not perceive
this contradiction; or they suppose, that the persons to whom
they ascribe this opinion are such egregious simpletons as
they would thus make them appear.
Then, what is the nature of this expression, "if they do
those things which the powers of nature enable them to
perform?" Is "nature," when entirely destitute of grace and
of the Spirit of God, furnished with the knowledge of that
truth which is said to be "held in unrighteousness," by the
knowledge of "that which may be known of God, even his
eternal power and Godhead," which may instigate man to
glorify God, and which deprives him of all excuse, if he does
not glorify God as he knows Him? I do not think, that such
properties as these can, without falsehood and injury to
Divine Grace, be ascribed to "nature," which, when destitute
of grace and of the Spirit of God, tends directly downward to
those things which are earthly.
If our brethren suppose, that these matters exhibit
themselves in this foolish manner, what reason have they for
so readily ascribing such an undigested paragraph to men,
who, they ought to have known, are not entirely destitute of
the knowledge of sacred subjects? But if our brethren really
think that man can do some portion of good by the powers of
nature, they are themselves not far from Pelagianism, which
yet they are solicitous to fasten on others. This Article,
enunciated thus in their own style, seems to indicate that
they think man capable of doing something good "by the powers
of nature;" but that, by such good performance, he will
"neither escape condemnation nor obtain a reward." For these
attributes are ascribed to the subject in this enunciation;
and because these attributes do not in their opinion, agree
with this subject, they accuse of heresy the thing thus
enunciated. If they believe that "a man, who is a stranger to
the true knowledge of God," is capable of doing nothing good,
this ought in the first place, to have been charged with
heresy. If they think that no one "by the powers of nature,"
can perform any thing that is pleasing to God, then this
ought to be reckoned as an error, if any man durst affirm it.
From these remarks, it obviously follows, either that they
are themselves very near the Pelagian heresy, or that they
are ignorant of what is worthy, in the first instance or in
the second, of reprehension, and what ought to be condemned
as heretical.
It is apparent, therefore, that it has been their wish to
aggravate the error by this addition. But their labour has
been in vain; because, by this addition, they have enabled us
to deny that we ever employed any such expression or
conceived such a thought; they have, at the same time,
afforded just grounds for charging them with the heresy of
Pelagius. Thus the incautious hunter is caught in the very
snare which he had made for another. They would, therefore,
have acted with far more caution and with greater safety, if
they had omitted their exaggeration, and had charged us with
this opinion, which they know to have been employed by the
scholastic divines, and which they afterwards inserted in the
succeeding Seventeenth Article, but enunciated in a manner
somewhat different, "God will do that which is in Him, for
the man who does what is in himself." But, even then, the
explanation of the schoolmen ought to have been added, "that
God will do this, not from (the merit of) condignity, but
from (that of) congruity; and not because the act of man
merits any such thing, but because it is befitting the great
mercy and beneficence of God." Yet this saying of the
schoolmen I should myself refuse to employ, except with the
addition of these words: "God will bestow more grace upon
that man who does what is in him by the power of divine grace
which is already granted to him, according to the declaration
of Christ, To him that hath shall be given," in which he
comprises the cause why it was "given to the apostles to know
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," and why "to others
it was not given." (Matt. xiii, 11, 12.) In addition to this
passage, and the first and second chapters of the Epistle to
the Romans, which have already been quoted, peruse what is
related in the Acts of the Apostles, (10, 16, 17,) about
Cornelius the Centurion, Lydia, the seller of purple, and the
Bereans.
ARTICLE XVI
The works of the unregenerate can be pleasing to God, and are
(according to Borrius) the occasion, and (according to
Arminius) the impulsive cause, by which God will be moved to
communicate to them his saving grace.
ANSWER
About two years ago, were circulated Seventeen Articles,
which were attributed to me, and of which the fifteenth is
thus expressed: "Though the works of the unregenerate cannot
possibly be pleasing to God, yet they are the occasion by
which God is moved to communicate to them his saving grace."
This difference induces me to suspect that the negative,
cannot, has been omitted in this sixteenth article, unless,
perhaps, since that time, having proceeded from bad to worse,
I now positively affirm this, which, as I was a less
audacious and more modest heretic, I then denied. However
this may be, I assert that these good men neither comprehend
our sentiments, know the phrases which we employ, nor, in
order to know them, do they understand the meaning of those
phrases. In consequence of this, it is no matter of surprise
that they err greatly from the truth when they enunciate our
sentiments in their words, or when they affix other (that is,
their own) significations to our words. Of this
transformation, they afford a manifest specimen in this
article.
1. For the word "the unregenerate," may be understood in two
senses, (i.) Either as it denotes those who have felt no
motion of the regenerating Spirit, or of its tendency or
preparation for regeneration, and who are therefore,
destitute of the first principle of regeneration. (ii.) Or it
may signify those who are in the process of the new birth,
and who feel those motions of the Holy Spirit which belong
either to preparation or to the very essence of regeneration,
but who are not yet regenerate; that is, they are brought by
it to confess their sins, to mourn on account of them, to
desire deliverance, and to seek out the Deliverer, who has
been pointed out to them; but they are not yet furnished with
that power of the Spirit by which the flesh, or the old man,
is mortified, and by which a man, being transformed to
newness of life, is rendered capable of performing works of
righteousness.
2. A thing is pleasing to God, either as an initial act,
belonging to the commencement of conversion, or as a work
perfect in its own essence, and as performed by a man who is
converted and born again. Thus the confession, by which any
one acknowledges himself to be "a cold, blind and poor
creature," is pleasing to God; and the man, therefore, flies
to Christ to "buy of him eye-salve, white raiment, and gold."
(Rev. iii, 15-18.) Works which proceed from fervent love are
also pleasing to God. See the distinction which Calvin draws
between "initial and filial fear;" and that of Beza, who is
of opinion that "sorrow and contrition for sin do not belong
to the essential parts of regeneration, but only to those
which are preparatory;" but he places "the very essence of
regeneration in mortification, and in vivification or
quickening."
3. "The occasion," and the impulsive cause, by which God is
moved," are understood not always in the same sense, but
variously. It will answer our purpose if I produce two
passages, from a comparison of which a distinction may be
collected, at once convenient and sufficient for our design.
The king says, (Matt. xviii, 32) "I forgave thee all that
debt because thou desiredest me." And God says to Abraham,
(Gen. xxii, 16, 17,) "Because thou hast done this thing, and
hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, in blessing, I
will bless thee." He who does not perceive, in these
passages, a difference in the impelling motives, as well as
in the pleasure derived, must be very blind with respect to
the Scriptures.
4. "The saving grace of God" may be understood either as
primary or secondary, as preceding or subsequent, as
operating or cooperating, and as that which knocks or opens
or enters in. Unless a man properly distinguishes each of
these, and uses such words as correspond with these
distinctions, he must of necessity stumble, and make others
appear to stumble, whose opinions he does not accurately
understand. But if a man will diligently consider these
remarks, he will perceive that this article is agreeable to
the Scriptures, according to one sense in which it may be
taken, but that, according to another, it is very different.
Let the word "unregenerate" be taken for a man who is now in
the act of the new birth, though he be not yet actually born
again; let "the pleasure" which God feels be taken for an
initial act; let the impulsive cause be understood to refer
to the final reception of the sinner into favour; and let
secondary, subsequent, cooperating and entering grace be
substituted for "saving grace;" and it will instantly be
manifest, that we speak what is right when we say: "Serious
sorrow on account of sin is so far pleasing to God, that by
it, according to the multitude of his mercies, he is moved to
bestow grace on a man who is a sinner."
From these observations, I think, it is evident with what
caution persons ought to speak on subjects on which the
descent into heresy, or into the suspicion of heresy, is so
smooth and easy. And our brethren ought in their prudence to
have reflected that we are not altogether negligent of this
cautiousness, since they cannot be ignorant that we are filly
aware how much our words are exposed and obnoxious to
injurious interpretations, and even to calumny. But unless
they had earnestly searched for a multitude of Articles, they
might have embraced this and the preceding, as well as that
which succeeds, in the same chapter.
ARTICLE XVII
God will not deny his grace to any one who does what is in
him.
ANSWER
This Article is so naturally connected with those which
precede it, that he who grants one of the three, may, by the
same effort, affirm the remainder; and he who denies one may
reject all the others. They might, therefore, have spared
some portion of this needless labour, and might, with much
greater convenience, have proposed one article of the
following description, instead of three: "It is possible for
a man to do some good thing without the aid of grace; and if
he does it, God will recompense or remunerate that act by
more abundant grace." But we could always have fastened the
charge of falsehood upon an article of this kind. It was,
therefore, a much safer course for them to play with
equivocations, that the fraud contained in the calumny might
not with equal facility he made known to all persons.
But with respect to this article, I declare that it never
came into our minds to employ such confused expressions as
these, which, at the very first sight of them, exclude grace
from the commencement of conversion; though we always, and on
all occasions, make this grace to precede, to accompany, and
to follow; and without which, we constantly assert, no good
action whatever, can be produced by man. Nay, we carry this
principal so far as not to dare to attribute the power here
described, even to the nature of Adam himself, without the
help of Divine grace, both infused and assisting. It thus
becomes evident, that the fabricated opinion is imposed on us
through calumny. If our brethren entertain the same
sentiments, we are perfectly at agreement. But if they are of
opinion that Adam was able by nature, without supernatural
aid, to fulfill the law imposed on him, they seem not to
recede far from Pelagians, since this saying of Augustine is
received by these our brethren: "Supernatural things were
lost, natural things were corrupted." Whence it follows, what
remnant soever there was of natural things, just so much
power remained to fulfill the law -- what is premised being
granted, that Adam was capable by his own nature to obey God
without grace, as the latter is usually distinguished in
opposition to nature. When they charge us with this doctrine,
they undoubtedly declare, that in their judgment, it is such
as may fall in with our meaning; and, therefore, that they do
not perceive so much absurdity in this article as there is in
reality; unless they think that nothing can be devised so
absurd that we are not inclined and prepared to believe and
publish.
We esteem this article as one of such great absurdity that we
would not be soon induced to attribute it to any person of
the least skill in sacred matters. For how can a man, without
the assistance of Divine Grace, perform any thing which is
acceptable to God, and which he will remunerate with the
saving reward either of further grace or of life eternal? But
this article excludes primary grace with sufficient
explicitness when it says, "To him who does what is in
himself." For if this expression be understood in the
following sense: "To him who does what he can by the primary
grace already conferred upon him," then there is no absurdity
in this sentence: "God will bestow further grace upon him who
profitably uses that which is primary;" and, by the
malevolent suppression of what ought to have been added, the
brethren openly declare that it was their wish for this
calumny to gain credence.
ARTICLE XVIII
God undoubtedly converts, without the external preaching of
the Gospel, great numbers of persons to the saving knowledge
of Christ, among those who have no outward preaching; and he
effects such conversions either by the inward revelation of
the Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of angels. (BORRIUS &
ARMINIUS.)
ANSWER
I never uttered such a sentiment as this. Borrius has said
something like it, though not exactly the same, in the
following words: "It is possible that God, by the inward
revelation of the Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of angels,
instructed the wise men, who came from the east, concerning
Jesus, whom they came to adore." But the words "undoubtedly,"
and "great numbers of persons," are the additions of calumny,
and is of a most audacious character, charging us with that
which, it is very probable, we never spoke, and of which we
never thought; and we have learned that this audacity of
boldly affirming any thing whatsoever, under which the junior
pastors generally labour, and those who are ignorant of the
small stock of knowledge that they possess, is an evil
exceedingly dangerous in the church of Christ.
1. Is it probable, that any prudent man will affirm that
"something is undoubtedly done in great numbers of persons,"
of which he is not able, when required, to produce a single
example? We confess, that we cannot bring an instance of what
is here imputed to us. For, if it were produced by us, it
would become a subject of controversy; as has been the fate
of the sentiments of Zwinglius concerning the salvation of
Socrates, Aristides, and of others in similar circumstances,
who must have been instructed concerning their salvation by
the Holy Ghost or by angels. For it is scarcely within the
bounds of probability, that they had seen the Sacred
Scriptures and had been instructed out of them.
2. Besides, if this saying of Christ had occurred to the
recollection of our brethren, "Speak, Paul! and hold not thy
peace: For I have much people in this city," (Acts xix, 9,
10,)
they would not so readily have burdened us with this article,
who have learned from this saying of Christ, that God sends
the external preaching of his word to nations, when it is his
good pleasure for great numbers of them to be converted.
3. The following is a saying in very common and frequent use.
"The ordinary means and instrument of conversation is the
preaching of the Divine word by mortal men, to which
therefore all persons are bound; but the Holy Spirit has not
so bound himself to this method, as to be unable to operate
in an extraordinary way, without the intervention of human
aid, when it seemeth good to Himself." Now if our brethren
had reflected, that this very common sentence obtains our
high approval, they would not have thought of charging this
article upon us, at least they would not have accounted it
erroneous. For, with regard to the FIRST, what is
extraordinary does not obtain among "great numbers of
persons;" for if it did, it would immediately begin to be
ordinary. With regard to the SECOND, if "the preaching of the
word by mortal men," be "the ordinary means," by which it is
also intimated that some means are extraordinary, and since
the whole of our church, nay, in my opinion, since the whole
Christian world bears its testimony to this, then indeed it
is neither a heresy nor an error to say, "Even without this
means [without the preaching of the word] God can convert
some persons." To this might likewise be added the word
"undoubtedly." For if it be doubtful whether any one be saved
by any other means, (that is, by "means extraordinary,") than
by human preaching; then it becomes a matter of doubt,
whether it be necessary for "the preaching of the Divine word
by mortal men," to be called "the ordinary means."
4. What peril or error can there be in any man saying, "God
converts great numbers of persons, (that is, very many,) by
the internal revelation of the Holy Spirit or by the ministry
of angels; "provided it be at the same time stated, that no
one is converted except by this very word, and by the meaning
of this word, which God sends by men to those communities or
nations whom He hath purposed to unite to himself. The
objectors will perhaps reply, "It is to be feared, that, if a
nation of those who have been outwardly called should believe
this, rejecting external preaching, they would expect such an
internal revelation or the address of an angel." Truly, this
would be as unnatural a subject of fear, as that a man would
be unwilling to taste of the bread which was laid before him,
because he understands, "Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
But I desist; lest, while instituting an examination into the
causes of this fear, I should proceed much further, and
arrive at a point to which our brethren might be unwilling
for me on this occasion to advance. A word is sufficient for
the wise.
ARTICLE XIX
Before his fall, Adam had not the power to believe, because
there was no necessity for faith; God, therefore, could not
require faith from him after the fall.
ANSWER
Unless I was well acquainted with the disposition of certain
persons, I could have taken a solemn oath, that the
ascription of this article to me, as the words now stand, is
an act which is attributed to them through calumny. Can I be
of opinion that "before his fall Adam had not the power to
believe; "and, forsooth, on this account, "because there was
no necessity for faith." Who is unacquainted with that
expression of the apostle? "He who approaches to God must
believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who
diligently seek him." I do not think, that there is a single
Mahometan or Jew who dare make any such assertion as this
article contains. The man who will affirm it, must be
ignorant of the nature of faith in its universal acceptation.
But who is able to love, fear, worship, honour and obey God,
without faith, that is the principle and foundation of all
those acts which can be performed to God according to his
will?
This calumny against me is audacious and foolish. But I
think, it was the wish of its inventors to have added the
words, "the power to believe in Christ;" and indeed they
ought to have made this addition. Yet perhaps some one is
insane enough to say, that "all faith in God is faith in
Christ." being inclined to such persuasion by the argument
"that there is now no true faith in God, which is not faith
in Christ." I say therefore, I affirm and assert, I profess
and teach, "that, before his fall, Adam had not the power to
believe in Christ, because faith in Christ was not then
necessary; and that God therefore could not require this
faith from him after the fall:" That is to say, God could not
require it on this account, "because Adam had lost that power
of believing by his own fault," which is the opinion of those
who charge me with the doctrine of this article. But God
could have required it, because he was prepared, to bestow
those gracious aids which were necessary and sufficient for
believing in Christ, and therefore to bestow faith itself in
Christ.
But since I here confine myself to a simple denial, the proof
of these three things is incumbent upon the brethren who
affirm them. (1.) The Proposition, (2.) The Reason added, and
(3.) The Conclusion deduced from it. The PROPOSITION is this:
"Before his fall, Adam had the power to believe in Christ."
The REASON is, "because this faith was necessary for him."
The CONCLUSION is, "Therefore God could of right demand this
faith from him after the fall."
1. A certain learned man endeavours to prove the PROPOSITION,
which he thus enunciates. "Before his fall, Adam had an
implanted power to believe the Gospel," that is "on the
hypothesis of the Gospel;" or, as I interpret it, "If the
Gospel had been announced to him." The argument which this
learned man employs in proof is, "Because Adam did not labour
under blindness of mind, hardness of heart, or perturbation
of the passions; (which are the internal causes of an
incapacity to believe;) but he possessed a lucid mind, and an
upright will and affections, and, if the Gospel of God had
been announced to him, he was able clearly to perceive and
approve its truth, and with his heart to embrace its
benefits."
2. I do not suppose any one will disapprove of the REASON
which they assign, and therefore I do not require a proof of
it from them; yet I wish the following suggestions to be well
considered, if faith, in Christ was not necessary for Adam,
to what purpose was the power of believing in Christ
conferred upon him?
3. But the necessity of proving the CONCLUSION is incumbent
on our brethren, because they express it themselves in those
terms, and indeed with a reason added to it, "Because Adam by
his own fault through sin lost that power." Out of respect to
the person, I will abstain from a confutation of this
argument; not because I account it incapable of a
satisfactory refutation, which, I hope, will in due time make
its appearance.
I will now produce a few arguments in proof of my opinion.
FIRST. With regard to the Proposition, I prove, "that, before
his fall, Adam did not possess the power to believe in
Christ." (1.) Because such a belief would have been futile.
For there was no necessity, no utility in believing in
Christ. But nature makes nothing in vain; much less does God.
(2.) Because, prior to his sin, God could not require of him
faith in Christ. For Faith in Christ is faith in Him as a
saviour from sins; he therefore, who will believe in Christ
ought to believe that he is a sinner. But, before Adam had
committed any offense, this would have been a false belief.
Therefore, in commanding Adam to believe in Christ, God would
have commanded him to believe a falsehood. That power, then,
was not capable of being produced into an act, and is on the
same account useless. (3.) Faith in Christ belongs to a new
creation, which is effected by Christ, in his capacity of a
Mediator between sinners and God. This is the reason why He
is called "the Second Adam," and "the New Man." It is not,
therefore, matter of wonder, that the capability of believing
in Christ was not bestowed on man by virtue of the first
creation. (4.) Faith in Christ is prescribed in the Gospel.
But the Law and the Gospel are so far opposed to each other
in the Scriptures, that a man cannot be saved by both of them
at the same time; but if he be saved by the Law, he will not
require to be saved by the Gospel; if he must be saved by the
Gospel, then it would not be possible for him to be saved by
the Law. God willed to treat with Adam, and actually did
treat with him, in his primeval state, before he had sinned,
according to the tenor of the legal covenant. What cause,
therefore, can be devised, why God, in addition to the power
of believing in Himself according to the Law, should likewise
have bestowed on Adam the power of believing the Gospel and
in Christ? If our brethren say, "that this power was one and
the same," I will grant it, when the word "power" is taken in
its most general notion, and according to its most remote
application -- that of the power of understanding and
volition, and also the knowledge of common things and of all
notions impressed on the mind. But I shall deny the
correctness of their observation, if the word "power" is
received as signifying any other thing than what is here
specified. For that wisdom of God which is revealed in the
Gospel excels, by many degrees, the wisdom which was
manifested by the creation of the world and in the law.
SECONDLY. With regard to the reason, "Because there was no
necessity for Adam in his primitive condition to believe in
Christ." No one will refute this argument, unless by
asserting, that God infused a power into man, which was of no
service, and which could be of none whatever, except when man
is reduced to that state into which God himself forbids him
to fall, and into which he cannot fall but through the
transgression of the Divine command. But I must here be
understood as always speaking about a power to believe the
Gospel and in Christ, as distinct from a power of believing
in God according to the legal prescript.
THIRDLY. With regard to what belongs to the Conclusion which
is to be deduced from the preceding, I will burden it only
with one absurdity. If matters be as they have stated them,
"that man in his primeval state possessed a power to believe
in Christ," when no necessity existed for the exercise of
such faith in Christ; and if this power was withdrawn from
him after the fall, when it began to be really necessary for
him; such a dispensation of God has been very marvelous, and
completely opposed to the Divine wisdom and goodness, the
province of which consists in making provision about things
necessary for those who live under the government and care of
these attributes.
I desist from adding any more; because the absurdity of this
dogma will not easily obtain credit with such persons as have
learned to form a judgment from the Scriptures, and not from
prejudices previously imbibed. I will only subjoin, that this
dogma never obtained in the church of Christ, nor has it ever
been accounted an article relating to faith.
ARTICLE XX
It cannot possibly be proved from the Sacred Writings, that
the angels are now confirmed in their estate.
ANSWER
This article also has been besprinkled with calumny; though I
am of opinion, that it was done in ignorance by him from
whose narration it is attributed to me. For I did not deny
that this fact was incapable of proof from the Scriptures;
but I inquired of him, "if it be denied, with what arguments
from Scripture will you prove it?" I am not so rash as to
say, that no proof can be given from Scripture for a matter,
whose contrary I am not able satisfactorily to establish by
Scripture, at least if such proof has not produced certainty
in my own mind. For I ought to believe, that there are other
persons who can prove this, though I am myself incapable; as
those persons, in like manner, with whom I occasionally enter
into conversation, ought to believe thus concerning
themselves because I cannot instantly deny that they are
unable to do what, I am sure, they will experience much
difficulty in performing. For they must themselves be aware,
that from their frequent conversations, and from the sermons
which they address to the people, some judgment may be formed
of their own progress in the knowledge of the truth and in
understanding the Scriptures. I wish them, therefore to
undertake the labour of proving that, about which they will
not allow me to hesitate.
I know what has been written by St. Augustine, and others of
the Fathers, about the estate of the angels, about their
blessedness, their confirmation in good, and the certainty by
which they know that they will never fall from this
condition. I also know, that the schoolmen incline towards
this opinion. But when I examine the arguments which they
advance in its support, they do not appear to me to possess
such strength as may justly entitle it to be prescribed for
belief to other persons as an approved article of faith.
The passage generally quoted from St. Matthew, (xxii, 30,)
"But they are as angels of God in heaven," treats only on the
similitude [between young children and angels,] in neither
marrying nor being given in marriage; he does not say, that
the angels of God are now happy in heaven.
That in Matt. xviii, 10, "In heaven their angels do always
behold the face of my Father who is in heaven," does not
speak of the beatific vision, but of that vision with which
those who stand around the throne of God wait for his
commands. This is apparent from the design of Christ, who
wished thus to persuade them "not to offend one of these
little ones;" their beholding God, helps to confirm this
persuasion, not the beatific sight, but such a sight of God
as is suited for the reception of the [Divine] commands to
keep these little ones.
"But ye are come to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an
innumerable company of angels." (Heb. xii, 22. This does not
necessarily prove, that angels are now blessed and confirmed
in good; because, even now, those who are neither beatified
nor confirmed in good do themselves belong to that celestial
city, that is, those who are said to have "come to this
heavenly city," who still "walk by faith," and "see through a
glass darkly." (1 Cor. xiii, 12.) "Then the angels will be in
a more unhappy condition than the souls of pious men, who are
now enjoying blessedness with Christ and in his presence."
This reason which they adduce is not conclusive. For "the
angels are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for
them who shall be heirs of eternal salvation" This service of
theirs will endure to the end of the world. In the mean time,
"those who have died in the Lord, rest from their labours."
(Rev. xiv, 13.)
Neither is that a stronger argument, which says, "It is
possible for the angels to fall, if they are not confirmed in
good; and therefore they must always of necessity be
tormented by a fear of their fall, which may happen; and by a
fear which is the greater, on account of the clearer
knowledge that they have of the evil into which the apostate
angels are fallen." For it is possible for the angels to be
assured of their stability, that is, that they shall never
fall away, although they be neither blessed, nor so far
confirmed in that which is good as not to be capable of
falling. They may be assumed, either with such a certainty as
excludes all anxious "fear that hath torment," but is
consistent with that "fear and trembling," with which we are
commanded to "work out our salvation," who are said to have
"the full assurance of faith" concerning our salvation.
But what necessity is there to enter into this disputation,
which cannot without great difficulty be decided from the
Scriptures; and which, when it is decided, will be of small
service to us. Let us rather devote our attention to this
study. Doing now the will of God as the angels do in heaven,
let us endeavour to be enabled hereafter to become partakers
with them of eternal blessedness. This is especially our
duty, since the things which have been written for us
respecting the state of angels, and which are commanded to be
received by faith, are exceedingly few in number.
This, therefore, is my reply to the former twenty of these
articles, which have been ascribed partly to me alone, and
partly also to Borrius. There is not one of them whose
contrary has been believed by the Church Universal and held
as an article of faith. Some of them, however, are so
artfully constructed, that those which are their opposites
savour of novelty and send forth an odour of falsehood.
Beside the fact, that the greatest part of them are
attributed to us through calumny. I now proceed to the
consideration of the eleven which follow that I may see
whether the fabricators have acted in a more happy and
judicious manner, either in imputing them to me, or in
reckoning them as errors or heresies. May God direct my mind
and my hand, that I may with a good conscience declare those
things which are in unison with the truth, and which may
conduce to the peace and tranquillity of our brethren.
ARTICLE XXI (I.)
It is a new, heretical and Sabellian mode of speaking, nay,
it is blasphemous, to say "that the Son of God is autoqeon
(very God,)" for the Father alone is very God, but not the
Son of the Holy Spirit.
ANSWER
Most of those persons who are acquainted with me at all, know
with what deep fear, and with what conscientious solicitude,
I treat that sublime doctrine of a Trinity of Persons. The
whole manner of my teaching demonstrates, that when I am
explaining this article I take no delight either in inventing
new phrases, that are unknown to Scripture and to orthodox
antiquity, or in employing such as have been fabricated by
others. All my auditors too will testify, how willingly I
bear with those who adopt a different mode of speaking from
my own, provided they intend to convey a sound meaning. These
things I premise, lest any one should suppose, that I had
sought to stir up a controversy about this word, with other
persons who had employed it.
But when, in the course of a particular disputation, a
certain young man with much pertinacity and assurance
defended not only the word itself, but likewise that meaning
which I believe and know to be contrary to all antiquity, as
well as to the truth of the Scriptures, and was not backward
in expressing his serious disapproval of the more orthodox
opinions; I was compelled to explain what were my sentiments
about the word and its meaning.
I said that the word is not contained in the Scriptures; yet,
because it had been used by the orthodox, both by Epiphanius,
(Heres. 69,) and by some divines in our days, I do not reject
it, provided it be correctly received.
But it may be received in a two fold signification, according
to the etymon of the word; and may mean, either one who is
truly and in himself God, or one who is God from himself. In
the former signification, I said, the word might be
tolerated; but in the latter, it was in opposition to the
Scriptures and to orthodox antiquity.
When the opponent still urged, that he received the word in
this last sense, and that Christ was indeed autoqeon that
is,. God from himself, who has in reality an essence in
common with the Father, but not communicated by the Father;
and when he asserted this with the greater boldness, because
he knew that in this opinion he had Trelactrius of pious
memory agreeing with him, from whose instructions he appeared
to have derived his ideas on the subject; I said that this
opinion was a novel one, which was never heard of by the
ancients, and unknown both to the Greek and Latin Fathers;
and that, when rigidly examined, it would be found to be
heretical, and nearly allied to the opinion of Sabellius,
which was, that the Father and the Son are not distinct
persons, but one person called by different names. I added,
that, from this opinion, the entirely opposite heresy might
likewise be deduced, which is, that the, Son and the Father
are two different persons, and two collateral gods; this is
blasphemous. I proved my remarks by the following brief
arguments: FIRST. It is the property of the person of the
Father, to have his being from himself, or, which is a better
phrase, to have his being from no one. But the Son is now
said to have his being from himself, or rather, from no one:
therefore, the Son is the Father; which is Sabellianism.
SECONDLY. If the Son have an essence in common with the
Father, but not communicated by the Father, he is collateral
with the Father, and, therefore, they are two gods. Whereas,
all antiquity defended the unity, the Divine essence in three
distinct persons, and placed a salvo on it by this single
explanation, "that the Son has the same essence directly,
which is communicated to him by the Father; but that the Holy
Spirit has the very same essence from the Father and the
Son."
This is the explanation which I adduced at that time, and in
the maintenance of which I still persist: and I affirm, that
in this opinion I have the Scriptures agreeing with me, as
well as the whole of antiquity, both of the Greek and the
Latin churches. It is therefore most wonderful, that our
brethren have dared to charge this upon me as an erroneous
sentiment. Yet, in doing this, they do not act with
sincerity, since they do not explain the word autoqeon by
removing its ambiguity; which they undoubtedly ought to have
done, lest any person should suppose that I denied the Son to
be in every sense, and therefore that he is not very and true
God. This they ought the more particularly to have done,
because they know that I have always made a distinction
between these significations, and have admitted one of them,
but rejected the other.
Since the matter really stands thus, I might simply accuse
this article of making a false charge; because in a certain
sense I confess the son to be autoqeon also the Holy Spirit,
and not the Father alone. But, for the sake of justifying
this phrase and opinion, the framers of it declare, "When it
is said, the Son is God from himself, then the phrase must be
received in this sense, the essence which the Son has, is
from himself, that is, from no one. For the Son is to be
considered as he is God, and as he is the Son. As God, he has
his being from himself. As the Son, he has it from the
Father. Or two things are to be subjects of consideration in
the Son, his essence and his relation. According to his
essence, the Son is from no one or from himself. According to
his relation, he is from the Father."
But I answer, FIRST. This mode of explanation cannot, except
by an impropriety of speech, excuse him who says, "the Son
has indeed an essence in common with the Father, but not
communicated."
SECONDLY. "The essence, which the Son has, is from no one,"
is not tantamount to the phrase, "the Son, who has an
essence, is from no one." For, "Son" is the name of a person
that has relation to a Father, and therefore without that
relation it cannot become a subject either of definition or
of consideration. But "Essence" is something absolute: and
these two are so circumstanced between themselves, that
"essence" does not enter into the definition of "Son," except
indirectly, thus, "he is the Son, who has the Divine essence
communicated to him by the Father;" which amounts to this,
"he is the Son, who is begotten of the Father." For, to
beget, is to communicate his essence.
THIRDLY. These two respects in which He is God and in which
He is the Son, have not the same affection or relation
between each other, as these two have, "to exist from himself
or from no one," and "to exist from the Father," or "to have
his essence from himself," or "from no one," and "to have it
from the Father:" which I demonstrate thus by two most
evident arguments. (1.) "God" and "the Son" are consentaneous
and subordinate: for the Son is God. But "to derive his being
from no one" and "to derive it from another," "to have his
essence from no one," and "to have it from another," are
opposites, and cannot be spoken about the same person. In the
comparison which they institute, those things which ought to
be collated together are not properly compared, nor are they
opposed to each of their parallels and classes or affinities.
For a double ternary must here come under consideration,
which is this:
HE IS GOD: -- HE IS THE FATHER: -- HE IS THE SON:
He has the Divine essence,: He has it from no one,: He has it
from the Father:
These are affinities and parallels. (1.) "He is God," and
"has the Divine essence." (2.) "He is the Father," and, "has
the Divine essence from no one." (3.) "He is the Son," and,
"has the Divine essence from the Father."
But, by the comparison which our objectors institute in their
explanation, these things will be laid down as parallels. "He
is God," and "has his essence from no one." If this
comparison be correctly formed, then either the Father alone
is God, or there are three collateral Gods. But far be it
from me to charge with such a sentiment as this those who
say, "the Son is autoqeon that is, God from himself." For I
know that they occasionally explain themselves in a modified
manner. But their explanation does not agree with the
phraseology which they employ. For this reason Beza excuses
Calvin, and openly confesses "that he had not with sufficient
strictness observed the difference between these particles a
se and per se."
I have stated only what follow as consequences from these
phrases, and from the opinion which agrees with them; and I
have therefore said, that people must refrain from the use of
such phraseology. I abstain from proofs, multitudes of which
I could bring from the Scriptures and the Fathers; and if
necessity require, I will immediately produce them: for I
have had them many years in readiness.
GOD is from eternity, having the Divine Essence.
THE FATHER is from no one, having the Divine Essence from no
one, which others say is "from himself."
THE SON is from the Father, having the Divine Essence from
the Father.
This is a true parallelism, and one which, if in any manner
it be inverted or transposed, will be converted into a
heresy. So that I wonder much, how our brethren could
consider it proper to make any mention of this matter; from
which they would with far more correctness and prudence have
abstained, if, while meditating upon it, they had weighed it
in equal balances.
ARTICLE XXII (II.)
It is the summit of blasphemy to say, that God is freely
good.
ANSWER
In this article likewise, our brethren disclose their own
disgraceful proceedings, which I would gladly allow to remain
buried in oblivion. But, because they recall this affair to
my recollection, I will now relate how it occurred.
In a disputation, it was asked, "can necessity and liberty be
so far reconciled to each other, that a person may be said
necessarily or freely to produce one and the same effect?"
These words being used properly according to their respective
strict definitions, which are here subjoined. "An agent acts
necessarily, who, when all the requisites for action are laid
down, cannot do otherwise than act, or cannot suspend his
acting. An agent acts freely, who, when all the requisites
for action are laid down, can refrain from beginning to act,
or can suspend his acting," I declared, "that the two terms
could not meet in one subject." Other persons said, "that
they could," evidently for the purpose of confirming the
dogma which asserts, "Adam sinned freely indeed, and yet
necessarily. FREELY, with respect to himself and according to
his nature: NECESSARILY, with respect to the decree of God."
Of this their explanation I did not admit, but said
necessarily and freely differ not in respects, but in their
entire essences, as do necessity and contingency, or what is
necessary and what is contingent, which, because they divide
the whole amplitude of being, cannot possibly coincide
together, more than can finite and infinite. But Liberty
appertains to Contingency.
To disprove this my opinion, they brought forward an
instance, or example, in which Necessity and Liberty met
together; and that was God, who is both necessarily and
freely good. This assertion of theirs displeased me so
exceedingly, as to cause me to say, that it was not far
removed from blasphemy. At this time, I entertain a similar
opinion about it; and in a few words I thus prove its
falsity, absurdity, and the blasphemy [contained] in the
falsity.
(1.) Its falsity. He who by natural necessity, and according
to his very essence and the whole of his nature, is good,
nay, who is Goodness itself, the Supreme Good, the First Good
from whom all good proceeds, through whom every good comes,
in whom every good exists, and by a participation of whom
what things soever have any portion of good in them are good,
and more or less good as they are nearer or more remote from
it. He is not FREELY good. For it is a contradiction in an
adjunct, or an opposition in an apposition. But God is good
by natural necessity, according to his entire nature and
essence, and is Goodness itself, the supreme and primary
Good, from whom, through whom: and in whom is all good, &c.
Therefore, God is not freely good.
(2.) Its absurdity. Liberty is an affection of the Divine
Will; not of the Divine Essence, Understanding, or Power; and
therefore it is not an affection of the Divine Nature,
considered in its totality. It is indeed an effect of the
will, according to which it is borne towards an object that
is neither primary nor adequate, and that is different from
God himself; and this effect of the will, therefore, is
posterior in order to that affection of the will according to
which God is borne towards a proper, primary and adequate
object, which is himself. But Goodness is an affection of the
whole of the Divine Nature, Essence, Life, Understanding,
Will, Power, &c. Therefore, God is not freely good; that is,
he is not good by the mode of liberty, but by that of natural
necessity. I add, that it cannot be affirmed of anything in
the nature of things, that it is freely, or that it is this
or that freely, not even then when man was made what he is,
by actions proceeding from free will: as no man is said to be
"freely learned," although he has obtained erudition for
himself by study which proceeded from free will.
(3.) I prove that blasphemy is contained in this assertion:
because, if God be freely good, (that is, not by nature and
natural necessity,) he can be or can be made not good. As
whatever any one wills freely, he has it in his power not to
will; and whatever any one does freely, he can refrain from
doing. Consider the dispute between the ancient Fathers and
Eunomius and his followers, who endeavoured to prove that the
Son was not eternally begotten of the Father, because the
Father had neither willingly nor unwillingly begotten the
Son. But the answer given to them by Cyril, Basil, and
others, was this: "The Father was neither willing nor
unwilling; that is, He begat the Son not by will, but by
nature. The act of generation is not from the Divine Will,
but from the Divine nature." If they say, "God may also be
said to be freely good, because He is not good by co-action
or force:" I reply, not only is co-action repugnant to
liberty, but nature is likewise; and each of them, nature and
co-action, constitutes an entire, total and sufficient cause
for the exclusion of liberty. Nor does it follow, "co-action
does not exclude liberty from this thing; therefore, it is
freely that which it actually is. A stone does not fall
downwards by co-action; it, therefore, falls by liberty. Man
wills not his own salvation by force, therefore, he wills it
freely." Such objections as these are unworthy to be produced
by MEN; and in the refutation of them shall I expend my time
and leisure, Thus, therefore, the Christian Fathers justly
attached blasphemy to those who said, "the Father begat the
Son willingly, or by his own will;" because from this it
would follow, that the Son had an origin similar to that of
the creatures. But with how much greater equity does
blasphemy fasten itself upon those who declare, "that God is
freely good? For if he be freely good, he likewise freely
knows and loves himself, and besides does all things freely,
even when He begets the Son and breathes forth the Holy
Spirit.
ARTICLE XXIII (III.)
It frequently happens that a creature who is not entirely
hardened in evil, is unwilling to perform an action because
it is joined with sin; unless when certain arguments and
occasions are presented to him, which act as incitements to
its commission. The management of this presentation, also, is
in the hand of the providence of God, who presents these
incitements, that he may accomplish his own work by the act
of the creature.
ANSWER
Unless certain persons were under the excitement of a
licentious appetite for carping at those things which proceed
from me, they would undoubtedly never have persuaded
themselves to create any trouble about this matter. Yet, I
would pardon them this act of officiousness, as the rigid and
severe examiners of truth, provided they would sincerely and
without calumny relate those things which I have actually
spoken or written; that is, that they would not corrupt or
falsify my sayings, either by adding to or diminishing from
them, by changing them or giving them a perverted
interpretation. But some men seem to have been so long
accustomed to slander, that, even when they can be openly
convicted of it, still they are not afraid of hurling it
against an innocent person. Of this fact, they afford a
luminous example in the present article. For those things
which I advanced in the Theses, On the Efficacy and
Righteousness of the Providence of God concerning evil, and
which were disputed in the month of May, 1605, are here
quoted, but in a mutilated manner, and with the omission of
those things which are capable of powerfully vindicating the
whole from the attacks of slander. The following are the
words which I employed in the fifteenth thesis of that
disputation.
"But since an act, though it be permitted to the ability and
the will of the creature, may yet be taken away from his
actual power or legislation; and since, therefore, it will
very frequently happen, that a creature, who is not entirely
hardened in evil, is unwilling to perform an act because it
is connected with sin, unless when some arguments and
occasions are presented to him, which resemble incitements to
its commission. The management of this presenting (of
arguments and occasions) is also in the hand of the
Providence of God, who presents these incitements, both that
He may fully try whether the creature be willing to refrain
from sinning, even when urged on, or provoked, by
incitements; because the praise of abstaining from sin is
very slight, in the absence of such provocatives; and that,
if the creature wills to yield to these incitements, God may
effect his own work by the act of the creature."
These are my words from which the brethren have extracted
what seemed suitable for establishing the slander, but have
omitted and quite taken away those things which, in the most
manifest manner, betray and confute the calumny. For I laid
down two ends of that administration by which God manages the
arguments, occasions, incitements, and irritatives to commit
that act which is joined with sin. And these two ends were
neither collateral, that is, not equally intended; nor were
they connected together by a close conjunction. The FIRST of
them, which is the exploration or trial of his creature, God
primarily, properly, and of himself intends. But the LATTER,
which is, that God may effect his own work by the act of the
creature, is not intended by God, except after he has
foreseen that his Creature will not resist these incitements,
but will yield to them, and that of his own free will, in
opposition to the command of God, which it was his duty and
within his power to follow, after having rejected and refused
those allurements and incitements of arguments and occasions.
But this article of theirs propounds my words in such a way,
as if I had made God to intend this last end only and of
itself, omitting entirely the first; and thus omitting the
previous condition under which God intends this second end
through the act of his creature, that is, when it is the will
of the creature to yield to these incitements.
This calumny, therefore, is two-fold, and evidently invented
for the purpose of drawing a conclusion from these, my words
-- that I have in them represented God as the author of sin.
A certain person, having lately quoted my expressions in a
public discourse, was not afraid of drawing from them this
conclusion. But this was purely through calumny, as I will
now prove with the utmost brevity.
The reason by which it can be concluded, from the words that
have been quoted in this article from my Thesis, "that God is
the author of the sin which is committed by the creature,"
when God incites him by arguments and occasions, is
universally, three-fold:
The FIRST is, that God absolutely intends to effect his own
work by the act of the creature, which act cannot be
performed by the creature without sin. This is resolvable
into two absolute intentions of God, of which the first is
that by which he absolutely intends to effect this, his work;
and the second, that by which he absolutely intends to effect
this work in no other way, than by such an act of a creature
as cannot be done by that creature without sin.
The SECOND REASON IS, that the creature being invited by the
presenting of these allurements and provocatives to commit
that act, cannot do otherwise than commit it; that is, such
an excitation being laid down, the creature cannot suspend
that act by which God intends to erect his work, otherwise
God might be frustrated of his intention: Hence arises
The THIRD REASON which has its origin in these two -- that
God intends by these incentives to move the creature to
perform an act which is joined to sin, that is, to move him
to the commission of sin.
All these things seem, with some semblance of probability, to
be drawn as conclusions from the words thus placed, as they
are quoted in this their article, because it is represented
as the sole and absolute end of this administration and
presenting-that God effects his work by the act of the
creature. But those words which I have inserted, and which
they have omitted, meet these three reasons, and in the most
solid manner, confute the whole objection which rests upon
them.
1. My own words meet the FIRST of these reasons thus: For
they deny that God absolutely intends to effect his own work
by the act of the creature; because they say that God did not
intend to employ the act of the creature to complete his
work, before he foresaw that the creature would yield to
those incitements, that is, would not resist them.
2. They meet the SECOND by denying that, after assigning this
presentation of incitements, the creature is unable to
suspend his act; since they say, likewise, that, if it be the
will of the creature to yield to these incitements, then God
effects his own work by the act of the creature. What does
this mean if it be his will to yield? Is not the freedom of
the will openly denoted, by which, when this presenting of
arguments and occasions is laid down, the will can yet refuse
to yield,
3. They also meet the THIRD: For they deny that God intends
by those incitements to move the creature to the commission
of an act which is joined to sin, that is, to commit sin,
because they say, that God intends the trial of his creature,
whether he will obey God even after having been irritated by
these incitements. And when God saw that the creature
preferred to yield to these incitements, rather than to obey
him, then he intended, not the act of the creature, for that
is unnecessary; because, his intention being now to try, he
obtains the issue of the act performed by the will of the
creature. But God intended to effect his own work by an act
founded on the will and the culpability of the creature.
It is apparent, therefore, that these words which my brethren
have omitted, most manifestly refute the calumny, and in the
strongest manner solve the objection. This I will likewise
point out in another method, that the whole iniquity of this
objection may be rendered quite obvious.
That man who says, "God tries his creature by arguments and
occasions of sinning, whether he will obey him even after he
has been stirred up by incitements," openly declares that it
is in the power of the creature to resist these incitements,
and not to sin: otherwise, this [act of God] would be, not a
trial of obedience, but a casting down, and an impelling to
necessary disobedience. Then, the man who says -- "God, by
these provocatives and incitements, tries the obedience of
his creature," intimates by these expressions, that those
occasions and arguments which are presented by God when he
intends to try, are not incitements and irritations to sin,
through the end and aim of God. But they are incitements,
first, by capability according to the inclination of the
creature who can be incited by them to commit an act
connected with sin. They are also incitements, secondly, in
their issue, because the creature has been induced by them to
sin, but by his own fault; for it was his duty, and in his
power, to resist this inclination, and to neglect and despise
these incitements.
It is wonderful, therefore, and most wonderful indeed, that
any man, at all expert in theological matters, should have
ventured to fabricate from my words this calumny against me.
Against me, I say, who dare not accede to some of the
sentiments and dogmas of my brethren, as they well know, for
this sole reason -- because I consider it flows from them
that God is the author of sin. And I cannot accede to them on
this account -- because I think my brethren teach those
things from which I can conclude by good and certain
consequence, that God absolutely intends the sin of his
creature, and thence, that he so administers all things, as,
when this administration is laid down, man necessarily sins,
and cannot, in the act itself, and in reality, omit the act
of sin. If they shew that the things which I say, do not
follow from their sentiments, on this account at least, I
shall not suffer myself to be moved by their consent in them.
Let the entire theses be read, and it will be evident how
solicitously I have guarded against saying any thing, from
which by the most distant probability, this blasphemy might
be deduced; and yet, at the same time, I have been careful to
subtract from the providence of God nothing, which, according
to the Scriptures, ought to be ascribed to it. But I scarcely
think it necessary, for me now to prove at great length, that
the fact of God's providential efficacy respecting evil is
exactly as I have taught in those words; especially after I
have premised this explanation. I will, however, do this in a
very brief manner.
Eve was not only "a creature not entirely hardened in evil,"
but she was not at all evil; and she willed to abstain from
eating the forbidden fruit because "it was connected with
sin," as is apparent from the answer which she gave to the
serpent: "God hath, said, Ye shall not eat of it." Her
compliance with this command was easy, in the midst of such
an abundance of fruit; and the trial of her obedience would
have been very small, if she had been solicited with no other
argument by the tempter. It happened, therefore, that, in
addition to this, the serpent presented to Eve an argument of
persuasion, by which he might stimulate her to eat, saying,
"Ye shall not surely die, but ye shall be as gods." This
argument, according to the intention of the serpent, was an
incitement to commit sin: Without it, the serpent perceived,
she would not be moved to eat, because he had heard her
expressing her will to abstain from the act because it was
"connected with sin."
I ask now, Is the whole management of this temptation to be
ascribed to God, or not? If they say, "It must not be
attributed to him," they offend against Providence, the
Scriptures, and the opinion of all our divines. If they
confess that it should be ascribed to him, they grant what I
have said. But what was the end of this management? An
experiment, or trial, whether Eve, when solicited by
arguments, and stimulated by Satan, would resolve to refrain
from an act, that she might obtain from her Lord and Creator,
the praise of obedience. The instance of Joseph's brethren,
which is quoted in the fifteenth thesis of my ninth public
disputation, proves this in the plainest manner, as I have
shown in that thesis.
Let the case of Absalom be inspected, who committed incest
with his father's concubines. Was not this the occasion of
perpetrating that act -- God gave his father's concubines
into his hands, that is, he permitted them to his power. Was
not the argument inducing him to commit that act, from which
nature is abhorrent, furnished by the advice of Ahithophel,
whose counsels were considered as oracles? (2 Sam. xvi, 20-
23.) Without doubt, these are the real facts of the case. But
that God himself managed the whole of this affair, appears
from the Scripture, which says that God did it. (2 Sam. xii,
11-12.)
Examine what God says in Deut. xiii, 1-3, "Thou shalt not
obey the words of that prophet, who persuades thee to worship
other gods, although he may have given thee a sign or a
wonder which may have actually come to pass? Is not the
diction of "the sign," [by this false prophet,] when
confirmed by the event itself, an argument which may gain
credit for him? And is not the credit, thus obtained, an
incitement, or an argument to effect a full persuasion of
that which this prophet persuaded? And what necessity is
there for arguments, incitements and incentives, if a
rational creature has such a propensity to the act, which
cannot be committed without sin, that he wills to commit it
without any argument whatsoever, Under such circumstances,
the grand tempter will cease from his useless labour. But
because the tempter knows, that the creature is unwilling to
commit this act, unless he be incited by arguments, and
opportunities be offered, he brings forward all that he can
of incentives to allure the creature to sin. God, however,
presides over all these things, and by his Providence
administers the whole of them, but to an end far different
from that to which the temptor directs them. For God manages
them, in the first place, for the trial of his creatures,
and, afterwards, (if it be the will of the creature to
yield,) for Himself to effect something by that act.
If any think, that there is something reprehensible in this
view, let them so circumscribe the right and the capability
of God, as to suppose Him unable to try the obedience of his
creature by any other method, than by creating that in which
sin can be committed, and from which He commanded him by a
law to abstain. But if He can try the obedience of his
creature by some other method than this, let these persons
shew us what that method is beside the presenting of
arguments and occasions, and why God uses the former method
more than the preceding one which I have mentioned. Is it not
because he perceives, that the creature will not, by the
former, be equally strongly solicited to evil, and that
therefore it is a trivial matter to abstain from sin, to the
commission of which he is not instigated by any other
incentives?
Let the history of Job be well considered, whose patience God
tried in such a variety of ways, and to whom were presented
so many incitements to sin against God by impatience; and the
whole of this matter will very evidently appear. God said to
Satan; "Hast thou considered my servant Job, a perfect and an
upright man, one that feareth God and departeth from evil,."
Satan answered the Lord and said: "What wonder is there in
this, since thou hast so abundantly blessed him. But try him
now by afflictions." And the Lord said unto Satan: "Behold,
all that he hath is in thy power. Only upon himself put not
forth thine hand." What other meaning have these words than,
"Behold, incite him to curse me! I grant thee permission,
since thou thinkest small praise is due to that man who
abounds with blessings, and yet fears me. Satan did what he
was permitted, and produced none of the effects; [which he
had prognosticated]; so that God said, "Job still holdeth
fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him."
(ii, 3.) This trial being finished, when Satan asked
permission to employ against him greater incentives to sin,
he obtained his request; and, after all, effected nothing.
Therefore God was glorified in the patience of Job, to the
confusion of Satan.
I suppose these remarks will be sufficient to free the words
of my Theses from all calumny and from sinister and unjust
interpretations. When I have ascertained the arguments which
our brethren employ to convict these words of error, I will
endeavour to confute them; or if I cannot do this, I will
field to what may then be deemed the truth.
ARTICLE XXIV (IV.)
The Righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us for
Righteousness; but to believe [or the act of believing]
justifies us.
ANSWER
I do not know what I can most admire in this article -- the
unskillfulness, the malice, or the supine negligence of those
who have been its fabricators! (1.) Their NEGLIGENCE is
apparent in this, that they do not care how and in what words
they enunciate the sentiments which they attribute to me;
neither do they give themselves any trouble to know what my
sentiments are, which yet they are desirous to reprehend.
(2.) Their UNSKILLFULNESS. Because they do not distinguish
the things which ought to be distinguished, and they oppose
those things which ought not to be opposed. (3.) The MALICE
is evident, because they attribute to me those things which I
have neither thought nor spoken; or because they involve
matters in such a way as to give that which was correctly
spoken the appearance of having been uttered in perverseness,
that they may discover some grounds for calumny. But, to come
to the affair itself.
Though in this article there seem to be only two distinct
enunciations, yet in potency they are three, which must also
be separated from each other to render the matter
intelligible. The FIRST is, "the righteousness of Christ is
imputed to us." SECOND, "the righteousness of Christ is
imputed for righteousness." THIRD, "the act of believing is
imputed for righteousness." For thus ought they to have
spoken, if their purpose was correctly to retain my words;
because the expression, "justifies us," is of wider
acceptation than, "is imputed for righteousness." For God
justifies, and it is not imputed for righteousness. Christ,
"the righteous servant of God, justifies many by his
knowledge." But that by which He thus does this, is not
"imputed for righteousness."
1. With regard to the FIRST. I never said, "the righteousness
of Christ is not imputed to us." Nay, I asserted the contrary
in my Nineteenth Public Disputation on Justification, Thesis
10. "The righteousness by which we are justified before God
may in an accommodated sense be called imputative, as being
righteousness either in the gracious estimation of God, since
it does not according to the rigor of right or of law merit
that appellation, or as being the righteousness of another,
that is, of Christ, it is made ours by the gracious
imputation of God." I have, it is true, placed these two in
alternation. By this very thing I declare, that I do not
disapprove of that phrase. "The righteousness of Christ is
imputed to us, because it is made ours by the gracious
estimation of God," is tantamount to, "it is imputed to us;"
for "imputation" is "a gracious estimation." But lest any one
should seize on these expressions as an occasion for calumny,
I say, that I acknowledge, "the righteousness of Christ is
imputed to us" because I think the same thing is contained in
the following words of the Apostle, "God hath made Christ to
be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God
in Him." (2 Cor. v, 21.)
2. I have said, that I disapprove of the SECOND enunciation,
"the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for
righteousness." And why may not I reject a phrase which does
not occur in the Scriptures, provided I do not deny any true
signification which can be proved from the Scriptures? But
this is the reason of my rejection of that phrase. "Whatever
is imputed for righteousness, or to righteousness, or instead
of righteousness, it is not righteousness itself strictly and
rigidly taken. But the righteousness of Christ, which He hath
performed in obeying the Father, is righteousness itself
strictly and rigidly taken. THEREFORE, it is not imputed for
righteousness." For that is the signification of the word "to
impute," as Piscator against Bellarmine, when treating on
justification, (from Romans iv, 4,) has well observed and
safisfactorily proved.
The matter may be rendered clearer by an example. If a man
who owes another a hundred florins, pays this his creditor
the hundred which he owes, the creditor will not speak with
correctness if he says, "I impute this to you for payment."
For the debtor will instantly reply, "I do not care any thing
about your imputation;" because he has truly paid the hundred
florins, whether the creditor thus esteems it or not. But if
the man owe a hundred florins and pay only ten, then the
creditor, forgiving him the remainder, may justly say, "I
impute this to you for full payment; I will require nothing
more from you." This is the gracious reckoning of the
creditor, which the debtor ought also to acknowledge with a
grateful mind. It is such an estimation as I understand as
often as I speak about the imputation of the righteousness
which is revealed in the Gospel, whether the obedience of
Christ be said to be imputed to us, and to be our
righteousness before God, or whether faith be said to be
imputed for righteousness. There is, therefore, a crafty
design latent in this confusion. For if I deny this, their
enunciation, they will say I deny that the righteousness of
Christ is imputed to us. If I assent to it, I fall into the
absurdity of thinking that the righteousness of Christ is not
righteousness itself. If they say, that the word "impute" is
received in a different acceptation, let them prove their
assertion by an example; and when they have given proof of
this, (which will be a work of great difficulty to them,)
they will have effected nothing. For "the righteousness of
Christ is imputed to us by the gracious estimation of God."
It is imputed, therefore, either by the gracious estimation
of God for righteousness; or it is imputed by his non-
gracious estimation. If it be imputed by His gracious
estimation for righteousness, (which must be asserted,) and
if it be imputed by His nongracious estimation; then it is
apparent, in this confusion of these two axioms, that the
word "impute" must be understood ambiguously, and that it has
two meanings.
3. The THIRD is thus enunciated: "Faith, or the act of
believing, is imputed for righteousness" which are my own
words. But omitting my expressions, they have substituted for
them the phrase, "The act of believing justifies us." I
should say, "They have done this in their simplicity," if I
thought they had not read the fourth chapter of the Epistle
to the Romans, in which this phrase is used eleven times,
"Faith, or the act of believing, is imputed for
righteousness." Thus it is said in the third verse, "Abraham
believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness;
that is, his believing was thus imputed. Our brethren,
therefore, do not reprehend ME, but the APOSTLE, who has
employed this phrase so many times in one chapter, and who
does not refrain from the use of the other phrase, "to be
justified by faith, and through faith," in the third and
fifth chapters of the same epistle. They ought, therefore, to
have reprehended, not the phrase itself, but the
signification which I attach to it, if I explain it in a
perverted manner. Thus incorrectly should I seem to have
explained the Apostle's phrase if I had said, "the
righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us or does not
justify us, but faith, or the act of believing, does." But I
have already replied, that this assertion concerning me is
untrue, and I have declared that I believe both these
expressions to be true, "the righteousness of Christ is
imputed to us," and "faith is imputed for righteousness."
When they place these phrases in opposition to each other,
they do this, not from the meaning which I affix to them, but
from their own; and, therefore, according to the
signification which they give to them severally, they
fabricate this calumny, which is an act of iniquity. But they
will say, that I understand this phrase, "Faith is imputed
for righteousness," in its proper acceptation, when it must
be figuratively understood. This they ought, therefore, to
have said, because this alone is what they were able to say
with truth. Such in fact are my real sentiments on this
subject; and the words make for the proper acceptation of the
phrase. If a figure lies concealed under it, this ought to be
proved by those who make the assertion.
ARTICLE XXV (V.)
The whole of that in which we appear before God, justifies
us. But we appear before God, not only by Faith, but also by
Works. Therefore, we are justified before God, not only by
Faith, but likewise by Works.
ANSWER
A man who is ignorant of those things which are here the
order of the day, and who reads this article, will
undoubtedly think, that, in the point of justification, I
favour the party of the Papists, and am their professed
defender. Nay, he will suppose, that I have proceeded to such
a pitch of impudence, as to have the audacity to maintain a
conclusion directly contrary to the words of the Apostle, who
says, "We conclude, therefore, that a man is justified by
faith, without the works of the law." But when he shall
understand the origin of this article, and why it is charged
on me, then it will be evident to him that it arises from
calumny and from a corruption of my words. I deny, therefore,
that I made that syllogism, or ever intended to draw that
conclusion, or to propound those things from which such a
conclusion might be deduced.
This brief defense would suffice for all upright minds, to
give a favourable interpretation, if perchance anything had
been spoken which could give occasion to unjust suspicion.
But it will be labour well bestowed, for me to transcribe my
own words from a certain disputation on JUSTIFICATION, from
which this article has been taken; that it may appear with
what kind of fidelity they have made their extract. The Ninth
Thesis in it is thus expressed:
"From these things, thus laid down according to the
Scriptures, we conclude, that JUSTIFICATION, when used for
the act of a judge, is either purely the imputation of
righteousness, bestowed, through mercy from the throne of
grace in Christ the Propitiation, on a sinner, but on one who
believes; or that man is justified before God, of debt,
according to the rigor of justice, without any forgiveness.
Because the Papists deny the latter, they ought to concede
the former. And this is so far true, that, how highly soever
any one of the saints may be endowed with faith, hope, and
charity, and how numerous soever and excellent may be the
works of faith, hope, and charity, which he has performed,
yet he will not obtain from God, the judge, a sentence of
justification, unless He quit the tribunal of His severe
justice, and place Himself in the throne of Grace, and out of
it pronounce a sentence of absolution in his favour, and
unless the Lord of his mercy and pity, graciously account for
righteousness the whole of that good with which the saint
appears before Him. For woe to a life of the greatest
innocence, if it be judged without mercy! This truth even the
Papists seem to acknowledge, who assert, that the works of
the saints cannot stand before the judgment of God, unless
they be sprinkled with the blood of Christ."' (Public Disput.
XIX.)
Thus far my Thesis. Could any person imagine that the major
in this article can, according to my sentiments and design,
be deduced from it, "The whole of that in which we appear
before God, justifies us;" how can this be deduced, when I
say, "that not even this good, which the Papists are able or
know how to attribute to the most holy men, can obtain from
God a sentence of justification, unless He, through mercy
from the throne of grace, reckon this graciously for
righteousness." Who does not perceive, that I grant this
through sufferance and concession?" "God considers and
esteems for righteousness all this good in which, the Papists
say, the saints appear before God." I yield this, that I may
the more firmly confute them; and I thus obtain, "that not
even that total can be accounted for righteousness, except
graciously and through mercy." This conduct is real
malignity, and a violent distortion of my words; on account
of which I have indeed no small occasion given to me of
complaining before God of this injury. But I contain myself,
lest my complaint to God should be detrimental to their
souls; I would rather beseech God to be pleased to grant them
a better mind.
The matter, with regard to me, stands thus; as if any one
should say to a Monk or a Pharisee, who was boasting of his
virtues and works of his faith, hope, love, obedience,
voluntary chastity and similar excellences: "O man! unless
God were to omit the severity of his justice, and unless from
the throne of Grace, He were to pronounce a sentence of
absolution concerning thee, unless He were graciously to
reckon all that good of thine, however great it may be, and
thus to account it for righteousness, thou wouldst not be
able to stand before Him, or to be justified." I declare, and
before Christ I make the declaration, that this was my
meaning. And every man is the best interpreter of his own
expressions. But let it be allowed, that I have said these
things from my own sentiments; was this proposition [of their
fabrication] to be deduced from my words? If it was, they
ought to have proceeded thus according to scientific method.
They ought to have briefly laid down the enunciation which I
employed, and which might be in this form: "Unless God
graciously account for righteousness the whole of this good
in which a saint appears before Him, that saint cannot be
justified before God." From which will be deduced this
affirmative proposition, "If God graciously accounts for
righteousness this good in which a holy man appears, then
this holy man can be justified before God," or "he will then
be justified before God" The word "the whole," has a place in
the negative proposition; because it conduces to the
exaggeration. But it ought not to have a place in that which
is affirmative. Let this question, however, have a place
here: Why have my brethren omitted these words? "The Lord
graciously of his mercy, from the throne of his Grace, having
omitted the severity of judgment, accounts that good for
righteousness." And why have they proposed only these? "The
whole of that in which we appear before God, justifies us."
This is, indeed, not to deny the fact; but a pretext is thus
sought for calumny, under the equivocation of the word
"justifies," as justification may be either of grace, or of
debt or severe judgment. But I have excluded that which is of
debt or severe judgment from my expressions, and have
included only the justification which is of grace. Let these
remarks suffice for the major proposition.
I now proceed to the assumption that they have subjoined to
this proposition, which is theirs and not mine. It reads
thus: "But we appear before God, not only by Faith, but also
by Works" Then is it your pleasure, my brethren, to appear
thus before God? David was not of this opinion, when he said:
"Enter not into judgment with thy servant. For in thy sight
shall no man living be justified," or "shall justify
himself." (Psalm cxliii, 2.) Which is thus rendered by the
Apostle Paul, "For by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified." (Gal. ii, 16.) But perhaps you will say, that you
do not appear before God "by the works of the law, but by
works produced from faith and love." I wish you to explain to
me, what it is to appear by faith, and what to appear by
works; and whether it can possibly happen, that a man may
appear both by faith and works. I know, the saints who will
be placed before the tribunal of the Divine Justice, have had
Faith, and through Faith have performed good Works. But, I
think, they appear and stand before God with this confidence
or trust, "that God has set forth his Son Jesus Christ as a
propitiation through Faith in his blood, that they may thus
be justified by the Faith of Jesus Christ, through the
remission of sins." I do not read, that Christ is constituted
a propitiation through Works in his blood, that we may also
be justified by Works.
My desire indeed is, to appear before the tribunal of God
thus, [with this confidence or trust in Christ, as a
propitiation through Faith in his blood] and "to be
graciously judged through mercy from the throne of grace". If
I be otherwise judged, I know I shall be condemned; which
sore judgment may the Lord, who is full of clemency and pity,
avert according to his great mercy, even from you, my
brethren, though you thus speak, whether the words which you
use convey your own meaning, or whether you attribute this
meaning to me. I also might thus draw wonderful conclusions
from this assumption, which is laid down, if an accusation
were to be set aside by retaliation or a recriminating
charge, and not by innocence. But I will not resort to such a
course, lest I seem to return evil for evil; though I might
do this with a somewhat greater show of reason.
ARTICLE XXVI (VI.)
Faith is not the instrument of Justification.
ANSWER
IN THE enunciation of this article is given another proof of
desperate and finished negligence. What man is so utterly
senseless as universally to deny, that Faith can be called
"an instrument," since it receives and apprehends the
promises which God has given, and does also in this way
concur to justification, But who, on the other hand, will
venture to say, that, in the business of justification, faith
has no other relation than that of an instrument? It should
therefore be explained, how faith is an instrument, and how,
as an instrument, it concurs to justification.
It is, at least, not the instrument of God; not that which He
uses to justify us. Yet this is the meaning first intended to
be conveyed by these words, when rigidly taken. For God is
the primary cause of justification. But since justification
is an estimate of the mind, although made at the command of
the will, it is not performed by an instrument. For it is
when God wills and acts by his power, that He employs
instruments. Then, in these words, "Believe in Christ, and
thy sins shall be forgiven thee," or, which is the same
thing, "and thou shalt be justified;" I say, that faith is
the requirement of God, and the act of the believer when he
answers the requirement. But they will say, "that it is the
act of apprehending and accepting, and that therefore, this
faith bears relation to an instrument?' I reply, faith as a
quality has in that passage relation to the mode of an
instrument; but the acceptance or apprehension itself is an
act, and indeed one of obedience, yielded to the gospel. Let
that phrase likewise which is so often used by the Apostle in
Romans 6, be seriously considered, "Faith is imputed for
righteousness." Is this faith as an instrument, or as an act?
St. Paul resolves the question, by a quotation from the book
of Genesis, when he says, "Abraham believed God, and it was
imputed to him for righteousness." The thing itself, as it is
explained by our brethren, also solves the question. "Faith
is imputed for righteousness on account of Christ, the object
which it apprehends." Let this be granted. Yet the
apprehending of Christ is nearer than the instrument which
apprehends, or by which He is apprehended. But apprehending
is an act; therefore, faith, not as it is an instrument, but
as it is an act, is imputed for righteousness, although such
imputation be made on account of Him whom it apprehends. In
brief, the capability or the quality by which any thing is
apprehended, and the apprehension itself, have each relation
to the object which is to be apprehended, the former a
mediate relation, the latter an immediate. The latter,
therefore, is a more modest metonymy, as being derived from
that which is nearer; even when it is granted that this
phrase, "it is imputed for righteousness" -- must be
explained by a metonymy. The man, then, who says, "the act of
faith is imputed for righteousness, does not deny that faith
as an instrument concurs to justification. It is evident,
therefore, from this answer, that our brethren fabricate and
"get up" articles of this kind without the least care or
solicitude, and charge me with them. This, I think, will be
acknowledged even by themselves, if they examine how they
manufactured those nine questions which, two years ago, by
the consent of their Lordships the Curators of our
University, they endeavoured to offer to the Professors of
Divinity, that they might obtain their reply to them. Gravity
and sobriety are highly becoming in Divines, and serious
solicitude is required to the completion of such great
matters as these.
ARTICLE XXVII (VII.)
Faith is not the pure gift of God, but depends partly on the
grace of God, and partly on the powers of Free Will; that, if
a man will, he may believe or not believe.
I never said this, I never thought of saying it, and, relying
on God's grace, I never will enunciate my sentiments on
matters of this description in a manner thus desperate and
confused. I simply affirm, that this enunciation is false,
"faith is not the pure gift of God;" that this is likewise
false, if taken according to the rigor of the words, "faith
depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers
of free will" and that this is also false when thus
enunciated, "If a man will, he can believe or not believe."
If they suppose, that I hold some opinions from which these
assertions may by good consequence be deduced, why do they
not quote my words? It is a species of injustice to attach to
any person those consequences, which one may frame out of his
words as if they were his sentiments. But the injustice is
still more flagrant, if these conclusions cannot by good
consequence be deduced from what he has said. Let my
brethren, therefore, make the experiment, whether they can
deduce such consectaries as these, from the things which I
teach; but let the experiment be made in my company, and not
by themselves in their own circle. For that sport will be
vain, equally void of profit or of victory; as boys sometimes
feel, when they play alone with dice for what already belongs
to them.
For the proper explanation of this matter, a discussion on
the concurrence and agreement of Divine grace and of free
will, or of the human will, would be required; but because
this would be a labour much too prolix, I shall not now make
the attempt. To explain the matter I will employ a simile,
which yet, I confess, is very dissimilar; but its
dissimilitude is greatly in favour of my sentiments. A rich
man bestows, on a poor and famishing beggar, alms by which he
may be able to maintain himself and his family. Does it cease
to be a pure gift, because the beggar extends his hand to
receive it? Can it be said with propriety, that "the alms
depended partly on the liberality of the Donor, and partly on
the liberty of the Receiver," though the latter would not
have possessed the alms unless he had received it by
stretching out his hand? Can it be correctly said, because
the beggar is always prepared to receive, that "he can have
the alms, or not have it, just as he pleases?" If these
assertions cannot be truly made about a beggar who receives
alms, how much less can they be made about the gift of faith,
for the receiving of which far more acts of Divine grace are
required! This is the question which it will be requisite to
discuss, "what acts of Divine grace are required to produce
faith in man?" If I omit any act which is necessary, or which
concurs, [in the production of faith,] let it be demonstrated
from the Scriptures, and I will add it to the rest.
It is not our wish to do the least injury to Divine grace, by
taking from it any thing that belongs to it. But let my
brethren take care, that they themselves neither inflict an
injury on Divine justice, by attributing that to it which it
refuses; nor on Divine grace, by transforming it into
something else, which cannot be called GRACE. That I may in
one word intimate what they must prove, such a transformation
they effect when they represent "the sufficient and
efficacious grace, which is necessary to salvation, to be
irresistible," or as acting with such potency that it cannot
be resisted by any free creature.
ARTICLE XXVIII (VIII.)
The grace sufficient for salvation is conferred on the Elect,
and on the Non-elect; that, if they will, they may believe or
not believe, may be saved or not saved.
ANSWER
OUR brethren here also manifest the same negligence. They
take no pains to know what my sentiments are; they are not
careful in examining what truth there is in my opinions; and
they exercise no discretion about the words in which they
enunciate my sentiments and their own. They know that I use
the word "Election" in two senses. (i.) For the decree by
which God resolves to justify believers and to condemn
unbelievers, and which is called by the Apostle, "the purpose
of God according to election." (Rom. ix, 11.) (ii.) And for
the decree by which He resolves to elect these or those
nations and men with the design of communicating to them the
means of faith, but to pass by other nations and men. Yet,
without this distinction, they fasten these sentiments on me;
when, by its aid, I am enabled to affirm, not only,
sufficient grace is conferred on, or rather is offered to,
the Elect and the Nonelect;" but also, "sufficient grace is
not offered to any except the Elect." (i.) "It is offered to
the Elect and the Non-elect," because it is offered to
unbelievers, whether they will afterwards believe or not
believe. (ii.) "It is offered to none except the Elect,"
because, by that very thing which is offered to them, they
cease to be of the number of those of whom it is said, "He
suffered them to walk in their own ways;" (Acts xiv, 16;)
and, "He hath not dealt so with any nation." (Psalm cxlvii,
20.) And who shall compel me to use words of their
prescribing, unless proof be brought from scripture that the
words are to be thus and in no other way received?
I now proceed to the other words of the article. "That, if
they will, they may believe or not believe, be saved or not
saved." I say, in two different senses may these words be
received, "if they will, they may believe," that is, either
by their own powers, or as they are excited and assisted by
this grace. "Or they may not believe," while rejecting this
grace by their own free will, and resisting it. "They may be
saved or not saved," that is, saved by the admission and
right use of grace, not saved by their own wickedness,
rejecting that without which they cannot be saved.
To the whole together I reply, that nothing is declared in
these words, in whatever manner they may be understood, which
St. Augustine himself and his followers would not willingly
have acknowledged as true. I say, in these words are
enunciated the very sentiments of St. Augustine; yet he was
the chief champion against the Pelagian heresy, being
accounted in that age its most successful combatant. For in
his treatise on nature and grace, (c. 67.) St. Augustine
speaks thus:, Since He is every where present, who, by many
methods through the creature that is subservient to Him as
his Lord, can call him who is averse, can teach a believer,
can comfort him who hopes, can exhort the diligent man, can
aid him who strives, and can lend an attentive ear to him who
deprecates; it is not imputed to thee as a fault, that thou
art unwillingly ignorant, but that thou neglectest to inquire
after that of which thou art ignorant; not that thou dost not
collect and bind together the shattered and wounded members,
but that thou despisest Him who is willing to heal thee." The
book entitled "The Vocation of the Gentiles," which is
attributed with a greater semblance of probability to
Prosper, than to St. Ambrose, has the following passage: "On
all men has always been bestowed some measure of heavenly
doctrine, which, though it was of more sparing and hidden
grace, was yet sufficient, as the Lord has judged, to serve
some men for a remedy, and all men for a testimony." (Lib. 2.
c. 5.) In the commencement of the ninth chapter of the same
book, he explains the whole matter by saying: "The Grace of
God has indeed the decided pre-eminence in our
justifications, persuading us by exhortations, admonishing us
by examples, affrighting us by dangers, exciting us by
miracles, by giving understanding, by inspiring counsel, and
by illuminating the heart itself and imbuing it with the
affections of faith. But the will of man is likewise
subjoined to it and is united with it, which has been excited
to this by the before mentioned succours, that it may co-
operate in the Divine work within itself, and may begin to
follow after the reward which, by the heavenly seed, it has
conceived for the object of its desire, ascribing the failure
to its own mutability, and the success (if the issue be
prosperous) to the aid of grace. This aid is afforded to all
men, by innumerable methods both secret and manifest; and the
rejection of this assistance by many persons, is to be
ascribed to their negligence; but its reception by many
persons, is both of Divine grace and of the human will."
I do not produce these passages, as if I thought that either
my brethren or I must abide by the sentiments of the Fathers,
but only for the purpose of removing from myself the crime of
Pelagianism in this matter.
ARTICLE XXIX (IX.)
Believers can perfectly fulfill the Law, and live in the
world without sin.
ANSWER
This is what I never said. But when a certain person once, in
a public disputation on the Baptism of Infants, was
endeavouring, by a long digression, to bring me to the point
-- either to declare that believers could perfectly fulfill
the law of God, or that they could not -- I declined an
answer, but quoted the opinion of St. Augustine, from the
second book of his Treatise On the demerits and remission of
sins, against the Pelagians. That passage, I will here
transcribe, that I may defend myself against the charge of
Pelagianism; because, I perceive that the men with whom I
have to do, consider even these sentiments to be Pelagian,
though they can on no count whatever, be reckoned such.
St. Augustine says: "We must not instantly with an incautious
rashness, oppose those who assert that it is possible for man
to be in this life without sin. For if we deny the
possibility of this, we shall derogate both from the free
will of man, which desires to be in such a perfect state by
willing it; and from the power or mercy of God, who effects
it by the assistance which He affords. But it is one question
whether it be possible, and another whether such a man
actually exists. It is one question, if such a perfect man is
not in existence when it is possible, why is he not? And it
is another, not only whether there is any one who has never
had any sin at all, but likewise, whether there could at any
time have been such a man, or that it is now possible? In
this fourfold proposal of questions, if I be asked "is it
possible for a man to exist in the present life without sin;"
I shall confess, that it is possible by the grace of God, and
by man's free will." (Cap. 6.)
In another of his works, St. Augustine says: "Pelagius
disputes correctly, that they confess it not to be
impossible, by the very circumstance of either many or all
persons wishing to do it; [perfectly to fulfill the law of
God;] but let him confess whence it is possible, and peace is
instantly established. For the possibility arises from the
grace of God through Christ Jesus," &c. (On Nature and Grace,
against the Pelagians, cap. 59, 60.) And in a subsequent
passage: "For it may be made a question among true and pious
Christians, has there ever been, is there now, or can there
be, in this life, any man who lives so justly as to have no
sin at all? Whosoever doubts about the possibility of the
existence of such a person after this life, he is destitute
of understanding. But I am unwilling to enter into a contest,
about this possibility even in the present life." See the
paragraphs which immediately succeed in the same chapter. And
in the 69th chapter of that work, he says: "By the very
thing, by which we most firmly believe that a just and good
God could not command impossibilities, we are admonished both
of what we may do in things easy of accomplishment, and of
what we may ask in matters of difficulty; because all things
are easy to charity," &c.
I do not oppose this opinion of St. Augustine; but I do not
enter into a contest about any part of the whole matter. For
I think the time may be far more happily and usefully
employed in prayers to obtain what is lacking in each of us,
and in serious admonitions that every one endeavour to
proceed and to press forward towards the mark of perfection,
than when spent in such disputations.
But my brethren will say, that in the 114th question of our
Catechism this very subject is treated, and that it is there
asked, "Can those persons who are converted to God, perfectly
observe the Divine Commands," The answer subjoined is, "By no
means." To this observation I reply, that I do not say
anything against it; but that the reason of the negative
answer [or scriptural proof added] is about the act, when the
question itself is about the possibility; and that,
therefore, from this, nothing is proved. It is also well
known that this answer had been rejected by some persons; and
that it was only by the intervention of the brethren, who
added an explanation to it, that it afterwards obtained the
approbation of the same individuals. But I shall be perfectly
willing to enter into a conference with my brethren about
this matter, whenever it shall be convenient; and I hope we
shall easily agree in opinion.
ARTICLE XXX (X.)
It may admit of discussion, whether Semi-Pelagianism is not
real Christianity.
ANSWER
In a certain lecture I said, that it would be easy, under the
pretext of Pelagianism, to condemn all those things of which
we do not approve, if we may invent half, quarter, three-
fourths, four-fifths Pelagianism, and so upwards. And I
added, that it might admit of discussion whether Semi-
Pelagian is not real Christianity. By these remarks it was
not my wish to patronize Pelagian doctrine; but I was
desirous to intimate, that something might be accounted as
Semi-Pelagianism which does not depart from the truth of
Christian doctrine. For as, when a departure is once made
from the truth, the descent towards falsehood becomes more
and more rapid; so, by receding from falsehood, it is
possible for men to arrive at truth, which is often
accustomed to stand as the mean between two extremes of
falsehood. Such indeed is the state of the matter in
Pelagianism and Manicheism. If any man can enter on a middle
way between these two heresies, he will be a true Catholic,
neither inflicting an injury on Grace, as the Pelagians do,
nor on Free Will as do the Manichees. Let the Refutation be
perused which St. Augustine wrote against both these
heresies, and it will appear that he makes this very
acknowledgement. For this reason it has happened, that, for
the sake of confirming their different opinions, St.
Augustine's words, when writing against the Manichees, have
been frequently quoted by the Pelagians; and those which he
wrote against the Pelagians, have been quoted by the
Manichees.
This, therefore, is what I intended to convey; and that my
brethren may understand my meaning, I declare openly, "that
it will be quite as easy a task for me to convict the
sentiments of some among them of Manicheism, and even of
Stoicism, as they will be really capable of convicting others
of Pelagianism, whom they suspect of holding that error." But
I wish us all to abstain from odious names of this
description, as they are employed without producing any
benefit. For he who is accused will either deny that his
sentiments are the same as those of Pelagius; or, if he
acknowledges the existence of a similarity, he will say that
Pelagius was wrongly condemned by the Church. It would be
better then to omit these epithets, and to confer solely
about the matter itself; unless, approaching to the opinion
of the Papists, we hold that what has once been determined by
the Church, cannot be drawn into controversy.
ARTICLE XXXI (XI.)
It is not correctly said in the Catechism, that "God is angry
with us for birth-sins;" because original sin is a
punishment. But whatever is a punishment is not properly a
sin.
ANSWER
Nearly two months ago, a certain minister of God's word, came
to me, desirous, as he declared, to confer with me about the
opinion which I held concerning the Catechism and Dutch
Confession being subjected to examination in our National
Synod. On this subject we had some conversation together, and
I concluded the expression of my opinion with this syllogism:
"Every human writing which is not in itself entitled to
implicit credit, not authentic, and not divine, may be
examined, and indeed ought to be; when it can be done in
order, and after a legitimate manner, that is, in a Synod, to
which [the consideration of] these writings belongs. But such
productions are the Catechism and our Confession. Therefore,
they may and ought to be subjected to examination." When he
had wearied himself in opposing a few things to this
syllogism, which I soon dispersed by the clearest light of
truth, he began to inquire what [objections] they were which
I had against the Confession and Catechism; I replied, that I
had nothing against those formularies, for that would be an
act of prejudging, which I would not take upon myself; but
that there were matters in those two productions, about which
it was my wish to confer in a legitimate and orderly manner,
with my brethren at their own time, in a Synod, whether on
every point they be agreeable to the scriptures, or whether
they dissent in any respect from them. For this purpose, that
if, after a serious and strict examination, they be found to
agree with the scriptures, they may be approved and confirmed
by recent and fresh sanctions; or that, if found to dissent
from them, they may be corrected as commodiously as possible.
He became urgent with me, therefore, and requested that I
would disclose to him those points about which I was desirous
to confer; and he declared, that he asked this favour for no
other reason than that he might be able himself to think
seriously about them. Unwilling positively to deny this his
request, I began to produce some parts of the Confession, and
especially the fourteenth Article. But he said, "that he made
small account of this, because he thought something might
easily be discovered in the Confession, which did not
perfectly and in every respect correspond with the
scriptures, at least with regard to its phraseology, for it
was the composition of only a few persons, and in fact was
written in the earliest times of the Reformation from Popery;
and that he perceived very little danger in the Confession
being corrected in some passages, since it was not much in
use among the people."
But when he began to be still more urgent concerning the
Catechism, desirous in that particular likewise to gratify
him, I adduced some passages, and, among others, the answer
to the tenth question, in which God is said "by horrid
methods to be angry both on account of birth-sins, and on
account of those also which we ourselves commit," &c. I said
two things, in these words, might admit of discussion. (1.)
Whether we could correctly call this universal taint in our
nature "birth-sins" in the plural number. I had scarcely made
this remark, when he, without waiting for any further
explanation, said, "that on one occasion, while he was
explaining the Catechism to some students, he had himself
begun to think whether it was a good and proper phrase; but
that he had defended it by this argument -- The Catechism
employs the plural number on account of original sin itself,
and on account of the sin committed by Adam which was the
cause of that original sin." But as I considered that kind of
defense to be unworthy of any confutation, I said, it was
better for him at once to own that these words required
emendation, than to give such an explanation of them. After
this conversation, I added another remark. (2.) It may admit
of discussion, whether God could be angry on account of
original sin which was born with us, since it seemed to be
inflicted on us by God as a punishment of the actual sin
which had been committed by Adam and by us in Him. For, in
that case, the progress would be infinite, if God, angry on
account of the actual sin of Adam, were to punish us with
this original sin; were He again to be angry with us for this
original sin, and inflict on us another punishment; and, for
a similar cause were He a third time to be angry on account
of that second punishment which had been inflicted, guilt and
punishment thus mutually and frequently succeeding each
other, without the intervention of any actual sin. When to
this observation he replied, "that still it was sin." I said,
I did not deny that it was sin, but it was not actual sin.
And I quoted the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the.
Romans, in which the Apostle treats on the sin, and says that
"it produces in the unregenerate all manner of
concupiscence," thus intimating that we must distinguish
between actual sin, and that which was the cause of other
sins, and which, on this very account might be denominated
"sin."
Matters were at that interview discussed between us in this
placid manner, and for the purpose which I have just stated;
and I know that I never spoke upon this subject in any other
place. Yet this our conversation was related to a certain
learned man, the very same day on which it occurred, either
by the minister himself, or by some one who had heard it from
him. I had it from the lips of this learned man himself; who
urged it against me as an objection, within a few days after
the minister and I had held this discourse: for the minister
had resided at this learned man's house, during his stay in
Leyden.
Is it equitable that things which are thus discussed among
brethren for the sake of conference, should be instantly
disseminated, and publicly proclaimed as heretical? I confess
that I am devoid of all discernment, if such conduct as this
is not the very violation of the law of all familiarity and
friendship. Yet these are the persons who complain, that I
decline to confer with them; that, when I am calmly asked, I
refuse to declare my sentiments; and that I hold their minds
in suspense.
To this article, therefore, I briefly reply: It is false that
I said, "that this is not correctly expressed in the
Catechism." For I told that minister openly, that I would not
prejudge the matter; that I was desirous to wait for the
judgment of my brethren on matters of this kind, and on
others which were comprised in the Catechism and Confession;
and that, after things had been thus maturely and accurately
weighed, something determinate might be concluded.
But a previous conference of this description seems to be
attended with some utility on this account, it prevents any
man from offering to the Synod itself for examination and
abjudication those matters which, by such a private
conversation as this, he might understand to have no
difficulties in them. Let the brethren recall to mind what
was asked of the Professors of Divinity in our University, by
the Synod of South Holland, held at Gorchum, and let them
compare it among themselves. We are asked diligently to read
through the Confession and Catechism, and, if we find
anything in them which merits animadversion, to announce the
same seasonably and in order. And this, on my own part, I
promised to do. For this purpose, is not a private conference
with brethren highly useful, that what can be removed by it
may not be proposed to the Synod for discussion, But that
minister and I had known each other for many years; I had
also long held epistolary correspondence with him, and had
conversed with him on the articles of faith. On this account
therefore, I thought that I ought to comply with his request,
as an experiment whether he could expedite the affair.
CONCLUSION
THIS then is the answer which I have thought proper to make,
at present, to the THIRTY-ONE ARTICLES that have been
objected against me. If I have not given satisfaction by it
to some men, I am prepared to confer in order with any of
them upon these subjects and others which pertain to the
Christian Religion, for this purpose, that we may either
agree in our sentiments; or, if this result cannot be
obtained by a conference, that we bear with each other, when
it has become evident how far we severally proceed together
in the matter of religion, and what things they are of which
we approve or disapprove, and that these points of difference
are not of such a description as to forbid professors of the
same religion to hold different sentiments about them.
Some persons perhaps will reproach me with "appearing
sometimes to answer with doubt and desitation, when it is the
duty of a Divine and a Professor of Theology to be fully
persuaded about those things which he will teach to others,
and not to fluctuate in his opinions." To these persons I
wish to reply.
1. The most learned man, and he who is most conversant with
the Scriptures, is ignorant of many things, and is always but
a scholar in the school of Christ and of the Scriptures. But
one, who is thus ignorant of many things, cannot, without
hesitation, give answer in reference to all things about
which an opportunity or necessity for speaking is presented
either by adversaries or by those who wish to ask and
ascertain his sentiments by private or public conference and
disputation. For it is better for him to speak somewhat
doubtfully, than dogmatically, about those things of which he
has no certain knowledge; and to intimate that he himself
requires daily progress, and seeks for instruction as well as
they. For I think no one has proceeded to such a pitch of
audacity, as to style himself a master that is ignorant of
nothing, and that indulges no doubts about any matter
whatever.
2. It is not everything which becomes a subject of
controversy that is of equal importance. Some things are of
such a nature as to render it unlawful for any man to feel a
doubt concerning them, if he have any wish to be called by
the name of Christian. But there are other things which are
not of the same dignity, and about which those who treat on
catholic sentiments [such orthodox doctrines as are held by
all real Christians,] have dissented from each other, without
any breach of truth and Christian peace. Of what description
those subjects may be which are discussed in these Articles,
and about which I have appeared to answer with hesitation,
and whether they be of absolute necessity, may likewise
become in due time a topic of discussion.
3. My reply [to these thirty-one articles] is not peremptory:
Not that I have in them said anything against conscience, but
because I did not consider it requisite to bring forward, in
the first instance, all those things which I might be able to
say. I accounted my answer sufficient, and more than
sufficient, for all those objections, which have not the
slightest foundation on any reasons whatsoever; not only
because they were untruly charged against me, but because
they did not impinge against the truth of the Scriptures. In
the greater number of these Articles, I might have discharged
the whole of my duty, in simply denying them, and in
demanding proof. But I have gone further than this, that I
might in some degree give satisfaction, and that I might
besides challenge my brethren to a conference, if they should
think it necessary. This I will never decline, provided it be
lawfully instituted, and in such a manner as to inspire hopes
of any benefits to be derived from it. If after that
conference it be discovered that, either because I am
ignorant of necessary things which ought to be taught in the
Church and in the University; or because I hold unsound
opinions about articles on which some importance is placed
for obtaining salvation and for the illustration of divine
glory; or because I doubt concerning such things as ought to
be delivered dogmatically and inculcated with seriousness and
rigor, if for these reasons it be discovered that, according
to this our unhappy [natural] condition, I am unworthy to
hold any office in the Church or University, (for who is
sufficient for these things,) I will, without reluctance,
resign my situation, and give place to a man possessed of
greater merit.
But I wish to advise my brethren, particularly those of them
who are my juniors, and who have not "their senses so much
exercised" in the Scriptures as to be enabled to deliver out
of those Scriptures determinate opinions about all things,
that they be not too bold in asserting anything, of which
when required to give their reasons, they will be able with
great difficulty to produce them; and, besides, that they be
sedulously on their guard lest, after they have strenuously
affirmed anything which I call in doubt without employing the
contrary affirmation, and it be discovered that the arguments
which I employ in justification of my doubts are stronger
than those on which they rely in that their affirmation, they
incur the charge of immodesty and arrogance among men of
prudence, and from this very circumstance be accounted
unworthy of the place which they hold with so much
presumption. For it becomes a Bishop and a Teacher of the
Church, not only to hold fast the faithful word as he hath
been taught, that he may be able by his sound doctrine, both
to exhort and to convince the gainsayers, (Tit. i, 9,7,) but
likewise not to be given to self-will, arrogance, and
boldness. Into which faults novices easily fall, (1 Tim. iii,
6,)who, "by their inexperience, are unacquainted with the
vast difficulty with which the eye of the inward man is
healed, that it may be enabled to look upon its sun; with the
sighs and groans by which we are able in any small degree to
attain to an understanding of God; with the labour necessary
for the discovery of truth; and with the difficulty of
avoiding errors." Let them consider, that nothing is more
easy for them, than not only to assert, but also to think,
that they have discovered the truth. But they will themselves
at length acknowledge the real difficulties with which the
discovery is attended, when with seriousness and earnestness
they enter into a conference about the matters in
controversy, and have after a rigid examination discussed all
those things which may have been alleged on both sides.
NINE QUESTIONS
Exhibited, by the Deputies of the Synod, to Their Lordships
the Curators of the University of Leyden, for the Purpose of
Obtaining an Answer to each of them from the Professors of
Divinity; and the Replies which James Arminius Gave to them,
in November, 1605. With Other Nine Opposite Questions
THE NINE QUESTIONS...AND
NINE OPPOSITE QUESTIONS
I. Which is first, Election, or Faith Truly Foreseen, so that
God elected his people according to faith foreseen?
I. Is the decree "for bestowing Faith on any one," previous
to that by which is appointed "the Necessity of Faith to
salvation?"
ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
The equivocation in the word "Election," makes it impossible
to answer this question in any other manner, than by
distinction. If therefore "Election" denotes "the decree
which is according to election concerning the justification
and salvation of believers." I say Election is prior to
Faith, as being that by which Faith is appointed as the means
of obtaining salvation. But if it signifies "the decree by
which God determines to bestow salvation on some one," then
Faith foreseen is prior to Election. For as believers alone
are saved, so only believers are predestinated to salvation.
But the Scriptures know no Election, by which God precisely
and absolutely has determined to save anyone without having
first considered him as a believer. For such an Election
would be at variance with the decree by which he hath
determined to save none but believers.
# QUESTION AND.....
# QUESTION REVERSED
II. If it be said, "that God, by his eternal decree, has
determined and governs all things and every thing, even the
depraved wills of men, to appointed good ends," does it
follow from this, that God is the author of sin?
II. Is "to determine or direct all things and every thing,
even the depraved wills of men, to appointed good ends," the
same thing as "to determine that man be made corrupt, by
which a way may be opened for executing God's absolute decree
concerning damning some men through wrath, and saving others
through mercy?"
ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
Sin is the transgression of the law; therefore, God will be
the author of sin, if He cause any man to transgress the law.
This is done by denying or taking away what is necessary for
fulfilling the law, or by impelling men to sin. But if this
"determination" be that of a will which is already depraved,
since it does not signify the denying or the removing of
grace nor a corrupt impelling to sin, it follows, that the
consequence of this cannot be that God is the author of sin.
But if this "determination" denote the decree of God by which
He resolved that the will should become depraved, and that
man should commit sin, then it follows from this that God is
the author of sin.
# QUESTION AND.....
# QUESTION REVERSED
III. Does original sin, of itself, render man obnoxious to
eternal death, even without the addition of any actual sin?
Or is the guilt of original sin taken away from all and every
one by the benefits of Christ the Mediator?
III. If some men are condemned solely on account of the sin
committed by Adam, and others on account of their rejection
of the Gospel, are there not two peremptory decrees
concerning the damnation of men, and two judgments, one
Legal, the other Evangelical?
ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
Those things which in this question are placed in opposition
to each other, easily agree together. For original sin can
render man obnoxious to eternal death, and its guilt can be
taken away from all men by Christ. Indeed, in order that
guilt may be removed, it is necessary that men be previously
rendered guilty. But to reply to each part separately: It is
perversely said, that "original sin renders a man obnoxious
to death," since that sin is the punishment of Adam's actual
sin, which punishment is preceded by guilt, that is, an
obligation to the punishment denounced by the law. With
regard to the second member of the question, it is very
easily answered by the distinction of the soliciting,
obtaining, and the application of the benefits of Christ. For
as a participation of Christ's benefits consists in faith
alone, it follows that, if among these benefits "deliverance
from this guilt" be one, believers only are delivered from
it, since they are those upon whom the wrath of God does not
abide.
# QUESTION AND.....
# QUESTION REVERSED
IV. Are the works of the unregenerate, which proceed from the
powers of nature, so pleasing to God, as to induce Him on
account of them to confer supernatural and saving grace on
those who perform them?
IV. Are a serious consciousness of sin, and an initial fear
so pleasing to God, that by them He is induced to forgive
sins, and to create a filial fear?
ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
Christ says, "To him that hath shall be given, and from him
that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."
Not, indeed, because such is the worthiness and the
excellence of the use of any blessing conferred by God,
either according to nature or to grace, that God should be
moved by its merits to confer greater benefits; but, because
such are the benignity and liberality of God, that, though
these works are unworthy, yet He rewards them with a larger
blessing. Therefore, as the word "pleasing" admits of two
meanings, we can reply to the question proposed in two ways -
- either affirmatively, if that word be viewed as signifying
"to please," "to find favour in his eyes," and "to obtain
complacency for itself;" or negatively if "placeo" be
received for that which it also signifies, "to please by its
own excellence." Yet it might be said, that good works are
rewarded, in a moral view, not so much through the powers of
nature, as by some operation in them of the Holy Spirit.
# QUESTION AND.....
# QUESTION REVERSED
V. Can God now, in his own right, require faith from fallen
man in Christ, which he cannot have of himself? But does God
bestow on all and every one, to whom the Gospel is preached,
sufficient grace by which they may believe, if they will?
V. Can God require that man to believe in Jesus Christ, for
whom He has determined by an absolute decree that Christ
should not die, and to whom by the same decree He has
determined to refuse the grace necessary for believing?
ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
The parts of this question are not opposed to each other; on
the contrary, they are at the most perfect agreement. So that
the latter clause may be considered the rendering of a
reason, why God may require from fallen man faith in Christ,
which he cannot have of himself. For God may require this,
since he has determined to bestow on man sufficient grace by
which he may believe. Perhaps, therefore, the question may be
thus corrected: "Can God, now, in his own right, demand from
fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have of himself,
though God neither bestows on him, nor is ready to bestow,
sufficient grace by which he may believe?" This question will
be answered by a direct negative. God cannot by any right
demand from fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have
of himself, except God has either bestowed, or is ready to
bestow, sufficient grace by which he may believe if he will.
Nor do I perceive what is false in that reply, or to what
heresy it has affinity. It has no alliance with the Pelagian
heresy: for Pelagius maintained, that with the exception of
the preaching of the Gospel, no internal grace is required to
produce faith in the minds of men. But what is of more
consequence, this reply is not opposed to St. Augustine's
doctrine of Predestination; "yet this doctrine of his, we do
not account it necessary to establish," as Innocent, the
Roman Pontiff, has observed.
# QUESTION AND.....
# QUESTION REVERSED
VI. Is justifying faith the effect and the mere gift of God
alone, who calls, illuminates, and reforms the will? and is
it peculiar to the elect alone from all eternity?
VI. Can that be called a mere gift which, though offered by
the pure liberality of Him who makes the offer, is still
capable of being rejected by him to whom it is offered? But
does a voluntary acceptance render it unworthy of the name of
a gift? It may likewise be asked, "Is faith bestowed on these
who are to be saved? Or is salvation bestowed on those who
have faith?" Or can both these questions be answered
affirmatively in a different respect? If they can, how is it
then that there is not in those decrees a circle, in which
nothing is first and nothing last?
ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
A double question requires a double answer. (1.) To the first
I reply, Faith is the effect of God illuminating the mind and
sealing the heart, and it is his mere gift. (2.) To the
second I answer, by making a distinction in the word
Election. If it be understood as signifying Election to
salvation; since this, according to the scriptures, is the
election of believers, it cannot be said, "Faith is bestowed
on the elect, or on those who are to be saved," but that
"believers are elected and saved." But if it be received for
the decree by which God determines variously to administer
the means necessary to salvation; in this sense I say that
Faith is the gift of God, which is conferred on those only
whom He hath chosen to this, that they may hear the word of
God, and be made partakers of the Holy Spirit.
# QUESTION AND.....
# QUESTION REVERSED
VII. May every one who is a true believer be assured in this
life of his individual salvation; and is it his duty to have
this assurance?
VII. Does justifying faith precede, in the order of nature,
remission of sins, or does it not? And can any man be bound
to any other faith than that which justifies?
ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
Since God promises eternal life to all who believe in Christ,
it is impossible for him who believes, and who knows that he
believes, to doubt of his own salvation, unless he doubts of
this willingness of God [to perform his promise.] But God
does not require him to be better assured of his individual
salvation as a duty which must be performed to himself or to
Christ; but it is a consequence of that promise, by which God
engages to bestow eternal life on him who believes.
# QUESTION AND.....
# QUESTION REVERSED
VIII. May true believers and elect persons entirely lose
faith for a season?
VIII. May any man who has faith and retains it, arrive at
such a moment, as, if he were then to die, he would be
damned?
ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
Since Election to salvation comprehends within its limits not
only Faith, but likewise perseverance in Faith; and since St.
Augustine says, "God has chosen to salvation those who he
sees will afterwards believe by the aid of his preventing or
preceding grace, and who will persevere by the aid of his
subsequent or following grace; "believers and the elect are
not correctly taken for the same persons. Omitting,
therefore, all notice of the word "Election," I reply,
believers are sometimes so circumstanced, as not to produce,
for a season, any effect of true faith, not even the actual
apprehension of grace and the promises of God, nor confidence
or trust in God and Christ; yet this is the very thing which
is necessary to obtain salvation. But the apostle says,
concerning faith, in reference to its being a quality and a
capability of believing, "some, having cast away a good
conscience concerning faith, have made shipwreck."
# QUESTION AND.....
# QUESTION REVERSED
IX. Can believers under the grace of the New Covenant,
perfectly observe the law of God in this life?
IX. May God, or may He not, require of those who are
partakers of the New Covenant, that the flesh do not lust
against the Spirit, as a duty corresponding with the grace of
that covenant?
ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
The performance of the law is to be estimated according to
the mind of Him who requires it to be observed. The answer
will be two-fold, since He either wills it to be rigidly
observed in the highest degree of perfection, or only
according to epieikeian clemency; that is, if he require this
according to clemency, and if the strength or powers which he
confers be proportionate to the demand. (1.) Man cannot
perfectly perform such a law of God, if it be considered as
to be performed according to rigor. (2.) But if he require it
according to clemency, and if the powers conferred be
proportionate, (which must be acknowledged, since He requires
it according to the evangelical covenant,) the answer is, it
can be perfectly observed. But the question about capability
is not of such great importance, "provided a man confesses
that it is possible to be done by the grace of Christ," as
St. Augustine justly observes.
REMARKS ON THE PRECEDING QUESTIONS, AND ON THOSE OPPOSED TO
THEM
In reply to some queries which Uytenbogard had addressed to
Arminius, concerning these nine questions and their
opposites, the latter gave his friend the following
explanation, in a letter dated the 31st of January, 160vi,
"I. In answer to the First Question, this is the order of the
decrees. (1.) It is my will to save believers. (2.) On this
man I will bestow faith and preserve him in it. (3.) I will
save this man. For thus does the first of these decrees
prescribe, which must necessarily be placed foremost;
because, without this, faith is not necessary to salvation,
and therefore no necessity exists to administer the means for
faith. But to this is directly opposed the opinion which
asserts, that faith is bestowed on him on whom God had
previously willed to bestow salvation. For, in this case, it
would be his will to save one who did not believe. All that
has been said about the difference of the decree and its
execution, is futile; as if, in fact, God willed salvation to
any one prior to faith, and yet not to bestow salvation on
any others than believers. For, beside the consistent
agreement of these, [the decree and its execution,] it is
certain that God cannot will to bestow that which, on account
of his previous decree, He cannot bestow. As therefore faith
is, in a general manner, placed before salvation by the first
decree; so it must, specially and particularly, be placed
before the salvation of this and that man, even in the
special decree which has the subsequent execution.
"III. To the Third Question I shall in preference oppose the
following: Has God determined peremptorily to act with some
men according to the strict rigor of the law, as He did with
the fallen angels, and to act with others according to the
grace of the Gospel? If they deny this, I have what I wish.
But if they affirm it, such a sentiment must be overwhelmed
with absurdities; because in such a case God would have acted
towards many men with greater severity, than towards the
fallen angels, who, as being creatures purely spiritual, each
sinned of himself, through his own wickedness without
persuasion from any one.
"IV. They will not be able to deny my Fourth opposite
Question. For remission is promised to those who confess
their sins; and the fear is called initial in reference to
the filial fear which follows. If they acknowledge it, but
say, 'Yet God is not induced by them;' I will then command
them to erase the same word out of their interrogatory, and
in a better form to enunciate their own opinion.
"V. They will not consider it their duty entirely to deny my
Fifth opposing Question. If they affirm it, they will declare
a falsehood, and will incur the ill opinion of all prudent
persons, even of those who are weak. Let them therefore
search out what they may place as an intermediate postulate
between theirs and mine, and I will then show that it co-
incides either with their postulate or with mine.
"VI. I have placed two questions in opposition to the Sixth,
because their question is also a double one. On the First of
them you require no observation. About the Second I have
said, for the sake of explanation, 'that it is a circle, in
which nothing is first and nothing last,' but in every part
of it a beginning and an end are found -- which cannot,
without absurdity, have place in the decrees of God. I ask,
has God determined to bestow salvation on those who believe,
or to bestow faith on those who are to be saved? If both of
these be asserted, I ask, which of them is the first, and
which the last? They will reply, neither; and it is then a
circle. If they affirm the latter, that God has determined to
bestow faith on those who are to be saved; I will prove, that
He has determined to bestow salvation on those who believe,
and shall then have formed a circle, notwithstanding their
unwillingness. If they adduce the different respect, I will
endeavour to confute it; which cannot be a work of much
difficulty in so very plain a matter.
"VII. In the Seventh opposite Question, I had regard to the
expression, is it his duty? for about its possibility there
is no contention. But justifying faith is not that by which I
believe that my sins are remitted; for thus the same thing
will be the object and the effect of justifying faith. By
this [justifying faith] I obtain remission of sins, therefore
it precedes the other object; [the remission of sins;] and no
one can believe that his sins are remitted, unless he knows
that he believes by a justifying faith. For this reason,
also, no one can believe that his future sins will likewise
be remitted, unless he knows that he will believe to the end.
For sins are forgiven to him who believes, and only after
they have been committed; wherefore the promise of
forgiveness, which is that of the New Testament, must be
considered as depending on a condition stipulated by God,
that is FAITH, without which there is no covenant.
"VIII. With respect to the Eighth Question, let a distinction
be made between Faith as it is a quality or habit, and
between the same as it is an art. Actual believing justifies,
or the act of believing is imputed for righteousness. Because
God requires actual faith; for our capability to perform
which, He infuses that which is habitual. Therefore, as
actual faith does not consist with moral sin, he who falls
into mortal sin may be damned. But it is possible for a
believer to fall into mortal sin, of which David is seen as
an instance Therefore, he may fall at such a moment as, if he
were then to die, he would be damned. 'If our heart condemn
us not, then have we confidence toward God.' Therefore, if it
does condemn us, we have no confidence, we cannot have any;
because 'God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all
things.' What is said about the impossibility of this event,
because, God has determined not to take such persons out of
the world at that moment, conduces nothing in favour of their
hypothesis. For this is opposed to final destruction, not to
temporary, and to their total destruction for a season, which
is the subject of their Eighth Question.
"IX. If it be replied to my Ninth opposing Question, that, in
the covenant of grace, God requires a duty which is
impossible to man; they will be forced to confess, that, in
addition to this covenant, another is necessary, according to
which God pardons a duty not performed according to that
covenant of grace; as it was necessary that there should be
another covenant, by which God might pardon a duty not
performed according to the legal covenant. And thus shall we
proceed on ad infinitum. At length we must arrive at the
point from which we can say, God save sinners, of his
infinite mercy, which is limited by no conditions prescribed
by his equity. This seems to be an expression which will be
entirely conformable to the whole doctrine of those who urge
absolute predestination, For, since wrath and mercy are
opposed to each other, as wrath is infinite, may not mercy
too, be infinite? According to their doctrine, whatever they
oppose to the contrary, wrath makes men sinners, that it may
have those whom it can punish. But they expressly say, mercy
makes men believers by an omnipotent force, and preserves
them from the possibility of falling, that it may have those
whom it can save. But, as Nicasius Van der Schuer says, if
God could make a sinner, that He might have one whom He could
punish; He could also punish without sin; therefore He could
likewise mercifully save without faith. And as Wrath willed
to have a just title for damnation, through the intervention
of sin, so it became Mercy to save, without the intervention
of any duty, that it might be manifest that the whole is of
mercy without the semblance of justice. I say, without the
semblance of justice; because it begets faith by an
irresistible force, and by an irresistible force it causes
man to continue in faith to the end, and thus necessarily to
be saved, according to the decree, he that believes and
perseveres, shall be saved This being laid down, all equity
is excluded, as well from the decree of predestination to
salvation, as from that of predestination to death. These
objections, I am conscientiously of opinion, may, without
calumny, be made to their sentiments; and I am prepared to
maintain this very thing against any patron whatsoever of
those sentiments. For they do not extricate themselves when
they say, that man spontaneously sins, and believes by a
spontaneous motion. For that which is spontaneous, and that
which is natural, are not in opposition. And that which is
spontaneous coincides with that which is absolutely
necessary; as, a stone is moved downwards; a beast eats, and
propagates its species; man loves that which is good for
himself. But all excuses terminate in this spontaneous
matter."
The passage immediately subsequent to this, is the one which
I have quoted in pages 179, 180 of the First Volume of these
Works, respecting the two sick persons who were desirous of
obtaining an assurance of the Divine Favour, and respecting
the very important distinction to be observed between a faith
which is merely historical, and that by which a sinner is
justified, a distinction, the neglect of which has, in every
age of the Church, been a prolific source of error among the
professors of our common Christianity.
PUBLIC DISPUTATIONS JAMES ARMINIUS, D.D.
DEDICATION
To those most honourable and Prudent Gentlemen, the
Burgomaster, Aldermen, and Sheriffs, who are the very Worthy
Magistrates of the Famous City of Leyden, and our most
Revered Lords and Patrons.
Most Prudent and honourable Gentlemen,
It is now eight years since our reverend father, who lately
died in the Lord, was, by your authority and command, and by
that of the most noble the Curators, summoned to this
illustrious University, from the very flourishing Church of
Amsterdam, to which he had devoted his pastoral labours for
fifteen years, and was called to fill the vacant situation of
Doctor Francis Junius, of pious memory, who was then recently
deceased. We, his nine orphan children, the three youngest of
whom have been born in this city, removed here at the same
time with our mother, who is at present plunged in the
deepest affliction. From that period our ever-to-be honoured
father had no higher object than that of bestowing the whole
of his time, industry and endeavours, in promoting the
interests of your University, and in strictly discharging his
functions with as much fidelity as accorded with his
abilities and his duty. We call upon your honours as
competent witnesses to this, our testimony, respecting his
fidelity and diligence, because he exercised these virtues
under your immediate inspection, for the space of six years;
and the truth of our declaration can be no secret to those
persons who, while he was in the act of performing his duty
to the University, were themselves either not far from the
scene of action, or openly beheld and admired his daily and
unwearied labours in public and private. With regard to his
uncommon industry and accurate skill in communicating
instruction, which gifts had been bestowed on him by Almighty
God, in his ineffable liberality, independently of any merits
either on his part or on ours, you always approved of these
qualities by your honourable suffrages, and, on all occasions
when you considered it either necessary or expedient, you
extolled his genius. You also exhibited to him the most
indubitable and lucid expressions not only of your very
laudable opinion of his talents, but likewise of your
consequent intimate affections for him, during the whole
period in which he devoted his labours to your honourable
service. So that he scarcely ever felt a desire for any thing
which he did not obtain.
But the best testimony to this character of our father is
that given to him, by those persons who either assiduously
attended his daily lectures in immense numbers, and several
of whom are now performing most important services to the
Churches; or by those who resorted, often from places at a
great distance, to hear his disputations, and all of whom
admired and abundantly eulogized his acute and penetrating
genius, but especially his incredible acquaintance with the
Holy Scriptures, on which alone he was almost constantly
meditating, and to the study of which he had devoted the
choicest years of his life. These persons were also
continually and pertinaciously importunate that the Theses
which had been proposed for disputation under him, and which
had been written out and placed in order by himself, should
be published without the least delay, and brought forth to
the light of men, for the benefit of the public, and
especially of those who were far removed from Leyden. To
their pressing solicitations, after much reluctance on the
part of our father, he was at length induced to yield; and he
put to press and published those Theses which were extant in
his class of Public Disputations, and which, after being
written out by himself in so many words, had been appointed,
and soon afterwards disputed and discussed under him [as
Moderator.] That collection is now republished, with the sole
addition of one Thesis on Repentance.
But, that we may make the studies and labours of our most
excellent father still better known to you than they are,
most honourable and prudent gentlemen, and to foreigners, as
well to those whose residence is nearer to us, we now publish
those Theses likewise which he proposed for disputation in
his own house, at moments of leisure and on extraordinary
occasions; for he had devoted himself entirely to the
promotion of the welfare of the students. They were proposed
as subjects in the last class of his Private Disputations,
and were also written out and composed by himself, at the
very earnest intreaty of those youthful scholars. Indeed, we
publish these Theses in preference to any others; for having
already served the purposes of his private disputations, they
may now afford abundant testimony to the fidelity and
diligence of our father in instructing and adorning the
candidates for holy orders. Beside the matter or subject on
which he treated with so much faithfulness and accuracy, our
excellent father, who was a severe judge of method, thought
that he would exhibit the order which ought to be observed in
compiling a correct system of Theology. Such a plan he had
often and long revolved in his mind; and for this purpose had
perused, with very great care, almost all the Synopses or
large Treatises of Divinity that had been published. He was
in some measure induced to give a representation of this
scheme in the following Theses proposed for private
disputation. Let the learned decide upon the skill with which
he has sketched this outline, which it was his wish to
display as an attempt at a Synopsis, for the sake of
exercise. O, that it had been the will of Almighty God, to
have enabled him to finish, as he had desired, this body of
Theological Theses which he was forced to leave incomplete.
For it is believed, that upwards of twenty Theses are still
wanting to crown the undertaking. By an untimely death, which
is a source of the deepest affliction to us, as well as to
all good men, his design was frustrated; though the
consummation of it would, beyond any thing else in this life,
have been an object of the fondest gratification to us, his
sorrowing offspring.
But since it has been the pleasure of our gracious God,
against whom it does not become us frowardly to contend, to
call our father from this miserable valley of tears to his
own celestial mansion; we wish that he had obtained [among
survivors] some equitable and candid judges of his labourious
exertions and innocency; and that it had been possible for
him, even by death, to escape from the rancorous teeth of
calumny, which, in conformity to the precept and the example
of Jesus Christ our only saviour, he endured, as long as his
life was spared, without any attempt to render railing for
railing, yet with such consummate patience, as almost excited
the indignation of his friends against him. We wish also that
a certain person had not expressed doubts respecting the
eternal salvation of our father, whom we with many others
openly beheld, (as we here do testify,) in a manner the most
placid, surrendering up his soul to God, like one that was
falling asleep, amidst unceasing and most ardent prayers, and
confessing his own wretchedness and weakness, but at the same
time extolling that only saving grace which shines forth upon
those who believe in Jesus Christ, the Author of our
salvation. We repeat our wishes, that there had not been a
person who uttered serious doubts about the eternal salvation
of our father. Far be it from any of us to condemn him whom
God has absolved, and for whom Jesus Christ testifies, that
he came into the world, and suffered death.
Alas! were we not already sufficiently unhappy in having lost
one of our parents, while we are all of an age comparatively
tender, the eldest of us not being yet quite seventeen years
old! But may our God forbid, that they who deliver their
souls into his merciful hands in the name of Jesus Christ
alone, should not be made partakers of eternal salvation, or
should be disappointed of their hopes of a life of
blessedness! May he rather grant unto all of us, that,
faithfully and constantly treading in the footsteps of our
beloved father, and being active in the pursuit of truth and
piety, with integrity and sincerity of mind, we may approve
our lives and all our studies to God and to all good men, as
highly as our revered parent, we humbly hope, approved
himself and all his concerns to your mightinesses, as long as
he lived. Of the great esteem in which you held him, you have
afforded abundant proofs, in those innumerable and never
sufficiently to-be- recounted benefits which he received from
you while he lived. But stronger evidence of this you gave
immediately after his decease, in the benefits which you have
bestowed on our dearest mother, and on each of us their
children, and which you most liberally continue to this day.
O, that the time may at length arrive in which we may be
enabled to requite you for these, your numberless acts of
kindness to us. May God assist us thus to repay you.
But, in the mean time, that some token of a grateful mind
towards your mightinesses may be extant on our part, at the
earliest opportunity we bring forth from the library of our
deceased parent, under the auspices of your honourable names,
this rich and costly casket; and we will afterwards draw out
of the same treasury, each in its due order and time, not a
few other things of the same, or of a different kind which he
has left in our possession, provided those which we now offer
shall meet with a suitable reception from the students of
Theology. But we are deeply conscious, that this offering of
ours is contemptible, when placed in competition with your
kindness towards us. Of all persons we should be the most
ungrateful, if we did not make this acknowledgment; and still
more so, if we did not confess that this is a present from
our deceased parent, rather than from us. Should it hereafter
be seen, that our revered father has bequeathed to us, as his
heirs, his industry, piety and virtue, (which may God of his
infinite mercy grant,) as he has already made us the
inheritors of this production and of the other fruits of his
studies; we will use our utmost endeavours never to be found
deficient in our duty, but to propose to ourselves throughout
the whole of our future lives, by all the means in our power,
to gain the approbation of your mightinesses, and to prove
ourselves always grateful to you.
May Almighty God long preserve you in safety, and render you
still propitious to us. May he in the most bountiful manner
crown your government with every blessing from above! So pray
Your mightinesses' most devoted servants, the seven sons of
James Arminius, a native of Oudewater, in our own names, and
in the names of our two sisters, HERMAN, PETER, JOHN,
LAURENCE, ARMINUS, JAMES, WILLIAM, DANIEL.
DISPUTATIONS
ON SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
BY JAMES ARMINIUS, D.D.
DISPUTATION 1
ON THE AUTHORITY AND CERTAINTY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES
RESPONDENT: BERNARD VESUKIUS
I. The authority of Scripture is nothing else but the
worthiness according to which it merits (1.) CREDENCE, as
being true in words and true in significations, whether it
simply declares anything; or also promises and threatens; and
(2.) as a superior, it merits OBEDIENCE through the credence
given to it, when it either commands or prohibits anything.
Concerning this authority two questions arise, (i.) Whence
does it belong to Scripture? (ii.) Whence is it evident, or
can be rendered evident to men, that this authority
appertains to Scripture? These two questions shall be
discussed in their proper order. (1 Tim. i, 15; 2 Pet. i, 19;
John v, 39; Heb. vi, 18. Rom. i, 5; 2 Cor. x, 5, 6; xiii, 3;
xii, 12; Gal. i, 1, 12, 13, &c.)
II. The authority of any word or writing whatsoever depends
upon its author, as the word "authority" indicates; and it is
just as great as the veracity and the power, that is, the
auqenti<a of the author. But God is of infallible veracity,
and is neither capable of deceiving nor of being deceived;
and of irrefragable power, that is, supreme over the
creatures. If, therefore, He is the Author of Scripture, its
authority is totally dependent on Him alone. (i.) Totally,
because He is the all sufficient Author, all-true and all-
powerful. (ii.) On Him alone, because He has no associate
either in the truth of what he says, or in the power of his
right. For all veracity and power in the creature proceed
from him; and into his veracity and power are resolved all
faith and obedience, as into the First Cause and the Ultimate
Boundary. (Gal.. iii, 8, 9; 1 John v, 9; Rom. iii, 4; Tit. i,
2; Psalm i, 1-23; Gal. i, 1, 7, 8; John v, 34, 36; Rom. xi,
34-36; xiii, 1.)
III. This is proved by many arguments dispersed throughout
the Scripture. (1.) From the inscriptions of most of the
prophetical books and of the apostolical epistles, which run
thus, "The word of the Lord that came to Hosea, to Joe], to
Amos," &c. "Paul, Peter, James, &c., a servant of God and an
apostle of Jesus Christ." (Hosea, Joel, Amos; Rom. i, 1;
James i, 1; 1 Pet. i, 1.) (2.) From the introductions to many
of the prophecies: "Thus saith the Lord," "That which I have
received of the Lord, I have also delivered unto you." (Exod.
v, 1; 1 Cor. xi, 23.) (3.) From the petitions, on the part of
the ambassadors of God and of Christ, for Divine assistance,
and from the promise of it which is given by God and Christ,
such aid being necessary and sufficient to obtain authority
for what was to be spoken. (Exod. iv, 1; Acts iv, 29, 30;
Mark xvi, 17, 20.) (4.) From the method used by God himself,
who, when about to deliver his law, introduced it thus: "I am
the Lord thy God!" And who, when in the act of establishing
the authority of his Son, said, "This is my beloved Son, hear
ye Him." (Exod. xx, 1; Matt. xvii, 5.) This is acknowledged
by the general consent of mankind. Minos, Numa, Lycurgus and
Solon, were fully aware of it; for, to give some validity to
their laws, they referred them to Gods or Goddesses, as the
real authors.
IV. When this authority is once known, it binds the
consciences of all those to whom the discourse or the writing
is addressed or directed, to accept of it in a becoming
manner. But whoever they be that receive it as if delivered
by God, that approve of it, publish, preach, interpret and
expound it, that also distinguish and discriminate it from
words or writings which are supposititious and adulterated;
these persons add not a tittle of authority to the sayings or
writings, because their entire authority, whether
contemplated separately or conjointly, is only that of mortal
men; and things Divine neither need confirmation, nor indeed
can receive it, from those which are human. But this whole
employment of approving, preaching, explaining and
discriminating, even when it is discharged by the Church
Universal, is only an attestation by which she declares, that
she holds and acknowledges these words or writings, and these
alone, as Divine. (John xv, 22, 24; viii, 24; Gal. i, 8, 9;
Ephes. ii, 20; Rev. xxi, 14; John i, 6, 7; v, 33-36; 1 Thess.
ii, 13.)
V. Therefore, not only false, but likewise implying a
contradiction, foolish and blasphemous, are such expressions
as the following, employed by Popish writers: "The Church is
of greater antiquity than the Scriptures; and they are not
authentic except by the authority of the Church." (ECCL
Enchir. de Ecclesiastes) "All the authority which is now
given to the Scriptures, is necessarily dependent on that of
the Church." (PIGHIUS de Hierar. Eecles. lib. 2, c. 2.) "The
Scriptures would possess no more validity than the Fables of
Aesop, or any other kind of writing whatever, unless we
believed the testimony of the Church." (HOSIUS de Author.
Script. lib. 3.) But that "the Church is of greater antiquity
than the Scriptures," is an argument which labours under a
falsity in the antecedent and under a defective inference.
For the Scriptures, both with regard to their significations
and their expressions, are more ancient than the Church; and
this former Church is bound to receive the latter sayings and
writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, &c., of Paul, Peter, &c., as
soon as their Divine verity has been demonstrated by
sufficient arguments according to the judgment of God. (Matt.
xvi, 18; 1 Cor. iii, 9, 10.)
VI. But by the very arguments by which the Scriptures are
Divine, they are also [proved to be] Canonical, from the
method and end of their composition, as containing the rule
of our faith, charity, hope, and of the whole of our living.
For they are given for doctrine, for reproof, for
instruction, for correction, and for consolation; that is,
that they may be the rule of truth and falsehood to our
understanding, of good and evil to our affections, either to
do and to omit, or to have and to want. (Deut. xxvii, 26;
Psalm cxix, 105,106; Rom. x, 8, 17; Matt. xxii, 37-40; 2 Tim.
iii, 16; Rom. xv, 4.) For as they are Divine because given by
God, not because they are "received from men;" so they are
canonical, and are so called in an active sense, because they
prescribe a Canon or rule, and not passively, because they
are reckoned for a Canon, or because they are taken into the
Canon. So far indeed is the Church from rendering them
authentic or canonical, that no assemblage or congregation of
men can come under the name of a Church, unless they account
the Scriptures authentic and canonical with regard to the sum
or substance of the Law and Gospel. (Gal. vi, 16; 1 Tim. vi,
3, 4; Rom. xvi, 17; x, 8-10, 14-17.)
VII. The Second Question is, How can a persuasion be wrought
in men, that these Scriptures are Divine? For the application
of this question some things must be premised, which may free
the discussion from equivocations, and may render it more
easy. (1.) A distinction must be drawn between Scripture,
(which, as a sign, consists of a word and of the writing of
that word,) and the sense or meaning of Scripture; because it
is not equally important which of the two is necessary to be
known and believed, since it is Scripture on account of its
meanings, and because there is a difference in the method of
proof by which Divinity is ascribed to the writing itself and
to its significations. (2.) A distinction must likewise be
drawn between the primary cause of Scripture, and the
instrumental causes; lest it be thought, that the same
necessity exists for believing some book of Scripture to have
been written by this or that particular amanuensis, as there
is for believing it to have proceeded from God. (3.) The
ratio of those meanings is dissimilar, since some of them are
simply necessary to salvation, as containing the foundation
and sum of religion; while others are connected with the
former in no other way, than by a certain relation of
explanation, proof, and amplification. (John viii, 24; v, 39,
46, 36; 1 Cor. xii, 3. 2 Corinthians ii, 4, 5; iii, 7-9;
Matt. x, 20; 2 Cor. iii, 11, 12; Phil. iii, 15, 16; Col. ii,
16, 19.)
VIII. (4.) The persuasion of faith must be distinguished from
the certainty of vision, lest a man, instead of seeking here
for faith which is sufficiently powerful to prevail against
temptations, should require certainty which is obnoxious to
no temptation. (5.) A difference must be made between
implicit faith by which this Scripture without any
understanding of its significations is believed to be Divine,
and explicit faith which consists of some knowledge of the
meanings, particularly of those which are necessary. And this
historical knowledge, which has only asfaleian mental
security, [or human certainty, Luke i, 4,] comes to be
distinguished from saving knowledge, which also contains
wlhroforian full assurance and wepoiqhsin confidence, on
which the conscience reposes. This distinction must be made,
that a correct judgment may be formed of those arguments
which are necessary and sufficient for producing each of
these kinds of faith. (6.) A difference must also be made
between those arguments which are worthy of God, and those
which human vanity may require. And such arguments must not
here be demanded as cannot fail to persuade every one; since
many persons denied all credence to Christ himself, though he
bore testimony to his own doctrine by so many signs and
wonders, virtues and distributions of the Holy Ghost. (7.)
The external light, derived from arguments which are employed
to effect suasion, must be distinguished from the internal
light of the Holy Spirit bearing his own testimony; lest that
which properly belongs to the latter, as the seal and the
earnest or pledge of our faith, should be ascribed to the
strength of arguments and to the veracity of external
testimonies. (1 Cor. xiii, 9, 12; Gen. xv, 6, 8, with Rom.
iv, 19-21; Judges vi, 36- 39; Heb. xi, 32, 33; John iii, 2,
10; James ii, 19; John v, 32-36; Matt. xiii, 2; Heb. vi, 11;
x, 22; Ephes. iii, 12; Matt. xii, 38, 39; xvi, 1; Luke xvi,
30, 31; Matt. xxvii, 42; John xii, 37; Luke xxiv, 27, 44, 45;
2 Cor. i, 22; Ephes. i, 13, 14; John iv, 42.)
IX. (8.) A distinction must be drawn between (i.) those who
heard God or Christ speaking to them Himself, or addressing
them through angels, prophets, or apostles, and who first
received the sacred books; and (ii.) those who, as their
successors, have the Scriptures through their delivery.
(Judges ii, 7, 10; Heb. ii, 3; John xx, 29.) For the former
of these classes, miracles and the actual fulfillment of
predictions, which occurred under their own observations,
were capable of imparting credibility to the words and
writing. But to the latter class, the narration, both of the
doctrine, and of the arguments employed for its confirmation,
is proposed in the Scriptures, and must be strengthened by
its own arguments. (Isa. xliv, 7, 8; 1 Cor. xiv, XXII. ) (9.)
A distinction may indeed be made between the truth of
Scripture and its Divinity, that progress may be gradually
made through a belief of the former to a belief in the
latter. But these two can never be disparted; because, if the
Scriptures be true, they are of necessity Divine. (John iv,
39- 42; 1 Pet. i, 21.) (10.) Lastly. We must here reflect,
that the secret things of God, and the doctrine of Christ in
reference to its being from God, are revealed to little
children, to the humble, to those who fear God, and to those
who are desirous to do the will of the Father; (Matt. xi, 25;
James iv, 6; Psalm xxv, 14; John vii, 17; 1 Cor. i, 20, 27;)
and that, on the contrary, to the wise men of the world, to
the proud, to those who reject the counsel of God against
themselves and judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life,
to foolish and perverse men, and to those who resist the Holy
Ghost, the mystery of God and the Gospel of Christ are hidden
and continue unrevealed; nay, to such persons they are a
stumbling-block and foolishness, while they are in themselves
the power and the wisdom of God. (Luke vii, 30; Acts xiii,
46; vii, 51; 2 Cor. iv, 3, 4; 1 Cor. i, 23, 24.)
X. These remarks being premised, let us see how we are or can
be persuaded into a belief that the Scriptures of the Old and
of the New Testament are Divine, at least with regard to
their essentials, that is, the sum or substance of the Law
and Gospel, without faith in which, salvation can have no
existence. Three things principally serve to produce this
persuasion. (i.) The external testimony of men. (ii.) The
arguments contained in the Scriptures themselves. (iii.) And
the internal witness of God. The first of these, by
procuring, after the manner of men, esteem and reverence to
the Scriptures, prepares [or makes a way for] faith which is
resolved into the two latter that are truly Divine, and,
through them, is fully completed.
XI. 1. In adverting to human testimony, we shall omit all
enemies, also the Mahometans who have embraced the dregs of a
religion which is compounded of a corruption of Judaism,
Christianity and Paganism. But the testimony of those who
acknowledge the Scriptures is twofold. That of the Jews, who
testify concerning the doctrine and the books of the Old
Testament; and that of Christians who bear witness to those
of the whole body of Scripture. (1.) Two circumstances add
strength to the testimony of the Jews. (i.) The constancy of
their profession in the very depths of misery, when, by the
mere denial of it, they might be made partakers of liberty
and of worldly possessions. (ii.) Their hatred of the
Christian religion, which transcribes its own origin,
increase, and establishment from a good part of the
Scriptures of the Old Testament, and with so much confidence
as to be prepared to stand and fall by their evidence and
judgment alone. (Acts xxvi, 22; 9, 2 Pet. i, 19, 20; Acts
xvii, 11.) (2.) The testimony of Christians. distinguished by
the same mark of constancy, (Rev. vi, 9; xii, 11,) we will
consider in three particulars: (i.) That of the Church
Universal, which, from her own foundation to the present age,
having professed the Christian as a Divine religion,
testifies that her religion is contained in these books, and
that they have proceeded from God. (ii.) That of each of the
primitive Churches, which, being founded by the apostles,
first received not only the whole of the Old Testament, but
likewise the Epistles which were addressed either to them, to
their pastors, or at least to men who were well known, and
who delivered them by the same title to their successors and
to other Churches. (Col. iv, 16.) (iii.) That of the
Representative Church, as it is called, consisting of pastors
and teachers, who, possessing skill in languages and in
Divine things, pronounce their judgment after having
instituted an examination, and confirm it [by arguments] to
the flocks that are severally committed to their care.
(Ephes. iv, 27.) On reviewing these diviunes, we place the
Roman Pontiff below the lowest parochial priest in the Romish
Church who may be more learned than his holiness.
XII. 2. The arguments contained in the Scripture are four,
and those of the utmost importance. The quality of its
doctrines, the majesty of its style, the agreement of its
parts, and the efficacy of its doctrine. Each of these,
separately considered, possesses much influence; but, when
viewed conjointly, they are capable of inducing every one to
give credit to them, if he is not blinded by a spirit of
obstinacy, and by an opinion preconceived through inveterate
habits. The Quality of the Doctrine is proved to be Divine.
(1.) By the precepts delivered in these books, which exhibit
three marks of Divinity. (i.) The high excellence of the
actions prescribed, in self-denial, and in the regulation of
the whole life according to godliness. (Matt. xvi, 24, 25;
Rom. viii, 12, 13.) (ii.) The wonderful uncommonness of some
actions, which amount to folly in the estimation of the
natural man; and yet they are prescribed with a fearless
confidence. Such as, "Unless thou believest on Jesus, who is
crucified and dead, thou shalt be condemned; if thou wilt
believe on him, thou shalt be saved." (1 Cor. i, 18, 24; ii,
2, 14; John viii, 24; Rom. x, 9.) (iii.) The manner in which
they are required to be performed, that they be done from
conscience and charity; if otherwise, they will be adjudged
as hypocritical. (Deut. vi, 5; 1 Cor. xiii, 1; James iv, 12;
Rom. viii, 5; 1 Pet. ii, 19.) In the first of these three is
perceived a sanctity, in the second an omnipotence, and in
the third an omniscience, each of which is purely Divine.
(2.) By the promises and threatenings, which afford two
tokens of Divine worth or validity. (i.) The manifest
evidence, that they could have been delivered by no one
except by God. (ii.) Their excellent accommodation, which is
such that these promises and threatenings cannot possibly
prove influential upon the conscience of any man, except upon
his who considers the precepts, to which they are subjoined,
to be Divine. (3.) The admirable attempering of the justice
of God by which he loves righteousness and hates iniquity,
and of his equity by which he administers all things, with
his mercy in Christ our propitiation. In this, the glory of
God shines forth with transcendent luster. (Rom. v, 15.)
Three particulars in it are worthy of notice. (i.) That,
except through the intervention of a reconciler and mediator,
God would not receive into favour the sinner, through love
for whom as his own creature he is touched with mercy. (ii.)
That his own dearly beloved Son, begotten by Himself and
discharging an office of perfect righteousness, God would not
admit as a deprecator and intercessor, except when sprinkled
with his own blood. (2 Cor. v, 19; Ephes. ii, 12, 16; Heb.
viii, 5, 6; ix, 7, 11, 12.) (iii.) That he constituted Christ
as a saviour only to those who repent and believe, having
excluded the impenitent from all hope of pardon and
salvation. (Heb. iii, 8, 19; v, 8, 9; Luke xxiv, 26; Rom.
viii, 29.) (4.) A most signal and decisive proof, which
serves to demonstrate the necessity and sufficiency of this
doctrine, exists in this fact, that Jesus himself did not
enter into his glory except through obedience and sufferings,
that this was done for believers alone who were to be
conformed to him, (Heb. x, 21, 22; iv, 14-16; John xvii, 2,
8,) and that, on being received into Heaven, He was
constituted Governor over the house of God, the King of his
people, and the dispenser of life eternal.
XIII. The Majesty of Their Style is proved. (1.) By the
attributes which the Author of the Scriptures claims for
himself; the transcendent elevation of his nature, in his
omniscience and omnipotence; (Isa. xliv, 7, 8; xli, 12, 25,
26; Psalm i, 1,) the excellence of his operations, which they
claim for Him as the Creator and Governor of all things; the
preeminence of power, which they claim for Him as the King of
kings and Lord of lords. (2.) By the absence of all "respect
of persons" which is not under the influence of favour and
hatred, of hope and fear, and by which God declares himself
to be the same towards all men, whatever station they may
occupy, uttering his commands and prohibitions, his promises
and threatenings, to monarchs, (Deut. xviii, 15, 16; 1 Sam.
xii, 25,) as well as to the meanest among the people, to
whole nations and to single individuals, and even to the
rulers of darkness, the princes of this world, Satan and his
angels, and thus to the whole universe of his creatures. (3.)
By the method which he employs in making a law and in giving
it his sanction. It has no other introduction than, "I
Jehovah am thy God;" no other conclusion than, "I Jehovah
have spoken." "Be strong, for I am with thee; fear not, for I
will deliver thee." Either He who speaks, truly claims these
attributes for himself, and so his discourse is Divine,
(Exod. xx, 2; Josh. i, 9; Isa. xliii, 5; Jer. i, 8; Deut. iv,
5,) or (let no blasphemy adhere to the expression,) it is of
all foolish speeches the most foolish. Between these two
extremes no medium exists. But in the whole of the Scriptures
not a single tittle occurs, which will not remove from them
by an invincible argument the charge of folly.
XIV. The Agreement Between Each And Every Part of The
Scriptures, prove with sufficient evidence, their Divinity,
because such an agreement of its several parts can be
ascribed to nothing less than the Divine Spirit. It will be
useful for the confirmation of this matter to consider (1.)
The immense space of time which was occupied in the inditing
of it, from the age of Moses, down to that of St. John, to
whom was vouchsafed the last authentic revelation. (Mal. iv,
4; Jer. xxviii, 8; John v, 46.) (2.) The multitude of writers
or amanuenses, and of books. (3.) The great distance of the
places in which the books were severally written, that
tendered it impossible for the authors to confer together.
(4.) Lastly and principally, the institution of a comparison
between the doctrine of Moses and that of the latter
Prophets, as well as between that of the Old and that of the
New Testament. The predictions of Moses alone concerning the
Messiah, the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of
the Jews, when compared with the interpretations and with the
addition of particular circumstances which are found in the
Prophets and the Psalms, will prove that the perfect
agreement which exists between the various writers is Divine.
(Gen. xlix, 10; Deut. xxxii, 21; Dan. ix, 25, 26; Mal. i, 10,
11; Psalm 2, 22, 110 132; Matt. 1, 2, 24, 27; Luke i, 55, 70;
xxiv, 27, 44.) To the Divinity of the agreement between the
writings of the Old Testament and those of the New, abundant
testimony will be afforded even solely by that sudden,
unexpected and miraculously consentaneous accommodation and
befitting aptitude of all the predictions respecting the
Messiah, the gathering of the Gentiles to Him, the unbelief
and rejection of the Jews, and lastly concerning the
abrogation which was to be made of the ceremonial law, first
by its being fulfilled, and afterwards by its forcible
removal. Whether these predictions were foretold in words, or
foreshown by types of things, persons, facts and events;
their accommodation to the person, the advent, the state, the
offices, and the times of Jesus of Nazareth, was
consentaneous even to a miracle. (Psalm cxviii, 22, 23; Matt.
xxi, 42; Isa. lxv, 1; Acts xi, 18; Psalm xl, 7, 8; Dan. ix,
25, 26.) If the Old Testament alone, or only the New, were
now extant, some doubts might be indulged concerning the
Divinity of each. But their agreement together excludes all
doubt respecting their Divinity, when both of them are thus
completely in accordance, since it is impossible for such a
perfect agreement to have been the fabrication of an angelic
or of a human mind.
XV. Lastly, the Divinity of Scripture is powerfully
demonstrated by The Efficacy of Its Doctrine, which we place
in two particulars. In the credit or belief which it has
obtained in the world, and in the destruction of remaining
religions and of the entire kingdom of Satan. Of this
destruction two most signal tokens were afforded, in the
silencing of the Heathen Oracles, and in the removal of
Idols. (1 Tim. iii, 15; Zech. xiii, 2; Zeph. ii, 11; Acts
xvi, 16, 17.) This efficacy is recommended, (1.) By the
peculiar genius of the doctrine, which, independently of the
Divine power which accompanies and assists it, is calculated
to repel every one from giving his assent to it, on account
of the apparent absurdity in it, and the concupiscence of
human passions which is abhorrent to it. For this is the
manner in which it speaks: "Unless thou dost believe in Jesus
the Crucified, and art prepared to pour out thy life for him,
thou shalt lose thy soul." (Isa. liii, 1; 2 Cor. i, 2; 2 Tim.
iii, 12.) (2.) By the persons through whom the doctrine was
administered, and who, in the estimation of men, were few in
number, mean in condition, and full of infirmities; while in
God's sight, they were possessed of invincible patience and
mildness, which were so conspicuous in Him who was the Prince
of all, that He asked some of his familiar disciples who were
offended at his doctrine, "Will ye also go away?" (Luke vi,
13; Matt. iv, 18, 19; 2 Cor. 4, xii, 12; 2 Tim. iv, 2; John
6, 67.) (3.) By the multitude, the wisdom, the authority, and
the power of the enemies who placed themselves in opposition
to this doctrine. Also by their love for the religion of
their own country, and their consequent hatred of this novel
doctrine, and by the result of both these, in their
infuriated and outrageous eagerness to extirpate the
Christians and their doctrine. It was opposed by the Roman
empire itself nearly three hundred years, during which the
rest of the world lent their assistance. This continued
opposition was excited by the Jews, nay by Satan himself, who
had fixed his throne in that empire. (1 Cor. ii, 8; Acts iv,
27; ix, 2; Matt. x, l 8-22; John xvi, 2; Ephes. vi, 12; Rev.
ii, 10, 13.) (4.) By the infinite multitude of men of every
description, nation, age, sex and condition, who have
believed this doctrine, and confirmed their belief by
enduring intolerable torments even unto death. This cannot be
ascribed, except through an ambitious insanity, either to
ambition or to fury in such a multitude of persons of various
descriptions. (Rev. vi, 9-11.) (5.) By the short time in
which, like lightning, it pervaded a great part of the
habitable world; so that Paul alone filled all the places
between Jerusalem and Illyricum with the Gospel of Christ.
(Col. i, 6; Rom. xv, 19.)
XVI. 3. These suasions are of themselves alone sufficient to
produce an historical faith, but not that which is saving. To
them, therefore, must be added the internal suasion of God by
his Holy Spirit, which has its scope of operations, (1.) In
the illumination of the mind, that we may prove what is that
good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God; that we may
knew the things which are freely given to us of God, and that
Jesus Christ is the wisdom and the power of God. (1 Cor. iii,
7; Ephes. i, 17, 18; Rom. xii, 9; 1 Cor. ii, 12; i, 24; xii,
3.) (2.) In inscribing the laws of God upon our hearts, which
consists of the infusion of a desire and of strength for
their performance. (Heb. viii, 10.) (3.) In sealing the
promises of God on our hearts; under which term, that by
which we are sealed to the day of redemption is called a
seal, and an earnest. (2 Cor. i, 22; Ephes. i, 13,14.) In
this manner he who inspired the sacred Scriptures into holy
men of God, who constituted in the Church, Bishops, Apostles,
Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, who put the word
of reconciliation into their mouths, is the Author of that
faith by which this doctrine is apprehended unto
righteousness and eternal salvation. (Acts xx, 28; Ephes. iv,
11; 2 Cor. v, 19; Rom. viii, 16.) Since his testimony is
distinct from that of a man's own spirit, and since it is
said to be concerning those things which are necessary to
salvation, and not concerning words, letters, or writing, the
Papists act most perversely in confounding these testimonies,
and in requiring through the witness of the Spirit [of God]
the distinction between an apocryphal verse, and one that is
canonical, though the former may in reality agree with the
canonical Scriptures.
XVII. But, that we may comprise in few words the force of
these three proofs, we declare, 1. concerning the force of
human testimony which ascribes our Scriptures to God, that
the author of no composition which ever was published or is
now extant can be proved with such lucid evidence as the
author of these Scriptures; and that the importance of all
other compositions sinks far beneath the dignity of this, not
only with regard to the multitude, the wisdom and the
integrity of the witnesses, but likewise with regard to the
uninterrupted evenness, the constancy and the duration of the
testimony. The reason this is, that the religion contained in
these Scriptures has been preached to immense numbers and
varieties of people, and for a very long period; which
circumstance, in itself, contains no small argument of
Divinity. For it is most equitable, that religion, which
alone is truly Divine, and which, without any respect of
nations, it is God's will that men should receive, ought also
to be preached generally to all mankind. (Matt. xxviii, 19,
20; Mark xvi, 15; Rom. x, 12-18.)
XVIII. 2. We assert, that the arguments which, contained in
the Scriptures, prove the Divinity of the religion prescribed
in them, are so full and perfect, that no arguments can be
derived for the defense of any religion which are not
comprehended in these, and in a more excellent degree. (2
Cor. iv, 2- 6.) They are indeed of such high value that the
truth of the Christian religion is established by them as
strongly, as it is possible by any other arguments to prove
that there is any true religion at all, or that a true one is
possible. So that to a man who is desirous of proving, that
there is any religion which is true, or that such a religion
is possible, no way is more compendious and easy than to do
so by these arguments, in preference to any other which can
be deduced from general notions. But the most wonderful of
all is, that the very thing in the Christian religion which
seems to be one of the greatest absurdity, affords the most
certain proof of its Divinity, it being allowed to be a very
great truth -- that this religion has been introduced into
the consciences of men by a mild suasion, and not by the
power of the sword. (1 Cor. i, 29-xxiv, ; 2 Cor. v, 11; Luke
ix, 54, 55.) Of a similar tendency is the argument formerly
used by St. Augustine: "If the Christian religion was
established by the miracles which are related in the
Scriptures, it is true; but if it was not, the greatest of
all miracles is, that it has been able to obtain credit
without miracles." For the internal suasion of Him who alone
can work miracles, ought to stand in the place of miracles
outwardly performed, and to be equally potent. (Rev. ii, 17.)
And thus the very narration, contained in these books, of the
miracles which were performed in the early ages in proof of
the doctrine, is now, through a most beautiful vicissitude of
circumstances, proved to be true by the Divinity of the
doctrine when subjected to examination.
XIX. Although the inward witness of the Holy Spirit is known
to him alone to whom it is communicated, yet, since there is
a mutual relation between the veracity of the Testifier, and
the truth of the thing which is proved, an examination may be
instituted respecting the testimony itself. This is so far
from being injurious or displeasing to the Holy Ghost, that
by this method His veracity is rendered in all possible
directions more eminently conspicuous, as being the Author
not only of the internal testimony and the external word, but
likewise of the significations concerning which he bears
witness to both; on this account also, he has commanded us to
"try the spirits whether they be of God," and has added a
specimen of such a "trying." (1 John iv, 1, 2.) It will
therefore be as easy to confute the man who falsely boasts of
having the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, as to be
able to destroy that religion to which he professes himself
to be devoted. From this it is apparent, that the inward
witness of the Spirit is calculated to impart assurance to
him to whom it is communicated, but not to convince any other
person. Wherefore those who reckon this among the causes why
they account the Scriptures Divine, are foolishly said by the
Papists to beg the question, since they never employ it
themselves in convincing others.
DISPUTATION 2
ON THE SUFFICIENCY AND PERFECTION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IN
OPPOSITION TO TRADITIONS RESPONDENT: ABRAHAM VLIET
I. When we ascribe Perfection to the Scriptures of the Old
and New Testament, we do not mean by that word, the
perfection described by the Apostle in 1 Corinthians xiii,
10; for the latter is peculiar to the life to come, in which
"God will be all in all." (1 Cor. xv, 28.) Neither do we
understand by it a certain absolute quality which is equally
dispersed through the whole body of Scripture and each of its
parts, and which cannot be withdrawn from the Scriptures by
any man who confesses that they have proceeded from God,
their most perfect Author. (Psalm xix, 7-9; Rom. vii, 12.)
Nor do we mean such a perfection as may embrace all things
generally and severally, of what description soever they are,
which have at any time been inspired into "holy men," and
published by them to the Church. (2 Tim. iii, 16, 17.) But by
this expression we understand a relative Perfection, which,
for the sake of a particular purpose, agrees with the
Scriptures as with an instrument, and according to which they
perfectly comprehend all things that have been, are now, or
ever will be necessary for the salvation of the Church.
II. We are compelled, both by the truth of the thing itself,
of which we shall hereafter treat, and by a kind of
necessity, to establish this perfection of Scripture:
because, without this, we shall be forced, for the sake of
obtaining entire salvation, to have recourse to other
revelations of God, already made, or afterwards to be
communicated; but our attempt will prove abortive, unless the
Divinity of these additional revelations be established by
indubitable arguments. Those [new] revelations which are said
to have been already made, have never yet been demonstrated
in this manner; and it will be impossible to produce any such
demonstrative evidence in support of those which, it is
asserted, will afterwards occur.
III. But, that we may be able to establish this perfection of
Scripture in a solid manner, and as if from the very
foundation, we will take a brief view of the perfection of
Divine revelations in general. For, by this means, we shall
not only remove the error of those who entertain a different
opinion, but shall also expose and shut up the source from
which it is derived. We now use the expression, "Divine
revelation," for the act of reveling, not for what is
revealed; and we say, Divine revelation is internal, which,
with the Scriptures themselves, we distinguish by the general
term, "inspiration;" and that it is external by means of the
enunciation or the inditing of the words spoken or revealed.
Perfection, therefore, is withdrawn from the Scriptures,
either in these revelations, or in those which preceded them,
in the subjoined order and method.
IV. (1.) The perfect inspiration given to the prophets and
apostles, who are the administrators of the Scriptures, is
denied; and the necessity and frequent occurrence of new
revelations after those holy men, are openly asserted. (2.)
Even when this perfection is conceded, the possibility is
denied of making a perfect enunciation of the inspired
signification or sense by means of the outward word. The
reason assigned is, that the ratio of those Divine meanings
which are necessary to be known for the perfect consummation
of our salvation, is diverse. For while some of them serve
for the instruction of the ignorant and of babes in Christ,
and for preparing their minds; others are useful for
perfecting adults, and for imbuing and filling their minds
with the plenary wisdom of the Spirit; and while the former
class of Divine meanings [for the ignorant, &c.] may be made
manifest and taught by the external word, the latter class
can be offered to the minds [of adults,] and impressed upon
them, only by the internal address of the Spirit. (3.) When
the perfect inspiration and enunciation of all the divine
meanings have been granted, it is denied that the Scriptures
perfectly contain whatever has been inspired and declared
that is necessary to salvation; because, as it is alleged, it
was not the intention of the Spirit who inspired them, or of
his amanuensis, to consign all those necessary things in
writing to posterity.
V. Since these three negatives hold the following order and
relation among themselves, when the first two, or when either
of them is established, the third may likewise be granted,
and when the third is destroyed, its predecessors may be
removed, having effected the destruction of the third, we
might seem to have given complete satisfaction, if we had not
thought proper, according to our promise, to remove the
causes of the error, and thus to cut off from the adversaries
all occasion for complaining, that we had treated the
controversy not according to its nature, but for the
convenience of our own design and for the sake of Victoria.
Wherefore to these three negatives we oppose affirmatively
the following three most veritable enunciations: (1.) All
things which have been, are now, or till the consummation of
all things, will be necessary to be known for the salvation
of the Church, have been perfectly inspired and revealed to
the prophets and apostles. (2.) All things thus necessary
have been administered and declared by the prophets and
apostles, according to this inspiration, by the outward word,
to the people who have been committed to them. (3.) All
things thus necessary are fully and perfectly comprehended in
their books.
VI. From this deduction it is apparent, that the acts of
revelation are distinguished from the significations
revealed, and yet that the matters or subjects and the
significations agree with the different acts of revelation.
This distinction meets the objection of the Mystics, who
insist that the internal illumination of the Holy Spirit is
always necessary. This we concede with respect to the act of
revelation, but not with respect to the subjects and new
significations. The agreement between the subjects and
meanings, and the acts of revelation, refutes the Papists,
who affirm, that the Church was before the Scripture, because
the inditing of the word which had been previously
pronounced, was posterior to the Church." This, however, is
not a necessary consequence, if the same meanings be
comprehended in the written word and in that which was
pronounced.
VII. (1.) Commencing therefore with the proof of the first of
our three affirmative propositions, (§ 5,) and, for the sake
of brevity, laying aside the perfection of the revelation
made under the Old Testament, we will proceed to shew, that
all things necessary in the manner which we have described
have been inspired into the apostles, and that no new
inspiration has since their times been communicated, and that
it will not be in the future. We prove this in the following
manner: (1.) By express passages of Scripture; (2.) by
arguments deduced from them. The first passage is, "The Holy
Ghost shall teach you all things, whatsoever I have said unto
you." (John xiv, 26.) From the former part of this passage we
obtain the whole of our proposition: for he who "teaches all
things" omits nothing that ought to be taught. The same proof
is derived from the latter part of it, if it be evident that
Christ told "all things" to his disciples, which is
demonstrated by these his own words: "All things which I have
heard of my Father, I have made known unto you." (John xv,
15.) But he "who is in the bosom of the Father," has heard
of all things which ought to be revealed. "For I have given
unto them the words which thou gavest me." (John xvii, 8.)
VIII. The second passage is, "The spirit of truth will guide
you into all truth." (John xvi, 13.) The efficacy of this
teaching will shine forth with more splendid evidence, if we
suffer ourselves to be instructed by Christ in that truth
through which, according to his prayer, not only the
apostles, but likewise the whole Church to the end of the
world, will be sanctified. (John xvii, 17-20.)
IX. The third is, "But God will reveal it unto us by his
Spirit," (1 Cor. ii, 10,) that is, the wisdom which is there
specified. But that no one may suppose this wisdom to be
partial and serving the Church only for a certain time, let
him examine the attributes which are there assigned to it. It
is the wisdom which God pre-determined from all eternity, and
foreordained "unto the glory" of the Church Universal, for
this is meant by the word "our" in the phraseology of the
apostles. (v. 7.) It is the wisdom which contains "the things
that God hath prepared for ALL them who love him," and not
for them only who lived in the apostolic age: (v. 9.) The
wisdom which contains "the deep things of God," (v. 10,) all
those "things that are freely given to us of God," as his
Church, (v. 12,) and that are called, in another passage,
(Ephes. iii, 8,) "The unsearchable riches of Christ." It is
that wisdom which is called "the mind of the Lord, and the
knowledge of which is said to be the knowledge of the mind of
Christ." (1 Cor. ii, 16.) It is the wisdom of which "those
alone who are perfect and spiritual" are said to be capable,
(v, 6, 14, 15,) that it might not seem to be serviceable only
for the preparatory instruction of the more ignorant sort,
and of babes in Christ." [See § 4.] The passages already
cited may suffice.
X. From among many others, let the following be received as
the reasons: The First is taken from the joint consideration
of the glorification of Christ, and the promise of the Holy
Spirit, who was bestowed after the glorification of Christ,
and who was poured forth by Him. (John vii, 38, 39.) The most
copious effusion of the Holy Spirit was deferred to the time
when Christ should be glorified. After his glorification, it
was necessary, that it should not be any longer delayed; for
Christ, "being by the right hand of God exalted, and having
received the promised Holy Spirit," (Acts ii, 33,) and that
"not by measure," (John iii, 34, 35,) "he shed him forth" in
such copious abundance, as it was possible for him to be
poured out, and to be received by mankind. So that the event
which had been predicted by the prophet Joel (ii, 28,) is
said then to have come to pass. (Acts ii, 16, 17.) This
Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of Christ alone; and
he will plead the cause of no one except that of Christ,
through the entire duration of the present life, as his
Advocate against the world. (John xvi, 7, 8.) "he will not
speak of himself" but from Christ; and he will "shew us those
things which are Christ's, and which He will receive from
him. He will therefore glorify Christ." (13-15.) From these
premises it follows, that no new inspiration, after that to
the apostles, will be necessary to salvation; and that what
is said about the distinct periods of the Father, of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit, with regard to a revelation, is a
pure invention of the human brain. By this argument, all new
inspirations are refuted, with such soundness and so
agreeably to the nature of the thing itself, that the
doctrine which maintains the contrary cannot possibly defend
itself without inventing another Christ and another Spirit;
(which is a notable trait in the conduct of the great masters
among the Mystics;) or it must at least substitute for Christ
His vicar on earth, who, invested with plenary power, may
administer the affairs of the church, as is the practice of
the Papists.
XI. The Second reason is taken from the office of the
Apostles, for the discharge of which, because they were
immediately called by Christ himself, they were undoubtedly
furnished with sufficient gifts, and therefore with
sufficient knowledge. But they were constituted "able
ministers of the "New Testament;" (2 Cor. iii, 6,) to which
as a Testament, nothing can be added; (Gal. iii, 15;) and, as
New, it will neither "wax old" nor be abrogated; (Heb. viii,
13;) after the apostles, therefore, no new inspiration will
be given. They were also made ministers of the Spirit;" they
were therefore instructed by inspiration in those meanings
which agree with the most perfect Christians, and not with
those only who are placed under the law and "the oldness of
the letter." To them was also committed "the ministration of
righteousness;" but this was the last of all, on account of
being that which is immediately connected with life eternal,
and which is likewise administered by righteousness. The
apostles are also called "reapers," with regard to the
prophets who were the sowers;" (John iv, 38;) but this last
service was to be performed in the field of the Lord. After
the apostles, therefore, no new ministration has been given;
and, on this account, no new inspiration.
XII. The Third reason is drawn from the circumstance of the
period at which this inspiration was communicated to the
apostles, and which may be considered in two respects. (1.)
It was in the time of the Messiah, which is called the last,"
being truly the last time with regard to a revelation. "And
it shall come to pass in the last days, I will pour out of my
Spirit upon all flesh." (Acts ii, 17.) "When the Messiah is
come, he will tell us all things." (John iv, 25.) "God hath
in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." (Heb. i, 2.)
To the same effect Christ is said to have been made,
"manifest in these last times." (1 Pet. i, 20.) (2.) That was
"the time appointed of the Father," in which "the heir"
should be no longer "as a child, under a tutor;" (Gal. iv, 1-
5;) but, having arrived at full age, he might pass his life
under the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit; by whom, as
"the Spirit of liberty," being illuminated, he might "with
open face behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and be
transformed into the same image from glory to glory." (2 Cor.
iii, 17, 18.) After the apostles, therefore, no new
inspiration, no greater perfection has been granted.
XIII. The Fourth reason will exhibit to us the glory and
duration of the doctrine inspired and committed to the
apostles. For it greatly excels in glory, as being "the
gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Cor. iv, 4,) who is the
image of God, "the brightness of the glory, and the express
character of the person, of the Father," (Heb. i, 3.) and "in
whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should
dwell."(Col. i, 19) indeed "all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily." (ii, 9.) The law was not at all glorious, "by reason
of this glory which excelled it." (2 Cor. iii, 10.) From
these premises it will follow, by parity of reason, that, if
the more excellent doctrine shall continue forever, no future
doctrine "will have any glory by reason of this which
excelleth in glory." Its duration also excludes all others:
for it remains without being abolished, (2 Cor. iii, 11,)and
will be preached in all the world till the end shall come,"
(Matt. xxiv, 14;) and Christ promises to those who administer
this doctrine, that he "will be with them always, even unto
the end of the world." (xxviii, 20.)
XIV. We will distinctly prove the second proposition [§ 5,]
thus separated into two members. First. Those things which
serve for perfection, as well as those which serve for
preparation, can be and really have been declared by Christ
and the apostles. Second. The apostles perfectly taught all
things which are and will be necessary for the Church.
XV. Let the subjoined arguments stand in proof of the First
member of the proposition. (1.) "The Son who is in the bosom
of the Father," that is, who is admitted to the intimate
knowledge of his secrets, "hath declared," by the outward
word, "what He hath seen and heard" with the Father. (John i,
18; iii, 32.) But it is impious to suppose, that these things
relate only to preparation. Nay, "the things which the
apostles saw and heard they have declared," that the Church
"might have communion with the Father and the Son." But
perfection is placed in this communion. (1 John i, 3.) The
wisdom which the apostles received through revelation of the
Spirit, who "searcheth the deep things of God," has been
declared by them "in words which the same Holy Spirit
teacheth." (1 Cor. ii, 18.) But this wisdom belongs to
perfect and spiritual men, (1 Cor. ii, 6-15,) as we have
already. seen. [§ 9.]
XVI. (3.) The word, through faith in which righteousness and
eternal life are obtained, is not only preparative but
likewise perfective. Of this kind is "the word of faith which
the apostles preached;" and for this reason the gospel is
called "the ministration of righteousness," "the word of
salvation," and "the power of God unto salvation to every one
that believeth." (Rom. x, 8-10; 1 Cor. i, 21; 2 Cor. iii, 9;
Acts xiii, 26; Rom. i, 16.) (4.) The ministration of the
Spirit and of the New Testament is opposed to that of Moses,
which acted the part of a school master, yet "made nothing
perfect" (Heb. vii, 19,) and to "the letter" of death and of
the Old Testament. This ministration of the Spirit does not
serve for preparation, but contains perfection; and this is
the ministration which the apostles executed, and from which
they are called ministers of the New Testament and of the
Spirit, (2 Cor. vi, 7,) and are said to present every man
perfect in Christ Jesus. (Col. i, 8.) (5.) That word which is
called "the incorruptible seed, of which we are born again,
and which endureth forever," (1 Pet. i, 23-25,) is not merely
preparatory. And such is the word which through the gospel
the apostles have declared.
XVII. Let the following arguments establish the Second
member. (1.) The whole counsel of God, which is to be
"declared unto men," (Luke vii, 30,) contains all things
necessary to salvation. But Paul declared to the Ephesians
"all the counsel of God." (Acts xx, 27.) Therefore all things
necessary to salvation were declared, &c. (2.) The
Corinthians are saved by the gospel which Paul preached,
provided they retain it as they received it. (1 Cor. xv, 1,
2.) Therefore, all things necessary to salvation were
preached to the Corinthians. (3.) "Salvation at the first
began to be spoken by Christ," and, after having been
perfectly preached by him, "it was confirmed unto us by the
apostles that heard him." (Heb. ii, 3.) Therefore the
doctrine of the apostles perfectly contained all things which
the necessary confirmation of the Church demanded.
XVIII. And lest any one should utter this cavil, "The
Apostles, we allow, taught all the things which were
necessary at that time, but not all those which are
sufficient for the edification of the body of Christ to the
end of the world," let the following arguments likewise be
added. (4.) Whoever he be that "preaches any other gospel"
than that which the apostles preached, and which the
apostolic churches received, "he is accursed." (Gal. i, 7-9.)
Therefore it is not lawful to add anything to the gospel
preached by the apostles, to the end of the world. Indeed, he
who makes an addition, "has perverted the gospel of Christ."
(5.) In Christ Jesus, or "in the mystery of God, and of the
Father, and of Christ, are hidden all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge." (Col. ii, 2 3.)
But Jesus Christ and this mystery were completely preached by
the apostles. (i, 25-28.) "Jesus Christ has been made unto us
of God, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and
redemption;" (1 Cor. i, 30, 31;)
from which the apostle concludes, that true glorying consists
in the knowledge of Christ alone. (Jer. ix, 24.) Therefore
the doctrine taught by the apostles contains whatever will,
at any time to the end of the world, be necessary, useful and
glorious to the church. (6.) The Church Universal is "built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," (Ephes.
ii, 20, 21;) and the apostles are called "the foundations of
the celestial Jerusalem," (Rev. xxi, 14,) which is the mother
of us all." (Gal. iv, 26.) Therefore, the apostles have
declared all things which will be necessary for the whole
church to the final consummation. (7.) "There is one body of
Christ, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all; one
Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one bread, one God and Father of all, and Jesus
Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and forever." (Ephes. iv,
4-6; i, 23; 1 Cor. x, 17; Heb. xiii, 8.) But the apostles
perfectly preached this God, this Lord, this Spirit, this
faith, hope, baptism and bread, and by their doctrine animate
and vivify this whole body to the end of the world. (Col. i,
24, 25.) Therefore the church ought "not to be carried about
with divers and strange doctrines." (Heb. xiii, 9.)
XIX. The last proposition remains to be discussed. It
commends to us the perfection of the prophetical and
apostolical Scriptures; and for establishing it we produce
the following arguments. (1.) This perfection is taught in
the express testimonies of Scripture, which prohibit any
addition to be made to those things which the Lord has
commanded; and the same scriptures teach, in a manner the
most convincing, that these testimonies must be understood
concerning the written word. (Deut. iv, 2; 12, 28; xxx, 10-
14; xxviii, 58; Josh. i, 7, 8.) The apostle therefore
requires, that "no one be wise above what is written," (1
Cor. iv, 6;) and he who tells the Ephesians, "I have not
shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God," (Acts
xx, 27,) confesses, that "he said none other things than
those which the prophets and Moses did say should come."
(Acts xxvi, 22.)
XX. (2.) This perfection is also established by the very
object and matter of the saving doctrine. This is done by
various methods. (i.) The entire matter of the saving
doctrine consists of "the truth which is after godliness;"
(Tit. i, 1.) But the Scripture perfectly delivers this truth,
for it is concerning God and Christ, and the manner in which
He is to be known, acknowledged and worshipped. (1 Chron.
xxviii, 9; John xvii, 3; v, 23.) (ii.) The Scripture
perfectly delivers the doctrine of faith, hope, and charity.
But in those acts is contained whatsoever God requires of us.
(1 John v, 13; Timothy iii, 16; Rom. xv, 4; 1 Thess. i, 3;
Tit. ii, 12, 13.) (3.) They are called "the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament," because in them both these parts are
completely comprehended. But nothing can be added to a
Testament: nay, the testament of a prudent testator fully
contains his last will, according to which he wishes the
distribution of his property to be made, and his heirs to
regulate their conduct. (2 Cor. iii, 6; Gal. iii, 15; Jer.
xxxi, 31-34; xxxii, 38-40; Gal. iv, 1, 2.) But the whole of
the saving doctrine consists of a description of the
beneficence of God towards us, and of our duty towards God.
(4.) The division of all this saving doctrine into the LAW
and the GOSPEL, as into parts which draw forth the amplitude
of the whole, proves the same thing, since both of them are
perfectly contained in the Scriptures. (Luke xvi, 16; Josh i,
8; Luke i, 1-4; Rom. i, 2-6; Acts xxvi, 22, 23.)
XXI. (3.) The same perfection is proved from the end and
efficacy of the whole of the saving doctrine. If the
Scriptures propose this entire end and perfectly accomplish
it, there is no reason why we should call a doctrine, in what
manner soever it may be proposed, more perfect than the
Scriptures. But they entirely intend this end and
efficaciously produce it. (Rom. x, 4-10.) "This is his
commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son
Jesus Christ, and love one other." (1 John iii, 23.) "These
things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ," &c. (John xx, 31.) "These things have I written unto
you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye
may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John v, 9-13.)
"On these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets." (Matt. xxii, 37-40.) "Search the Scriptures; for
in them ye think ye have eternal life." (John v, 39.) The
Scriptures prevent men from going down into the place of the
damned; (Luke xvi, 27-30) and they prevent this sad
consequence without the addition of any other doctrine
whatsoever. For they render a man "wise unto salvation
through faith, and perfectly furnished unto all good works."
(2 Tim. iii, 15-17.)
XXII. (4.) This is also confirmed by the mode of speaking
usually employed by holy men of God, and by the Scriptures
themselves; according to which they indiscriminately use the
term "Prophets" for the writings of the prophets, "the word
of prophecy" for the prophetic Scriptures, and, on the
contrary, "the Scriptures" for the prophets and for God
himself; by which is signified that the word of God and of
the prophets is completely one with the Scriptures; and that
this word in its amplitude does not exceed the Scriptures
with regard to those things which are necessary. Thus it is
said, "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets?." (Acts
xxvi, 27,) that is, the writings of the prophets. (Luke xvi,
29.) "We have a more sure word of prophecy," that is, the
word which is comprehended in the writings of the prophets:
for it is soon afterwards called "prophecy of Scripture." (2
Pet. i, 19, 20.) "Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he
interpreted to them in all the Scriptures what they say
concerning Himself." (Luke xxiv, 27.) And, on the contrary,
"The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh," (Rom. ix, 17,) that is,
God said it by Moses. (Exod. ix, 16.) "The Scripture hath
concluded all under sin." (Gal. iii, 22.) "For God hath
concluded them all in unbelief." (Rom. xi, 32.) "The
Scripture, foreseeing that God, &c., preached before the
Gospel unto Abraham." (Gal. iii, 8; Gen. xii, 2, 3.)
XXIII. (5.) In the last place we add the following: No
subject can be mentioned, by the sole knowledge or the
worship of which the church ought to bedeck herself with
increased honour and dignity, and which subject is not
comprehended in the Holy Scriptures. Neither can any
attribute be produced agreeing with any subject of this kind,
which it is necessary for the church to know about that
subject, or for her to perform to it, and which the
Scriptures do not attribute to that subject: (John v, 39;
Rom. i, 3; Luke xxiv, 27.) Whence it follows, that the
Scripture contains all things necessary to be known for the
salvation of the Church, and for the glory of God. The
Papists indeed speak and write many things about Mary, the
rest of the saints, and about the Roman Pontiff; but we
affirm, that these are not objects either of any knowledge or
worship which the church ought to bestow on them. And those
things which the Papists attribute to them, are such as,
according to the sure judgment of the scriptures, cannot be
attributed to them without sacrilege and a perversion of the
gospel of Christ.
XXIV. We conclude, then, that all things which have been, are
now, or to the final consummation will be necessary for the
salvation of the church, have been of old perfectly inspired,
declared and written; and that no other revelation or
tradition, than those which have been inspired, declared and
contained in the scriptures, is necessary to the salvation of
the church. (2 Tim. iii, 16; Matt. iv, 3, 4; xxii, 29 Acts
xviii, 28.) Indeed we assert, that whatsoever relates to the
doctrine of truth is so perfectly comprehended in the
scriptures, that all those things which are brought either
directly or indirectly against this truth are capable of
being refuted, in a manner the clearest and most
satisfactory, from the Scriptures themselves alone. This
asseveration we take with such solemnity and yet assurance of
mind, that as soon as anything has been proved not to be
contained in the scriptures, from this very circumstance we
infer that thing not to be necessary to salvation; and
whenever it is evident, that any sentiment cannot be refuted
by the Scriptures, we judge from this that it is not
heretical. When, therefore, the Papists sedulously attempt to
destroy the whole perfection of Scripture by specimens of
articles, which they call necessary, but which are not proved
from Scripture, and by those which they consider heretical
but which are not confuted from Scripture the sole result of
their endeavours is, that we cannot conclude with any
certainty the former to be necessary and the latter
heretical.
XXV. In the mean time we do not deny, that the apostles
delivered to the churches some things which related to the
external discipline, order and rites to be observed in them,
and which have not been written, or at least are not
comprehended in those of their books which we call
"Canonical." (1 Cor. xi, 34) But those things do not concern
the substance of saving doctrine; and are neither necessary
to salvation, perpetual, immutable, nor universal, but
accommodated to the existing state and circumstances of the
church.
XXVI. We likewise confess, that individual churches, or great
numbers, or even all of them, if they can agree together in
unity, may frame certain ritual Canons relative to their
mutual order and decorum, (1 Cor. xiv, 40,) and to the
discharge of those functions which minister to edification;
provided those rites be neither contrary to the written word,
superstitious, nor difficult of observance in consequence of
being numerous and burdensome. (Col. ii, 8; Acts xv, 10, 28.)
This proviso is needful to prevent those rites from being
considered as a part of Divine worship, or from becoming
prejudicial to the liberty of the church, whose equitable
"power" in abrogating, changing, or amplifying them, is
always subservient to "edification and not to destruction."
(1 Cor. xiv, 5, 26; 2 Cor. xiii, 10.) In this sense we admit
the distinction of Traditions into Written and Unwritten,
Apostolical and Ecclesiastical; and we call those men
"violators of order," (2 Thess. iii, 6; 1 Cor. xiv, 32, 33,)
who oppose ecclesiastical canons that are constituted in this
manner, or exclaim against them by their own private
authority.
DISPUTATION 3
ON THE SUFFICIENCY AND PERFECTION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IN
OPPOSITION TO HUMAN TRADITIONS
RESPONDENT: DE COIGNEE
Because the Papists contend for unwritten traditions, against
the entire perfection of Scripture, as if it were for every
thing sacred and dear to them. that they may be able to
obtrude, on mankind, many dogmas, which, even by their own
confession, are not comprised in the Scriptures, and to
assume to themselves an irrefragible authority in the church;
it seems, that we shall not spend our time unprofitably, if,
in a few Theses, we discuss in the fear of God what ought to
be maintained on the subject of Divine traditions and on the
opinion of the Papists.
I. The word "Tradition," according to its derivation,
signifies the act of delivering; but having been enlarged
through usage to denote the object about which the act is
occupied, it also signifies the doctrine itself that is
delivered. We ascribe this epithet, in either or both of its
senses, to a Divine acceptation, on account of its cause
which is God, to distinguish it from that which is human. (1
Cor. ii, 12, 13.) And we say, "That is excellently Divine
which is such at the same time in its act and in its object."
We define it, Divine doctrine, manifested by a Divine act,
with less excellence, by men; because, however Divine it is
in its object, still it is human in the act of tradition. (2
Pet. i, 21.) The apostle Paul had regard to this when he
said, "As a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation,
and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how
he buildeth thereupon." (1 Cor. iii, 10.) And St. Peter,
when he said, "if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles
of God." (1 Pet. iv, 11.)
II. Divine tradition, both with respect to its object and to
its act, is variously distributed. In regard to its object.
(1.) According to the actions which it requires to be
performed to itself by men, we distinguish it into that which
is of Faith, (1 John v, 13,) and to which we add hope, and
into that which relates to morals. In the first, it is
offered as an object to be believed, in the other as one to
be performed. (Luke xxiv, 27; Mark i, 15; Matt. xxi, 22, 23;
ix, 13.) (2.) From the adjuncts of the act required, we call
one act necessary to righteousness and salvation, while
another is supplementary to that which is necessary. (Heb.
ix, 10.) (3.) From the duration of time, we call one
perpetual and immutable, another temporary and subject to
change according to the appointment of its author. (John iv,
21-23.) (4.) According to its extent, we call one universal,
which binds all believers either those of all ages of the
world, or those who exist at the same time; and another
particular, which has reference to certain persons whether
they be many or few, such as that which respects the legal
ceremonies and the Levitical priesthood. (Rom. 2,:26, 27.)
III. Tradition is distinguished, in regard to the act. (1.)
From its subject, into internal and external. An internal one
is that which is made to the mind by the illumination and
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (Isa. lix, 21; with Ephes. i,
17-21.) To this we likewise refer that which is made to the
internal senses, by sensible images formed in the inward
receptacle of images. (1 Cor. ii, 10.) An external tradition
is that which is made by means of signs presented to the
external senses; among these the principal place is occupied
by the word, in the delivery of which, two methods are
employed, an enunciation made by oral speech and writing.
(Rom. x, 17; 1 Cor. i, 28; 2 Thess. ii, 13-14; Gen. iii, 9-
19; xii, 1-3; Ezek. ii, 5; v, 1-3. (2.) From its causes, into
immediate and mediate. An immediate one is that which
proceeds from God, without the intervention of man. Let
permission also be granted, to us, for the sake of greater
convenience of doctrine, to reckon under immediate tradition
that which is made by angels, lest we be compelled to
introduce many mediate traditions subordinate to each other.
A mediate act of tradition is that which is performed by God,
as the chief author, through the hands of a man peculiarly
sanctified for its execution. (3.) According to its dignity
and authority, it may be distributed into primary and
secondary; so that the primary may be one, transacted indeed
by man, but by a man so instructed and governed by the
inspiration and direction of the Holy Spirit, (2 Sam. xxiii,
2, 3,) that "it may not be he himself that speaks, but the
Spirit of the Father that is in him;" (Matt. x, 20;) that he
may not himself be the crier, but the voice of God crying;"
not himself the Scribe, but the amanuensis of the Holy
Spirit. (2 Tim. iii, 16; 2 Pet. i, 21.) The secondary is that
which is indeed according to the appointment of God, but by
the will of man who administers the act of tradition at his
own option. (1 Pet. iv, 11.)
IV. Internal tradition is always and absolutely necessary to
the salvation of men. For in no way, except by a revelation
and an inward sealing of the Holy Spirit, (2 Cor. i, 20-22)
can any man perceive, and by an assured faith apprehend the
mind of God, however it may be manifested and confirmed by
external signs. (1 Cor. ii, 10-16.) External tradition is
necessary through the pleasure of the Divine will, whether we
consider that will universally; for without it he can
abundantly instruct the mind of man. (1 Cor. 3,:7-10; 2 Cor.
iv, 6.) Or whether we consider it according to special modes;
for it is sometimes delivered by the pronunciation of lively
sounds, and at other times by writing, and at times by both
methods, according to his own good pleasure, and which of
them soever he has seen proper to employ. (1 Cor. v, 9; Exod.
24,:7; 2 Thess. ii, 13, 14; Luke xvi, 27-31.) It is, from
this very circumstance, necessary to men; and from it the
inconclusiveness of this argument is apparent, "Because God
formerly instructed his own church without the Scriptures by
the words which he spoke himself, therefore, the Scriptures
are now unnecessary."
V. Though all the doctrines delivered by God, either from his
own lips or in writing, possess Divine authority; yet we may
distinguish between them, and may, according to certain
respects, claim a greater authority for one than for another.
(1.) The efficient cause makes the principal difference. For
whatever doctrine it wills more, [than any other,] it makes
that doctrine be of greater authority. Thus it is said, "I
will have mercy, and not sacrifice." (Matt. ix, 13.) (2.) The
condition of him who administers the doctrine, obtains for it
a greater or a less degree of authority. "For if the word
spoken by angels, was steadfast," etc, how much more is the
doctrine which is announced to us by the Son? (Heb. ii, 2-5.)
(3.) The object of the doctrine produces the same effect.
For, according to it, some precepts are called "the weightier
matters of the law," (Matt. xxiii, 23,) while others are
called "the least commandments" (Matt. v, 19;) and thus the
precepts of the second table yield to those of the first.
(Luke xiv, 26.) In this view the Apostle said, "This is a
faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation," in which
expression let the emphatic word be observed, "that Christ
Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am
chief." (1 Tim. i, 15.) (4.) The nearer and more leading
tendency which any doctrine has to the end proposed by the
whole, the greater prevalence and authority does it possess.
"If the ministration of death and of condemnation is
glorious, how much more doth the ministration of life and
righteousness exceed in glory!" (2 Cor. iii, 9.) (5.) The
very mode of delivery adds weight to the authority. For, lest
that should escape which had before been delivered only in
words, the author himself commits it to writing, and thus,
when by a double act, it is entrusted to the memory of
others, he points it out in a manner far more excellent, than
if he had been content to recommend it solely by pronouncing
it in words. (2 Pet. iii, 1, 2.) And here let the hypothesis
be observed, in which it is presupposed that the matter had
been delivered partly by speaking and by writing, and partly
by speaking alone. The more frequent and solicitous
recommendation of the written doctrine serves to strengthen
this argument. (Deut. xvii, 19; 1 Tim. iv, 13; 2 Pet. i, 19.)
VI. Having given this exposition of the subject, let us
proceed with the controversy which we have with the Papists,
and pass upon it a few brief animadversions. It seems to be
comprehended in these three questions. (1.) Is every doctrine
already delivered, which has been, is now, or ever will be
necessary to the salvation of the church? Does any thing of
this kind yet remain to be delivered? And if it has been
really delivered, when was that done? (2.) In what are those
doctrines contained which it is necessary for the church to
believe and practice in order to be saved? Are they in the
Scriptures alone; or partly in the Scriptures, and partly in
unwritten traditions from their first author? (3.) How can it
be made evident with certainty to the consciences of
believers, that any particular doctrine is Divine?
VII. With regard to the First question, our opinion is, that
all the doctrines necessary for the salvation of the Church
Universal, have been already delivered, above fifteen hundred
years ago; and that no tradition has been made of any new
doctrine that is necessary for the salvation of believers,
since the days of the apostles. We establish our opinion by
the following arguments: (1.) Because in Christ, and in his
Gospel, "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge." (Col. ii, 3.) But the apostles have perfectly
announced Christ and his Gospel; (Acts xx, 26, 27;) so that
an anathema is pronounced on him who preaches any other
gospel than that which the apostles have preached and the
churches have received. (Gal. i, 8, 9.) But that man preaches
another gospel, who adds any thing to it as being necessary
to the salvation of believers. (2.) Because the whole "church
has been built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets." (Ephes. ii, 20; Rev. xxi, 14.) This is not true,
if there be a doctrine necessary to the salvation of any
church, which has not been revealed through the prophets and
apostles. (3.) Because the whole Catholic Church is one body,
consisting of particular churches that possess the same
nature and principles as the whole; and this Church is
animated by one spirit, and led into all truth, and being
called into one hope of the same inheritance, it has "one
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all"
(Ephes. iv, 4, 6,) and sealed into "the communion of the same
body and blood of the Lord," by a participation of one cup
and bread. (1 Cor. x, 16, 17.) (4.) Because "Jesus Christ is
the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever." Whence the
apostle infers, that it is wrong for the Church to be
"carried about with divers and strange doctrines." (Heb.
xiii, 8,-9.)
VIII. Though some of the Popish divines profess to assent to
this truth, yet indications sufficiently manifest of their
dissent from it are extant in their writings, especially in
those of the Canonists. In the first place, the epithets of
Universal Bishop, Supreme Pastor, Prime Head, Bridegroom, the
Perfecter and Illuminator of the Catholic Church his Bride,
which are ascribed to the Roman Pontiff, do not admit of this
limitation of tradition. Then, the authority of governing,
commanding and forbidding, of establishing and abrogating
laws, of judging and condemning, and of loosing and binding,
an immense and infinite authority, which is not merely
attributed to him, but is actually assumed and exercised by
him, excludes the same kind of circumscription. To which may
be added the Decree, by which it is decided to be necessary
for salvation, that every human creature be placed in
subjection to the Roman Pontiff; and that, by which authentic
authority is ascribed to the ancient Latin translation of the
Scriptures. But, not to multiply instances, we hold it for a
general argument of this dissension, that they dare not enter
into an exact enumeration of unwritten traditions, and fix
the number of them; they avoid this, that they may reserve to
themselves the power of producing tradition in any
controversy. Some of them, therefore, assert, that other
doctrines are necessary according to the different states of
the Church.
IX. But we most willingly confess, that the tradition which
we call secondary will continue in the Church to the end of
the world; for by it the doctrines which have, through the
prophets and apostles, been committed to her, are by her,
further dispensed to her children. For this reason, the
Church is called "the pillar and ground of the truth," (1
Tim. iii, 15,) but only secondarily after the apostles, who,
on account of the primary tradition, are distinguished by the
title of "pillars," (Gal. ii, 9,) and "foundations," (Rev.
xxi, 14,) before those epithets were bestowed on the church.
X. With regard to the Second question, [§ 6,] we say that the
canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament perfectly
contain all doctrines which are necessary to the salvation of
believers and the glory of God. This is manifest, (1.) From
express testimonies of Scripture, [see Disputation 2, Thesis
19,] forbidding any addition to be made to those things which
have been commanded, and commanding that "no man be wise
above what is written," (1 Cor. iv, 6,) though in the former
of these, it is evident from the text that Moses is speaking
about those precepts which were comprised in writing. (2.)
From the very substance of the doctrines; and this in various
ways. The scriptures contain in a complete form the doctrine
of the Law and of the Gospel; they also perfectly embrace the
doctrine of faith, hope and charity. They deliver the full
knowledge of God and of Christ, in which is placed life
eternal. They are called, and truly so, "the Scriptures of
the Old and New Testament;" but to a testament nothing ought
to be added. (3.) From the end at which they aim and which
they attain. "These things are written, that ye may believe;
and that, believing, ye may have life." (John xx, 31.)
"Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal
life." (v, 39.) (4.) From their efficacy; because, without
[the aid of] any other doctrine, they sufficiently hinder any
man from going into the place of torment, (Luke xvi, 28, 29;)
and they render "the man of God wise unto salvation through
faith, and thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim.
iii, 15-17.) (5.) From the manner of speech usually employed
in the Scriptures, by which "the prophets" are understood to
mean the writings of the prophets, "the prophets" and "the
word of prophecy" signify the prophecies of Scripture. (2
Pet. i, 19-21.) What God said and did is ascribed to the
Scriptures: thus, For the Scriptures saith unto Pharaoh;"
(Rom. ix, 17;) "the Scripture, foreseeing, &c., preached
before the gospel unto Abraham;' (Gal. iii, 8;) "the
Scripture hath concluded all under sin." (iii, 22.)
XI. The Papists assert, on the contrary, that all things
necessary to salvation are not contained in the Scriptures;
but partly in the Scriptures, and partly in unwritten
traditions. This their opinion they endeavour to establish,
not only by the Scriptures themselves, but by the testimonies
of Popes, Councils, and Fathers, nay, by certain examples
which they produce of necessary doctrines which are not
comprehended within the limits of Scripture. As we shall
examine the strength of each of these arguments separately in
the discussion which we have now commenced, we may remark by
way of anticipation, that the passages of Scripture which
they usually quote for this purpose, are either forcibly
wrested from their correct signification, or do not determine
the proposition; that the testimonies of Popes, Councils, and
Fathers, being those of mere men, do not operate to our
prejudice; that the instances which they adduce are either
confirmed from the Scriptures, or are not necessary to
salvation. This separation we consider of such necessity,
that when it is once granted that they are necessary to
salvation, it follows that they can and that they must be
confirmed by the Scriptures; and when it is granted that they
cannot be confirmed by the Scriptures, it follows that they
are not necessary to salvation. So immovable and certain is
this truth to our minds, that all doctrines necessary to
salvation are contained in the Scriptures.
XII. To the Third question, [§ 5,] we reply: As one Delivery
of Divine doctrine is primary, and another secondary; so
likewise one Attestation [witnessing] respecting the divinity
of the doctrine is primary, while another is secondary. (John
v, 36, 37; 1 John v, 7.) The Primary attestation is that of
God himself, to whom it appertains properly, originally, and
per se to bear witness to his own doctrine. But he employs a
two-fold mode of bearing witness: one external, which is
presented to the senses of those to whom the doctrine is
proposed, (John iii, 2; Heb. ii, 4; 1 Cor. i, 6-8,) and is a
preparative for creating faith in the doctrine, even when
this doctrine is not understood. Another internal, which
impresses on the mind a true understanding of the doctrine,
and an undoubted approval of it, which is the necessary,
proper and immediate cause of that faith which God requires
to be given to his word, and which alone is saving. The
Secondary attestation is that of the Church. For having been
herself certified, by means of the primary attestation,
(which is that of God,) of the divinity of this doctrine, she
both gives her hand and seal as a witness that God is true,
(John iii, 33,) and she bears her testimony to the doctrine
received from the God of truth. This testimony is pleasing to
God, due to the doctrine, honourable to the church, and
useful to men. (1 John v, 9; John v, 34-36.) But it is to be
observed, that this testimony of the church is human and not
Divine, and is less than the preceding, which is potent only
in preparing the hearts, by a sort of reverence that it
obtains for the doctrine, that the hearts so prepared may
with sincerity, by the internal witnessing of God, yield
their assent to it. (John xv, 26, 27.) Under that part of the
Primary testimony which is external, we comprise the
testimony of prophets, apostles, evangelists, pastors, and
teachers, who are "workers together with God," provided they
have been immediately called [by God himself.] But we refer
it to the Secondary testimony, if they have been called
mediately by the church. The Papists, who ascribe less to the
internal attestation, and more to that which is secondary,
than what we have explained, are deservedly rejected by us.
XIII. Having explained these matters, we grant, that the
apostles delivered to the churches some things relating to
order, decency, and the rights to be observed in them, which
they did not commit to writing, (1 Cor. xi, 34;) but those
things do not concern the substance either of the Law or the
Gospel, are not necessary to salvation, are neither
immutable, perpetual, nor universal, but are accommodated to
the existing condition of the church, and the circumstances
in which she is placed. We further grant, that either single
churches, or many by mutual consent, or that all churches
provided they could so agree, may frame certain ritual canons
for their good order and decency, and for such direction in
those duties which must of necessity be performed in them, as
may contribute to their present edification. (1 Cor. xiv,
40.) But these conditions must be observed respecting them:
(1.) That these rites be not repugnant to the Written Word.
(Col. ii, 18-23.) (2.) That they neither have superstition
intermixed with them, nor encourage it. (3.) That they
neither be accounted as divine worship, nor cast a snare upon
consciences. (4.) That they be neither more numerous, nor
more burdensome in practice, than may render them easy of
observance. (Acts xv, 10, 28.) (5.) That the church do not
deprive herself of the liberty of changing, adding, or taking
away, as she shall consider her present edification to
require. Such rites as these being usefully established in a
church, it is unlawful for any one, of his own private
authority, to gainsay or attack them, unless he be ambitious
of having his name emblazoned in the list of disorderly
persons, and among the disturbers of the peace of church. (1
Cor. xiv, 32, 33; 2 Thess. iii, 6.)
DISPUTATION 4
ON THE NATURE OF GOD
RESPONDENT: JAMES ARMINIUS -- WHEN HE STOOD FOR HIS DEGREE OF
D. D.
I. The very nature of things and the Scriptures of God, as
well as the general consent of all wise men and nations,
testify that a nature is correctly ascribed to God. (Gal. iv,
8; 2 Pet. i, 4; Aristot. De Repub. 1. 7, c. 1; Cicero De Nat.
Deor.)
II. This nature cannot be known a priori: for it is the first
of all things, and was alone, for infinite ages, before all
things. It is adequately known only by God, and God by it;
because God is the same as it is. It is in some slight
measure known by us, but in a degree infinitely below what it
is [in] itself; because we are from it by an external
emanation. (Isa. xliv, 6; Rev. i, 8; 1 Cor. ii, 11; 1 Tim.
vi, 16; 1 Cor. xiii, 9.)
III. But this nature is known by us, either immediately
through the unclouded vision of it as it is. This is called
"face to face," (1 Cor. xiii, 12,) and is peculiar to the
blessed in heaven: (1 John iii, 2.) Or mediately through
analogical images and signs, which are not only the external
acts of God and his works through them, (Psalm xix, 1-8; Rom.
i, 20,) but likewise his word, (Rom. x, 14-17,) which, in
that part in which it proposes Christ, "who is the Image of
the Invisible God," (Col. i, 15,) as "the brightness of his
glory, and the express image of his person," (Heb. i, 3,)
gives such a further increase to our knowledge, that "we all,
with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord,
are changed into the same image from glory to glory." (2 Cor.
iii, 18.) This is called "through a glass in an enigma," or
"darkly," and applies exclusively to travelers and pilgrims
who "are absent from the Lord." (2 Cor. v, 6; Exod. xxxiii,
20.)
IV. But there are two modes of this second perception from
the works and the word of God. The First is that of
Affirmation, (which is also styled by Thomas Aquinas, "the
mode of Causality and by the habitude of the principle,")
according to which the simple perfections which are in the
creatures, as being the productions of God, are attributed
analogically to God according to some similitude. (Psalm
xciv, 9, 10; Matt. vii, 11; Isa. xlix, 15.) The Second is
that of Negation or Removal, according to which the relative
perfections and all the imperfections which appertain to the
creatures, as having been produced out of nothing, are
removed from God. (Isa. iv, 8, 9; 1 Cor. i, 25.) To the mode
of Affirmation, (because it is through the habitude of the
cause and principle, to the excellence of which no effect
ever rises,) that of Pre-eminence must be added, according to
which the perfections that are predicated of the creatures
are understood [to be] infinitely more perfect in God. (Isa.
xl, 15, 17, 22, 25.) Though this mode be affirmative and
positive in itself, (for as the nature of God necessarily
exists, so it is necessarily known,) in positively and not in
negation; yet it cannot be enunciated or expressed by us,
except through a Negation of those modes according to which
the creatures are partakers of their own perfections, or the
perfections in creatures are circumscribed. Those modes,
being added to the perfections of the creatures, produce this
effect, that those which, considered without them, were
simple perfections, are relative perfections, and by that
very circumstance are to be removed from God. Hence it
appears, that the mode of Pre-eminence does not differ in
species from the mode of Affirmation and Negation.
V. Besides, in the entire nature of things and in the
Scriptures themselves, only two substances are found, in
which is contained every perfection of things. They are
Essence and Life, the former of them constituting the
perfection of all existing creatures; the latter, that of
only some them, and those the most perfect. (Gen. 1; Psalm
civ, 29, 148; Acts xvii, 28.) Beyond these two the human mind
cannot possibly comprehend any substance, indeed, it cannot
raise its conceptions to any other: for it is itself
circumscribed within the limits of created nature, of which
it forms a part; it is therefore incapable of passing beyond
the circle which encloses the whole. (Rev. i, 8; iv, 8; Dan.
vi, 46.) Wherefore in the nature of God himself, only these
two causes of motion, Essence and Life, can become objects of
our consideration.
LET THE FOLLOWING BE OUR PROBLEMS
Have a corporeal Essence, and a vegetative and sensitive
Life, any analogy to the Essence and Life of God, though such
analogy be less than a spiritual Essence and an intellectual
Life?
If they have this analogy, how are body and senses removed
simply from God?
If they have not this analogy, how has God been able to
produce this kind of Essence and Life?
VI. But in God both these are to be considered in the mode of
Pre-eminence, that is, in excellence far surpassing the
Essence and Life of all the creatures. (Psalm cii, 27; 1 Tim.
vi, 16.)
THE ESSENCE OF GOD
VII. The Essence of God is that by which God exists; or it is
the first cause of motion of the Divine Nature by which God
is understood to exist.
VIII. Because every Essence, which is either in the superior
or in the inferior nature of things, is distributed into
spiritual and corporeal, (Col. i, 16;) of which, the former
notes simply perfection, the latter a defection or defect
from this perfection. On this account we separate corporeal
Essence from God according to the mode of removal, and at the
same time all those things which belong to a corporeal
Essence as such, whether it be simple or compound -- such as
magnitude, figure, place, or parts, whether sensible or
imaginable. Whence also He cannot be perceived by the
corporeal senses, either by those which are external or by
the internal, since he is invisible, intactable, and
incapable of being represented. (Deut. iv, 14; 1 Kings viii,
1 Luke xxiv, 39; John iv, 24; 1 Tim. i, 17.) But we ascribe
to Him a spiritual Essence, and that in the mode of
preeminence, as "the Father of Spirits." (Heb. xii, 9.)
Therefore,
(1.) We reject the dogma of the Anthropo-morphites, [those
who maintained that "the uncorruptable God" had a form or
body "like to corruptible man,"] and the intolerable custom
of the Papists, which they constantly practice, in fashioning
a [supposed] likeness of God's Essence. (Deut. iv, 15, 16;
Rom. i, 23; Isa. xl, 18; Acts xvii, 29.)
(2.) When bodily members are attributed in the Scriptures to
God, that is done on account of the simplicity of those
effects, which the creatures themselves usually produce only
by the aid and operation of those members.
IX. As we ought to enunciate negatively the mode by which the
Essence of God pre-eminetly both is and is spiritual, above
the excellence of all Essences, even of those which are
spiritual; so this may be done first and immediately in a
single phrase, "he is, anarcov kai anaitiov without beginning
and without cause either external or internal." (Isa. xliii,
10; xliv, 8, xxiv, ; xlvi, 9; Rev. i, 8; Rom. xi, 35, 36; 1
Cor. viii, 4-6; Rom. ix, 5.) For since there cannot be any
advancement in infinitum, (for if there could, there would be
no Essence, no Knowledge,) there must be one Essence, above
and before which no other can exist: but such an Essence must
that of God be; for, to whatsoever this Essence may be
attributed, it will by that very act of ascription be God
himself.
X. Because the Essence of God is devoid of all cause, from
this circumstance arise, in the first place, Simplicity and
Infinity of Being in the Essence of God.
XI. Simplicity is a preeminent mode of the Essence of God, by
which he is void of all composition, and of component parts
whether they belong to the senses or to the understanding. He
is without composition, because without external cause; and
He is without component parts, because without internal
cause. (Rom. xi, 35, 36; Heb. 2,:10; Isa. xl, 12, 22.) The
Essence of God, therefore, neither consists of material,
integral and quantitive parts, of matter and form, of kind
and difference, of subject and accident, nor of form and the
thing formed, (for it is to itself a form, existing by itself
and its own individuality,) neither hypothetically and
through nature, through capability and actuality, nor through
essence and being. Hence God is his own Essence and his own
Being, and is the same in that which is, and that by which it
is. He is all eye, ear, hand and foot, because he entirely
sees, hears, works, and is in every place. (Psalm cxxxix, 8-
12.) THEREFORE,
Whatever is absolutely predicated about God, it is understood
essentially and not accidentally; and those things, (whether
many or diverse,) which are predicated concerning God, are,
in God, not many but one: (James i, 17.) It is only in our
mode of considering them, which is a compound mode, that they
are distinguished as being many and diverse; though this may,
not inappropriately, be said, because they are likewise
distinguished by a formal reason.
XII. Infinity of Being is a preeminent mode of the Essence of
God, by which it is devoid of all limitation and boundary,
(Psalm cxlv, 3; Isa. xliii, 10,) whether from something above
it or below it, from something before it or after it. It is
not bounded by anything above it, because it has received its
being from no one. Nor by anything below it, because the
form, which is itself, is not limited to the capacity of any
matter whatsoever that may be its recipient. Neither by any
thing before it, because it is from nothing efficient: nor
after it, because it does not exist for the sake of another
end. But, His Essence is terminated inwardly by its own
property, according to which it is what it is and nothing
else. Yet by this no limits are prescribed to its Infinity;
for by the very circumstance, that it is its own being,
subsisting through itself, neither received from another nor
in another, it is distinguished, from all others, and others
are removed from it. (Isa. xliv, 9; Rom. xi, 36; Prov. xvi,
4.) THEREFORE,
Whatsoever is predicated absolutely about God, is predicated
concerning Him immediately, primarily, and without [respect
to] cause.
XIII. From the Simplicity and Infinity of the Divine sense,
arise Infinity with regard to time, which is called
"Eternity;" and with regard to place, which is called
"Immensity;" Impassability, Immutability, and
Incorruptibility.
XIV. Eternity is a pre-eminent mode of the Essence of God, by
which it is devoid of time with regard to the term or limits
of beginning and end, because it is of infinite being; it is
also devoid of time with regard to the succession of former
and latter, of past and future, because it is of simple
being, which is never in capability, but always in act, (Gen.
xxi, 33; Psalm xc, 9; Isa. xliv, 6; 2 Tim. i, 9.) According
to this mode, therefore, the Being of God is always the
universal, the whole, the plentitude of his essence, closely,
fixedly, and at every instant present with it, resembling a
moment which is also devoid of intelligible parts, and never
flows onward progressively, but always continues within
itself. It will be lawful, therefore, for us, with Boetius,
to define Eternity in the following manner, after changing,
by his good leave, the word Life into that of Essence: "It is
an interminable, entire and at the same time, a perfect
possession of Essence. But it seems that I may by some sort
of right require this change to be made, because Essence
comes to be considered in the first moving cause of the
Divine Nature, before Life; and because Eternity does not
belong to Essence through Life, but to Life through Essence.
THEREFORE,
Whatsoever things are predicated absolutely concerning God,
they belong to Him from all eternity and all together. It is
certain that those things which do not from all eternity
belong to Him, are predicated about Him not absolutely, but
in reference to the creatures, such as, "He is the Creator,
the Lord, the Judge of all men."
XV. Immensity is a pre-eminent mode of the Essence of God, by
which it is void of place according to space and limits:
being co-extended space, because it belongs to simple entity,
not having part and part, therefore not having part beyond
part. Being also its own encircling limits, or beyond which
it has no existence, because it is of infinite entity: and,
before all things, God alone was both the world, and place,
and all things to himself; but He was alone, because there
was nothing outwardly beyond, except himself. (l Kings viii,
27; Job xi, 8, 9.)
XVI. After creatures, and places in which creatures are
contained, have been granted to have an existence, from this
Immensity follows the Omnipresence or Ubiquity of the Essence
of God, according to which it is entirely wheresoever any
creature or any place is, and this in exact similarity to a
[mathematical] point, which is totally present to the entire
circumference, and to each of its parts, and yet without
circumscription. If there be any difference, it arises, from
the Will, the Ability and the Act of God. (Psalm cxxxix, 8-
12; Isa. lxvi, 1; Jer. xxiii, 24; Acts xvii, 27, 28.)
XVII. Impassability is a pre-eminent mode of the Essence of
God, according to which it is devoid of all suffering or
feeling; not only because nothing can act against this
Essence, for it is of infinite Being and devoid of an
external cause; but likewise because it cannot receive the
act of anything, for it is of simple Entity. THEREFORE,
Christ has not suffered according to the Essence of his
Deity.
XVIII. Immutability is a pre-eminent mode of the Essence of
God, by which it is void of all change; of being transferred
from place to place, because it is itself its own end and
good, and because it is immense; of generation and
corruption; of alteration; of increase and decrease; for the
same reason as that by which it is incapable of suffering.
(Psalm cii, 27; Mal. iii, 6; James i, 17.) Whence likewise,
in the Scriptures, Incorruptibility is attributed to God.
Nay, even motion cannot happen to Him through operation; for
it appertains to God, and to Him alone, to be at rest in
operation. (Rom. i, 23; Isa. xl, 28.)
XIX. These modes of the Essence of God belong so peculiarly
to Him, as to render them incapable of being communicated to
any other thing; and of whatever kind these modes may be,
they are, according to themselves, as proper to God as His
Essence itself, without which they cannot be communicated,
unless we wish to destroy it after despoiling it of its
peculiar modes of being; and according to analogy, they are
more peculiar to Him than his Essence, because they are pre-
eminent, for nothing can be analogous to them. THEREFORE,
Christ, according to his humanity, is not in every place.
XX. Since Unity and Good are the general affections of Being,
the same are also to be attributed to God, but with the mode
of pre-eminence, according to the measure of the Simplicity
and Infinity of his Essence. (Gen. i, 31; Matt. xix, 17.)
XXI. The Unity of the Essence of God is that according to
which it is in every possible way so at one in itself, as to
be altogether indivisible with regard to number, species,
genus, parts, modes, &c. (Deut. iv, 35; 1 Cor. viii)
XXII. It appertains also to the Essence of God, to be
divided from every other thing: and to be incapable of
entering into the composition of any other thing: while some
persons ascribe this property to the Simplicity and others to
the Unity of God's Essence, several attribute it to both. But
on reading the Scriptures, we find that Holiness is
frequently ascribed to God, which usually designates a
separation or setting apart; on this account, perhaps, that
very thing by which God is thus divided from others, may,
without any impropriety, be called by the name of Holiness.
(Josh. xxiv, 19; Isa. vi, 3; Gen. ii, 3; Exod. xiii, 2; 1
Pet. ii, 2-9; 1 Thess. v, 23.) THEREFORE,
God is neither the soul of the world, nor the form of the
universe; He is neither an inherent form, nor a bodily one.
XXIII. The Goodness of the Essence of God is that according
to which it is, essentially in itself, the Supreme and very
Good; from a participation in which all other things have an
existence and are good; and to which all other things are to
be referred as to their supreme end: for this reason it is
called communicable. (Matt. xix, 17; Jas. i, 17; 1 Cor. x,
31.)
XXIV. These modes and affections are so primarily attributed
to the Essence of God, that they ought to be deduced through
all the rest of those things which come under our
consideration in the latter momentum of the Divine Nature. If
this deduction be made, especially through those things which
appertain to the operation of God, then the most abundant
utility will redound to us from them and from our knowledge
of them. This benefit, however, they will not perform for us,
if they be made subjects of consideration only in this
momentum in the Divine Nature. (Mal. iii, 6; Num. xxiii, 19;
Lament. iii, 22; Hosea xi, 9.)
ON THE LIFE OF GOD
XXV. The Life of God, which comes to be considered under the
second [momentum] cause of motion in the Divine Nature, is an
act flowing from the Essence of God, by which his Essence is
signified to be in action within itself. (Psalm xlii, 2; Heb.
iii, 12; Num. xiv, 21.)
XXVI. We call it "an act flowing from his essence;" because,
as our understanding forms a conception of essence and life
in the nature of God under distinct forms, and of the essence
as having precedence of the life; we must beware lest the
life be conceived as an act approaching to the essence
similar to unity, which, when added to unity, makes it binary
or two-fold. But it must be conceived as an act flowing from
the essence, which advances itself to its own perfection, in
the same manner as a [mathematical] point by its flowing
moves itself forward in length, [§ 14.] It is our wish, that
these things be understood only by the confined capacity of
our consideration, who are compelled to use the words of our
darkness, in order in any degree to adumbrate or represent
that light to which no mortal can approach.
XXVII. We say "that the Divine Essence is in action by means
of the life;" because the acts of God, the internal as well
as the external, those which are directed inwards and those
directed outwards, must all be ascribed to His life as to
their proximate and immediate principle. (Heb. iv, 12.) For
it is in reference to his life, that God the Father produces
out of his own essence his Word and his Spirit; and in
reference to his life, God understands, wills, is able to do,
and does, all those things which He understands, wills, is
able to do, and actually does. Hence, since blessedness
consists in action, it is with propriety ascribed to life. (1
Tim. i, 11; Rom. vi, 23.) This also seems to be the cause why
it was the will of God, that his oath should be expressed in
these words, "THE LORD LIVETH." (Jer. iv, 2.)
XXVIII. The life of God is his essence itself, and his very
being; because the Divine Essence is in every respect simple,
as well as infinite, and therefore, eternal and immutable. On
this account, to it, and indeed to it alone, is attributed
immortality, which, therefore, cannot be communicated to any
creature. (1 Tim. i, 17; vi, 16.) It is immense, without
increase and decrease; it is one and undivided, holy and set
apart from all things; it is good, and therefore
communicable, and actually communicative of itself, both by
creation and preservation, and by habitation commenced in
this life, to be consummated in the life to come. (Gen. ii,
7; Acts xvii, 28; Rom. viii, 10, 11; 1 Cor. xv, 28.)
XXIX. But the life of God is active in three faculties, in
the understanding, the will, and the power or capability
properly so called. In the Understanding, inwardly
considering its object of what kind soever, whether it be one
[with it] or united to it in the act of understanding. In the
Will, inwardly willing its first, chief, and proper object;
and extrinsically willing the rest. In the Power, or
capability operating only extrinsically, which may be the
cause of its being called by the particular name of
capability, as being that which is capable of operating on
all its objects, before it actually operates.
ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOD
XXX. The understanding of God is a faculty of his life, which
is the first in nature as well as in order, and by which He
distinctly understands all things and every thing which now
have, will have, have had, can have, or might hypothetically
have, any kind of being; by which He likewise distinctly
understands the order which all and each of them hold among
themselves, the connections and the various relations which
they have or can have; not excluding even that entity which
belongs to reason, and which exists, or can exist, only in
the mind, imagination, and enunciation. (Rom. xi, 33.)
XXXI. God, therefore, understands himself. He knows all
things possible, whether they be in the capability of God or
of the creature; in active or passive capability; in the
capability of operation, imagination, or enunciation. He
knows all things that could have an existence, on laying down
any hypothesis. He knows other things than himself, those
which are necessary and contingent, good and bad, universal
and particular, future, present and past, excellent and vile.
He knows things substantial and accidental of every kind; the
actions and passions, the modes and circumstances of all
things; external words and deeds, internal thoughts,
deliberations, counsels, and determinations, and the entities
of reason, whether complex or simple. All these things, being
jointly attributed to the understanding of God, seem to
conduce to the conclusion, that God may deservedly be said to
know things infinite. (Acts xv, 18; Heb. iv, 13; Matt. xi,
27; Psalm cxlvii, 4; Isa. li, 32, 33; liv, 7; Matt. x, 30;
Psalm cxxxv, 1 John iii, 20; 1 Sam. xvi, 7; 1 Kings viii, 39;
Psalm xciv, 11; Isa. xl, 28; Psalm cxlvii, 5; 139; xciv, 9,
10; x, 13, 14.)
XXXII. All the things which God knows, he knows neither by
intelligible images, nor by similitude, (for it is not
necessary for Him to use abstraction and application for the
purpose of understanding;) but He knows them by his own
essence, and by this alone, with the exception of evil things
which he knows indirectly by the opposite good things; as,
through means of the habitude, privation is discovered.
Therefore,
(1.) God knows himself entirely and adequately. For He is all
being, light and eye. He also knows other things entirely;
but excellently, as they are in Himself and in his
understanding; adequately, as they are in their proper
natures. (1 Cor. ii, 11; Psalm xciv, 9, 10.)
(2.) He knows himself primarily; and it is impossible for
that which God understands first and by itself, to be any
other thing than his own essence.
(3.) The act of understanding in God is his own being and
essence.
XXXIII. The mode by which God understands, is not that which
is successive, and which is either through composition and
division, or through deductive argumentation; but it is
simple, and through infinite intuition. (Heb. iv, 13.)
THEREFORE,
(1.) God knows all things from eternity; nothing recently.
For this new perfection would add something to His essence by
which He understands all things; or his understanding would
exceed His essence, if he now understood what he did not
formerly understand. But this cannot happen, since he
understands all things through his essence. (Acts xv, 18;
Ephes. i, 4.)
(2.) He knows all things immeasurably, without the
augmentation and decrease of the things known and of the
knowledge itself. (Psalm cxlvii, 5.)
(3.) He knows all things immutably, his knowledge not being
varied to the infinite changes of the things known. (James i,
17)
(4.) By a single and undivided act, not being diverted
towards many things but collected into himself, He knows all
things. Yet he does not know them confusedly, or only
universally and in general; but also in a distinct and most
special manner He knows himself in himself, things in their
causes, in themselves, in his own essence, in themselves as
being present, in their causes antecedently, and in himself
most pre-eminently. (Heb. iv, 13; 1 Kings viii, 39; Psalm
cxxxix, 16, 17.)
(5.) And therefore when sleep, drowsiness and oblivion are
attributed to God, by these expressions is meant only a
deferring of the punishment to be inflicted on his enemies,
and a delay in affording solace and aid to his friends.
(Psalm xiii, 1, 2.)
XXXIV. Although by one, and that a simple act, God
understands all things, yet a certain order in the objects of
his knowledge may be assigned to Him without impropriety,
indeed, it ought to be for the sake of ourselves. (1.) He
knows himself. (2.) He knows all things possible, which may
be referred to three general classes. (i.) Let the first be
of those things to which the capability of God can
immediately extend itself, or which may exist by his mere and
sole act. (ii.) Let the second consist of those things which,
by God's preservation, motion, aid, concurrence and
permission, may have an existence from the creatures, whether
these creatures will themselves exist or not, and whether
they might be placed in this or in that order, or in infinite
orders of things; let it even consist of those things which
might have an existence from the creatures, if this or that
hypothesis were admitted. (1 Sam. xxiii, 11, 12; Matt. xi,
21.) (iii.) Let the third class be of those things which God
can do from the acts of the creatures, in accordance either
with himself or with his acts. (3.) He knows all beings,
whether they be considered as future, as past, or as present;
(Jer. xviii, 6; Isa. xliv, 7;) and of these there is also a
threefold order. The first order is of those beings which by
his own mere act shall exist, do exist, or have existed.
(Acts xv, 18.) The second is of those which will exist, do
exist, or have existed, by the intervention of the Creatures,
either by themselves, or through them by God's preservation,
motion, aid, concurrence and permission. (Psalm cxxxix, 4)
The third order consists of those which God will himself do
or make, does make, or hath made, from the acts of the
creatures, in accordance either with himself or with his
acts. (Deut. 28). This consideration is of infinite utility
in various heads of theological doctrine.
XXXV. God understands all things in a holy manner, regarding
things as they are, without any admixture. (Psalm ix, 8; 1
Thess. ii, 4.) On this account He is said to judge, not
according to the person or appearance and the face, but
according to truth. (Rom. ii, 2.)
XXXVI. The understanding of God is certain, and never can be
deceived, so that He certainly and infallibly sees even
future contingencies, whether He sees them in their causes or
in themselves. (1 Sam. xxiii, 11, 12; Matt. xi, 21.) But,
this certainty rests upon the infinity of the essence of God,
by which in a manner the most present He understands all
things.
XXXVII. The understanding of God is derived from no external
cause, not even from an object; though if there should not
afterwards be an object, there would not likewise be the
understanding of God about it. (Isa. xl, 13, 14; Rom. xi, 33,
34.)
XXXVIII. Though the understanding of God be certain and
infallible, yet it does not impose any necessity on things,
nay, it rather establishes in them a contingency. For since
it is an understanding not only of the thing itself, but
likewise of its mode, it must know the thing and its mode
such as they both are; and therefore if the mode of the thing
be contingent, it will know it to be contingent; which cannot
be done, if this mode of the thing be changed into a
necessary one, even solely by reason of the Divine
understanding. (Acts xxvii, 22-25, 31; xxiii, 11, in
connection with verses 17, 18, &c., with xxv, 10, 12; and
with xxvi, 32; Rom. xi, 33; Psalm cxlvii, 5.)
XXXIX. Since God distinctly understands such a variety of
things by one infinite intuition, Omniscience or All-Wisdom
is by a most deserved right attributed to Him. Yet this
omniscience is not to be considered in God according to the
mode of the habitude, but according to that of a most pure
act.
XL. But the single and most simple knowledge of God may be
distinguished by some modes, according to various objects and
the relations to those objects, into theoretical and
practical knowledge, into that of vision and of simple
intelligence.
XLI. Theoretical knowledge is that by which things are
understood under the relation of being and of truth.
Practical knowledge is that by which things are considered
under the relation of good, and as objects of the will and of
the power of God. (Isa. xlviii, 8; xxxvii, 28, xvi, 5.)
XLII. The knowledge of vision is that by which God knows
himself and all other beings, which are, will be, or have
been. The knowledge of simple intelligence is that by which
He knows things possible. Some persons call the former
"definite" or "determinate," and the latter "indefinite" or
"indeterminate" knowledge.
XLIII. The schoolmen say besides, that one kind of God's
knowledge is natural and necessary, another free, and a third
kind middle. (1.) Natural or necessary knowledge is that by
which God understands himself and all things possible. (2.)
Free knowledge is that by which he knows, all other beings.
(3.) Middle knowledge is that by which he knows that "if This
thing happens, That will take place." The first precedes
every free act of the Divine will; the second follows the
free act of God's will; and the last precedes indeed the free
act of the Divine will, but hypothetically from this act it
sees that some particular thing will occur. But, in
strictness of speech, every kind of God's knowledge is
necessary. For the free understanding of God does not arise
from this circumstance, that a free act of His will exhibits
or offers an object to the understanding; but when any object
whatsoever is laid down, the Divine understanding knows it
necessarily on account of the infinity of its own essence. In
like manner, any object whatsoever being laid down
hypothetically, God understands necessarily what will arise
from that object.
XLIV. Free knowledge is also called "foreknowledge," as is
likewise that of vision by which other beings are known; and
since it follows a free act of the will, it is not the cause
of things; it is, therefore, affirmed with truth concerning
it, that things do not exist because God knows them as about
to come into existence, but that He knows future things
because they are future.
XLV. That kind of God's knowledge which is called
"practical," "of simple intelligence," and "natural or
necessary," is the cause of all things through the mode of
prescribing and directing, to which is added the action of
the will and power; (Psalm civ, 24;) although that "middle"
kind of knowledge must intervene in things which depend on
the liberty of a created will.
XLVI. God's knowledge is so peculiarly his own, as to be
impossible to be communicated to any thing created, not even
to the soul of Christ; though we gladly confess, that Christ
knows all those things which are required for the discharge
of his office and for his perfect blessedness. (1 Kings viii,
39; Matt. xxiv, 36.)
ON THE WILL OF GOD
XLVII. By the expression "will of God" is signified properly
"the faculty itself of willing," but figuratively sometimes
"the act of willing," and at other times "the object willed."
(John vi, 39; Psalm cxv, 3.)
XLVIII. Not only a consideration of the essence and of the
understanding of God, but also the Scriptures and the
universal agreement of mankind, testify that a will is
correctly attributed to God.
XLIX. This is the second faculty in the life of God, [§ 29,]
which follows the Divine understanding and is produced from
it, and by which God is borne towards a known good. Towards a
good, because it is an adequate object of his will. And
towards a known good, because the Divine understanding is
previously borne towards it as a being, not only by knowing
it as it is a being, but likewise by judging it to be good.
Hence the act of the understanding is to offer it as a good,
to the will which is of the same nature as the understanding,
or rather, which is its own offspring, that it may also
discharge its office and act concerning this known good. But
God does not will the evil which is called that of
"culpability;" because He does not more will any good
connected with this evil than He wills the good to which the
malignity of sin is opposed, and which is the Divine good
itself. All the precepts of God demonstrate this in the most
convincing manner. (Psalm v, 4, 5.)
L. But Good is of two kinds -- the Chief Good itself, and
that which is different from it. (Matt. xix, 17; Gen. i, 31.)
The order which subsists between them is this: the latter
does not exist with the Chief Good, but has its existence
from it by the Understanding and the Will of God. (Rom. xi,
36.) Wherefore the Supreme Good is the primary, the choicest,
and the direct object of the Divine Will; that is, its own
infinite Essence, which was alone from all eternity, infinite
ages prior to the existence of another good; and therefore it
is the only good. (Prov. viii, 22-24.) On this account it may
also be denominated, without impropriety, the peculiar and
adequate object of the Divine Will. Since the Understanding
and the Will of God were, each by its own act, borne towards
this [Essence] they found such a plenitude of Being and
Goodness in it, that the Understanding gave its judgment for
commencing the communication of it outwards: and the Will
approved of this kind of communication, after that method;
whence the existence of a good, of what kind soever it was,
which was different from the Chief Good. It cannot,
therefore, be called an object of the Divine Will, except an
indirect one, which God wills on account of that Chief Good,
or rather He wills it to be on account of the Chief Good.
(Prov. xvi, 4,.) Therefore, The Will of God is the very
Essence of God, yet distinguished from it according to the
formal reason.
LI. The act by which the Will of God advances towards its
objects, is (1.) most simple: for as the Understanding of God
by a most simple act understands its own Essence, and,
through it, all other things; so the Will of God, by a single
and simple act, wills its own goodness, and all things in its
goodness. (Prov. xvi, 4.) Therefore, the multitude of things
willed is not repugnant to the simplicity of the Divine Will.
(Isa. xliii, 7; Ephes. i, 5-9.) (2.) This act is Infinite:
for it is moved to will, neither by an external cause, by any
other efficient, nor by an end, which is out of itself; it is
not moved even by any object which is not itself. (Deut. vii,
7; Matt. xi, 26.) Nay, the willing of the end is not the
cause of willing those things which are for the end; though
it wills those things which are for the end to be put in
order to that end. (Acts xvii, 25, 26; Psalm xvi, 9.) It is
no valid objection to this truth, that God would not will or
do some things unless some act of the creature intervened. (1
Sam. ii, 30.) (3.) It is Eternal; because nothing can de novo
either be or appear good to God. (4.) It is Immutable;
because that which has once either been or seemed good to
Him, both is and appears such to Him perpetually; and that by
which God is known to will any thing, is nothing else but
this, his immutable entity. (Mal. iii, 6; Rom. xi, 1.) (5.)
This act is likewise Holy: because God advances towards his
object only on account of its being good, not on account of
any other thing which is added to it; and only because his
Understanding accounts it good, not because feeling inclines
[him] towards it without right reason. (2 Tim. ii, 19; Rom.
ix, 11; 12, 4; Psalm cxix, 137.)
LII. As the simple and external act by which the Divine
Understanding knows all its objects, has not excluded order
from them; so likewise may we be allowed to assign a certain
order, according to which the simple and sole act of the will
of God is borne towards its objects: (1.) God wills his own
Essence and Goodness, that is, himself. (2.) He wills all
those things which, by the extreme judgment of his wisdom, He
hath determined to be made out of infinite beings possible to
himself. (Prov. xvi, 4.) And, First, He wills to make them.
Then, when they are made, He is affected towards them by his
Will, as they have some similitude to his nature. (Gen. i,
31; John xiv, 23.) (3.) The third object of the Divine Will
are those things which God judges it to be right that they
should be done by creatures endowed with understanding and
free-will: and his act of willing concerning these things is
signified by a precept, in which we likewise include the
prohibition of that which He wills not to be done by the same
creature. (Exod. xx, 1, 2, &c.; Micah vi, 8.) We allow it to
remain a matter of discussion, whether counsels can have a
place here, provided those things about which the
consultations are held be not considered as [things] of
supererogation. (4.) The fourth object of the Divine Will is
the Divine permission, by which God permits a rational
creature to do what He forbade, and to omit what he
commanded; and which consists of the suspension of an
efficacious impediment, not of one that is due and
sufficient. (Acts xiv, 16, 17; Psalm lxxxi, 13; Isa. v, 4)
(5.) The fifth object of the Divine Will are those things
which, according to his own infinite wisdom, God judges to be
done from the acts of rational creatures. (Isa. v, 5; 1 Sam.
ii, 30; Gen. xxii, 16, 17.)
LIII. But though nothing from without be the cause of God's
volition, yet, since he wills that there should be order in
things, (which order is placed principally in this, that some
things be the causes of others,) just so far as God's
volition is borne towards those objects, it is as if it were
the cause of itself as it is borne towards others: (Hosea ii,
21, 22.) Thus the cause why He wills the condemnation of any
one, this, because he wills the order of his justice to be
observed throughout the universe. (John vi, 40; Deut. vii,
8.) Neither do we therefore deny, but that an act of a
creature, or the omission of an act, may be thus far the
occasion or primary cause of a certain Divine volition, that,
without any consideration of that act or its omission, God
might set it aside by such a volition. (1 Sam. ii, 30; Jer.
xviii, 7, 8.)
LIV. Through his own Will, and by means of his Power, God is
the cause of all other things; (Lam. iii, 37, 38;) yet so
that when he acts through second causes, either with them or
in them, he does not take away their own peculiar mode of
acting with which they have been divinely endued but he
suffers them according to their own mode to produce their own
effects, necessary things necessarily, contingent things
contingently, free things freely: and this contingency and
freedom of second causes does not prevent that from being
certainly done, or coming to pass, which God in this manner
works by them; and therefore, the certain futurition of an
event does not include its necessity. (Isa. x, 5, 6, 7; Gen.
xlv, 5, 28; Acts xxvii, 29, 31.)
LV. Though God by a single and undivided act wills all the
things which he wills; yet his Will, or rather his Volition,
may be distinguished from the objects, by a consideration of
the mode and order according to which it is borne towards its
objects.
LVI. The Divine Will is borne towards its object, either
according to the mode of Nature, or according to the mode of
Liberty. According to the mode of Nature, it tends towards a
primary and proper object, one that is suitable and adequate
to its nature. According to the mode of Liberty, it tends
towards all other things. Thus, God by a natural necessity
wills himself; but He wills freely all other things; (2 Tim.
ii, 13; Rev. iv, 11;) though the act which is posterior in
order may be bound by a free act which is prior in order.
This may be called "hypothetical necessity," having its
origin partly from the free volition and act of God, partly
from the immutability of his nature. "For God is not
unrighteous," says the Apostle, "to forget the work and
labour of love" of the pious; because he hath promised them a
remuneration, and the immutability of his nature does not
suffer him to rescind his promises. (Heb. vi, 10, 18.)
LVII. To this must be subjoined another distinction,
according to which God wills something as an end, and other
things as the means to that end. His Will tends towards the
end by a natural affection or desire; and towards the means
by a free choice. (Prov. xvi, 4)
LVIII. The will of God is also distinguished into that by
which he wills to do or to prevent something, and which is
called "the will of his good pleasure," or rather "of his
pleasure;" (Psalm cxv, 3;) and into that by which he wills
something to be done, or to be omitted, by creatures endued
with understanding, and which is called "the will which is
signified." The latter is revealed; the former is partly
revealed, and partly hidden. (Mark iii, 35; 1 Thess. iv, 3;
Deut. xxix, 29; 1 Cor. ii, 11, 12.) The former is
efficacious, for it uses power, either so much as cannot be
resisted, or such a kind as He certainly knows nothing will
withstand: (Psalm xxxiii, 9; Rom. ix, 19.) The latter is
called "inefficacious," and resistance is frequently made to
it; yet so that, when the creature transgresses the order of
this revealed Will, the creature by it may be reduced to
order, and that the Will of God may be done on those by whom
his Will has not been performed. (2 Sam. xvii, 14; Isa. v, 4,
5; Matt. xxi, 39-41; Acts v, 4; 1 Cor. vii, 28.) To this two-
fold Will is opposed the Remission of the Will, which is
called "Permission," and which is also two-fold. The one,
which permits something to the power of a rational creature,
by not circumscribing its act with a law; and this is opposed
to "the revealed Will." The other is that by which God
permits something to the capability and will of the creature,
by not interposing an efficacious hindrance; and this is
opposed to "the Will of God's pleasure" that is efficacious.
(Acts xiv, 16; Psalm lxxxi, 13.)
LIX. The things which God wills to do he wills (1.) either
from himself, not on account of any cause placed out of
himself, whether this be without the consideration of any act
which proceeds from the creature, or solely on occasion of
the act of the creature: (Deut. vii, 7, 8; Rom. xi, 35; John
iii, 16.) Or (2.) He does it on account of some other
previous cause laid down on the part of the creature. (Exod.
xxxii, 32, 33; 1 Sam. xv, 17, 23.) In regard to this
distinction, some work is said to be proper to God, and some
foreign to Him and his "strange work." (Lam. iii, 33; Isa.
xxviii, 21.) This is also signified by the church in the
following words: "O God! whose property is, ever to have
mercy and to forgive," &c.
LX. Some persons also distinguish the will of God into that
which is antecedent, and that which is consequent. This
distinction has reference to one and the same volition or act
of the rational creature, which if the act of the Divine will
precedes, it is called the "antecedent will of God;" (1 Tim.
ii, 4;) but if it follows, it is called his "consequent
will:" (Acts i, 25; Matt. xxiii, 37, 38.) But the antecedent
will, it appears, ought to be called velleity, rather than
will.
LXI. There is not much distance between this distinction, and
another, according to which God is said to will some things
"so far as they are good when absolutely considered according
to their nature;" but to will other things "so far as, after
an inspection, of all the circumstances, they are understood
to be desirable."
LXII. God also wills some things in their antecedent causes;
that is He wills their causes as relatively, and places those
causes in such order, that effects may follow from them; and,
if they do follow, that they may of themselves be pleasing to
him. (Ezek. xxxiii, 11; Gen. iv, 7.) He wills other things
not only in their causes, but also in themselves. (John vi,
40; Matt. xi, 25, 26.) incident with this, is the distinction
of the Divine Will into Conditional and Absolute.
LXIII. Lastly. God wills some things per se or accidentally.
He wills per se, those things which are simply and relatively
good; (2 Pet. iii, 9; accidentally, those which are in some
respect evil, but which have such good things united with
them as He wills in preference to the respective good things
which are opposed to those evil ones: thus, He wills the
evils of punishment, because he would rather have the order
of justice preserved in punishment, than suffer an offending
creature to go unpunished. (Jer. ix, 9 Psalm i, 21; Jer. xv,
6.)
LET THE FOLLOWING BE PROBLEMS TO US
(1.) Is it possible for two affirmatively contrary volitions
of God to tend towards one and the same uniform object?
(2.) Is it possible for one volition of God to tend towards
contrary objects?
lxiv. In this momentum of the Divine Nature, come under
consideration those attributes which are ascribed to him in
the Scriptures, either properly or figuratively, according to
a certain analogy of affections and moral virtues in us; such
as are love, hatred, goodness, mercy, desire, anger, justice,
&c.
LXV. Those things which have the analogy of affections may be
commodiously referred to two principal kinds. So the first
can embrace those which we may call primary or principal; the
second, those which are derived from the primary.
LXVI. 1The first or principal are Love, (whose opposition is
Hatred,) and Goodness; and with these are connected Grace,
Benignity and Mercy.
LXVII. Love is an affection of union in God, the objects of
which are God himself and the good of justice or
righteousness, the creature and its felicity. (Prov. xvi, 4;
Psalm. xi, 7; John iii, 16; Wisdom xi, 24-26.) HATRED is an
affection of separation in God, the object of which are the
unrighteousness and misery of the creature. (Psalm v, 5;
Ezek. xxv, 11; Deut. xxv, 15, 16, &c.; Isa. i, 24) But since
God primarily loves himself and the good of justice, and at
the same moment hates iniquity; and since He loves the
creature and its happiness only secondarily, and at the same
moment dislikes the misery of the creature; (Psalm xi, 5;
Deut. xxviii, 63;) hence it comes to pass, that he hates a
creature that pertinaciously perseveres in unrighteousness,
and He loves its misery. (Isa. lxvi, 4.)
LXVIII. Goodness in God is an affection of communicating his
own good. (Rev. iv, 11; Gen. i, 31.) Its first object
outwards is nothing; and thus necessarily the first, that, on
its removal, there can be no outward communication. The First
advance of this goodness is towards the creature as it is a
creature; the Second is towards the creature as it performs
its duty, to communicate good to it beyond the remuneration
promised. Both these procedures of the Divine goodness may
appropriately receive the appellation of "Benignity." The
Third advance is towards a creature that has sinned, and that
has by such transgression rendered itself liable to misery.
This advance is called Mercy, that is, an affection for
affording succour to a person in misery, sin itself
presenting no obstacle to its exercise. (Rom. v, 8; Ezek.
xvi, 6.) We attribute these advances to the Divine Goodness
in such a manner, that in the mean time we concede to the
love of God towards his creatures its portion in these
advances.
LXIX. Grace seems to stand as a proper adjunct to Goodness,
and to Love towards the creatures. According to it, God is
disposed to communicate his own good, and to love the
creatures, not of merit or of debt, nor that it may add
anything to God himself; (Psalm xvi, 2;) but that it may be
well with him on whom the good is bestowed, and who is
beloved. (Exod. xxxiv, 6; Rom. v, 8; 1 John iv, 7.)
LXX. The affections which arise from the primary ones, [§
65,] are special, as being those which are not occupied about
Good and Evil in common, but specially about Good as it is
present or absent. We distinguish these affections according
to the confined capacity of our consideration, as they have
some analogy either in Concupiscibility or in Irascibility.
LXXI. In the Concupiscible we consider, first, Desire and
that which is opposed to it; and, afterwards, Joy and Grief.
We describe Desire, in God, as an affection for obtaining the
works of righteousness which have been prescribed to
creatures endued with understanding, and for bestowing on
them "the recompense of reward:" (Psalm lxxxi, 13-16; v, 3-5;
Isa. xlviii, 18, 19.) To this is opposed that affection
according to which God abhors the works of unrighteousness,
and the omission of a remuneration. (Jer. v, 7, 9.) Joy is an
affection arising from the presence of a thing that is
suitable: such as the fruition of himself, the obedience of
the creature, the communication of his own goodness, and the
destruction of his rebels and enemies. (Isa. lxii, 5; Psalm
lxxxi, 13; Prov. i, 24-26.) Grief, which is its opposite, has
its origin in the disobedience and the misery of the
creature, and in the occasion given by his people for
blaspheming the name of God among the Gentiles. Nearly allied
to this is Repentance, which, in God, is nothing more than a
change of the thing willed or done, on account of the act of
a rational creature. (Gen. xv, 6; Jer. xviii, 8-10.)
LXXII. In the Irascible we place Hope, and its opposite,
Despair, Confidence and Anger, and we do not exclude even
Fear, which, by an Anthropo-pathy, we read, as attributed to
God. (Deut. xxxii, 27.) Hope is an attentive expectation of a
good work due from the creature, and by the grace of God
capable of being performed. It may easily be reconciled with
the certain fore-knowledge of God. (Isa. v, 4; Luke xiii, 6,
7.) Despair arises from the pertinacious wickedness of the
creature, who is "alienated from the life of God," and
hardened in evil, and who, after "he is past feeling," his
conscience having been "seared with a hot iron," has "given
himself over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness
with greediness." (Jer. xiii, 23; Ephes. iv, 18, 19.) What in
God we call Confidence or Courage, is that by which He with
great animation prosecutes a good that is beloved and
desired, and puts away and repulses an evil that is hated.
Anger is an affection of depulsion in God, through the
punishment of the creature who has transgressed his law; by
which He brings upon the creature the evil of misery for his
unrighteousness, and takes the vengeance which is due to
Himself, as an indication of his love of righteousness and
his hatred of sin. When this is vehement, it is called
"Fury." (Isa. lxiii, 3-5; Ezek. xiii, 13, 14; Isa. xxvii, 4;
Jer. ix, 9; Deut. xxxii, 35; Jer. x, 24; 12, 13; Isa. lxiii,
6.)
LXXIII. We attribute these affections to God, on account of
some of his own which are analogous to them, without any
passion, as He is simple and immutable; and without any
inordinateness, disorder and repugnance to right reason; for
He exercises himself in a holy manner about all things which
are the objects of his will. But we subject the use and
exercise of them to the infinite wisdom of God, whose office
it is previously to affix to each its object, mode, end, and
circumstances, and to determine to which of them, in
preference to the rest, is to be conceded the province of
acting. (Exod. xxxii, 10-14; Deut. xxxii, 26, 27.)
LXXIV. Those things in God which have an analogy to moral
virtues, as moderators of these affections, are partly
general to all the affections, as Righteousness; and partly
concern some of them in a special manner, as Patience, and
those which are moderators of Anger and of the punishments
which proceed from Anger.
LXXV. Righteousness or Justice in God, is an eternal and
constant will to render to every one his own: (Psalm xi, 7)
To God himself that which is his, and to the creature what
belongs to it. We consider this righteousness in its Words
and in its Acts. In all its Words are found veracity and
constancy; and in its Promises, fidelity. (2 Tim. ii, 13;
Num. xxiii, 19; Rom. iii, 4; 1 Thess. v, 24) With regard to
its Acts, it is two-fold, Disposing and Remunerative. The
former is that according to which God disposes all the things
in his actions through his own wisdom, according to the rule
of equity which has either been prescribed or pointed out by
his wisdom. The latter, [remunerative righteousness,] is that
by which God renders to his creatures that which belongs to
it, according to his work through an agreement into which He
has entered with it. (Heb. vi, 10, 17, 18; Psalm cxlv, 17; 2
Thess. i, 6; Rev. ii, 23.)
LXXVI. Patience is that by which God patiently endures the
absence of a good that is loved, desired, and hoped for, and
the presence of an evil that is hated; and which spares
sinners, not only that He may through them execute the
judicial acts of his mercy and justice, but that he may
likewise lead them to repentance; or may punish with the
greater equity and more grievously, the contumacious. (Isa.
v, 4; Ezek. xviii, 23; Matt. xxi, 33- 41; Luke xiii, 6-9;
Rom. ii, 4, 5; 2 Pet. iii, 9.)
LXXVII. Long-suffering, gentleness, readiness to pardon, and
clemency, are the moderators of Anger and Punishments. Long-
Suffering suspends anger, lest it should hasten to drive away
the evil as soon as ever such an act was required by the
demerits of the creature. (Exod. xxxiv, 6; Isa. xlviii, 8, 9;
Psalm ciii, 9.) We call that Gentleness, or Lenity, which
attempers Anger, lest it should be of too great a magnitude;
nay, lest its severity should correspond with the magnitude
of the wickedness committed. (Psalm ciii, 10.) We call that
Readiness To Pardon, which moderates Anger, so that it may
not continue forever, agreeably to the deserts of sinners.
(Psalm xxx, 5; Jer. iii, 5; Joel ii, 13.) Clemency is that by
which God attempers the deserved punishments, that by their
severity and continuance they may be far inferior to the
demerits of sin, and may not exceed the strength of the
creature. (2 Sam. vii, 14; Psalm ciii, 13, 14.)
ON THE POWER OF GOD
LXXVIII. By the term "The Power Of God," is meant not a
passive power, which cannot happen to God who is a pure act;
nor the act, by which God is always acting in himself through
necessity of nature; but it signifies an active power, by
which He can operate extrinsically, and by which he does so
operate when it seems good to himself.
LXXIX. We describe it thus: "It is a faculty of the Life of
God, posterior in order to the Understanding and the Will, by
which God can, from the liberty of his own Will, operate
extrinsically all things whatsoever that He can freely will,
and by which he does whatsoever He freely wills." Hence it
appears, that Power resembles a principle which executes what
the will commands under the direction of knowledge. But we
wish Impeding or Obstruction to be comprehended under the
operation. (Psalm cxv, 3; Lament. iii, 37, 38; Psalm xxxiii,
9; Jer. xviii, 6.) Therefore,
From this we exclude the power or capability of generating
and breathing forth, because it acts in a natural manner and
intrinsically.
LXXX. The measure of the Divine Capability is the Free Will
of God, and indeed this is an adequate measure. (Psalm cxv,
3; Matt. xi, 25-27) For whatsoever God can will freely, He
can likewise do it; and whatsoever it is possible for Him to
do, He can freely will it; and whatever it is impossible for
Him to will, He cannot do it; and that which He cannot do, He
also cannot will. But He does, because He wills; and He does
not do, because He does not will. Therefore, He does the
things which He does, because He wills so to do. He does them
not, because He wills them not; not, on the contrary. Hence
the objects of the Divine Capability may be most
commodiously, and indeed ought to be, circumscribed through
the object of the Free Will of God.
LXXXI. The following is the manner: Since the Free Will [of
God] rests upon a Will conducting itself according to the
mode of [his] nature, and both of them have an Understanding
which precedes them, and which, in conjunction with the Will,
has the very Essence of God for its foundation; and since God
can freely will those things alone which are not contrary to
his Essence and Natural Will, and which can be comprehended
in his Understanding as entities and true things: it follows,
that He can do these things alone; nay, that He can likewise
do all things, since the Free Will of God, and therefore, his
Power also, are bound by those alone. And since things of
this kind are the only things which are simply and absolutely
possible, all other things being impossible, God is
deservedly said to be capable of doing all things that are
possible. (Luke i, 37; xviii, 27; Mark xiv, 36.) For how can
there be an entity, a truth, or a good, which is contrary to
His Essence and Natural Will, and incomprehensible to his
Understanding?
LXXXII. The things thus laid down [as described in the last
clause of the preceding Thesis] are indeed confessed by all
men; and they are generally described in the schools as
things impossible, which imply a contradiction. But it is
asked in species, "What are those things?" We will here
recount some of them. God cannot make another God; is
incapable of being changed; (James i, 17;) he cannot sin;
(Psalm v, 5;) cannot lie; (Num. xxiii, 19; 2 Tim. ii, 13;)
cannot cause a thing at the same time to be and not to be, to
have been and not to have been, to be hereafter and not
hereafter to be, to be this and not to be this, to be this
and its contrary. He cannot cause an accident to be without
its subject, a substance to be changed into a pre-existing
substance, bread into the body of Christ, and He cannot cause
a body to be in every place. When we make such assertions as
these, we do not inflict an injury on the power of God; but
we must beware that things unworthy of Him be not attributed
to his Essence, his Understanding, and his Will.
LXXXIII. The Power of God is infinite; because it can do not
only all things possible; (which are innumerable, so that
they cannot be reckoned to be such a number, without a
possibility of their being still more;) but likewise because
nothing can resist it. For all created things depend upon the
Divine Power, as upon their efficient principle, as the.
phrase is, both in their being and in their preservation;
whence Omnipotence is deservedly attributed to Him. (Rev. i,
8; Ephes. iii, 20; Matt. iii, 9; xxvi, 53; Rom. ix, 19; Phil.
iii, 21.)
LXXXIV. Since the measure of God's Power is his own Free
Will, and since therefore God does anything because he wills
to do it; it cannot be concluded from the Omnipotence of God
that anything will come to pass, [or will afterwards be,]
unless it be evident from the Divine Will. (Dan. iii, 17, 18;
Rom. iv, 20, 21; Matt. viii, 2.) But if this be evident from
the will of God, what He hath willed to do is certain to be
done, although, to the mind of the creature, it may not seem
possible. (Luke i, 19, 20, 34-37.) And that the mind must be
"brought into captivity to the obedience of faith," is a
truth which here finds abundant scope for exercise.
LXXXV. The distinction of Power into absolute, and ordinary
or actual, has not reference to God's Power so much as to his
Will, which uses his Power to do some things when it wills to
use it, and which does not use it when it does not will;
though it would be possible for it to use the Power if it
would; and if it did use it, the Divine Will would, through
it, do far more things than it does. (Matt. iii, 9.)
LXXXVI. The Omnipotence of God cannot be communicated to any
creature. (1 Tim. vi, 15; Jude. 4.)
ON THE PERFECTION OF GOD
LXXXVII. From the simple and infinite combination of all
these things, when they are considered with the mode of pre-
eminence, the Perfection of God has its existence. Not that
by which He has every single thing in a manner the most
perfect; for this is effected by Simplicity and Infinity: but
it is that by which, in the most perfect manner, he has all
things which denote any perfection. And it may fitly be
described thus: "It is the interminable, the entire, and, at
the same time, the perfect possession of Essence and Life."
(Matt. v, 48; Gen. xvii, 1; Exod. vi, 3; Psalm l:10; Acts
xvii, 25; James i, 17.)
LXXXVIII. This Perfection of God infinitely exceeds the
perfection of all the creatures, on a three-fold account. For
it possesses all things in a mode the most perfect, and does
not derive them from another. But the perfection which the
creatures possess, they derive from God, and it is faintly
shadowed forth after its archetype. Some creatures have a
larger portion [of this derived perfection] than others; and
the more of it they possess, the nearer they are to God and
have the greater likeness to Him. (Rom. xi, 35, 36; 1 Cor.
iv, 7; Acts xvii, 28, 29; 2 Cor. iii, 18; 2 Pet. i, 4; Matt.
v, 48.)
LXXXIX. From this Perfection, by means of some internal act
of God, his Blessedness has its existence; and his Glory
exists, by means of some relation of it extrinsically. (1
Tim. i, 11; vi, 15; Exod. xxxiii, 18.)
ON THE BLESSEDNESS OF GOD
XC. Blessedness is through an act of the understanding: is it
not also through an act of the will? Such is our opinion; and
we delineate it thus. It is an act of the life of God, by
which he enjoys his own perfection, that is fully known by
his Understanding and supremely loved by his Will; and by
which He complacently reposes in this Perfection with
satisfaction. (Gen. xvii, 1; Psalm xvi, 11; 1 Cor. ii, 9,
10.)
XCI. The Blessedness of God is so peculiar to himself, that
it cannot be communicated to a creature. (1 Cor. xv, 28.)
Yet, in relation to the object, he is the beautifying good of
all creatures endued with understanding, and is the Effector
of the act which tends to this object, and which reposes with
satisfaction in it. In these consists the blessedness of the
creature.
THE GLORY OF GOD
XCII. The Glory of God is from his Perfection, regarded
extrinsically, and may in some degree be described thus: It
is the excellence of God above all things. God makes this
glory manifest by external acts in various ways. (Rom. i, 23;
ix, 4; Psalm viii, 1.)
XCIII. But the modes of manifestation, which are declared to
us in the scriptures, are chiefly two: the one, by an
effulgence of light and of unusual splendour, or by its
opposite, a dense darkness or obscurity. (Matt. xvii, 2-5;
Luke ii, 9; Exod. xvi, 10; 1 Kings viii, 11.) The other, by
the production of works which agree with his Perfection and
Excellence. (Psalm xix, 1; John ii, 11.)
But ceasing from any more prolix discussion of this subject,
let us with ardent prayers suppliantly beseech the God of
Glory, that, since He has formed us for his Glory, He would
vouchsafe to make us yet more and more the instruments of
illustrating his Glory among men, through Jesus Christ our
Lord, the brightness of his Glory, and the express image of
his Person.
DISPUTATION 5
ON THE PERSON OF THE FATHER AND THE SON
RESPONDENT: PETER DE LA FITE
I. WE do not here receive the name of "Father," as it is
sometimes taken in the Scriptures in regard to the adoption,
according to which God hath adopted believers to himself as
sons: (Gal. iv, 6) Nor with respect to the creation of
things, according to which even the Gentiles themselves knew
God the Father, and gave Him that appellation: (Acts xvii,
28.) But by this name we signify God according to the
relation which He has to his only-begotten and proper Son,
who is our Lord Jesus Christ: (Ephes. i, 3) And we thus
describe Him: "He is the First Person in the Sacred Trinity,
who from all eternity of himself begat his Word, which is his
Son, by communicating to Him his own Divinity."
II. We call Him "a Person," not in reference to the use of
that word in personating, [appearing in a mask,] which
denotes the representation of another; but in reference to
its being defined an undivided and communicable subsistence,
of a nature that is living, intelligent, willing, powerful,
and active. Each of these properties is attributed, in the
Holy Scriptures, to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Substitence: "Him which is, and which was, and which is to
come." (Rev. i, 4) Life: "As the living Father hath sent me,"
&c. (John vi, 53, 57.) Intelligence: "O the depth of the
riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom. xi, 33.)
Will: "And this is the Father's will," &c. (John vi, 39.)
Power: "Thine, O Fath er, is the Power." (Matt. vi, 13.)
Action: "My Father worketh hitherto." (John v, 17.) We do
not contend about words. Under the term "Person," we
comprehend such things as we have now described; and since
they agree with the Father, the title of "Person" cannot be
justly denied to him.
III. We call Him "a Person in the Holy Trinity," that is, a
Divine Person, which with us possesses just as much force as
if we were to call Him God. For though the Deity of the
Father has been acknowledged by most of those persons who
have called in question that of the Son; yet it is denied by
those who have declared, that the God of the Old Testament is
different from that of the New, and who have affirmed that
the Father of Jesus Christ is a different Being from the
Creator of heaven and earth. To the former class we oppose
the word of Christ: "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven
and earth," &c. (Matt. xi, 25.) To the latter we oppose
another saying of the same Christ: "It is my Father that
honoureth me; of whom ye say, that He is your God." (John
viii, 54.) To both of these classes together we oppose that
joint declaration of the whole church at Jerusalem: "Thou art
God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all
that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast
said," &c. And in a subsequent verse, "For of a truth against
thy holy Son Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and
Pontius Pilate, etc, were gathered together." (Acts iv, 24-
27.)
IV. We place Him "first" in the Holy Trinity: for so hath
Christ taught us, by commanding us to "baptize in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt.
xxviii, 19.) "The First" not in relation of time but of
order; which order has its foundation in this: The Father is
the fountain and origin of the whole Divinity, and the
principle and the cause of the Son himself, which the word
the" implies. (John v, 26, 27.) Pious Antiquity attempted to
illustrate this [mystery] by the similitude of a fountain and
its stream, of the sun and its beam, of the mind and its
reason, of a root and its stalk, and by similar comparisons.
On this account the Father is called "unbegotten" and the
Christian Fathers ascribe to Him supreme and pre-eminent
authority. It is on this account also that the name of God is
often attributed in the Scriptures peculiarly and by way of
eminence to the Father.
V. We attribute to Him "active generation," which likewise
comprised under the word "Father;" but of its mode and ratio,
we willingly confess ourselves to be ignorant. But yet, since
all generation, properly so called, is made by the
communication of the same nature which He possesses who
begets, we say with correctness that "the Father of himself
begat the Son," by communicating to him his Deity, which is
his own nature. The principle, therefore, which begets, is
the Father; but the principle by which generation is effected
is his nature. Whence the Person is said to beget and to be
begotten. But the nature is said neither to beget nor to be
begotten, but to be communicated. This communication, when
rightly understood, renders vain the objection of the Anti-
Trinitarians, who accuse the members of the church universal
of holding a quaternity (of Divine Persons in the Godhead.)
VI. We say "that from all eternity He begat," because neither
was he the God of Jesus Christ, before he was his father, nor
was he simply God before he was his Father. For as we cannot
imagine a mind that is devoid of reason, so we say that it is
impious to form a conception in our minds of a God who is
without his word. (John i, 1, 2.) Besides, according to the
sentiments of sacred antiquity, and of the church universal,
since this generation is an internal operation and it is
likewise from all eternity. For all such operations are
eternal, unless we wish to maintain that God is liable to
change.
VII. We have hitherto treated of the Father. The Son is the
second person in the Holy Trinity, the Word of the Father,
begotten of the Father from all eternity, and proceeding from
Him by the communication of the same Deity which the Father
possesses without origination. (Matt. xxviii, 19; John i, 1;
Micah v, 2.) We say, "that he is not the Son by creation."
For what things soever they were that have been created, they
were all created by him. (John i, 3.) And "that he was not
made the Son by adoption:" for we are all adopted in him.
(John i, 12; Ephes. i, 5, 6.) But "that he proceeded from the
Father by generation." He is the Son, not by creation out of
nonentities, or from uncreated elements -- not by adoption,
as though he had previously been some other thing than the
Son; for this is his primitive name, and significant of his
inmost nature; but He is by generation, and, as the Son, he
is by nature a partaker of the whole divinity of his Father.
VIII. We call the Son "a person," with the same meaning
attached to the word as that by which we have already (§ 2)
predicated the Father. For he is an undivided and
incommunicable subsistence. John says, (i, 1,) "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." Of a
living nature: "As I live by the Father." (John vi, 57.)
Intelligent: "The Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has
declared him." (John i, 18.) Willing: "To whomsoever the Son
will reveal him." (Matt. xi, 27.) "Even so the Son quickeneth
whom he will." (John v, 21.) Powerful: "According to the
efficacy whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto
him." (Phil. iii, 21.) Active: "And I work." (John v, 17.)
IX. We call the Son "a person in the Sacred Trinity," that
is, a Divine person and God. And, with orthodox antiquity, we
prove our affirmation by four distinct classes or arguments.
(1.) From the names by which he is called in the Scriptures.
(2.) From the divine attributes which the Scriptures ascribe
to him. (3.) From the works which the Scriptures relate to
have been produced by him. (4.) From a collation of those
passages of Scripture, which, having been uttered in the Old
Testament concerning the Father, are in the New appropriated
to the Son.
X. The divinity of the person of the Son is evident, from the
names which are attributed to him in the scriptures. (1.)
Because he is called God, and this not only attributively, as
"the Word was God," (John i, 1.) "Who is over all, God
blessed forever;" (Rom. ix, 5;) but likewise subjectively:
"God manifested in the flesh." (1 Tim. iii, 16.) "O God, thy
God hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness." (Heb. i,
9.) Nay, he is likewise called "the great God." (Tit. ii,
13.) (2.) The word "Son" stands in proof of the same truth,
especially so far as this name belongs to him properly and
solely, according to which he is called "God's own Son,"
(Rom. viii, 32,) and "his only begotten Son," (John i, 18,)
which expressions, we affirm, are tantamount to his being
called by nature, the Son of God. (3.) Because he is called
"King of kings and Lord of lords;" (Rev. xvii, 14; xix, 16;)
and "the Lord of glory." (1 Cor. ii, 8.) These appellations
prove much more strongly what we wish to establish, if they
be compared with the scriptures of the Old Testament, in
which the same names are ascribed to him who is called
Jehovah. (Psalm xcv, 3; xxiv, 8-10.) (4.) Pious antiquitity
established the same truth from the name, of Logov, "the
Word;" which cannot signify the outward word that is devoid
of a proper subsistence, on account of those things which are
attributed to it in the Scriptures. For it is said to have
been "in the beginning, to have been with God, and to be
God," and to have "created all things," &c.
XI. The essential attributes of the Deity which are in the
Scriptures ascribed to the Son of God, likewise declare this
in the plainest manner. (1.) Immensity: "My Father and I will
come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John xiv, 23.)
"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." (Ephes. iii,
17.) "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."
(Matt. xxviii, 20.) (2.) Eternity: "In the beginning was the
Word." (John i, 1.) "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the
last." (Rev. i, 11; ii, 8.) (3.) Immutability: "But thou, O
Lord, remainest; thou art the same, and thy years shall not
fail." (Heb. i, 11, 12.) (4.) Omniscience is also attributed
to him: For he searches the reins and hearts;" (Rev. ii, 93.)
He "knows all things." (John xxi, 17.) And he perceived the
thoughts of the Pharisees. (Matt. xii, 25.) (5.) Omnipotence:
"According to the efficacy whereby the Lord Jesus Christ is
able even to subdue all things unto himself" (Phil. iii, 21.)
But the Divine nature cannot, without a contradiction, be
taken away from him to whom the proper essentials of God are
ascribed. (6.) Lastly. Majesty and glory belong to Him
equally with the Father: "That all men should honour the Son,
even as they honour the Father." (John v, 23.) "Blessing, and
honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon
the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever." (Rev. v,
13.)
XII. The divine works which are attributed to Him, establish
the same truth. (1.) The creation of all things: "A2 things
were made by Him." (John i, 3.) "By whom also, he made the
worlds," or the ages. (Heb. i, 2.) "One Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things." (1 Cor. viii, 6.) But what are these
"all things?" Exactly the same as those which are said, in
the same verse, to be "of the Father." (2.) The preservation
of all things: all things by the word of his power." (Heb. i,
3.) "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." (John v, 17.)
(3.) The performing of miracles: "Which He works by the Holy
Spirit, who is said to "have received of the things of
Christ, by which he will glorify Christ." (John xvi, 14.) "By
which, also, he went and preached unto the spirits in
prison." (1 Pet. iii, 19.) This Spirit is so peculiar to
Christ, that the Apostles are said to perform miracles in the
name and power of Christ. (4.) To these let the works which
relate to the salvation of the church be added; which cannot
be performed by one who is a mere man.
XIII. A comparison of those passages which in the Old
Testament, are ascribed to God, who claims for himself the
appellation of Jehovah, with the same passages which in the
New, are attributed to the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ
-- supplies to us the fourth class of arguments. But because
the number of them is immense, we will refrain from a prolix
recital of the whole, and produce only a few out of the many.
In Numbers, xxi, 5-7, it is said, "The people spoke against
God, and the Load sent fiery serpents among them, and they
bit the people," many of whom "died." In 1 Corinthians x, 9,
the apostle says, "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of
them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." The
passage in the 68th Psalm, (18,) which describes God as
"ascending on high and leading captivity captive," is
interpreted by the apostle, (Ephes. iv, 8,) and applied to
Christ. What is spoken in Psalm cii, 25, 26, about the true
God, ["Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth,"
&c.] is, in Heb. i, 10-12, expressly applied to Christ. St.
John, in his gospel, (xii, 40, 41,) interprets the vision
described by Isaiah, (vi, 9, 10,) and declares that "Esaias
said these things when he saw the glory of Christ." In Isai.
viii, 14, Jehovah, it is said, "shall be a rock of offense,
and a snare to the houses of Israel," &c. Yet Simeon, (in
Luke ii, 34,) St. Paul, (in Romans ix, 33,) and St. Peter, (1
Epis. ii, 8,) severally declare that Christ was "set for the
rising and falling of many," for "a stumbling block, and rock
of offense" to unbelievers, and to "the disobedient."
XIV. We call Christ "the second person," according to the
order which has been pointed out to us by Himself in Matt.
xxviii, 19. For the Son is of the Father, as from one from
whom he is said to have come forth. The Son lives by the
Father, (John vi, 57,) and the Father hath given to the Son
to have life in himself." (v, 26.) The Son understands by the
Father, because "the Father sheweth the Son all things that
himself doeth," (v, 20,) and what things the Son saw while
"He was in the bosom of the Father, he testifies and declares
to us." (i, 18; iii, 32.) The son works from the Father,
because "the Son can do nothing of himself: But what he seeth
the Father do." (v, 19.) Thus "the Son does not speak of
himself, but the Father, that dwelleth in him, doeth the
works." (xiv, 10.) This is the reason why the Son, by a just
right, refers all things to the Father, as to Him from whom
he received all that he had. (xix, 11; xvii, 7.) "When he was
in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal
with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon
him the form of a servant, &c. and became obedient" to the
Father, "even unto the death of the cross." (Phil. ii, 6-8.)
XV. We say "that the Son was begotten of the Father from all
eternity." (1.) Because "his goings-forth have been from of
old, from everlasting," and "these goings-forth" are from the
Father. (Micah v, 2, 3.) If any one be desirous to give them
any other interpretation than "the goings-forth" of
generation, he must make them subsequent to the "goings-
forth" of generation; and thus likewise he establishes the
eternity of generation. (2.) Because, since the Son is
eternal, as we have previously shewn, [§ 7,] and since he had
no existence at all before he existed as the Son, (but it is
proper to a son to be begotten,) we correctly assert on these
grounds, that "he was eternally begotten." (3.) Since Logov,
"the Word," was "in the beginning with the Father," (John i,
1, 9,) he must of necessity have been in the beginning from
the Father; (unless we wish to maintain that the Word is
collateral with the Father;) in truth, according to the order
of nature he must have been from the Father, before he was
with the Father. But he is not from the Father, except
according to the mode of generation; for if it be otherwise,
"the Word" will be from the Father in one mode, and "the Son"
in another, which contradicts the eternity of the Son that we
have already established. Therefore, "the Word" is eternally
begotten.
XVI. From these positions we perceive, that an agreement and
a distinction subsists between the Father and the Son. (l.)
An Agreement in reference to One and the same nature and
essence, according to which the Son is said to be "in the
form of God," and "equal with the Father;" (Phil. ii, 6,) and
according to the decree of the Nicene Council to be omoousiov
["of the same substance,"] "consubstantial with the Father,"
not omoiousiov "of like substance;" because the comparison of
things in essence must be referred not to similitude or
dissimilitude, but to Equality or Inequality, according to
the very nature of things and to truth itself: (2.) A
Distinction according to the mode of existence or
subsistence, by which both of them have their divinity: for
the Father has it from no one, the Son has it communicated to
him by the Father. According to the former, the Son is said
to be one with the Father; (John x, 30;) according to the
latter, He is said to be "another" than the Father; (v, 32;)
but according to both of them, the Son and the Father are
said to "come to those whom they love, and to make their
abode with them," (xiv, 23,) by the Spirit of both Father and
Son "who dwelleth in believers," (Rom. viii, 9-11,) and "whom
the Son sends to them from the Father." (John xv, 26.) May
the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of all
consolation, deign to bestow upon us the communion of this
Spirit, through the Son of his love. Amen!
DISPUTATION 6
ON THE HOLY SPIRIT RESPONDENT: JAMES MAHOT
As the preceding Disputation treated of God the Father and
God the Son, order requires us now to enter on the subject of
the Holy Ghost.
I. The word Spirit signifies primarily, properly, and
adequately, a thing which in its first act and essence is
most subtle and simple, but which in its second act and
efficacy is exceedingly active, that is, powerful and
energetic. Hence it has come to pass, that this word is
received, by way of distinction and opposition, sometimes for
a personal and self-existing energy and power, and sometimes
for an energy inhering to some other thing according to the
mode of quality or property: but this word belongs primarily
and properly to a self-existing power; and to an inhering
power or energy, only secondarily and by a metaphorical
communication. (John iii, 8; Psalm civ, 4; Luke i, 35; Kings
ii, 9.)
II. But it is, in the first place, and with the greatest
truth, ascribed to God, (John iv, 24,) both because He
according to Essence is a pure and most simple act; and
because according to Efficacy he is most active, and most
prompt and powerful to perform, that is, because He is the
first and Supreme Being, as well as the first and Supreme
Agent. But it is with singular propriety attributed to the
hypostatical energy which exists in God, and which is
frequently marked with an addition, thus, "The Spirit of
Elohim," (Gen. i, 9,) "The Spirit of Jehovah," (Isa. xi, 2,)
and "His Holy Spirit." (lxiii, 10.) By these expressions is
signified, that He is the person by whom God the Father and
the Son perform all things in heaven and earth, (Matt. xii,
28; Luke xi, 20,) and that He is not only Holy in himself,
but likewise the Sanctifier of all things which are in any
way holy and so called. Our present discourse is concerning
the Holy Spirit understood according to this last
signification.
III. We may not attempt to define the Holy Spirit, (for such
an attempt is unlawful,) but we may be allowed in some degree
to describe Him according to the Scriptures, after the
following manner: He is the person subsisting in the Sacred
and undivided Trinity, who is the Third in order, emanates
from the Father and is sent by the Son; and therefore He is
the Spirit proceeding from both, and, according to his
Person, distinct from both; an infinite, eternal illimitable
Spirit, and of the same Divinity with God the Father and the
Son. This description we will now consider in order,
according to its several parts. (Matt. xxviii, 19; John i,
26; and Luke iii, 16; John xiv, 16; 1 Cor. ii, 10, 11; Gen.
i, 2; Psalm cxxxix, 7-12.)
IV. On this subject four things come under our consideration
and must be established by valid arguments. (1.) That the
Holy Spirit ufisamenon is subsistent and a Person; not
something after the manner of a quality and property,
(suppose that of goodness, mercy, or patience,) which exists
within the Deity. (2.) That He is a Person proceeding from
the Father and the Son, and therefore is in order the Third
in the Trinity. (3.) That according to his Person He is
distinct from the Father and the Son. (4.) That He is
infinite, eternal, immeasurable, and of the same Divinity
with the Father and the Son, that is, not a creature, but
God.
V. The first is proved by those attributes which the whole of
mankind are accustomed to ascribe to a thing that has an
existence, and which they conceive under the notion of "a
Person:" for we assert, that all those things belong to the
Holy Spirit, whether they agree with a person in the first
Act or in the second. (1.) From those things which agree in
the first Act with a thing that has an existence and is a
Person, we draw the following conclusion: That to which
belongs Essence or Existence, Life, Understanding, Will and
Power, is justly called "a Person," or nothing whatever in
the nature of things can receive that appellation. But to the
Holy Spirit belong: (i.) Essence or Existence: for He is in
God, (1 Cor. ii, 11,) emanates from God and is sent by the
Son. (John xv, 26.) (ii.) Life: for He "brooded over the
waters," (Gen. i, 2,) as a hen covers her chickens with her
wings; and He is the Author of animal and of spiritual life
to all things living. (Job xxxiii, 4; John iii, 5; Rom. viii,
2, 11.) (iii.) Understanding: "The Spirit searcheth all
things, yea, the deep things of God." (1 Cor. ii, 10.) (iv.)
Will: for He "distributes his gifts to every man severally as
He will." (1 Cor. xii, 11.) (v.) Lastly, Power: with which,
the prophets, and other holy persons, and in particular the
Messiah himself, were furnished and strengthened. (Micah iii,
8; Ephes. iii, 16; Isa. xi, 2.)
VI. The same thing is proved (2.) from those things which are
usually attributed to a Person in the second Act. For of this
description are the actions which are ascribed to the Holy
Spirit, and which usually belong to nothing except a
subsistence and a person. Such are to create, (Job xxxiii, 4;
Psalm civ, 30,) to preserve, to vivify or quicken, to
instruct or furnish them with knowledge, faith, charity,
hope, the fear of the Lord, fortitude, patience, and other
virtues; to "rush mightily upon Sampson;" (Judges xiv, 6;) to
"depart from Saul;" (1 Sam. xvi, 14;) to "rest upon the
Messiah;" (Isa. xi, 2;) to "come upon and overshadow Mary;"
(Luke i, 35;) to send the prophets; (Isa. lxi, 1;) to appoint
bishops; (Acts xx, 28;) to descend in a bodily appearance
like a dove upon Christ, (Luke iii, 22,) and similar
operations. To these may also be added those metaphorical
expressions which attributes such passions to Him as agree
with no other thing than a subsistence and a person, and as
are signified in the following passages: "I will pour out my
Spirit upon all flesh." (Joel ii, 28.) "Jesus breathed on
them, and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost." (John xx, 22.)
"They vexed his Holy Spirit. (Isa. lxiii, 10.) "Grieve not
the Holy Spirit of God." Ephes. iv, 30.) To blaspheme and
speak a word against the Holy Ghost. (Matt. xii, 31, 32.) "He
hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace," (Heb. x, 29.)
VII. A similar bearing have those passages of Scripture which
reckon the Holy Spirit in the same series with the Father and
the Son. Of which class is that commanding men "to be
baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost;" (Matt. xxviii, 19;) that which says, "There are
three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost." (1 John v, 7;) that which declares, "The
same Spirit, the same Lord, and the same God, effect the
diversities of operations, institute the differences of
administrations, and pour out the diversities of gifts; (1
Cor. xii, 4 -- 6;) and that which beseeches, "that the grace
of' the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
communion of the Holy Ghost may be with all believers." (2
Cor. xiii, 13.) For it would be absurd to number an inly-
existent quality, or property, in the same series with two
subsistences or persons.
VIII. The second topic of consideration [§ 15,] contains
three members: (i.) of which the first, that is, the
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, is proved by
those passages of Scripture in which he receives the
appellation of "the Spirit of God and of the Father," and of
"the Spirit who is of God;" and by those in which the Spirit
is said to proceed and go forth from, to be given, poured
out, and sent forth by the Father, and by whom the Father
acts and operates. (John xiv, 16, 26; xv, 26; Joel ii, 28;
Gal. iv, 6.) (ii.) The second member, that is, the procession
from the Son, is proved by similar passages, which style Him
"the Spirit of the Son," (Gal. iv, 6,) and which declare,
that He is given and sent by the Son, (John xv, 26,) and that
He therefore receives from the Son and glorifies Him. (xvi,
14.) To which must likewise be added, from another passage,
(xx, 22,) a mode of giving, which is called "breathing," or
inspiration. (iii.) The third member, that is, His being the
third person in the Holy Trinity in order, but not in time
and degree, appears principally from the fact, that the
Spirit of the Father and the Son is said to be sent and given
by the Father and the Son, and that the Father and the Son
are said to work by Him. It is also manifest from the order
which was observed in the institution of Baptism, "Baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost." (Matt. xxviii, 19.)
IX. All those passages of Scripture which have been produced
in the preceding Theses for another purpose, prove "that the
Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Father and the Son, not
only according to name, but likewise according to person,"
which is the third part of the description which we have
given. [§ 4.] Among other passages, the following expressly
affirm this distinction: "I will pray the Father, and He
shall give you another Comforter." (John xiv, 16.) "That
Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my
name." (xiv, 26.) "When that Comforter is come, whom I will
send unto you from the Father." (xv, 26.) "The Spirit of the
Lord Jehovah is upon me; because Jehovah hath annointed me,"
&c. (Isa. lxi, 1.) There are numerous other passages in
confirmation of this distinction: so that the blindness of
Sabellius was most wonderful, who could possibly be in
darkness amidst such a splendour of daylight.
X. Lastly. The fourth part comes now to be considered. (1.)
The Infinity of the Holy Spirit is proved, both by his
Omniscience, by which he is said to "search all things, yea,
the deep things of God," and to know all the things which are
in God; (1 Cor. ii, 10, 11; John xvi, 13;) and by his
Omnipotence, by which He hath created and still preserves all
things, (Job. xxxiii, 4) and according to both of which He is
styled "the Spirit of wisdom and of knowledge," and "the
power of the Highest." (Luke i, 35.) (2.) His Eternity is
established, (Isa. xi, 2) both by the creation of all things;
for whatsoever is before all things which have been made,
that is eternal; and by the titles with which He is
signalized, for he is called "the power of the Highest," and
the finger of God." (Luke xi, 20.) These titles cannot apply
to a thing that has its beginning in time. (3.) A most
luminous argument for His Immensity lies in this. It is said,
that "no one can flee from the Spirit of God; (Psalm cxxxix,
7;) and that the Spirit of the Lord dwells in all his saints,
as in a temple. (1 Cor. vi, 19.)
XI. From all these particulars it clearly appears, that the
Holy Ghost is of the same Divinity with the Father and the
Son, and is truly distinguished by the name of God. For He
who is not a creature, and yet has a real subsistence, must
be God; and He who is from God, and who proceeds from the
Father, not by an external emanation, nor by a creation
performed through the intervention of any other Divine power,
but by an internal emanation, He, being the power of God, by
what right shall He be despoiled of the name of "God?" For
when He is said to be given, poured out, and sent; this does
not betoken any diminution of his Divinity, but is an
intimation of his origin from God, of his procession from the
Father and the Son, and of his mission to his office. A clear
indication of his Deity is also apparent from its being said,
that He also with plenary power distributes Divine gifts
according to his own will, (1 Cor. xii, 11,) and he bestows
his gifts with an authority equal to that with which "God"
the Father is said to "work his operations," (4.) and to that
with which the Son, who is called "the Lord," is said to
"institute administrations."
XII. This doctrine of the sacred and undivided Trinity
contains a mystery which far surpasses every human and
angelical understanding, if it be considered according to the
internal union which subsists between the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, and according to the relation among them
of origin and procession. But if regard be had to that
economy and dispensation by which the Father and the Son, and
both of them through the Holy Spirit, accomplish our
salvation; the contemplation is one of admirable sweetness,
and produces in the hearts of believers the most exhuberant
fruits of faith, hope, charity, confidence, fear, and
obedience, to the praise of God the Creator, the Son the
Redeemer, and of the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier. May "the Love
of God the Father, the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and
the Communion of the Holy Ghost, be with us," and with all
saints. Amen! (2 Cor. xiii, 14.)
"If the Spirit be third in dignity and order, what necessity
is there for his being also the third in nature? Indeed the
doctrine of piety has perhaps taught that He is third in
dignity. But to employ the expression 'the third in nature,'
we have neither learned out of the Holy Scriptures, nor is it
possible to collect it as a consequence from what precedes.
For as the Son is in truth Second in order, because He is
from the Father, and Second in dignity, because the Father
exists that He may be himself the principle and the cause,
and because through the Son there is a procession and an
access to God the Father; (but He is no more second in
nature, because the Deity is one in both of them.) So,
undoubtedly, is likewise the Holy Spirit, though He follows
the Son both in order and dignity, as we completely grant,
yet He is not at all resembling one who exists in the nature
of another. Basilius Eversor 3.
"In brief, in things to be distinguished, the Deity is
incapable of being divided; and resembles one vast attempered
mass of effulgence proceeding from three suns which mutually
embrace each other. Wherefore when we have had regard to the
Deity itself, or to the first cause, or to the monarchy, we
have formed in our minds a conception of some one thing.
Again, when I apply my mind to these things in which Deity
consists, and which exist from the first cause itself,
flowing from it with equal glory and without any relation to
time, I discover three things as the objects of my
adoration." Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 3 De Theolog.
DISPUTATION 7
ON THE FIRST SIN OF THE FIRST MAN
RESPONDENT: ABRAHAM APPART
THE USE OF THE DOCTRINE
I. When an inquiry is instituted concerning this first evil,
we do not agitate the question for the purpose of unworthily
exposing to disgrace the nakedness of the first formed pair,
which had been closely covered up, as impious Ham did in
reference to his father. (Gen. ix, 22.) But we enter on this
subject, that, after it is accurately known, as when the
cause of a mortal disease is discovered, we may with the
greater earnestness implore the hand which heals and cures.
(Gal. ii, 16.) In this discussion four things seem to be
principally entitled to a consideration. (1.) The sin itself.
(2.) Its causes. (3.) Its heinousness. (4.) Its effects.
THE SIN ITSELF
II. This sin is most appropriately called by the Apostle,
"disobedience," and "offense" or fall. (Rom. v, 18, 19. (1.).
Disobedience; for, since the law against which the sin was
committed, was symbolical, having been given to testify that
man was under a law to God, and to prove his obedience, and
since the subsequent performance of it was to be a confession
of devoted submission and due obedience; the transgression of
it cannot, in fact, be denoted by a more commodious name than
that of "disobedience," which contains within itself the
denial of subjection and the renunciation of obedience. (2.)
Offense, or fall. Because as man, having been previously
placed in a state of integrity, walked with unstumbling feet
in the way of God's commandments; by this foul deed he
impinged or offended against the law itself, and fell from
his state of innocence. (Rom. v, 15-18.)
III. This sin, therefore, is a transgression of the law which
was delivered by God, to the first human beings, about not
eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil; perpetrated by the free will of man, from a desire to
be like God, and through the persuasion of Satan that assumed
the shape of a serpent. On account of this transgression, man
fell under the displeasure and the wrath of God, rendered
himself subject to a double death, and deserving to be
deprived of the primeval righteousness and holiness, in which
a great part of the image of God consisted. (Gen. ii, 17;
Rom. v, 19; Gen. iii, 3-6, 23, 24; Rom. v, 12, 16; Luke xix,
26.)
THE CAUSE OF THIS SIN
IV. The efficient cause of this sin is two fold. The one
immediate and near. The other remote and mediate. (1.) The
former is Man himself, who, of his own free will and without
any necessity either internal or external, (Gen. iii, 6,)
transgressed the law which had been proposed to him, (Rom. v,
19,) which had been sanctioned by a threatening and a
promise, (Gen. ii, 16, 17,) and which it was possible for him
to have observed (ii, 9; iii, 23, 24.) (2.) The remote and
mediate efficient cause is the Devil, who, envying the Divine
glory and the salvation of mankind, solicited man to a
transgression of that law. (John viii, 44.) The instrumental
cause is the Serpent, whose tongue Satan abused, for
proposing to man these arguments which he considered suitable
to persuade him. (Gen. iii, 1; 2 Cor. xi, 3.) It is not
improbable, that the grand deceiver made a conjecture from
his own case; as he might himself have been enticed to the
commission of sin by the same arguments. (Gen. iii, 4, 5.)
V. Those arguments which may be called "both the inwardly
moving" and "the outwardly-working causes," were two. (1.)
The one, directly persuading, was deduced from a view of the
advantage which man would obtain from it, that is, a likeness
to God. (Gen. iii, 5, 6.) (2.) The other was a removing
argument, one of dissuasion, taken from God's threatening;
lest the fear of punishment, prevailing over the desire of a
similitude to God, should hinder man from eating. (iii, 4.)
Though the first of these two arguments occupies the first
station, with regard to order, in the proposition; yet, we
think, it obtained the last place with regard to efficiency.
To these arguments may be added two qualities imparted by the
Creator to the fruit of the tree, calculated blandly to
affect and allure the senses of a human being; these
qualities are intimated in the words, "that the tree was good
for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes." (iii, 6.)
But there is this difference between the two principal
arguments and these qualities. The former were proposed by
the Devil to persuade to the commission of sin, as such;
while the two qualities implanted by God were proposed only
for the purpose of persuading [the woman] to eat, if that
could have been done without sinning.
VI. The inwardly-moving causes, but which became such by
accident, were two. (1.) Such an affection, or desire, for a
likeness to God, as had been implanted in man by God himself;
but it was to be exercised in a certain order and method. For
the gracious image and likeness of God, according to which
man was created, tended towards his glorious image and
likeness. (2 Cor. iii, 18.) (2.) A natural affection for the
fruit which was good in its taste, pleasant in its aspect,
and well adapted for preserving and recruiting animal life.
VII. But as it was the duty of man to resist the efficacy of
all and each of these several causes, so was it likewise in
power; for he had been "created after the image of God," and
therefore, in "the knowledge of God," (Gen. i, 27; Col. iii,
10,) and endued with righteousness and true holiness. (Ephes.
iv, 24.) This resistance might have been effected by his
repelling and rejecting the causes which operated outwardly,
and by reducing into order and subjecting to the Law and to
the Spirit of God those which, impelled inwardly. If he had
acted thus, the temptation, out of which he would have
departed victorious, would not have been imputed to him as an
offense against the violated law. (Gen. iii, 7-12.)
VIII. But the guilt of this sin can by no means be
transferred to God, either as an efficient or as a deficient
cause. (1.) Not as an efficient cause. For He neither
perpetrated this crime through man, nor employed against man
any action, either internal or external, by which he might
incite him to sin. (Psalm v, 5; James i, 13.) (2.) Not as a
deficient cause. For He neither denied nor withdrew any thing
that was necessary for avoiding this sin and fulfilling the
law; but He had endowed Him sufficiently with all things
requisite for that purpose, and preserved him after he was
thus endued.
IX. But the Divine permission intervened; not as having
permitted that act to man's legitimate right and power, that
he might commit it without sin, for such a permission as this
is contrary to legislation; (Gen. ii, 17;) but as having
permitted it to the free will and capability of man. This
Divine permission is not the denial or the withdrawing of the
grace necessary and sufficient for fulfilling the law; (Isa.
v, 4;) for if a permission of this kind were joined to
legislation, it would ascribe the efficiency of sin to God.
But it is the suspension of some efficiency, which is
possible to God both according to right and to capability,
and which, if exerted, would prevent sin in its actual
commission. This is commonly called "an efficacious
hindrance." But God was not bound to employ this impediment,
when He had already laid down those hindrances to sin which
might and ought to have withheld and deterred man from
sinning, and which consisted in the communication of his own
image, in the appointment of his law, in the threat of
punishments, and in the promise of rewards.
X. Though the cause of this permission may be reckoned in the
number of those things which, such is the will of God, are
hidden from us, (Deut. xxix, 29) yet, while with modesty and
reverence we inspect the acts of God, it appears to us that a
two-fold cause may be maintained, the one a priori, the other
a posteriori. (1.) We will enunciate the former in the words
of Tertullian. "If God had once allowed to man the free
exercise of his own will and had duly granted this
permission, He undoubtedly had permitted the enjoyment of
these things through the very authority of the institution.
But they were to be enjoyed as in Him, and according to Him;
that is, according to God, that is, for good. For who will
permit any thing against himself? But as in man [they were to
be enjoyed] according to the motions of his liberty." (2.)
The cause a posteriori shall be given in the words of St.
Augustine. "A good being would not suffer evil to be done,
unless He was likewise Omnipotent, and capable of bringing
good out of that evil."
XI. The material cause of this sin is the tasting of the
fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which is
an act in its own nature indifferent, and easily avoidable by
man in the midst of such abundant plenty of good and various
fruits. From this shine forth the admirable benignity and
kindness of God; whose will it was to have experience of the
obedience of his creature, in an act which that creature
could with the utmost facility omit, without injury to his
nature, and even without any detriment to his pleasure. This
seems to have been intimated by God himself when he
propounded the precept in this manner. "Of every tree of the
garden thou shalt freely eat; but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat." (Gen. ii,
16, 17.)
XII. But the form of this sin is anomia "the transgression of
the law," (1 John iii, 4,) which belongs to this act in
reference to its having been forbidden by the law. And
because this relation adhered to the act from the time when
God circumscribed it by a law, the effect of it was that the
act ought to be omitted. (Dan. iii, 18.) For the moral evil,
which adhered to it through the prohibition of God, was
greater, than the natural good which was in the act by
nature. There was also in man the image of God, according to
which he ought to have been more abhorrent of that act
because sin adhered to it, than to be inclined by a natural
affection to the act itself, because some good was joined
with it.
XIII. No end can be assigned to this sin. For evil, of
itself, has not an end, since an end has always reference to
a good. But the acts of the end were, that man might obtain a
likeness to God in the knowledge of good and evil, and that
he might satisfy his senses of taste and seeing. (Gen. iii,
5, 6.) But he did not suppose, that he would gain this
similitude by sin as such, but by an act as it was a natural
one. It had the boundary which the Divine determination
placed round about it, and which was two-fold. The one,
agreeing with the nature of sin, according to the severity of
God. The other, transcending sin, nay, contravening it,
according to the grace and mercy of God. (Rom. ix, 22, 23.)
THE HEINOUSNESS OF THIS SIN
XIV. From the particulars already discussed, some judgment
may be formed of the heinousness of this sin, which seems
principally to consist of these four things. (1) That it is
the transgression of a law that is not peculiar [to one
person, or only to a few,] but of a law which universally
bears witness to the obligation of man towards God, and which
is a test of his obedience. A contempt of this law has in it
a renunciation of the covenant into which God has entered
with man, and of the obedience which from that covenant is
due to God. (Gen. xvii, 14.) (2.) That man perpetrated this
crime, after he had been placed in a state of innocence and
adorned by God with such excellent endowments as those of
"the knowledge of God," and "righteousness and true
holiness." (Gen. i, 26, 27; Col. iii, 10; Ephes. iv, 24.)
(3.) That when so many facilities existed for not sinning,
especially in the act itself, yet man did not abstain from
this sin. (Gen. ii, 16, 17,) (4.) That he committed this sin
in a place that was sanctified as a type of the celestial
Paradise. (ii, 15, 16; iii, 6, 23; Rev. ii, 7.) There are
some other things which may aggravate this sin; but since it
has them in common with most other offenses, we shall not at
present enter into a discussion of them.
THE EFFECTS OF THIS SIN
XV. The proper and immediate effect of this sin was the
offending of the Deity. For since the form of sin is "the
transgression of the law," (1 John iii, 4,) it primarily and
immediately strikes against the legislator himself, (Gen.
iii, 11,) and this with the offending of one whose express
will it was that his law should not be offended. From this
violation of his law, God conceives just displeasure, which
is the second effect of sin. (iii, 16-19, 23, 24.) But to
anger succeeds infliction of punishment, which was in this
instance two-fold. (1.) A liability to two deaths. (ii, 17;
Rom. vi, 23.) (2.) The withdrawing of that primitive
righteousness and holiness, which, because they are the
effects of the Holy Spirit dwelling in man, ought not to have
remained in him after he had fallen from the favour of God,
and had incurred the Divine displeasure. (Luke xix, 26.) For
this Spirit is a seal of God's favour and good will. (Rom.
viii, 14, 15; 1 Cor. ii, 12.)
XVI. The whole of this sin, however, is not peculiar to our
first parents, but is common to the entire race and to all
their posterity, who, at the time when this sin was
committed, were in their loins, and who have since descended
from them by the natural mode of propagation, according to
the primitive benediction. For in Adam "all have sinned."
(Rom. v, 12.) Wherefore, whatever punishment was brought
down upon our first parents, has likewise pervaded and yet
pursues all their posterity. So that all men "are by nature
the children of wrath," (Ephes. ii, 3,) obnoxious to
condemnation, and to temporal as well as to eternal death;
they are also devoid of that original righteousness and
holiness. (Rom. v, 12, 18, 19.) With these evils they would
remain oppressed forever, unless they were liberated by
Christ Jesus; to whom be glory forever.
DISPUTATION 8
ON ACTUAL SINS
RESPONDENT, CASPER WILTENS
I. As divines and philosophers are often compelled, on
account of a penury of words, to distinguish those which are
synonymous, and to receive others in a stricter or more ample
signification than their nature and etymology will allow; so
in this matter of actual sin, although the term applies also
to the first sin of Adam, yet, for the sake of a more
accurate distinction, they commonly take it for that sin
which man commits, through the corruption of his nature, from
the time where he knows how to use reason; and they define it
thus: "Something thought, spoken or done against the law of
God; or the omission of something which has been commanded by
that law to be thought, spoken or done." Or, with more
brevity, "Sin is the transgression of the law;" which St.
John has explained in this compound word anomia "anomy." (1
John iii, 4.)
II. For as the law is perceptive of good and prohibitory of
evil, it is necessary not only that an action, but that the
neglect of an action, be accounted a sin. Hence arises the
first distinction of sin into that of commission, when a
prohibited act is perpetrated, as theft, murder, adultery,
&c. And into that of omission, when a man abstains from [the
performance of] an act that has been commanded; as if any one
does not render due honour to a magistrate, or bestows on the
poor nothing in proportion to the amplitude of his means. And
since the Law is two-fold, one "the Law of works," properly
called, "the Law," the other "the Law of faith," (Rom. iii,
27,) which is the gospel of the grace of God; therefore sin
is either that which is committed against the Law, or against
the gospel of Christ. (Heb. ii, 2, 3.) That which is
committed against the Law, provokes the wrath of God against
sinners; that against the gospel, causes the wrath of God to
abide upon us; the former, by deserving punishment; the
latter, by preventing the remission of punishment.
III. One is a sin per se, "of itself;" another, per accidens,
"accidentally." (1.) A sin per se is every external or
internal action which is prohibited by the law, or every
neglect of an action commanded by the law. (2.) A sin is per
accidens either in things necessary and restricted by law, or
in things indifferent. In things necessary, either when an
act prescribed by law is performed without its due
circumstances, such as to bestow alms that you obtain praise
from men; (Matt. vi, 2;) or when an act prohibited by law is
omitted, not from a due cause and for a just end; as when any
one represses his anger at the moment, that he may afterwards
exact more cruel vengeance. In things indifferent, when any
one uses them to the offense of the weak. (Rom. xiv, 15, 21.)
IV. Sin is likewise divided in reference to the personal
object against whom the offense is committed; and it is
either against God, against our neighbour, or against
ourselves, according to what the Apostle says: "The grace of
God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men,
teaching us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we
should live soberly, righteously and godly, in this present
world." (Tit. ii, 11.) Where soberness is appropriately
referred to the man himself; righteousness to our neighbour;
and godliness to God: These, we affirm, are likewise
contained in the two grand precepts, "Love God above all
things," and "Love thy neighbour as thyself." For howsoever
it may seem, that the ten commandments prescribe only what is
due to God and to our neighbour; yet this very requirement is
of such a nature that it cannot be performed by a man without
fulfilling at the same time his duty to himself.
V. It is further distinguished, from its cause, into sins of
ignorance, infirmity, malignity and negligence. (1.) A sin of
ignorance is, when a man does any thing which he does not
know to be a sin; thus, Paul persecuted Christ in his Church.
(1 Tim. i, 13.) (2.) A sin of infirmity is, when, through
fear, which may befall even a brave man, or through any other
more vehement passion and perturbation of mind, he commits
any offense; thus, Peter denied Christ, (Matt. xxvi, 70,) and
thus David, being offended by Nabal, was proceeding to
destroy him and his domestics. (1 Sam. xxv, 13, 21.) (3.) A
sin of dignity or malice, when any thing is committed with a
determined purpose of mind, and with deliberate counsel; thus
Judas denied Christ, (Matt. xxvi, 14, 15.) and thus David
caused Uriah to be killed. (2 Sam. xi, 15.) (4.) A sin of
negligence is, when a man is overtaken by a sin, (Gal. vi,
l.) which encircles and besets him before he can reflect
within himself about the deed. (Heb. xii, 1.) In this
description will be classed that of St. Paul against Ananias
the High Priest, if indeed he may be said to have sinned in
that matter. (Acts xxiii, 3.)
VI. Nearly allied to this is the distribution of sin into
that which is contrary to conscience, and that which is not
contrary to conscience. (1.) A sin against conscience is one
that is perpetrated through malice and deliberate purpose,
laying waste the conscience, and (if committed by holy
persons) grieving the Holy Spirit so much as to cause Him to
desist from his usual functions of leading them into the
right way, and of making them glad in their consciences by
his inward testimony. (Psalm li, 10, 13.) This is called, by
way of eminence, "a sin against conscience;" though, when
this phrase is taken in a wide acceptation, a sin which is
committed through infirmity, but which has a previous sure
knowledge that is applied to the deed, might also be said to
be against conscience. (2.) A sin not against conscience is
either that which is by no means such, and which is not
committed through a willful and wished-for ignorance of the
law, as the man who neglects to know what he is capable of
knowing: or it is that which at least is not such in a
primary degree, but is precipitated through precipitancy, the
cause of which is a vehement and unforeseen temptation. Of
this kind, was the too hasty judgment of David against
Mephibosheth, produced by the grievous accusation of Ziba,
which happened at the very time when David fled. This bore a
strong resemblance to a falsehood. (2 Sam. xvi, 3, 4.) Yet
that which, when once committed, is not contrary to
conscience, becomes contrary to it when more frequently
repeated, and when the man neglects self-correction.
VII. To this may be added, the division of sin from its
causes, with regard to the real object about which the sin is
perpetrated. This object is either "the lust of the flesh,
the lust of the eyes, or the pride of life," that is, either
pleasure specially so called, or avarice, or arrogant
haughtiness; all of which, proceeding from the single
fountain of self love or inordinate affection, tend
distinctly towards the good things of the present life,
haughtiness towards its honours, avarice towards its riches,
and pleasure towards those things by which the external
senses may experience self-gratification. From these arise
those works of the flesh which are enumerated by the apostle
in Gal. v, 19-21, perhaps with the exception of idolatry. Yet
it may be made a legitimate subject of discussion, whether
idolatry may not be referred to one of these three causes.
VIII. Sin is also divided into venial and mortal: but this
distribution is not deduced from the nature of sin itself,
but accidentally from the gracious estimation of God. For
every sin is in its own nature mortal, that is, it is that
which merits death; because it is declared universally
concerning sin, that "its wages is death," (Rom. vi, 23,)
which might in truth be brought instantly down upon the
offenders, were God wishful to enter into judgment with his
servants. But that which denominates sin venial, or capable
of being forgiven, is this circumstance, God is not willing
to impute sin to believers, or to place sin against them, but
is desirous to pardon it; although with this difference, that
it requires express penitence from some, while concerning
others it is content with this expression: "Who can
understand his errors? Cleanse thou me, O Lord, from secret
faults." (Psalm xix, 12.) In this case, the ground of fear is
not so much, lest, from the aggravation of sin, men should
fall into despair, as, lest, from its extenuation, they
should relapse into negligence and security; not only because
man has a greater propensity to the latter than to the
former, but likewise because that declaration is always at
hand: have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," that
is, of the sinner who has merited death by his
transgressions, "but that he be converted and live." (Ezek.
xviii, 32.)
IX. Because we say that the wages of every sin is death," we
do not, on this account, with the Stoics, make them all
equal. For, beside the refutation of such an opinion by many
passages of Scripture, it is likewise opposed to the
diversity of objects against which sin is perpetrated, to the
causes from which it arises, and to the law against which the
offense is committed. Besides, the disparity of punishments
in the death that is eternal, proves the falsehood of this
sentiment: For a crime against God is more grievous than one
against man; (1 Sam. ii, 25;) one that is perpetrated with a
high hand, than one through error; one against a prohibitory
law, than one against a mandatory law. And far more severe
will be the punishment inflicted on the inhabitants of
Chorazin and Bethsaida, than on those of Tyre and Sidon.
(Matt. xi, 23.) By means of this dogma, the Stoics have
endeavoured to turn men aside from the commission of crimes;
but their attempt has not only been fruitless, but also
injurious, as will be seen when we institute a serious
deliberation about bringing man back from sin into the way of
righteousness.
X. Mention is likewise made, in the Scriptures, of "a sin
unto death;" (1 John v, 16;) which is specially so called,
because it in fact, brings certain death on all by whom it
has been committed. Mention is made in the same passage of "a
sin which is not unto death," and which is opposed to the
former. In a parallel column with these, marches the division
of sin into pardonable and unpardonable. (1.) A sin which is
"not unto death" and pardonable, is so called, because it is
capable of having subsequent repentance, and thus of being
pardoned, and because to many persons it is actually pardoned
through succeeding penitence-such as that which is said to be
committed against "the Son of Man." (2.) The "sin unto death"
or unpardonable, is that which never has subsequent
repentance, or the author of which cannot be recalled to
penitence -- such as that which is called "the sin" or
"blasphemy against the Holy Ghost," (Matt. xii, 32; Luke xii,
10,) of which it is said, "it shall not be forgiven, either
in this world, or in the world to come." For this reason, St.
John says, we must not pray for that sin.
XI. But, though the proper meaning and nature of the sin
against the Holy Ghost are with the utmost difficulty to be
ascertained, yet we prefer to follow those who have furnished
the most weighty and grievous definition of it, rather than
those who, in maintaining six species of it, have been
compelled to explain "unpardonable" in some of those species,
for that which is with difficulty or is rarely remitted, or
which of itself deserves not to be pardoned. With the former
class of persons, therefore, we say that the sin against the
Holy Ghost is committed when any man, with determined malice,
resists divine, and in fact, evangelical truth, for the sake
of resistance, though he is so overpowered with the
refulgence of it, as to be rendered incapable of pleading
ignorance in excuse. This is therefore called "the sin
against the Holy Ghost, not because it is not perpetrated
against the Father and the Son; (for how can it be that he
does not sin against the Father and the Son, who sins against
the Spirit of both?) but because it is committed against the
operation of the Holy Spirit, that is, against the conviction
of the truth through miracles, and against the illumination
of the mind.
XII. But the cause why this sin is called "irremissible," and
why he who has committed it, cannot be renewed to repentance,
is not the impotency of God, as though by his most absolute
omnipotence, he cannot grant to this man repentance unto
life, and thus cannot pardon this blasphemy; but since it is
necessary, that the mercy of God should stop at some point,
being circumscribed by the limits of his justice and equity
according to the prescript of his wisdom, this sin is said to
be "unpardonable," because God accounts the man who has
perpetrated so horrid a crime, and has done despite to the
Spirit of grace, to be altogether unworthy of having the
divine benignity and the operation of the Holy Spirit
occupied in his conversion, lest he should himself appear to
esteem this sacred operation and kindness at a low rate, and
to stand in need of a sinful man, especially of one who is
such a monstrous sinner!
XIII. The efficient cause of actual sins is, man through his
own free will. The inwardly working cause is the original
propensity of our nature towards that which is contrary to
the divine law, which propensity we have contracted from our
first parents, through carnal generation. The outwardly
working causes are the objects and occasions which solicit
men to sin. The substance or material cause, is an act which,
according to its nature, has reference to good. The form or
formal cause of it is a transgression of the law, or an
anomy. It is destitute of an end; because sin is amartia a
transgression which wanders from its aim. The object of it is
a variable good; to which, when man is inclined, after having
deserted the unchangeable good, he commits an offense.
XIV. The effect of actual sins are all the calamities and
miseries of the present life, then death temporal, and
afterwards death eternal. But in those who are hardened and
blinded, even the effects of preceding sins become cousequent
sins themselves.
DISPUTATION 9
ON THE RIGHTEOUSNESS AND EFFICACY OF THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD
CONCERNING EVIL
RESPONDENT: RALPH DE ZYLL
I. Among the causes and pretenses by which human ignorance
has been induced, and which human perverseness has abused, to
deny the providence of God, the entrance of evil (that is, of
sin) into the world, and its most wonderful and fertile
exuberance, do not by any means occupy the lowest stations.
For since, with Scripture as our guide and Nature as our
witness, we must maintain that God is good, omniscient, and
of unbounded power; (Mark x, 18; Psalm cxlvii, 5; Rev. iv, 8;
Rom. i, 20;) and since this is a truth of which every one is
fully persuaded who has formed in his mind any notion of the
Deity; men have concluded from this that evil could not have
occurred under the three preceding conditions of the divine
Majesty, if God managed all things by his providence, and if
it was his will to make provision respecting evil, according
to these properties of his own nature. And therefore, since,
after all, evil has occurred, they have concluded that the
providence of God must be entirely denied. For they thought
it better to set up a God that was at repose, and negligent
of mundane affairs, especially of those in which a rational
creature's freedom of will intervened, than to deprive Him of
the honour of his goodness, wisdom and power. But it is not
necessary to adopt either of these methods; and that it is
possible to preserve to God, without disparagement, these
three ornaments of Supreme Majesty, as well as His
providence, will be shewn by a temperate explanation of the
efficacy of God concerning evil.
II. A few things must be premised about this evil itself, as
a basis for our explanation. (1.) What is properly sin? (2.)
Was it possible for it to be perpetrated by a rational
creature, and how? (3.) That a chief evil cannot be granted,
which may contend on an equality with the chief Good, as the
Manichees asserted; otherwise, of all the evils which can be
devised, sin, of which we are now treating, is, in reality,
the chief; and, if we may speak with strictness, sin is the
only and sole evil; for all other things are not evils, in
themselves, but are injurious to some one.
III. 1. Sin is properly an aberration from a rule. This rule
is the equity which is preconceived in the mind of God, which
is expressed to the mind of a rational creature by
legislation, and, according to which it is proper for such a
creature to regulate his life. It is therefore defined by St.
John in one compound word, anomia "the transgression of the
law;" (1 John iii, 4;) whether such a law be preceptive of
Good, or prohibitory of evil, (Psalm xxxiv, 14,) hence the
evil of commission is perpetrated against the prohibitory
part, and that of omission against the preceptive. But in
sin, two things come under consideration: (1.) The act
itself, which has reference to natural good; but under the
act, we comprehend likewise the cessation from action. (2.)
Anomy, or "the transgression of the law," which obtains the
place of a moral evil. The act may be called the substance or
material cause of sin; and the transgression of the law, its
form or formal cause.
IV. II. But it was possible for sin to be perpetrated by a
rational creature; for, as a creature, he was capable of
declining or revolting from the chief Good, and of being
inclined towards an inferior good, and towards the acts by
which he might possess this minor good. As rational, he was
capable of understanding that he was required to live in a
godly manner, and what that equity was according to which his
life and actions were to be specially regulated. As a
rational creature, a law could be imposed on him by God, nay,
according to equity and justice, it ought to be imposed, by
which he might be forbidden to forsake the chief good, and to
commit that act, though it was naturally good. The mode is
placed in the freedom of the will, bestowed by God on a
rational creature, according to which he was capable of
performing the obedience which is due to the law, or could by
his own strength exceed or transgress its limits.
V. III. But since a chief evil cannot be allowed, it follows
from this, that, though evil be contrary to good, yet it
cannot pass beyond the universal order of that good which is
chief, but can be reduced to order by this chief good, and
evil can thus be directed to good, on account of the infinite
wisdom of this chief good, by which he knows what is possible
to be made from evil; and on account of this power, by which
he can make from this evil what he knows may be made from it.
Granting, therefore, that sin has exceeded the order of every
thing created, yet it is circumscribed within the order of
the Creator himself and of the chief good. Since it is
apparent from all these premises, that the providence of God
ought not to intervene, or come between, to prevent the
perpetration of evil by a free creature; it also follows,
from the entrance of evil into the world, and it has entered
so far "that the whole world lieth in wickedness," (1 John v,
19,) -- that the Providence of God cannot be destroyed. This
truth we will demonstrate at greater length, when we treat
upon the efficacy of the providence of God concerning evil.
VI. We have already said, that, in sin, the act or the
cessation from action, and "the transgression of the law,"
come under consideration: But the efficiency of God about
evil, concerns both the act itself and its viciousness, and
it does this, whether we have regard to the beginning of sin,
to its progress, or to its end and consummation. The
consideration of the efficiency which is concerned about the
Beginning of sin, embraces either a hindrance or a
permission; to which we add, the administration of arguments
and occasions inciting to sin; that which regards its
Progress, has direction and determination; and that
concerning The End and Termination, punishment and remission.
We will refrain from treating upon the concurrence of God,
since it is only in reference to the act, considered, also,
as naturally good.
VII. The First efficiency of God concerning evil, is a
hindrance or the placing of an impediment, whether such
hindrance be sufficient or efficacious. (Jer. xxxi, 32, 33.)
For it belongs to a good, to hinder an evil as far as the
good knows it to be lawful to do so. But a hindrance is
placed either on the power, on the capability, or on the
will, of a rational creature. These three things must also be
considered in that which hinders. (1.) On the power an
impediment is placed, by which some act is taken away from
the power of a rational creature, to the performance of which
it has an inclination and sufficient powers. By being thus
circumscribed, it comes to pass, that the creature cannot
perform that act without sin, and this circumscription is
made by legislation. The tasting of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil was thus circumscribed, when leave was
granted to eat of all others: (Gen. ii, 17) and this is the
hindrance of sin as such; and it is placed by God before a
rational creature as he has the right and power over that
creature.
VIII. (2.) On the capability also an impediment is placed.
The effect of this is, that the rational creature cannot
perform the act, for the performance of which he has an
inclination, and powers that, without this impediment, would
be sufficient. But this hindrance is placed before a rational
creature by four methods: (1.) By depriving the creature of
essence and life, which are the foundation of capability.
Thus was the attack upon Jerusalem hindered, (2 Kings 19,) as
was also the forcible abduction of Elijah to Ahaziah, (2
Kings 1,) when, in the former instance, "an hundred fourscore
and five thousand men were slain by the angel of the Lord,"
and, in the latter, two different companies, each containing
fifty men, were consumed by fire. (2.) The second method is
by the taking away or the diminution of capability. Thus
Jeroboam was prevented from apprehending the prophet of the
Lord, by "the drying up of his own hand." (1 Kings 13, 4.)
Thus, sin is hindered, so as not to exercise dominion over a
man, when the body of sin is weakened and destroyed. (Rom.
vi, 6.) (3.) The third is by the opposition of a greater
capability, or at least of one that is equal. Thus was Uzziah
prevented from burning incense unto Jehovah, when the priests
resisted his attempt. (2 Chron. xxvi, 18, 21.) Thus also is
"the flesh" hindered from "doing what it would," "because the
Spirit lusteth against the flesh," (Gal. v, 17,) and because
"greater is He that is in us, than he that is in the world."
(1 John iv, 4.) (4.) The fourth method is by the withdrawing
of the object. Thus the Jews were frequently hindered from
hurting Christ, because He withdrew himself from the midst of
them. (John viii, 59.) Thus was Paul taken away, by the Chief
Captain, from the Jews, who had conspired together for his
destruction. (Acts xxiii, 10.)
IX. (3.) An impediment is placed on the will, when by some
argument it is persuaded not to will to commit a sin. But we
refer the arguments by which the will is moved, to the
following three classes. For they are taken, (i.) either from
the impossibility or the difficulty of the thing, (ii.) from
its unpleasantness or inconvenience, its usefulness or
injuriousness, (iii.) or from its being dishonourable, unjust
and indecorous. (i.) By the first of these, the Pharisees and
Scribes were frequently prevented from laying violent hands
on Christ: (Matt. xxi, 46) for they were of opinion, that he
would be defended by the people, "who took him for a
prophet." In the same manner were the Israelites hindered
from departing to their lovers, to false gods; for God
"hedged up their way with thorns, and made a wall, so that
they could not find their customary paths." (Hosea ii, 6, 7.)
Thus the saints are deterred from sinning, when they see
wicked men "wearied in the ways of iniquity and perdition."
(Wisdom v, 7.) (ii.) By the second argument, the brethren of
Joseph were hindered from killing him, since they could
obtain their end by selling him. (Gen. xxxvii, 26, 27.) Thus
Job was prevented from sinning "with his eyes" because he
knew what was "the portion of God from above, and what the
inheritance of the Almighty from on high," for those who have
their eyes full of adultery. (Job xxxi, 1, 2.) (iii.) By the
third, Joseph was hindered from defiling himself by shameful
adultery, (Gen. xxxix, 8, 9,) and David was prevented from
"stretching forth his hand against the Lord's anointed." (1
Sam. xxiv, 7.)
X. The permission of sin succeeds, which is opposed to
hindering. Yet it is not opposed to hindering, as the latter
is an act which is taken away from the power of a rational
creature by legislation; for, in that case, the same act
would be a sin, and not a sin. It would be a sin in reference
to its being a forbidden act; and it would be no sin in
reference to its being permitted in this manner, that is, not
forbidden. But permission is opposed to hindrance, in
reference to the latter being an impediment placed on the
capability and will of an intelligent creature. But
permission is the suspension, not of one impediment or two,
which may be presented to the capability or the will, but of
all impediments at once, which, God knows, if they were all
employed, would effectually hinder sin. Such necessarily
would be the result, because sin might be hindered by a
single impediment of that kind. (1.) Sin therefore is
permitted to the capability of the creature, when God employs
none of those hindrances of which we have already made
mention in the 8th Thesis: for this reason, this permission
consists of the following acts of God who permits, the
continuation of life and essence to the creature, the
conservation of his capability, a cautiousness against its
being opposed by a greater capability, or at least by one
that is equal, and the exhibition of an object on which sin
is committed. (2.) Sin is also permitted to the will; not
because no such impediments are presented by God to the will,
as are calculated to deter the will from sinning; but because
God, seeing that these hindrances which are propounded will
produce no effect, does not employ others which He possesses
in the treasures of his wisdom and power. (John xviii, 6;
Mark xiv, 56.) This appears most evidently in the passion of
Christ, with regard not only to the power but also to the
will of those who demanded his death. (John xix, 6.) Nor does
it follow from these premises, that those impediments are
employed in vain: for though such results do not follow as
are in accordance with these hindrances, yet God in a manner
the most powerful gains his own purposes, because the results
are not such as ought to have followed. (Rom. x, 20, 21.)
XI. The foundation of this permission is (1.) The liberty of
choosing, with which God formed his rational creature, and
which his constancy does not suffer to be abolished, lest he
should be accused of mutability. (2.) The infinite wisdom and
power of God, by which he knows and is able out of darkness
to bring light, and to produce good out of evil. (Gen. i, 2,
3; 2 Cor. iv, 6.) God therefore permits that which He does
permit, not in ignorance of the powers and the inclination of
rational creatures, for he knows them all, not with
reluctance, for he could have refrained from producing a
creature that might possess freedom of choice, not as being
incapable of hindering, for we have already seen by how many
methods he is able to hinder both the capability and the will
of a rational creature; not as if at ease, indifferent, or
negligent of that which is transacted, because before
anything is done he already ["has gone through"] has looked
over the various actions which concern it, and, as we shall
subsequently see, [§ 15-22,] he presents arguments and
occasions, determines, directs, punishes and pardons sin. But
whatever God permits, He permits it designedly and willingly,
His will being immediately occupied about its permission, but
His permission itself is occupied about sin; and this order
cannot be inverted without great peril.
XII. Let us now explain a little more distinctly, by some of
the differences of sin, those things which we have in this
place spoken in a general manner concerning hindering and
permission. (i.) From its causes, sin is distinguished into
that of ignorance, infirmity, malignity and negligence. (1.)
An impediment is placed on a sin of ignorance, by the
revelation of the divine will. (Psalm cxix, 105.) (ii.) On a
sin of infirmity, by the strengthening influence of the Holy
Spirit against the machinations or the world and Satan, and
also against the weakness of our flesh. (Ephes. iii, 16; vi,
11-13.) (iii.) On a sin of malignity, by "taking away the
stony heart, and bestowing a heart of flesh," (Ezek. xi, 19,)
and inscribing upon it the law of God: (Jer. xxxi, 33.) (iv.)
And on a sin of negligence, by exciting in the hearts of
believers a holy solicitude and a godly fear. (Mark xiv, 38;
Jer. xxxii, 40.) From these remarks those acts will easily be
manifest, in the suspension of which consists the permission
of sins of every kind. God permitted Saul of Tarsus, a
preposterous zealot for the law, to persecute Christ through
ignorance, until "he revealed his Son in him," by which act
out of a persecutor was formed a pastor. (Gal. i, 13-15.)
Thus, he permitted Peter, who loved Christ, though he was
somewhat too self-confident, to deny Him through infirmity;
but, when afterwards endued with a greater energy of the Holy
Spirit, he confessed him with intrepidity even unto death.
(Matt. xxvi, 70; Acts v, 41; John xxi, 19.) God permitted
Saul, whom "in his anger he had given to the Israelites as
their king" (Hosea xiii, 11; 1 Sam. ix, 1,) through malignity
to persecute David, of whose integrity he had been convinced,
(1 Sam. xxiv, 17-19,) while his own son Jonathan resisted
[his father's attempts against David] in vain. And God
permitted David, after having enjoyed many victories and
obtained leisure and retirement, to defile himself with the
foul crime of adultery at a moment when he was acting with
negligence. (2 Sam. 11.)
XIII. (2.) Sin, in the next place, is distinguished with
respect to the two parts of the law -- that which is
perceptive of good, and that which is prohibitory of evil. [§
3.] Against the latter of these an offense may be committed,
either by performing an act, or by omitting its performance
from an undue cause and end. Against the former, either by
omitting an act, or by performing it in an undue manner, and
from an undue cause and end. To these distinctions the
hindering and the permission of God may likewise be adapted.
God hindered Joseph's brethren from killing him; while he
permitted them to spare his life, from an undue cause and
end; for since it was in their power to sell him, the
opportunity for which was divinely offered to them, they
considered it unprofitable or useless to kill him. (Gen.
xxxvii, 26, 27.) Thus Absalom was hindered from following the
counsel of Ahithophel, though it was useful to himself and
injurious to David; not because he considered it to be
unjust, but because of its supposed injury to David; for he
persisted in the purpose of persecuting his father, which he
also completed in fact. (2 Sam. 17.) God hindered Balaam from
cursing the children of Israel, and caused him to bless them;
but so that he abstained from the former act, and performed
the latter, with a perverse mind. (Num. 23.) We shall in some
degree understand the reasons of this hindering and
permission, if, while distinctly considering in sin the act
and the anomy or "transgression of the law," we apply to each
of them divine hindrance and permission.
XIV. But though the act, and "the transgression of the law,"
are inseparably united in one sin, and therefore neither of
them can be hindered or permitted without the other; yet they
may be distinguished in the mind; and hindrance as well as
permission may be effected by God, sometimes chiefly with
regard to the act, and at other times chiefly with regard to
"the transgression of the law," and, when so done, they may
be considered by us in these relations not without high
commendation of the wisdom of God and to our own profit. God
hindered Joseph's brethren from killing him, not as it was a
sin, (because He permitted them, while remaining in the same
mind to sell him,) but as it was an act. For they would have
deprived Joseph of life, when it was the will of God that he
should be spared. God permitted his vendition, not chiefly as
it was a sin, but as an act; because by the sale of Joseph as
it was an act, God obtained his own end. (Gen. xxxvii, 27.)
God hindered Elijah from being forcibly brought to Ahaziah to
be slain, not as that was a sin, but as it was an act. This
is apparent from the end, and from the mode of hindering.
From the end; because it was His will that the life of his
prophet should be spared, not lest Ahaziah should sin against
God. From the mode of hindering; because he destroyed two
companies, of fifty men each, who had been sent to seize him;
which was a token of divine anger against Ahaziah and the
men, by which sin as such is not usually hindered, but as it
is an act which will prove injurious to another; yet, through
grace, sin is hindered as such. (2 Kings 1.) God permitted
Satan and the Chaldeans to bring many evils on Job, not as
that was a sin, but as it was an act: for it was the will of
God to try the patience of his servant, and to make that
virtue conspicuous to the confusion of Satan. But this was
done by an act, by which, as such, injuries were inflicted on
Job. (Job 1, 2.) David was hindered from laying violent hands
on Saul, not as it was an act, but as it was a sin: this is
manifest from the argument by which being hindered he
abstained [from completing the deed.] "The Lord forbid," said
he, "that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord's
anointed." This argument deterred him from the sin as such.
The same is also evident from the end of the hindrance: for
it was the will of God for David to come to [the possession
of] the kingdom through the endurance of afflictions, as a
type of Christ the true David. (1 Sam. xxiv, 7.) God
permitted Ahab to kill Naboth, not as that foul deed was an
act, but as it was a sin: for God could have translated
Naboth, or taken him to himself, by some other method; but it
was the divine will, that Ahab should fill up the measure of
his iniquities, and should accelerate his own destruction and
that of his family. (1 Kings 21.) Abimelech was hindered from
violating the chastity of Sarah, the wife of Abraham, both as
it was an act, and as it was a sin. For it was not the will
of God, that Abimelech should defile himself with this crime,
because "in the integrity of his heart" he would then have
done it. It was also His will to spare his servant Abraham,
in whom indelible sorrow would have been produced by the
deflowering of his wife, as by an act. (Gen. xx, 6.) God
permitted Judah to know Tamar his daughter-in-law, both as it
was an act, and as it was a sin: because it was the will of
God, to have his own Son as a direct descendant from Judah;
and at the same time to declare, that nothing is so polluted
as to be incapable of being sanctified in Christ Jesus. (Gen.
xxxviii, 18.) For it is not without reason that St. Matthew
says, "Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar;" and "David the
king begat Solomon of her who had been the wife of Urias;"
(i, 3, 6;) and from whom in an uninterrupted line Christ was
born.
XV. But since an act, though permitted to the capability and
the will of the creature, may have been taken away from its
power by legislation; [§ 7;] and since, therefore, it will
very often happen, that a rational creature not altogether
hardened in evil is unwilling to perform an act which is
connected with sin, unless when some arguments and
opportunities are presented to him, which are like incentives
to commit that act; the management of this presenting of
arguments and opportunities, is also in the hands of the
Providence of God, who presents these excitements. (1.) Both
to try whether it be the will of the creature to abstain from
sinning, even when it is excited by these incentives; since
small praise is due to abstaining in cases in which such
excitements are absent. (S. of Syrach xx, 21-,3; xxxi, 8-10.)
(2.) And then, if it be the will of the creature to yield to
these incentives, to effect His own work by the act of the
creature; not impelled by necessity, as if God was unable to
produce his own work without the intervention of the act of
his creature; but moved to this by the will to illustrate his
own manifold wisdom. Thus the arguments by which Joseph's
brethren were incited through their own malice to wish to
kill him, and the opportunities by which it was in their
power to send him out of their way, were offered by Divine
dispensation, partly in an intervening manner by the mediate
act of men, and partly by the immediate act of God himself.
The arguments for this malignity were, Joseph's accusation,
by which he revealed to his father the wicked actions of his
brethren, the peculiar regard which Jacob entertained for
Joseph, the sending of a dream, and the relation of the dream
after it had occurred. By these, the minds of his brethren
were inflamed with envy and hatred against him. The
opportunities were, the sending of Joseph to his brethren by
his father, and the presenting of the Ishmaelites journeying
into Egypt, at the very moment of time in which they were in
deliberation about murdering their brother. (Gen. 37.) The
preceding considerations have related only to the Beginning
of sin; to its Progress belong direction and determination.
[§ 6.]
XVI. The Direction of sin is an act of Divine Providence, by
which God in a manner the wisest and most potent directs sin
wherever he wills, "reaching from one end to another
mightily, and sweetly ordering all things." (Wisd. viii, 1.)
We must consider in this direction the point at which it has
its origin and that at which it terminates. For when God
directs sin wherever he wills, it is understood that he leads
it away from the point to which it is not His will that it
should proceed. But this direction is two-fold, unto an
Object, and unto an End. Direction unto an Object is when God
allows the sin which He permits, to be borne, not at the
option of the creature, towards an object which in any way
whatsoever is exposed and liable to the injury of sin; but
which he directs to a particular object, which on some
occasions has either been no part of the sinner's aim or
desire, or which at least he has not absolutely desired. The
Scriptures enunciate this kind of direction, generally, in
the following words: "A man's heart deviseth his way; but the
Lord directeth his steps." (Prov. xvi, 9.) But, Specially,
concerning the heart of a King: "As the rivers of water are
in the hand of the Lord, he turneth the heart of the king
whithersoever he will." (Prov. xxi, 1.) Of which we have a
signal example in Nebuchadnezzar, who, after he had
determined in his own mind to subjugate the nations, and
hesitated whether he should move against the Ammonites, or
against the Jews, God managed the king's divinations so, that
he resolved to march against the Jews, and to abstain from an
attack upon the Ammonites. (Ezek. xxi, 19- 22.)
XVII. Direction unto an End is, when God does not allow the
sin (which he permits,) to be subservient to the end of any
thing which the creature intends; but he employs it to that
end which he himself wills, whether the creature intend the
same end, (which if he were to do, yet he would not be
excused from sin,) or whether he intend another, and one
quite contrary. For God knows how to educe the light of his
own glory, and the advantage of his creatures, out of the
darkness and mischief of sin. Thus "the thoughts of evil,"
which Joseph's brethren entertained against him, were
converted by God into a benefit, not only to Joseph, but also
to the whole of Jacob's family, and to all the kingdom of
Egypt. (Gen. i, 20, 21.) By the afflictions which were sent
to Job, Satan endeavoured to drive him to blasphemy. But by
them, God tried the patience of his servant, and through it
triumphed over Satan. (Job i, 11, 12, 22; ii, 9, 10.) The
king of Assyria had determined "in his heart to destroy and
cut off all nations not a few." But God executed his own work
by him, whom "he sent against an hypocritical nation and the
people of his wrath." (Isa. x, 5-12.) Nor is it at all
wonderful, that God employs acts, which his creatures do not
perform without sin, for ends that are pleasing to himself;
because he does this most justly, for three reasons: (i.) For
He is the Lord of his creature, though that creature be a
sinner; because he has no more power to exempt or deliver
himself from the dominion of God, than he has to reduce
himself into nothing. (ii.) Because, as a creature endowed by
God with inclination and capability, he performs those acts,
though not without sin, as they have been forbidden. (iii.)
Because the creature is a saw, in the hands of the Creator;
and instrumental causes do not reach to the intention of the
first agent. (Isa. x, 15.)
XVIII. Determination is an act of Divine Providence, by which
God places a limit on his permission, and a boundary on sin
that it may not wander and stray in infinitum at the option
of the creature. The limit and boundary are placed by the
prescribing of the time, and the determination of the
magnitude. The prescribing of the time, is the prescribing of
the very point or moment when it may be done, or the length
of its duration. (i.) God determines the moment of time, when
he permits a sin, to the commission of which his creature is
inclined, to be perpetrated, not indeed at the time when it
was the will of the creature to commit it; but He wisely and
powerfully contrives for it to be done at another time. "The
Jews sought to take Jesus: but no man laid hands on him,
because his hour was not yet come." (John vii, 30.) "Yet when
the time before appointed of the Father" approached, Christ
said to them, "This is your hour, and the power of darkness."
(Luke xxii, 53.) (2.) A limit is placed on the duration, when
the space of time in which the permitted sin could endure, is
diminished and circumscribed so as to stop itself. Thus
Christ says, "Except those days should be shortened, there
should no flesh be saved," &c. (Matt. xxiv, 22.) But in this
part of the discussion also, regard must be had to the act as
such, and to the sin as such. (i.) A limit is placed on the
duration of the act, in the following passages: "The rod of
the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous, lest
the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity." (Psalm
cxxv, 3.) "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of
temptations," &c. (2 Pet. ii, 9.) (ii.) A limit is placed on
the duration of the sin, in these passages: "Therefore I will
hedge up thy way with thorns, &c. And she shall not find her
lovers: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first
husband." (Hosea ii, 6.) "In times past God suffered all
nations to walk in their own ways: but now he commandeth all
men every where to repent." (Acts xiv, 16; xvii, 30.)
XIX. A limit is placed on the magnitude of sin, when God does
not permit sin to increase beyond bounds and to assume
greater strength. But this also is done, with regard to it
both as an act, and as a sin. (i.) With respect to it as an
act, in the following passages of Scripture: God permitted
"the wrath of their enemies to be kindled against" the
Israelites, but "he did not suffer them to swallow them up."
(Psalm cxxiv, 2, 3.) "There hath no temptation taken you, but
such as is common to man." (1 Cor. x, 13.) "We are perplexed,
but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down,
but not destroyed." (2 Cor. iv, 8, 9.) God permitted Satan,
first, "To put forth his hand upon all that Job had," but not
to touch him; (Job i, 12;) and, secondly, "To touch his bone
and his flesh, but to save his life." (ii, 6.) "I will not
destroy them by the hand of Shishak; nevertheless, they shall
be his servants." (2 Chron. xii, 7, 8.) (ii.) With respect to
it as a sin, God permitted David to resolve in his mind to
destroy with the sword, Nabal and all his domestics, and to
go instantly to him; but he did not permit him to shed
innocent blood, and to save himself by his own hand. (1 Sam.
xxv, 22, 26, 31.) God permitted David to flee to Achish, and
to "feign himself mad;" (1 Sam. xxi, 13;) but he did not
permit him to fight, in company with the army of Achish,
against the Israelites, or by the exercise of fraud to prove
injurious to the army of Achish. (xxvii, 2; xxix, 6, 7.) For
he could have done neither of these deeds without committing
a most flagrant wickedness: though both of them might have
been determined [by David] as acts, by which great injury
could be inflicted on those against whom it was the will of
God that no mischief should be done.
XX. On account of this Presenting of incitements and
opportunities, and this Direction and Determination of God,
added to the Permission of sin, God is said himself to do
those evils which are perpetrated by bad men and by Satan.
For instance, Joseph says to his brethren, "It was not you
that sent me hither, but God:" (Gen. xlv, 8;) because, after
having completed the sale of their brother, they were
unconcerned about the place to which he was to be conducted,
and about his future lot in life: but God caused him to be
led down into Egypt and there to be sold, and he raised him
to an eminent station in that country by the interpretation
of some dreams. (xxxvii, 25, 28; xl, 12, 13; xli, 28-42.) Job
says, "The Lord hath taken away" what was taken away at the
instigation and by the aid of Satan; (Job 1 & 2;) both
because that evil spirit was of his own malice instigated
against Job by God's commendation of him; and because, after
having obtained power to do him harm, he produced no further
effect than that which God had determined. Thus God is also
said to have done what Absalom did; (2 Sam. xii, 11, 12; 15,
16;) because the principal parts, in the various actions
employed for producing this consummation, belonged to God. To
these we must add the remark, that since the wisdom of God
knows that if he administers the whole affair by such a
presenting, direction, and determination, that will certainly
and infallibly come to pass which cannot be done by the
creature without criminality; and since His will decrees this
administration, it will more clearly appear why a deed of
this kind may be attributed to God.
XXI. Last in the discussion follow the punishment and the
pardon of sin, by which acts Divine Providence is occupied
about sin already perpetrated, as it is such, not as it is an
act: for sin is punished and pardoned as it is an evil, and
because it is an evil. (1.) The Punishment of sin is an act
of the Providence of God, by which sin is recompensed with
the chastisement that is due to it according to the
righteousness of God. This punishment either concerns the
life to come, or takes place in the ages of the present life:
the former is an eternal separation of the whole man from
God; the other, which is usually inflicted in this life, is
two-fold: corporal and spiritual. The punishments which
relate to the body, are various; but it is not necessary for
our purpose to enumerate them at present. But spiritual
punishment deserves to be diligently considered: for it is
such a chastisement of sin, as to be also a cause of other
[sins] which follow on account of the wickedness of him on
whom it is inflicted. It is a privation of grace, and a
delivering up to the power of evil [or the evil one]. (i.)
Privation of Grace is two-fold according to the two kinds of
grace, that which is Habitual and that which is Assisting.
The former is the taking away of grace, by blinding the mind
and hardening the heart. (Isa. vi, 9, 10.) The other, is the
withdrawing of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who is wont
inwardly "to help our infirmities," (Rom. viii, 26,) and
outwardly to restrain the furious rage of Satan and the
world, by employing also the ministration and care of good
angels. (Heb. i, 14; Psalm xci, 11.) (ii.) A delivering up to
the power of evil is, either "giving sinners over to a
reprobate mind," and to the efficacy of error, (Rom. i, 28; 2
Thess. ii, 9-11,) or to the desires of the flesh and to
sinful lusts, (Rom. i, 24,) or to the power of Satan, "the
god of this world," (2 Cor. 4,) "who worketh powerfully in
the children of disobedience." (Ephes. ii, 2.) But because
from this punishment arise many other sins, and this not only
according to the certain knowledge of God, by which he knows
that if he thus punishes they will thence arise, but likewise
according to his purpose, by which he resolves so to punish
as, on account of more heinous sins thence committed, to
punish with still greater severity; therefore these
expressions occur in the scriptures: "But I will harden the
heart of Pharaoh, that he shall not let the people go; he
shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon
Egypt." (Exod. iv, 21; vii, 4.) "Notwithstanding, the sons of
Eli hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the
Lord would slay them." (1 Sam. ii, 25.) "But Amaziah would
not hearken to the answer of Joash king of Israel; for it
came of God, that he might deliver them into the hand of
their enemies, because they sought after the gods of Edom."
(2 Chron. xxv, 20.) This consideration distinguishes the
governance of God concerning sins, so far as it is concerned
about those sinners who are hardened, or those who are not
hardened.
XXII. The Pardon or remission of sin is an act of the
Providence of God, by which the guilt of sin is forgiven, and
the chastisement due to sin according to its guilt is taken
away. As this remission restores, to the favour of God, the
man who had before been an enemy; so it likewise causes the
Divine administration concerning him to be afterwards
entirely gracious so far as equity and justice require: that
is, through this pardon, he is free from those spiritual
punishments which have been enumerated in the preceding
paragraph; (Psalm ii, 10-12;) and though not exempt from
corporal chastisements, yet he is not visited with them
through the anger of God as the punisher of sin, but only
through the desire of God thus to declare that he hates sin,
and besides so to chastise as to deter him from falling again
into it. (2 Sam. xii, 11-13.) For which reason, the
government of Providence with regard to this man is entirely
different from that under which he remained before he
obtained remission. (Psalm cxix, 67; 1 Cor. xi, 32; Psalm
xxxii, 1-6.)
XXIII. From those topics on which we have already treated, it
is clearly evident, we think, that, because evils have
entered into the world, neither Providence itself, nor its
government respecting evil, ought to be denied. Neither can
God be accused as being guilty of injustice on account of
this his governance; not only because he hath administered
all things to the best ends; that is, to the chastisment,
trial, and manifestation of the godly -- to the punishment
and exposure of the wicked, and to the illustration of his
own glory; (for ends, alone, do not justify an action;) but,
much more, because he has employed that form of
administration which allows intelligent creatures not only of
their own choice or spontaneously. but likewise freely, to
perform and accomplish their own motions and actions.
DISPUTATION 10
ON THE RIGHTEOUSNESS AND EFFICACY OF THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD
CONCERNING EVIL
RESPONDENT: GERARD ADRIANS
I. The consideration of evil, which is called "the evil of
culpability" or "of delinquency," has induced many persons to
deny the providence of God concerning creatures endowed with
understanding and freedom of will, and concerning their
actions. These persons have denied it for two reasons: (1.)
They have thought that, because God is good and just,
omniscient and omnipotent, he would have entirely prevented
sin from being committed, if in reality he cared by his
providence for his rational creatures and there actions.
(Mark x, 18; Psalm cxlvii, 5; Rev. iv, 8; Mal. ii, 17; iii,
14.) (2.) Because they can conceive in their minds no other
administration of Divine Providence concerning evil, than
such as would involve God himself in the culpability, and
would exempt from all criminality the creature, as if he had
been impelled to sin by an irresistible act of God's
efficiency. For this reason, then, since a belief in the
Providence of God is absolutely necessary, (Luke xii, 28,)
from whom a considerable part of his government is taken away
if it be denied that he exercises any care over rational
creatures and their actions; we will endeavour briefly to
explain the Efficiency of Divine Providence concerning evil;
and at the same time to demonstrate from this efficiency,
that God cannot possibly be aspersed with the charge of
injustice, and that no stain of sin can attach to him, on the
contrary, that this efficiency is highly conducive to the
commendation of God's righteousness.
II. But in sin are to be considered not only the act, (under
which we likewise comprise the omission of the act,) but also
"the transgression of the law." The act has regard to a
natural good, and is called the material cause of sin; the
transgression is a moral evil, and is called the formal cause
of sin. An investigation into both of them is necessary, when
we treat upon the efficiency of God concerning sin: for it is
occupied about the act as it is an act, and as it is done
against the law which prohibits its commission; about the
omission of the act as such, and as it is against the law
which commands its performance. But this efficiency is to be
considered: (1.) With regard to the beginning of sin, and its
first conception in the heart of a rational creature; (2.)
its attempt, and, through this attempt, its perpetration;
and, (3.) with regard to sin when finished. The efficiency of
God concerning the beginning of sin is either its hindrance
or permission; and, added to permission, the administration
both of arguments and occasions inciting to sin; as well as
an immediate concurrence to produce the act. The Divine
efficiency concerning the progress of sin comprises its
direction and determination; and concerning the completion of
sin, it is occupied in punishing or pardoning.
III. The First efficiency of God concerning sin, is Hindrance
or the placing of a hindrance, which, both with regard of the
efficiency and of the object, is three-fold. With respect to
efficiency: For (i.) the impediment is either of sufficient
efficacy, but such as does not hinder sin in the act. (Matt.
xi, 21, 23; John xviii, 6.) (ii.) Or it is of such great
efficacy as to render it impossible to be resisted. (iii.) Or
it is of an efficacy administered in such a way by the wisdom
of God, as in reality to hinder sin with regard to the event,
and with certainty according to the foreknowledge of God,
although not necessarily and inevitably. (Gen. xx, 6.) With
respect to the object, it is likewise three-fold: for a
hindrance is placed either on the power, the capability, or
the will of a rational creature. (i.) The impediment placed
on the power, is that by which some act is taken away from
the power of a rational creature, for the performance of
which it has an inclination and sufficient powers. This is
done by legislation, through which it comes to pass that the
creature cannot perform that act without sin. (Gen. ii, 16,
17.) (ii.) The impediment placed on the capability, is that
by which this effect is produced, that the creature cannot
commit the deed, for the performance of which it possesses an
inclination, and powers which, without this hindrance, would
be sufficient. But this hindrance is placed on the capability
in four ways: First. By depriving the creature of the essence
and life, which are the foundation of capability. (1 Kings
19; 2 Kings 1.) Secondly. By the ablation or diminution of
capability. (1 Kings xiii, 4; Rom. vi, 6.) Thirdly. By the
opposition of a greater capability, or at least of one that
is equal. (2 Chron. xxvi, 18-21; Gal. v, 17.) Fourthly. By
the withdrawing of the object towards which the act tends.
(John viii, 59.) (iii.) An impediment is placed on the will
when, by some argument, it is persuaded not to will the
perpetration of a sin, whether this argument be taken from
the impossibility or the difficulty of the thing; (Matt. xxi,
46; Hosea ii, 6, 7;) from its unpleasantness or
inconvenience, its uselessness or injuriousness; (Gen.
xxxvii, 26, 27;) and, lastly, from its injustice, dishonour,
and indecency. (Gen. xxxix, 8, 9.)
IV. The Permission of sin is contrary to the hindering of it.
Yet it is not opposed to hindrance as the latter is an act
which is taken away from the power of a creature by
legislation; for, in this case, the same act would be a sin,
and not a sin -- a sin as it was an act forbidden to the
power of the creature, and not a sin as being permitted, that
is not forbidden. But permission is opposed to this
hindrance, by which an impediment is placed on the power and
the will of the creature. This permission is a suspension of
all impediments, that, God knows, if they were employed,
would in fact, hinder the sin; and it is a necessary result,
because sin might be hindered by a single impediment of this
description. (1.) Sin, therefore, is permitted to the power
of the creature, when God employs none of those impediments
which have been mentioned in the third thesis of this
disputation: on which account, this permission has the
following, either as conjoint or preceding acts of God. The
continuance of essence and life to the creature, the
preservation of his power, a care that it be not opposed by a
greater power, or at least by one equal to it, and, lastly,
the exhibition of the object on which sin is committed.
(Exod. ix, 16; John xviii, 6; 1 Sam. xx, 31, 32; Matt. xxvi,
2, 53.) (2.) Sin is permitted also to the will, not by the
suspension of every impediment suitable to deter the will
from sinning, but by not employing those which in reality
would hinder, of which kind God must have an immense number
in the treasures of his wisdom and power.
V. The foundation of this permission is, (1.) The liberty of
choice, which God, the Creator, has implanted in his rational
creature, and the use of which the constancy of the Donor
does not suffer to be taken away from this creature. (2.) The
infinite wisdom and power of God, by which He knows and is
able to produce good out of evil. (Gen. i, 2, 3; 2 Cor. iv,
6.) And therefore, God permits that which he does permit, not
in ignorance of the powers and the inclination of rational
creatures, for he knows all things; (1 Sam. xxiii, 11, 12;) -
- not with reluctance, for it was in his power, not to have
produced a creature who possessed freedom of will, and to
have destroyed him after he was produced; (Rev. iv, 11;) --
not as being incapable of hindering, for how can this be
attributed to Him who is both omniscient and omnipotent?
(Jer. xviii, 6; Psalm xciv, 9, 10;) not as an unconcerned
spectator, or negligent of that which is transacted, because
even before any thing is done, he has already gone through
the various actions concerning it, and has, besides, an
attentive eye upon it to direct and determine to punish or to
pardon it. (Psalm lxxxi, 12, 13.) But whatever God permits,
he permits it designedly and voluntarily, His will being
immediately concerned about its permission, which permission
itself is immediately occupied about sin, which order cannot
be inverted without injury to divine justice and truth.
(Psalm v, 4, 5.)
VI. We must now, with more distinctness, explain, by some of
the differences of sin, those things which we have spoken
thus generally about hindering and permitting. (1.) The
distinction of sin, from its causes, into those of ignorance,
infirmity, malignity, and negligence, will serve our purpose.
For an impediment is placed on a sin of ignorance, by the
revelation of the divine will; (Psalm cxix, 105;) on a sin of
infirmity, by the strengthening of the Holy Spirit; (Ephes.
iii, 16;) on a sin of malignity, by "taking away the stony
heart, and by bestowing a heart of flesh," (Ezek. xi, 19,)
and inscribing on it the law of God; (Jer. xxxi, 33;) and on
a sin of negligence, by a holy solicitude excited in the
hearts of believers. (Jer. xxxii, 40.) From these, it will be
easily evident, in the suspension of which of these acts
consists the permission of sins under each of the preceding
classes. (2.) The distinction of sin according to the
relation of the law which commands the performance of good,
and of that which prohibits the commission of evil, has also
a place in this explanation. For, against the prohibitory
part, an offense is committed, either by performing an act,
or from an undue cause and end, omitting its performance --
against the perceptive part, either by omitting an act, or by
performing it in an undue manner, and from an undue cause and
end. To these distinctions also, God's hindering and
permitting may be adapted. For Joseph's brethren were
hindered from killing him; but they were induced to omit that
act from an undue cause and end. (Gen. xxxvii, 26, 27.)
Absalom was hindered from following the counsel of
Ahithophel, which was useful to himself, and hurtful to
David; but he did not abstain from it through a just cause,
and from a good end. (2 Sam. 17.) God hindered Balaam from
cursing the children of Israel, and caused him to bless them;
but it was in such a manner that he abstained from the former
act, and performed the latter with an insincere and knavish
mind. (Num. 23.)
VII. We shall more correctly understand the reasons and
causes both of hindering and permitting, if, while distinctly
considering in sin the act, and the transgression of the law,
we apply to each of them the divine hindrance and permission.
But though, in sin, the act and the transgression of the law
are inseparably connected, and therefore neither can be
hindered or permitted without the other; yet they may be
distinguished in the mind, and God may hinder and permit
sometimes with regard to the act or to the transgression
alone; at other times, principally with regard to the one of
them or to both, and these his acts may become objects of
consideration to us. God hindered Elijah from being forcibly
brought to Ahaziah to be killed, not as that was a sin, but
as it was an act. This is apparent from the end and the mode
of hindering. From the end, because it was His will that the
life of His prophet should be spared, not lest Ahaziah should
sin against God. From the mode of hindering, because he
destroyed two companies, of fifty men each, who had been sent
to seize him, which was a token of divine anger against
Ahaziah and the men, by which sin is not usually hindered as
such, but as it is an act which will prove injurious to
another: but through Grace, sin is hindered as such. (2 Kings
1.) God permitted Joseph to be sold, when he hindered his
murder. He permitted his vendition, not more as it was a sin
than as it was an act; for by the sale of Joseph, as it was
an act, God obtained his end. (Gen. xxxvii, 1, 20; Psalm cv,
17.) But God hindered David from laying violent hands on
Saul, not so much as it was an act, as in reference to its
being a sin. This appears from the argument by which David
was induced to refrain. "The Lord forbid," said he, "that I
should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord's anointed."
(1 Sam. xxiv, 7.) God permitted Ahab to kill Naboth, rather
as it was a sin than as it was an act; for thus Ahab filled
up the measure of his iniquities, and accelerated the
infliction of punishment on himself; for, by some other way
than this, God could have taken Naboth to himself. (1 Kings
21.) But Abimelech was hindered from violating the chastity
of Sarah -- both as it was an act by which indelible grief
would have been brought down upon Abraham, whom He greatly
loved, and as it was a sin; for God was unwilling that
Abimelech should defile himself with this crime, because "in
the integrity of his heart," he would have done it. (Gen. xx,
6.) On the contrary, God permitted Judah to know Tamar, his
daughter-in-law -- both as an act because God willed to have
Christ born in direct descent from Judah, and as it was a
sin, for it was the will of God thus to declare: Nothing is
so polluted that it cannot be sanctified in Christ Jesus.
(Gen. xxxviii, 18.) For it is not in vain that Matthew has
informed us, that Christ was the Son of Judah by Tamar, as he
was also the Son of David by the wife of Uriah. (Matt. 1.)
This matter when diligently considered by us, conduces both
to illustrate the wisdom of God, and to promote our own
profit, if in our consciences, we solicitously observe from
what acts and in what respect we are hindered, and what acts
are permitted to us.
VIII. Beside this permission, there is another efficiency of
the providence of God concerning the Beginning of Sin, that
is, the Administration or management of arguments and
occasions, which incite to an act that cannot be committed by
the creature without sin, if not through the intention of
God, at least according to the inclination of the creature,
and not seldom according to the events which thence arise. (2
Sam. xii, 11, 12; xvi, 21-23.) But these arguments are
presented either to the mind, (2 Sam. xxiv, 1; 1 Chron. xxi,
1; Psalm cv, 25,) or to the senses, both external and
internal; (Job 1 & 2; Isa. x, 5-7;) and this indeed, either
by means of the service or intervention of creatures, or by
the immediate act of God himself. The end of God in this
administration is -- to try whether it be the will of the
creature to abstain from sinning, even when it is excited by
these incentives; (for small praise is due to the act of
abstaining, in those cases in which such excitements are
absent,) and, if it be the will of the creature to yield to
these alluring attractions, to effect his own work by the act
of the creature; not impelled by necessity, as if He was
unable to complete his own work without the aid of the
creature; but through a desire to demonstrate his manifold
wisdom. Consider the Arguments by which the brethren of
Joseph, through their own malice, were incited to will his
murder: these were -- Joseph's accusation, by which he
disclosed to his father the deeds of his brethren, the
peculiar affection which Jacob cherished for Joseph, the
sending of a dream, and the relation of it. Consider also the
Occasions or opportunities, the mission of Joseph to his
brethren at his father's request, and the opportune
appearance of the Ishmaelites who were traveling into Egypt,
(Gen. 37.)
IX. The last efficiency of God concerning the Beginnings of
sin, is the divine concurrence, which is necessary to produce
every act; because nothing whatever can have an entity except
from the first and chief Being, who immediately produces that
entity. The concurrence of God is not his in, mediate influx
into a second or inferior cause, but it is an action of God
immediately flowing into the effect of the creature, so that
the same effect in one and the same entire action may be
produced simultaneously by God and the creature. Though this
concurrence is placed in the mere pleasure or will of God,
and in his free dispensation, yet he never denies it to a
rational and free creature, when he has permitted an act to
his power and will. For these two phrases are contradictory,
"to grant permission to the power and the will of a creature
to commit an act," and "to deny the divine concurrence
without which the act cannot be done." But this concurrence
is to the act as such, not as it is a sin: And therefore God
is at once the effector and the permittor of the same act,
and the permittor before he is the effector. For if it had
not been the will of the creature to perform such an act, the
influx of God would not have been upon that act by
concurrence. And because the creature cannot perform that act
without sin, God ought not, on that account, to deny the
divine concurrence to the creature who is inclined to its
performance. For it is right and proper that the obedience of
the creature should be tried, and that he should abstain from
an unlawful act and from the desire of obeying his own
inclinations, not through a deficiency of the requisite
divine concurrence; because, in this respect, he abstains
from an act as it is a natural good, but it is the will of
God that he should refrain from it as it is a moral evil.
X. The preceding considerations relate to the Beginnings of
sin. In reference to the Progress of sin, a two-fold
efficiency of divine providence occurs, direction and
determination. The direction of sin is an act of divine
providence, by which God wisely, justly, and powerfully
directs sin wherever he wills, "reaching from one end to
another mightily, and sweetly ordering all things." (Wisdom
viii, 1.) In the divine direction is likewise contained a
leading away from that point whither it is not the will of
God to direct it. This direction is two-fold, unto an object,
and unto an end. Direction unto an object is when God allows
the sin, which he permits, to be borne, not at the option of
the creature, towards an object which, in any way whatsoever,
is exposed and liable to the injury of sin; but which he
directs to a particular object that sometimes has been no
part of the sinner's aim or intention, or that he has at
least not absolutely intended. (Prov. xvi, 9; xxi, 1.) Of
this we have a signal example in Nebuchadnezzar, who, when he
had prepared himself to subjugate nations, preferred to march
against the Jews rather than the Ammonites, through the
divine administration of his divinations. (Ezek. xxi, 19-22.)
Direction unto an end is, when God does not allow the sin,
which he permits, to be conducive to any end which the
creature intends; but he uses it for that end which he
himself wills, whether the creature intend the same end, (by
which he would not still be excused from sin,) or whether he
has another purpose which is directly contrary. The vendition
of Joseph into Egypt, the temptation of Job, and the
expedition of the king of Assyria against the Jews, afford
illustrations of these remarks. (Gen. i, 20, 21; Job 1 & 2;
Isa. x, 5-12.)
XI. The determination of sin is an act of divine providence
by which God places a measure or check on his permission, and
a boundary on sin, that it may not, at the option and will of
the creature, wander in infinitum. This mode and boundary are
placed by the circumscription of the time, and the
determination of the magnitude. The circumscription of the
time is, when the space of time, in which the permitted sin
could continue, is diminished and circumscribed so as to stop
itself. (Matt. xxiv, 22.) In this part also, regard must be
had to the act as such, and to the sin as such. (i.) God
places a boundary to the duration of the act, when he takes
the rod of iniquity from the righteous, lest they commit any
act unworthy of themselves; (Psalm cxxv, 3;) and when "he
delivers the godly out of temptation." (2 Pet. ii, 9.) (ii.)
God places a boundary to the duration of the sin when he
"hedges up the way of the Israelites with thorns," that they
may no longer commit idolatry; (Hosea ii, 6, 7;) when "He
commands all men every where to repent," among "all nations,
whom he suffered, in times past, to walk in their own ways."
(Acts xiv, 16; xvii, 30.) A boundary is fixed to the
magnitude of sin, when God does not permit sin to increase to
excess and assume greater strength. This also is done with
respect to it as an act, or as a sin. (i.) In the former
respect, as an act, God hindered "the wrath of their enemies
from swallowing up" the children of Israel, though he had
permitted it to rise up against them; (Psalm cxxiv, 2, 3;) He
permitted "no temptation to seize upon" the Corinthians "but
such as is common to man;" (1 Cor. x, 13;) He hindered the
devil from putting forth his hand against the life of Job; (1
& 2;) He prevented Shishadk, the king of Egypt, from
"destroying" the Jews, and permitted him only to subject them
to servitude. (2 Chron. xii, 7-9.) (ii.) In respect to it as
a sin, God hindered David from contaminating himself with the
blood of Nabal and his domestics. which he had sworn to shed,
and with whom he was then in a state of contention. (1 Sam.
xxv, 22, 26.) He also prevented David from going forth to
battle in company with the army of Achish, (xxvii, 2; xxix,
6, 7,) to whom he had fled, and "before whom he had reigned
himself mad," (xxi, 13,) thus, at the same time he hindered
him from destroying his own countrymen, the Israelites, and
from bringing disasters on the army of Achish. For he could
have done neither of these things without the most flagrant
wickedness; though the sin, also, as an act, seems thus to
have been hindered.
XII. On account of this divine permission, the offering of
arguments and opportunities in addition to permission, also
on account of this direction, determination, and divine
concurrence, God is said himself to do those evils which are
perpetrated by men and by Satan: To have sent Joseph down
into Egypt, (Gen. xlv, 8,) -- to have taken the property of
Job, (1 & 2,) -- to have done openly "and before the sun"
what David had perpetrated "secretly" against Uriah. (2 Sam.
xii, 11, 12; 16.) This mode of speech is adopted for the
following reasons: (i.) Because the principal parts, in the
actions which are employed to produce such effects, belong to
God himself. (ii.) Because the effects and issues, which
result from all these, even from actions performed by the
creature, are not so much in accordance with the intention of
the creatures themselves, as with the purpose of God. (Isa.
x, 5-7.) (iii.) Because the wisdom of God knows, if an
administration of this kind be employed by him, that will
certainly arise, or ensue, which cannot be perpetuated by the
creature without wickedness; and because His will decrees to
employ this administration. (1 Sam. xxiii, 11-13.) (iv.) A
fourth reason may be added -- Because God, who is the
universal cause, moves into the effect with a stronger
influence than the creature does, whose entire efficacy
depends upon God.
XIII. Lastly, follows the efficiency of divine providence
concerning sin already perpetrated; which consists in its
punishment and remission. This efficiency is occupied about
sin as it is such: For sin is punished and pardoned as it is
an evil, and because it is an evil. (1.) The Punishment of
sin is an act of the providence of God, by which sin is
repaid with the punishment that is due to it according to the
justice of God. This punishment either belongs to the present
life, or to that which is to come. (i.) The latter is the
eternal separation of the whole man from God, and his anguish
and torture in the lake of fire. (Matt. xxv, 41; Rev. xx,
15.) (ii.) The punishment inflicted in this life, is either
corporal or spiritual. Those chastisements which relate to
the body, and to the state of the animal life, are various;
but the enumeration of them is not necessary for our purpose.
But spiritual punishment must be diligently considered; which
is such a punishment of a previous sin, as to be also the
cause of other subsequent sins, through the malice of him on
whom it is inflicted. It is a privation of grace, and a
delivering up to the power of evil. But Privation is either
that of habitual grace, or that of assisting grace. The
former is through the blinding of the mind, and the hardening
of the heart. (Isa. vi, 9, 10.) The latter is the withdrawing
of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who is wont, inwardly
"to help our infirmities," (Rom. viii, 26,) and outwardly to
repress the temptations of Satan and the world both on the
right hand and on the left; in this holy service, he also
engages the ministry and the care of good angels. (Heb. i,
14; Psalm xci, 11.) A Delivering Up to the power of evil is,
either "giving sinners over to a reprobate mind" and to the
efficacy of error, (Rom. i, 28; 2 Thess. ii, 9-11,) or to the
desires of the flesh and to the lusts of sin, (Rom. i, 24,)
or lastly to the power of Satan, "the god of this world," (2
Cor. iv, 4,) "who worketh powerfully in the children of
disobedience." (Ephes. ii, 2.) But because from this
punishment arise many other sins, and this not only according
to the certain knowledge of God, by which He knows that if He
thus punishes, they will thence arise, but likewise according
to his purpose by which He resolves thus to punish -- hence
occur the following expressions: "I will harden the heart of
Pharaoh," &c. (Exod. iv, 21; vii, 4.) "Notwithstanding, the
sons of Eli harkened not unto the voice of their father,
because it was the will of the Lord to slay them." (1 Sam.
ii, 25.) "But Amaziah would not hearken to the answer of
Joash, king of Israel; for it came of God, that he might
deliver them into the hand of their enemies, because they
sought after the gods of Edom." (2 Chron. xxv, 20.) This
consideration distinguishes the governance of God concerning
sins, so far as it is occupied concerning either those
sinners who are hardened, or those who are not hardened.
XIV. (2.) The Pardon or remission of sin is an act of the
Providence of God, by which the guilt of sin is forgiven, and
the punishment due to sin on account of its guilt is taken
away. As this remission restores, to the favour of God, the
man who had previously been an enemy; so it also causes the
Divine administration respecting him to be afterwards
entirely gracious, so far as equity and justice require. That
is, through this pardon, he is free from those spiritual
punishments which have been enumerated in the preceding
Thesis; (Psalm ii, 10-12;) and though not exempt from
corporal chastisements, yet he is not visited with them
through the anger of God as the punisher of sin, but only
through the desire of God thus to declare that He hates sin,
and besides so to chastise as to deter the sinner from again
falling into it. (2 Sam. xii, 11-13.) For which reason, the
government of Providence with regard to this man is entirely
different from that under which he remained before he
obtained remission. (Psalm cxix, 67; 1 Cor. xi, 32; Psalm
xxxii, 1, 6.) This consideration is exceedingly useful for
producing in man a solicitous care and a diligent endeavour
to obtain grace from God, which may not only be sufficient to
preserve him in future from sinning but which may likewise be
so administered by the gracious Providence of God, as God
knows to be best fitted to keep him in the very act from sin.
XV. This is the efficiency of Divine Providence concerning
sin, which cannot be accused of the least injustice. (1.) For
with respect to the Hindering Of Sin, that which is employed
by God is sufficient in its own nature to hinder, and by
which it is the duty of the creature to be hindered from sin,
by which also he might actually be hindered unless he offered
resistance and failed of the proffered grace. But God is not
bound to employ all the methods which are possible to Him for
the hindrance of sin. (Rom. 1 and 2; Isa. v, 4; Matt. xi, 21-
23.) (2.) But the cause of sin cannot be ascribed to the
Divine Permission. Not the efficient cause; for it is a
suspension of the Divine efficiency. Not the deficient cause;
for it pre-supposed, that man had a capability not to commit
sin, by the aid of Divine grace, which is either near and
ready; or if it be wanting, it is removed to a distance by
the fault of the man himself. (3.) The Presenting of
Arguments and Occasions does not cause sin, unless, per
accidens, accidentally. For it is administered in such a
manner, as to allow the creature not only the spontaneous but
also the free use of his own motions and actions. But God is
perfectly at liberty in this manner to try the obedience of
his creature. (3.) Neither can injustice be ascribed with any
propriety to The Divine Concurrence. For there is no reason
in existence why God ought to deny his concurrence to that
act which, on account of the precept imposed, cannot be
committed by the creature without sin; (Gen. ii, 16, 17;)
which concurrence God would grant to the same act of the
creature, if a law had not been made. (5.) Direction and
Determination have no difficulty. (6.) Punishment and Pardon
have in them manifest equity, even that punishment which
contains blinding and hardening; since God is not wont to
inflict it except for the deep demerit and the almost
desperate contumacy of his intelligent creature. (Isa. vi, 7;
Rom. 1; 2 Thess. 2, 9-12.)
DISPUTATION 11
ON THE FREE WILL OF MAN AND ITS POWERS
RESPONDENT: PAUL LEONARDS
I. The word, arbitrium, "choice," or "free will," properly
signifies both the faculty of the mind or understanding, by
which the mind is enabled to judge about any thing proposed
to it, and the judgment itself which the mind forms according
to that faculty. But it is transferred from the Mind to the
Will on account of the very close connection which subsists
between them. Liberty, when attributed to the will, is
properly an affection of the will, though it has its root in
the understanding and reason. Generally considered, it is
various. (1.) It is a Freedom from the control or
jurisdiction of one who commands, and from an obligation to
render obedience. (2.) From the inspection, care, and
government of a superior. (3.) It is also a freedom from
necessity, whether this proceeds from an external cause
compelling, or from a nature inwardly determining absolutely
to one thing. (4.) It is a freedom from sin and its dominion.
(5.) And a freedom from misery.
II. Of these five modes of liberty, the first two appertain
to God alone; to whom also on this account, autexousia
perfect independence, or complete freedom of action, is
attributed. But the remaining three modes may belong to man,
nay in a certain respect they do pertain to him. And, indeed,
the former, namely, freedom from necessity always pertains to
him because it exists naturally in the will, as its proper
attribute, so that there cannot be any will if it be not
free. The freedom from misery, which pertains to man when
recently created and not then fallen into sin, will again
pertain to him when he shall be translated in body and soul
into celestial blessedness. But about these two modes also,
of freedom from necessity and from misery, we have here no
dispute. It remains, therefore, for us, to discuss that which
is a freedom from sin and its dominion, and which is the
principal controversy of these times.
III. It is therefore asked, is there within man a freedom of
will from sin and its dominion, and how far does it extend?
Or rather, what are the powers of the whole man to
understand, to will, and to do that which is good? To return
an appropriate answer to this question, the distinction of a
good object, and the diversity of men's conditions, must both
enter into our consideration. The Good Things presented to
man are three, natural, which he has in common with many
other creatures; animal, which belong to him as a man; and
spiritual, which are also deservedly called Celestial or
Divine, and which are consentaneous to him as being a
partaker of the Divine Nature. The States, or Conditions are
likewise three, that of primitive innocence, in which God
placed him by creation; that of subsequent corruption, into
which he fell through sin when destitute of primitive
innocence; and, lastly, that of renewed righteousness, to
which state he is restored by the grace of Christ.
IV. But because it is of little importance to our present
purpose to investigate what may be the powers of free will to
understand, to will, and to do natural and animal good
things; we will omit them, and enter on the consideration of
spiritual good, that concerns the spiritual life of man,
which he is bound to live according to godliness, inquiring
from the Scriptures what powers man possesses, while he is in
the way of this animal life, to understand, to will, and to
do spiritual good things, which alone are truly good and
pleasing to God. In this inquiry the office of a Director
will be performed by a consideration of the three states, of
which we have already treated, [§ 3,] varied as such
consideration must be in the relation of these powers to the
change of each state.
V. In the state of Primitive Innocence, man had a mind endued
with a clear understanding of heavenly light and truth
concerning God, and his works and will, as far as was
sufficient for the salvation of man and the glory of God; he
had a heart imbued with "righteousness and true holiness,"
and with a true and saving love of good; and powers
abundantly qualified or furnished perfectly to fulfill the
law which God had imposed on him. This admits easily of
proof, from the description of the image of God, after which
man is said to have been created, (Gen. i, 26, 27,) from the
law divinely imposed on him, which had a promise and a threat
appended to it, (ii, 17,) and lastly from the analogous
restoration of the same image in Christ Jesus. (Ephes. iv,
24, Col. iii, 10.)
VI. But man was not so confirmed in this state of innocence,
as to be incapable of being moved, by the representation
presented to him of some good, (whether it was of an inferior
kind and relating to this animal life, or of a superior-kind
and relating to spiritual life,) inordinately and unlawfully
to look upon it and to desire it, and of his own spontaneous
as well as free motion, and through a preposterous desire for
that good, to decline from the obedience which had been
prescribed to him. Nay, having turned away from the light of
his own mind and his chief good, which is God, or, at least,
having turned towards that chief good not in the manner in
which he ought to have done, and besides having turned in
mind and heart towards an inferior good, he transgressed the
command given to him for life. By this foul deed, he
precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition
into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is Under The
Dominion of Sin. For "to whom any one yields himself a
servant to obey," (Rom. vi, 16,) and "of whom a man is
overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage," and is his
regularly assigned slave. (2 Pet. ii, 19.)
VII. In this state, the free will of man towards the true
good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened;
but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its
powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be
assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such
as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without
me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently
meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus:
"Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little;
neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing,
nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says,
without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye
cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing."
That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will
separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the
capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the
life itself of an unregenerate man.
VIII. The mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of
the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle,
incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God.
For "the animal man has no perception of the things of the
Spirit of God;" (1 Cor. ii, 14;)
in which passage man is called "animal," not from the animal
body, but from anima, the soul itself, which is the most
noble part of man, but which is so encompassed about with the
clouds of ignorance, as to be distinguished by the epithets
of "vain" and "foolish;" and men themselves, thus darkened in
their minds, are denominated "mad" or foolish, "fools," and
even "darkness" itself. (Rom. i, 21, 22; Ephes. iv, 17, 18;
Tit. iii, 3; Ephes. v, 8.) This is true, not only when, from
the truth of the law which has in some measure been inscribed
on the mind, it is preparing to form conclusions by the
understanding; but likewise when, by simple apprehension, it
would receive the truth of the gospel externally offered to
it. For the human mind judges that to be "foolishness" which
is the most excellent "wisdom" of God. (1 Cor. i, 18, 24.) On
this account, what is here said must be understood not only
of practical understanding and the judgment of particular
approbation, but also of theoretical understanding and the
judgment of general estimation.
IX. To the darkness of the mind succeeds the perverseness of
the affections and of the heart, according to which it hates
and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing
to God; but it loves and pursues what is evil. The Apostle
was unable to afford a more luminous description of this
perverseness, than he has given in the following words: "The
carnal mind is enmity against God. For it is not subject to
the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then, they that are
in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom. viii, 7.) For this
reason, the human heart itself is very often called deceitful
and perverse, uncircumcised, hard and stony." (Jer. xiii, 10;
xvii, 9; Ezek. xxxvi, 26.) Its imagination is said to be
"only evil from his very youth;" (Gen. vi, 5; viii, 21;) and
"out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries," &c. (Matt. xv, 19.)
X. Exactly correspondent to this darkness of the mind, and
perverseness of the heart, is the utter weakness of all the
powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the
perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a
due end and cause. The subjoined sayings of Christ serve to
describe this impotence. "A corrupt tree cannot bring forth
good fruit." (Matt. vii, 18.) "How can ye, being evil, speak
good things?" (xii, 34.) The following relates to the good
which is properly prescribed in the gospel: "No man can come
to me, except the Father draw him." (John vi, 44.) As do
likewise the following words of the Apostle: "The carnal mind
is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be;"
(Rom. viii, 7;)
therefore, that man over whom it has dominion, cannot perform
what the law commands. The same Apostle says, "When we were
in the flesh, the motions of sins wrought in us," or
flourished energetically. (vii, 5.) To the same purpose are
all those passages in which the man existing in this state is
said to be under the power of sin and Satan, reduced to the
condition of a slave, and "taken captive by the Devil." (Rom.
vi, 20; 2 Tim. ii, 26.)
XI. To these let the consideration of the whole of the life
of man who is placed under sin, be added, of which the
Scriptures exhibit to us the most luminous descriptions; and
it will be evident, that nothing can be spoken more truly
concerning man in this state, than that he is altogether dead
in sin. (Rom. iii, 10-19.) To these let the testimonies of
Scripture be joined, in which are described the benefits of
Christ, which are conferred by his Spirit on the human mind
and will, and thus on the whole man. (1 Cor. vi, 9-11; Gal.
v, 19-25; Ephes. ii, 2-7; iv, 17-20; Tit. iii, 3-7.) For, the
blessings of which man has been deprived by sin, cannot be
rendered more obviously apparent, than by the immense mass of
benefits which accrue to believers through the Holy Spirit;
when, in truth, nature is understood to be devoid of all that
which, as the Scriptures testify, is performed in man and
communicated by the operation of the Holy Spirit. Therefore,
if "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" (2
Cor. iii, 17;) and if those alone be free indeed whom the Son
hath made free;" (John viii, 36;) it follows, that our will
is not free from the first fall; that is, it is not free to
good, unless it be made free by the Son through his Spirit.
XII. But far different from this is the consideration of the
free will of man, as constituted in the third state of
Renewed Righteousness. For when a new light and knowledge of
God and Christ, and of the Divine will, have been kindled in
his mind; and when new affections, inclinations and motions
agreeing with the law of God, have been excited in his heart,
and new powers have been produced in him; it comes to pass,
that, being liberated from the kingdom of darkness, and being
now made "light in the Lord," (Ephes. v, 8,) he understands
the true and saving good; that, after the hardness of his
stony heart has been changed into the softness of flesh, and
the law of God according to the covenant of grace has been
inscribed on it, (Jer. 31, 32-35,) he loves and embraces that
which is good, just, and holy; and that, being made capable
in Christ, co-operating now with God, he prosecutes the good
which he knows and loves, and he begins himself to perform it
in deed. But this, whatever it may be of knowledge, holiness
and power, is all begotten within him by the Holy Spirit; who
is, on this account, called "the Spirit of wisdom and
understanding, of counsel and might, of knowledge and the
fear of Jehovah," (Isa. xi, 2,) "the Spirit of grace," (Zech.
xii, 10,) "of faith," (2 Cor. iv, 13,) "the Spirit of
adoption" into sons, (Rom. viii, 16,) and "the Spirit of
holiness;" and to whom the acts of illumination,
regeneration, renovation, and confirmation, are attributed in
the Scriptures.
XIII. But two things must be here observed. The First that
this work of regeneration and illumination is not completed
in one moment; but that it is advanced and promoted, from
time to time, by daily increase. For "our old man is
crucified, that the body of sin might be destroyed," (Rom.
vi, 6,) and "that the inward man may be renewed day by day."
(2 Cor. iv, 16.) For this reason, in regenerate persons, as
long as they inhabit these mortal bodies, "the flesh lusteth
against the Spirit." (Gal. v, 17.) Hence it arises, that they
can neither perform any good thing without great resistance
and violent struggles, nor abstain from the commission of
evil. Nay, it also happens, that, either through ignorance or
infirmity, and sometimes through perverseness, they sin, as
we may see in the cases of Moses, Aaron, Barnabas, Peter and
David. Neither is such an occurrence only accidental; but,
even in those who are the most perfect, the following
Scriptures have their fulfillment: "In many things we all
offend;" (James iii, 9;) and "There is no man that sinneth
not." (1 Kings viii, 46.)
XIV. The Second thing to be observed is, that as the very
first commencement of every good thing, so likewise the
progress, continuance and confirmation, nay, even the
perseverance in good, are not from ourselves, but from God
through the Holy Spirit. For "he who hath begun a good work
in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ;"
(Phil. i, 6;) and "we are kept by the power of God through
faith." (1 Pet. i, 5.) "The God of all grace makes us
perfect, stablishes, strengthens and settles us." (i, 10.)
But if it happens that persons fall into sin who have been
born again, they neither repent nor rise again unless they be
raised up again by God through the power of his Spirit, and
be renewed to repentance. This is proved in the most
satisfactory manner, by the example of David and of Peter.
"Every good and perfect gift, therefore, is from above, and
cometh down from the Father of lights," (James i, 17,) by
whose power the dead are animated that they may live, the
fallen are raised up that they may recover themselves, the
blind are illuminated that they may see, the unwilling are
incited that they may become willing, the weak are confirmed
that they may stand, the willing are assisted that they may
work and may co-operate with God. "To whom be praise and
glory in the church, by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages,
world without end. Amen!"
"Subsequent or following grace does indeed assist the good
purpose of man; but this good purpose would have no existence
unless through preceding or preventing grace. And though the
desire of man, which is called good, be assisted by grace
when it begins to be; yet it does not begin without grace,
but is inspired by Him, concerning whom the Apostle writes
thus, thanks be to God, who put the same earnest care into
the heart of Titus for you. If God incites any one to have
'an earnest care' for others, He will 'put it into the heart'
of some other person to have 'an earnest care' for him."
Augustinus, Contra. 2 Epist. Pelag. l. 2. c. 9.
"What then, you ask, does free will do? I reply with brevity,
it saves. Take away FREE WILL, and nothing will be left to be
saved. Take away GRACE, and nothing will be left as the
source of salvation. This work [of salvation] cannot be
effected without two parties -- one, from whom it may come:
the other, to whom or in whom it may be wrought. God is the
author of salvation. Free will is only capable of being
saved. No one, except God, is able to bestow salvation; and
nothing, except free will, is capable of receiving it."
Bernardus, De Libero Arbit. et Gratia.
DISPUTATION 12
THE LAW OF GOD
RESPONDENT: DIONYSIUS SPRANCKHUYSEN
I. Law in general is defined, either from its End, "an
ordinance of right reason for the common and particular good
of all and of each of those who are subordinate to it,
enacted by Him who has the care of the whole community, and,
in it, that of each individual." Or from its Form and its
Efficacy, "an ordinance commanding what must be done, and
what omitted; it is enacted by Him, who possesses the right
of requiring obedience; and it binds to obedience a creature
who abounds in the use of reason and the exercise of liberty,
by the sacred promise of a reward and by the denunciation of
a punishment." It is likewise distinguished into Human and
Divine. A Divine law has God for its author, a Human law has
man for its author; not that any law enacted by man is choice
and good, which may not be referred to God, the author of
every good; but because men deduce from the Divine law such
precepts as are accommodated to the state of which they have
the charge and oversight, according to its particular
condition and circumstances. At present we will treat upon
the Divine law.
II. The Divine law may be considered, either as it is
impressed on the minds of men by the engrafted word; (Rom.
ii, 14, 15;) as it is communicated by words audibly
pronounced, (Gal. ii, 17,) or as it is comprised in writing.
(Exod. xxxiv, 1.) These modes of legislation do not differ in
their entire objects: but they may admit of discrimination in
this way, the first seems to serve as a kind of foundation to
the rest; but the two others extend themselves further, even
to those things which are commanded and forbidden. We will
now treat upon the law of God which is comprised in writing;
and which is also called "the law of Moses;" because God used
him as a mediator to deliver it to the children of Israel.
(Mal. iv, 4; Gal. iii, 19.) But it is three-fold according to
the variety of the object, that is, of the works to be
performed. The first is called the Ethical, or Moral Law:
(Exod. 20.) The second, the Sacred or Ceremonial. The third
the Political, Judicial or Forensic Law.
III. The Moral Law is distributed through the whole of the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and is summarily
contained in the Decalogue. It is an ordinance that commands
those things which God accounts grateful of themselves, and
which it is his will to be performed by all men at all times
and in all places; and that forbids the contrary things. (1
Sam. xv, 22; Amos v, 21-24; Micah vi, 6-8.) It is therefore
the perpetual and immutable rule of living, the express image
of the internal Divine conception; according to which, God,
the great lawgiver, judges it right and equitable that a
rational creature should always and in every place order and
direct the whole of his life. It is briefly contained in the
love God and of our neighbour; (Matt. xxii, 36-39;) whether
partly consisting of those services which relate to the love,
honour, fear, and worship of God; (Mal. i, 6;) or partly
consisting of those duties which we owe to our neighbours,
superiors, inferiors, and equals: (Rom. 12,13, & 14;) in the
wide circle of which are also comprehended those things which
every man is bound to perform to himself. (Tit. ii, 11, 12.)
IV. The uses of the moral law are various, according to the
different conditions of man. (1.) The primary use, and that
which was of itself intended by God according to his love for
righteousness and for his creatures, was, that man by it
might be quickened or made alive, that is, that he might
perform it, and by its performance might be justified, and
might "of debt" receive the reward which was promised through
it. (Rom. ii, 13; x, 5; iv, 4.) And this use was accommodated
to the primitive state of man, when sin had not yet entered
into the world. (2.) The first use in order of the moral law,
under a state of sin, is AGAINST man as a sinner, not only
that it may accuse him of transgression and guilt, and may
subject him to the wrath of God and condemnation; (Rom. iii,
19, 20;) but that it may likewise convince him of his utter
inability to resist sin and to subject himself to the law.
(Rom. 7.) Since God has been pleased mercifully and
graciously to treat with sinful man, the next use of the law
TOWARDS the sinner is, that it may compel him who is thus
convicted and subjected to condemnation, to desire and seek
the grace of God, and that it may force him to flee to Christ
either as the promised or as the imparted deliverer. (Gal.
ii, 16, 17.) Besides, in this state of sin, the moral law is
serviceable, not only to God, that, by the dread of
punishment and the promise of temporal rewards, he may
restrain men under its guidance at least from the outward
work of sin and from flagrant crimes; (1 Tim. i, 9, 10;) but
it is also serviceable to Sin, when dwelling and reigning in
a carnal man who is under the law, that it may inflame the
desire of sin, may increase sin, and may "work within him all
manner of concupiscence." (Rom. vi, 12-14; vii, 5, 8, 11,
13.) In the former case, God employs the law through his
goodness and his love for civil and social intercourse among
mankind. In the latter case, it is employed through the
malice of sin which reigns and has the dominion.
V. (3.) The third use of the moral law is towards a man, as
now born again by the Spirit of God and of Christ, and is
agreeable to the state of grace, that it may be a perpetual
rule for directing his life in a godly and spiritual manner:
(Tit. iii, 8; James ii, 8.) Not that man may be justified;
because for this purpose it is rendered "weak through the
flesh" and useless, even if man had committed only a single
sin: (Rom. viii, 3.) But that he may render thanks to God for
his gracious redemption and sanctification, (Psalm cxvi, 12,
13,) that he may preserve a good conscience, (1 Tim. i, 19,)
that he may make his calling and election sure, (2 Pet. i,
10,) that he may by his example win over other persons to
Christ, (1 Pet. iii, 1,) that he may confound the devil, (Job
1 & 2,) that he may condemn the ungodly world, (Heb. xi, 7,)
and that through the path of good works he may march towards
the heavenly inheritance and glory, (Rom. ii, 7,) and that he
may not only himself glorify God, (1 Cor. vi, 20,) but may
also furnish occasion and matter to others for glorifying his
Father who is in Heaven. (Matt. v, 16.)
VI. From these uses it is easy to collect how far the moral
law obtains among believers and those who are placed under
the grace of Christ, and how far it is abrogated. (1.) It is
abrogated with regard to its power and use in justifying:
"For if there had been a law given which could have given
life, verily righteousness should have been by that law."
(Gal. iii, 21.) The reason why "it cannot give life," is,
"because it is weak through the flesh:" (Rom. viii, 3) God,
therefore, willing to deal graciously with men, gave the
promise and Christ himself, that the inheritance through the
promise and by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them
that believe. But the law which came after the promise, could
neither "make the latter of none effect," (for it was
sanctioned by authority,) nor could it be joined or super-
added to the promise, that out of this union righteousness
and life might be given. (Gal. iii, 16-18, 22.) (2.) It is
abrogated with regard to the curse and condemnation: For
"Christ, being made a curse for us, hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law;" (Gal. iii, 10-13;) and thus the law is
taken away from sin, lest its "strength" should be to
condemn. (1 Cor. xv, 55, 56.) (3.) The law is abrogated and
taken away from sin, so far as "sin, having taken occasion by
the law, works all manner of concupiscence" in the carnal
man, over whom sin exercises dominion. (Rom. vii, 4-8.) (4.)
It is abrogated, with regard to the guidance by which it
urged man to do good and to refrain from evil, through a fear
of punishment and a hope of temporal reward. (1 Tim. i, 9,
10; Gal. iv, 18.) For believers and regenerate persons "are
become dead to the law by the body of Christ," that they may
be the property of another, even of Christ; by whose Spirit
they are led and excited in newness of life, according to
love and the royal law of liberty. (1 John v, 3, 4; James ii,
8.) Whence it appears, that the law is not abrogated with
respect to the obedience which must be rendered to God; for
though obedience be required under the grace of Christ and of
the Gospel, it is required according to clemency, and not
according to strict [legal] rigor. (1 John iii, 1, 2.)
VII. The Ceremonial Law is that which contains the precepts
concerning the outward worship of God; which was delivered to
the Jewish church, and was accommodated to the times in which
the church of God was "as a child" under "the promise" and
the Old Testament. (Gal. iv, 1-3.) It was instituted not only
to typify, to prefigure and to bear witness by sealing; (Heb.
viii, 5; x, 1;) but likewise for the discipline, or good
order which was to be observed in ecclesiastical meetings and
acts. (Col. ii, 14; Psalm xxvii, 4.) Subservient to the
former purpose were circumcision, the Pascal Lamb,
sacrifices, sabbaths, sprinklings, washings, purifications,
consecrations and dedications of living creatures. (Col. ii,
11; 1 Cor. v, 7.) To the latter purpose, [that of church
discipline,] were the distinct functions of the Priests, the
Levites, the Singers, and the porters, or door-keepers, the
courses or changes in their several duties, and the
circumstances of the places and times in which these sacred
acts were to be severally performed. (1 Chron. 24, 25, & 26.)
VIII. The use of this ceremonial law was, (1.) That it might
retain that ancient people under the hope and expectation of
the good things which had been promised. (Heb. x, 1- 3.) This
use it fulfilled by various types, figures and shadows of
persons, things, actions, and events; (7, 9, & 10;) by which
not only were sins testified as in "a hand-writing which was
against them," (Col. ii, 14,) that the necessity of the
promise which had been given might be understood; but
likewise the expiation and promised good things were shewn at
a distance, that they might believe the promise would
assuredly be fulfilled. (Heb. ix, 8-10; Col. ii, 17; Heb. x,
1.) And in this respect, since the body and express form of
those types and shadows relate to Christ, the ceremonial law
is deservedly called "a school-master [to bring the Jews]
unto Christ." (Gal. iii, 24.) (2.) That it might distinguish
from other nations the Children of Israel, as a people
sanctified to God on a peculiar account, and that it might
separate them as "a middle wall of partition;" (Ephes. ii,
14, 15;) yet so as that even strangers might be admitted to a
participation in it by circumcision. (Exod. xii, 44; Acts ii,
10.) (3.) That while occupied in this course of operas
religious services, they might not invent and fabricate other
modes of worship, nor assume such as were in use among other
nations; and thus they were preserved pure from idolatry and
superstition, to which they had the greatest propensity, and
for which occasions were offered on every side by those
nations who were contiguous, as well as by those who dwelt
amongst them. (Deut. 12; xxxi, 16, 27-29.)
IX. The ceremonial law was abrogated by the cross, the death
and the resurrection of Christ, by his ascension into heaven
and the mission of the Holy Ghost, by the sun's dispersion of
the shadows, and by the entrance of "the body which is of
Christ" into their place, (Col. ii, 11, 12, 14, 17,) which is
the full completion of all the types. (Heb. viii, 1-6.) But
the gradations to be observed in its abrogation must come
under our consideration: In the first moment it was abrogated
with regard to the necessity and utility of its observance,
every obligatory right being at once and together taken from
it: in that instant it ceased to live, and became dead. (Gal.
iv, 9, 10; 1 Cor. vii, 19; ix, 19, 20; 2 Cor. iii, 13- 16.)
Afterwards it was actually to be abolished. This was ejected
partly, by the teaching of the Apostles among believers, who
by degrees understood "Christ to be the end of the law," and
of that which was then abolished; they abstained therefore
voluntarily from the use of that law. Its abolition was also
ejected in part, by the power of God, in the destruction of
Jerusalem and of the temple, in which was the seat of
religion, and the place appointed for performing those
religious observances, against the contumacy of the
unbelieving Jews. From this period the legal ceremonies began
to be mortiferous, though in the intermediate space [which
had elapsed between the death of Christ and the destruction
of Jerusalem,] these rites, even in the judgment of the
apostles themselves, might be tolerated, but only among the
Jews, and with a proviso, that they should not be imposed on
the Gentiles: (Acts xvi, 3; xv, 28; xxi, 21-26; Gal. ii, 3,
11, 12;) which toleration must itself be considered as being
tantamount to a new institution.
X. The Judicial Law is that which God prescribed by Moses to
the Children of Israel, of whom He was in a peculiar manner
the king. (Exod. 21, 22, 23, &c.) It contained precepts about
the form of the political government to be exercised in civil
society, for procuring the benefit both of natural and
spiritual life, by the preservation and exaction of the
outward worship and of the external discipline commanded in
moral and ceremonial law, such as concerned magistrates,
contracts, division of property, judgments, punishments, &c.
(Deut. xvii, 15.) These laws may appropriately be referred to
two kinds: (1.) Some of them, with regard to their substance
are of general obligation, though with regard to some
circumstances they are peculiar to the Jewish commonwealth.
(2.) Others belong simply to a particular right or authority.
(Deut. xv, 1, 2; vi, 19.)
XI. The uses of this judicial law also were three: (1.) That
the whole community of the Children of Israel might be
regulated by a certain rule of public equity and justice;
that it might be "as a city that is compact together," (Psalm
cxxii, 3,) [or as a body] "which is knit together" according
to all and each of its parts," "by the joints and sinews" of
the precepts prescribed in this law. (2.) That the Israelites
might, by this law, be distinguished from other nations who
had their own laws. Thus was it the will of God, that this
his people should have nothing in common with other nations,
wherever this was possible according to the nature of things
and of man himself. These two uses related to the existing
condition of the Jewish commonwealth. (3.) It had reference
to future things, and was typical of them For all that state,
and the whole kingdom and its administration, the chiefs of
administration, the judges and kings, prefigured Christ and
his kingdom, and its spiritual administration. Psalm 2; Ezek.
xxxiv, 23, 24.) In this respect also the judicial law may be
called "a schoolmaster [to bring the Jews] to Christ."
XII. This law, so far as it had regard to Christ, was
universally abrogated. No kingdom, no nation, no
administration, serves now typically to figure Christ and his
kingdom or administration. For his kingdom, which is the
kingdom of heaven and not of this world, has already come,
and he has come into his kingdom. (Matt. iii, 2;xvi, 28; John
xviii, 36; Matt. xi, 11.) But with respect to its simple
observance, this Judicial Law is neither forbidden nor
prescribed to any people, nor is it of absolute necessity to
be either observed or omitted. Those matters are accepted
which are of universal obligation, and founded in natural
equity. For it is necessary, that they be strictly observed,
in every place and by all persons. And those things [in the
judicial law] which relate to Christ as it respects the very
substance and principal end, cannot be lawfully used by any
nation.
COROLLARY
The doctrine of the Papists respecting Councils and of Works
of Supererogation, derogates from the perfection of the
Divine commands.
DISPUTATION 13
ON THE COMPARISON OF THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL
RESPONDENT: PETER CUNÆUS
I. Since the law ought to be considered in two respects, not
only as it was originally delivered to men constituted in
primitive innocence, but also as it was given to Moses and
imposed on sinners, (on which account it has in the
Scriptures obtained the name of "the Old Testament," or "the
Old Covenant,") it may very properly, according to this two-
fold respect, be compared with the Gospel, which has received
the appellation of "the New Testament" as it is opposed to
the Old. This may be done in reference both to their
agreement and their difference; indeed, it would-be
inconvenient for us to take their agreement generally into
consideration without their difference, lest we should be
compelled twice to repeat the same thing.
II. The law, therefore, both as it was first delivered to
Adam and as it was given by Moses, agrees with the Gospel,
(1.) In the general consideration of having one Author. For
one and the same God is the author of both, who delivered the
law as a legislator; (Gen. ii, 17; Exod. xx, 2;) but he
promulgated the Gospel as the Father of mercies and the God
of all grace: whence the former is frequently denominated
"the law of God," and the latter "the Gospel of God." (Rom.
i, 1.) (2.) In the general relation of their matter. For the
doctrine of each consists of a command to obedience, and of
the promise of a reward. On this account each of them has the
name of hrwt "the law," which is also commonly ascribed to
both in the Scriptures. (Isa. ii, 3.) (3.) In the general
consideration of their end, which is the glory of the wisdom,
goodness and justice of God. (4.) In their common subject, as
not being distinguished by special respects. For the law was
imposed on men, and to men also was the gospel manifested.
III. There is, besides, a certain proper agreement of the
law, as it was delivered to Adam, with the Gospel; from which
agreement the law, as given through Moses, is excluded: it is
placed in the possibility of its performance. For Adam was
able, with the aid of God, to fulfill the law by those powers
which he had received in creation: otherwise, transgression
could not have been imputed to him for a crime. The gospel
also is inscribed in the hearts of those who are in covenant
with God, that they may be able to fulfill the condition
which it prescribes.
IV. But the difference between the law, as it was first
delivered, and the gospel, consists principally in the
following particulars. (1.) In the special respect of the
Author. For, in the exercise of benevolence to his innocent
creature, God delivered the law without regard to Christ, yet
of strict justice requiring obedience, with the promise of a
reward and the denunciation of a punishment. But in the
exercise of grace and mercy, and having respect to Christ his
anointed one, God revealed the Gospel; and, through justice
attempered with mercy, promulgated his demands and his
promises. (2.) In the particular relation of its matter. For
the law says, "Do this, and thou shalt live." (Rom. x, 5.)
But the Gospel says, "If thou wilt BELIEVE, thou shalt be
saved." And this difference lies not only in the postulate,
from which the former is called "the law of works," but the
Gospel "the law of faith," (Rom. iii, 27,) but also in the
promise: for though in each of them eternal life was
promised, yet by the Gospel it was to be conferred as from
death and ignominy, but by the law as from natural felicity.
(2 Tim. i, 10.) Besides, in the Gospel is announced remission
of sins, as preparatory to life eternal; of which no mention
is made in the [Adamic] law; because neither was this
remission necessary to one who was not a sinner, nor would
its announcement have [then] been useful to him, although he
might afterwards have become a sinner.
V. (3.) They likewise differ in the mode of remuneration. For
according to the [primeval] law, "To him that WORKED, the
reward would be of debt;" (Rom. iv, 4;) and to him that
transgressed, the punishment inflicted would be of the
severity of strict justice. But to him that BELIEVETH, the
reward is bestowed of grace; and to him that believeth not,
condemnation is due according to justice tempered with
clemency in Christ Jesus. (John iii, 16, 19; xi, 41.) They
are discriminated in the special consideration of their
subject. For the law was delivered to man while innocent, and
already constituted in the favour of God. (Gen. ii, 17.) But
the Gospel was bestowed upon man as a sinner, and one who was
to be brought back into the favour of God, because it is "the
word of reconciliation." (2 Cor. v, 19.) (5.) They differ in
the peculiar respect of their end. For by the law are
illustrated the wisdom, goodness, and strict justice of God:
but by the Gospel is manifested a far more illustrious
display of the wisdom of God, of his goodness united with
gracious mercy, and of justice mildly attempered in Christ
Jesus. (1 Cor. i, 20-24; Ephes. i, 8; Rom. iii, 24-26.)
THE LAW OF MOSES
VI. But the difference between the law, as it was given by
Moses, and is styled "the Old Testament," and the gospel as
it comes under the appellation of "the New Testament," lies
according to the Scriptures in the following particulars.
(1.) In the distinct property of God who instituted them. For
He made the old covenant, as one who was angry at the sins
which remained without expiation under the preceding [Adamic]
covenant. (Heb. ix, 5, 15.) But He instituted the new, as
being reconciled, or, at least as about to accomplish
reconciliation by that covenant, in the Son of his love, and
by the word of his grace. (2 Cor. v, 17-21; Ephes. ii, 16,
17.) (2.) In the mode of institution, which corresponds in
each of them to the condition of the things to be instituted.
For the law of Moses was delivered with the most obvious
signs of the Divine displeasure and of God's dreadful
judgment against sins and sinners. But the gospel was given
with assured tokens of benevolence, good pleasure and love in
Christ. Hence the Apostle says: "For ye are not come unto the
mount which might be touched and that burned with fire, nor
unto blackness and darkness, and tempest," &c. "But ye are
come unto Mount Sion," &c. (Heb. xii, 18-24.) (3.) In the
substance of the commands and promises. For the commands of
the law were chiefly carnal, (Heb. vii, 16,) and contained
"the handwriting of ordinances which was contrary to us:"
(Col. ii, 14.) Most of the promises were likewise corporal,
and stipulated engagements for an earthly inheritance, which
suited "the old man." (Heb. x, 1.) But the gospel is
spiritual, (John iv, 21, 23,) containing spiritual commands
and the promise of a heavenly inheritance agreeing with "the
new man;" (Heb. viii, 6; Ephes. i, 3,) though it promises
earthly blessings, as additions, to those who "seek first the
kingdom God and his righteousness." (Matt. vi, 33.)
VII. (4.) We place the fourth difference in the Mediator or
Intercessor. For Moses is the mediator of the Old Testament,
Jesus Christ of the, New. (Gal. iii, 19; Heb. ix, 15.) The
law was given by a servant, but the gospel was given by the
Lord himself revealed. (Heb. iii, 5, 6.) "The law was given
by Moses; Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1, 17.)
The law was given by the hands of a mediator, (Gal. iii, 19,)
agreeably to what is mentioned in other passages; (Lev. xxvi,
46; Deut. v, 26-31;) and Christ is styled "the Mediator of
the New Testament." (Heb. ix, 16.) (5.) They also differ in
the blood employed for the confirmation of each Testament.
The old covenant was ratified by the blood of animals; (Exod.
xxiv, 5, 6; Heb. ix, 18-20;) but the new one was confirmed by
the precious blood of the Son of God, (Heb. ix, 14,) which is
likewise on this account called "the blood of the New
Testament." (Matt. xxvi, 28.) (6.) They differ in the place
of their promulgation. For the Old Covenant was promulgated
from Mount Sinai; (Exod. xix, 18;) But the New one "went
forth out of Zion and from Jerusalem." (Isa. ii, 3; Micah iv,
2.) This difference is likewise pointed out in the plainest
manner by the Apostle Paul. (Gal. iv, 24-31; Heb. xii, 18-
21.)
VIII. (7.) The seventh difference shall be taken from the
subject, both those to whom each was given, and on whom each
was inscribed. The old law was given to the "old man." The
New Testament was instituted for "the new man." From this
circumstance, St. Augustine supposes that these two
Testaments have obtained the appellation of "the Old" and of
"the New Testament." The old law was inscribed on "tables of
stone" (Exod. xxx, 1, 18.) But the gospel is "written in
fleshly tables" (Jer. xxxi, 33; 2 Cor. iii, 3.) (8.) The
eighth difference is in their adjuncts: and this in two ways:
(i.) The old law was "weak and beggarly," and incapable of
giving life. (Gal. iv, 9; iii, 21.) But the gospel contains
the unsearchable riches of Christ," (Ephes. iii, 8,) and "is
the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth."
(Rom. i, 16.) (ii.) The old law was an insupportable burden,
which "neither the Jews nor their fathers were able to bear."
(Acts xv, 10.) But the gospel contains "the yoke" of Jesus
Christ, which is "easy," and "his burden," which is "light"
(Matt. xi, 29, 30.)
IX. (9.) The ninth difference shall be taken from the versity
of their effects. For the Old Testament is "the letter which
killeth," "the administration of death and of condemnation."
But the New Testament is "the Spirit that giveth life," "the
ministration of the Spirit of righteousness, and of life" (2
Cor. iii, 6-11.) The Old Covenant resembled Agar, and
"gendered to bondage;" the New like Sarah, begets unto
liberty. (Gal. iv, 23, 24.) "The law entered, that the
offense might abound," (Rom. v, 20,) and it "worketh wrath"
(iv, 15.) But "the blood of the New Testament," exhibited in
the gospel, (Matt. xxvi, 28,) expiates sin, (Heb. ix, 14,
15,) and "speaketh better things than that of Abel" (12, 24.)
The Old Testament is the bond on which sins are written:
(Col. ii, 14) but the gospel is the proclamation of liberty,
and the doctrine of the cross, to which was nailed the bond,
or "hand-writing against us," and was by this very act,
"taken out of the way." (10.) The tenth difference shall be
placed in the time, both of the promulgation of each, and of
their duration. The Old Testament was promulgated when God
brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. (Jer. xxxi, 32.)
But the New, at a later age, and in these last times. (Heb.
viii, 8, 9.) It was designed that the Old Testament should
endure down to the advent of Christ, and afterwards be
abolished. (Gal. iii, 19; Heb. vii, 18; 2 Cor. iii, 10.) But
the New Testament continueth forever, being confirmed by the
blood of the great High Priest, "who was made a priest after
the power of an endless life" by the word of an oath, (Heb.
vii, 16-20,) and "through the eternal Spirit, offered himself
to God." (ix, 14.) From this last difference, it is probable,
the appellations of "the Old Testament" and "the New,"
derived their origin.
THE SAINTS UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT
X. But, lest any one should suppose that the Fathers who
lived under the law and the Old Testament, were entirely
destitute of grace, faith and eternal life; it is to be
recollected that even at that period, the promise was in
existence which had been made to Adam concerning "the Seed of
the woman," (Gen. iii, 15,) which also concerned the seed of
Abraham, to whom "the promises were made," (Gal. iii, 16,)
and in whom "all the kindreds of the earth were to be
blessed;" (Acts iii, 25;) and that these promises were
received in faith by the holy fathers. As this promise is
comprehended by divines under the name of "the Old
Testament," taken in a wide acceptation, and is called by the
apostle, diaqhkh "the covenant," (Gal. iii, 17,) as well as,
in the plural, "the covenants of promise;" (Ephes. ii, 12;)
let us also consider how far "this covenant of promise," and
the New Testament, and the gospel so called, by way of
excellence, as being the completion of the promises, (Gal.
iii, 16, 17,) and as being the promise," (Heb. ix, 15,) agree
with and differ from each other.
XI. We place the Agreement in those things which concern the
substance of each. For, (1.) With regard to the Efficient
Cause, both of them were confirmed through the mere grace and
mercy of God who had respect unto Christ. (2.) The matter of
each was one and the same: that is, "the obedience of faith"
was required in both, (Gen. xv, 6; Rom. 4; Heb. 11,) and the
inheritance of eternal life was promised through the
imputation of the righteousness of faith, and through
gracious adoption in Christ. (Rom. ix, 4; Heb. xi, 8.) (3.)
One object, that is Christ, who was promised to the fathers
in the prophetical scriptures, and whom God has exhibited in
the Gospel. (Acts iii, 19, 20; xiii, 32.) (4.) One end, the
praise of the glorious Grace of God in Christ. (Rom. iv, 2,
3.) (5.) Both these covenants were entered into with men
invested in the same formal relation, that is, with men as
sinners, and to those "who work not, but who believe on Him
that justifies the ungodly." (Rom. ix, 8, xi, 30-33.) (6.)
Both of them have the same Spirit witnessing, or sealing the
truth of each in the minds of those who are parties to the
covenant. (2 Cor. iv, 13.) For since "the adoption" and "the
inheritance" pertain likewise to the fathers in the Old
Testament, (Rom. ix, 4; Gal. iii, 18,) "the Spirit of
adoption," who is "the earnest of the inheritance," cannot be
denied to them. (Rom. viii, 15; Ephes. i, 14) (7.) They agree
in their effects. For both the covenants beget children to
liberty: "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Rom. ix, 7.)
"So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman,
but of the free; and are, as Isaac was, the children of
promise." (Gal. iv, 31, 28.) Both of them administer the
righteousness of faith, and the inheritance through it. (Rom.
iv, 13.) Both excite spiritual joy in the hearts of
believers. (John viii, 56; Luke ii, 10.) (8.) Lastly, they
agree in this particular -- that both of them were confirmed
by the oath of God. Neither of them, therefore, was to be
abolished, but the former was to be fulfilled by the latter.
(Heb. vi, 13, 14, 17; vii, 20, 21.)
XII. But there is a Difference in some accidental
circumstances which derogate nothing from their substantial
unity. (1.) Respecting the accident of their object: For when
the advent of Christ drew near, He was offered by promise.
(Mal. iii, 1.) But He is now manifested in the Gospel. (1
John i, 1, 2; iv, 14) (2.) Hence also arises the second
difference, respecting the accident of the faith required on
their object. For as present and past things are more clearly
known than future things, so the faith in Christ to come was
more obscure, than the faith which beholds a present Christ.
(Heb. xi, 13; Num. xiv, 17.) (3.) To these let the third
difference be added -- that Christ with his benefits was
formerly proposed to the Israelites under types and shadows:
(Heb. 12; Gal. iii, 16) But He is now offered in the Gospel
"to be beheld with open face," and the reality of the things
themselves and "the body" are exhibited. (2 Cor. iii, 18;
John i, 17; Col. ii, 17; Gal. iii, 13, 25.) (4.) This
diversity of administrations displays the fourth difference
in the heir himself. For the apostle compares the children of
Israel to the heir, who is "a child," and who required the
superintendance of "tutors and governors:" but he compares
believers under the New Testament to an adult heir. (Gal. iv,
1-5.) (5.) Hence is deduced a fifth difference-that the
infant heir, as "differing nothing from a servant" was held
in bondage under the economy of the ceremonial law; from
which servitude are liberated those persons who have believed
in Christ after the expiration of "the time of tutelage
before appointed of the Father." (6.) To this condition the
Spirit of the infant heir is also accommodated, and will
afford us the sixth difference that the heir was in truth
under the influence of "the Spirit of adoption," but, because
he was then only an infant, this Spirit was intermixed with
that of fear; but the adult heir is under the complete
influence of "the Spirit of adoption," to the entire
exclusion of that of fear. (Rom. viii, 15; Gal. iv, 6.) (7.)
The seventh difference consists in the number of those who
are called to the communion of each of these covenants. The
promise was confined within the boundaries of "the
commonwealth of Israel," from which the Gentiles were
"aliens," being also "strangers from the covenants of
promise." (Ephes. ii, 11-13, 17.) But the Gospel is announced
to every creature that is under heaven, and the mound of
separation is completely removed. (Matt. xxviii, 19; Mark
xvi, 15; Col. i, 13.)
XIII. But these three, the Law, the Promise, and the Gospel,
may become subjects of consideration in another order, either
as opposed among themselves, or as subordinate to each other.
The condition of the law, therefore, as it was delivered to
Adam, excludes the necessity of making the promise and
announcing the Gospel; and, on the other hand, the necessity
of making the promise and announcing the Gospel, declares,
that man has not obeyed the law which was given to him. For
justification cannot be at once both "of grace" and "of
debt;" nor can it, at the same time, admit and exclude
"boasting." (Gal. ii, 17; Rom. iv, 4, 5; iii, 27.) It was
also proper that the promise should precede the Gospel, and
should in return be fulfilled by the Gospel: for, as it was
not befitting that such a great blessing should be bestowed
unless it were ardently desired, so it was improper that the
desire of the earnest expectants should be frustrated. (1
Pet. i, 10-12; Hag. ii, 7; Mal. iii, 1.) Nor was it less
equitable, that, after the promise had been made, the law
should be economically repeated, by which might be rendered
apparent the necessity of the grace of the promise, (Gal.
iii, 19-24; Acts xiii, 38, 39,) and that, being convinced of
this necessity, they might be compelled to flee to its
shelter. (Gal. ii, 15, 16.) The use of the law was also
serviceable to the Gospel which was to be received by faith.
(Col. ii, 14, 17.) While the promise was in existence, it was
also the will of God to add other precepts, and especially
such as were ceremonial, by which sin might be ["sealed
home,"] or testified against, and a previous intimation might
be given of the completion of the promise. And when the
promise was fulfilled, it was the will of God that these
additional precepts should be abrogated, as having completed
their functions. (Heb. x, 9, 10.) Lastly, the moral law ought
to serve both to the promise and to the Gospel, which have
now been received by faith, as a rule according to which
believers ought to conform their lives. (Psalm cxix, 105;
Tit. iii, 8.) But may God grant, that from his word we may be
enabled still more clearly to understand this glorious
economy of his, to his glory, and for gathering together in
Christ!"
DISPUTATION 14
ON THE OFFICES OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
RESPONDENT: PETER FAVERIUS
I. Since all offices are instituted and imposed for the sake
of a certain end, and on this account bear some resemblance
to means for obtaining that end; the most convenient method
of treating on the offices of Christ will be for us to enter
into an examination of this subject according to the
acceptation of the name by which He is denominated. For he is
called Jesus Christ, in words which belong to a person
according to the signification conveyed by them, as well as
by way of excellence. In the first of those words is
comprehended the relation of the end of his offices; and, in
the second, that of the duties which conduce to such end.
II. The word "Jesus" signifies the saviour, who is called
Swthr by the Greeks. But "to save" is to render a man secure
from evils, either by taking care that they do not assail
him, or, if they have attacked him, by removing them, and of
consequence by conferring the opposite blessings. But among
the evils, two are of the very worst description: they are
sin, and its wages, eternal death. Among the blessings also,
two are of the greatest importance, righteousness and eternal
life. He, therefore, is a saviour in an eminent degree who
liberates men from sin and death eternal, the two greatest
evils with which they are now surrounded and oppressed; and
who confers upon them righteousness and life. On account of
this method of saving, the name Jesus agrees well with this
our saviour, according to the interpretation of it, which the
angel gave in Matt. i, 21. For such a method of salvation was
highly befitting the excellence of this exalted person, who
is the proper, natural and only-begotten Son of God;
especially when other salvations were capable of being
accomplished by his servants, Moses, Joshua, Othniel, Gideon,
Jephtha and David.
III. The word "Christ," denotes an anointed person, who is
called h y m "the Messiah," by the Hebrews. Under the Old
Testament, oil was anciently used in anointing; because,
according to its natural efficacy, it rendered bodies not
only fragrant but agile, and was therefore well fitted for
typifying two supernatural things. The First is, the
sanctification and consecration of a person to undertake and
discharge some divine office. The Second is, adoption, or the
conferring of gifts necessary for that purpose. But each of
these acts belongs properly and per se to the Holy Spirit,
the author and donor of Holiness and of all endowments. (Isa.
xi, 2.) Wherefore it was proper, that he who was eminently
styled "the Messiah, should be anointed with the Holy Spirit,
indeed "above all his fellows," (or those who were partakers
of the same blessings,) (Psalm xlv, 7,) that is, that He
might be made the Holy of holies, and might be endued not
only with some gifts of the Holy Spirit, but with the whole
of the Holy Spirit without measure. (John 3, xxxiv, ;1, 14.)
But when he is called "the saviour" by anointing, it appears
to us that he must for this reason be here considered as a
Mediatorial saviour, who has been constituted by God the
Father, and [as Mediator] is subordinate to Him. He is
therefore the nearer to us, not only according to the nature
of his humanity, of which we have already treated, but also
according to the mode of saving, which reflection conduces
greatly to confirm us in faith and hope against temptations.
IV. Two distinct and subordinate acts appertain to the
salvation which is signified by the name Jesus; and they are
not only necessarily required for it, but also suffciently
embrace its entire power. The First is, the asking and
obtaining of redemption from sin and death eternal, and of
righteousness and life. The Second is, the communication or
distribution of the salvation thus obtained. According to the
former of these acts, Christ is called "our saviour by
merit;" according to the latter he is called "our saviour by
efficacy." According to the first, he is constituted the
Mediator "for men, in those things which pertain to God."
(Heb. v, 1.) According to the second, he is appointed the
Mediator or vicegerent of God, in those things which are to
be transacted with men. From this it is apparent, that two
offices are necessary for effecting salvation-the priestly
and the regal; the former office being designed for the
acquisition of salvation, and the latter for its
communication: on which account this saviour is both a royal
priest and a priestly king, our Melchisedec, that is, "king
of Salem, which is king of peace and priest of the Most High
God." (Heb. vii, 2.) His people also are a royal priesthood
and a sacerdotal kingdom or nation. (1 Pet. ii, 5, 9.)
V. But since it has seemed good to the wise and just God, to
save none except believers; nor, in truth, is it right that
any one should be made partaker of the salvation procured by
the priesthood of Christ, and dispensed by His kingly office,
except the man who acknowledges Him for his priest and king;
and since the knowledge of Christ, and faith in him, are
produced in the hearts of men by the power of the Holy Ghost,
through the preaching of the word as the means appointed by
God; for these reasons the prophetical office is likewise
necessary for effecting salvation, and a perfect saviour must
be a prophet, priest and king, that is, by every reason
according to which this ample title can be deservedly
attributed to any one. We nave Jesus therefore, that is, the
saviour, by a most excellent and perfect notion called
Christ, because he has been anointed by God as a prophet,
priest and king. (Matt. xvii, 5; Psalm cx, 4; 2, 6; John
xviii, 37.) On each of these four offices we shall treat in
order, and shew, (1.) That all and each of these offices
belong to our Christ. (2.) The quality of these offices. (3.)
The functions pertaining to each of them. (4.) The events or
consequences.
VI. The Messiah was the future prophet promised to the
fathers under the Old Testament. Moses said, "The Lord thy
God will raise up unto you a prophet like unto me; unto him
shall ye hearken." (Deut. xviii, 15.) Isaiah also says "I
will give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of
the Gentiles, to open the blind eyes," &c. (xlii, 6.)
"Jehovah hath called me from the womb, and he hath made my
mouth like a sharp sword," &c. (xlix, 1, 2.) The attestation,
by anointing, of his call to the prophetical office, was
likewise predicted: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me;
because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings,"
&c. (xli, 1.) So was his being furnished with the necessary
gifts when he was thus called and sealed: "The Spirit of the
Lord shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and
understanding," &c. (xi, 2.) Lastly, Divine assistance was
promised: "In the shadow of his hand hath He hid me, and made
me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me." (xlix,
2.) And this thing was publicly know, not only to the Jews,
but likewise to the Samaritans, as is apparent from what the
woman of Samaria said, "When Messias is come, He will tell us
all things." (John iv, 25.) But our Jesus himself testifies,
that these predictions were fulfilled in him, and that he was
the prophet sent into the world from God. After having read a
passage out of Isaiah's prophecy, he spake thus, "This day is
this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." (Luke iv, 21.) "To
this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the
world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." (John
xviii, 37.) God himself also bore his testimony from heaven,
when he "opened the heavens unto Christ" immediately after he
had been baptized by John, sent down upon Him the Holy
Spirit, and in inaugural strains of the highest commendation
seemed to consecrate him to this office. (Matt. iii, 16.)
VII. In the Quality of the prophetic office, we take into our
consideration the excellence not only of the vocation,
instruction and divine assistance afforded, but likewise that
of the doctrine proposed by Him, according to each of which
it far exceeds the entire dignity of all the prophets. (Luke
4.) For God's approval of his mission was expressed by three
peculiar signs. the opening of the heavens, the descent of
the Holy Ghost in a bodily shape upon Him, and the voice of
his Father conveyed to him. The instruction, or furnishing,
by which He learned what things he ought to teach, was not
"by dreams and visions," nor by inward or outward discourse
with an angel, neither was it by a communication of "mouth to
mouth," which yet [in the case of Moses] was without the
actual sight of the glory and the face of God; (Num. 12;) but
it was by the clear vision of God and by an intimate
intuition into the secrets of the Father: "For the only-
begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, hath
declared him to us;" (John i, 18;) "He that cometh from
heaven testified what he hath seen and heard." (iii, 32.) The
aid of the Holy Spirit to Him, was so ready and every moment
intimately near, that He, like one who was lord by possession
and use, employed the Holy Spirit at pleasure, and as
frequently as it seemed good to himself. But the excellence
of the doctrine lies in this, that it did not announce the
law, neither as being the power of God unto salvation "to him
who worked and that of debt," (Rom. iv, 4,) nor as being the
seal of sin and of condemnation; (Col. ii, 14;) neither did
it announce the promise, by which righteousness and salvation
were promised OF GRACE to him that believed; (Gal. iii, 17-
19;) but it announced the Gospel, according to this
expression, "He hath sent me to preach good tidings to the
meek," (Isa. lxi, 1,) or, "the gospel to the poor;" (Matt.
xi, 5;) because it exhibited GRACE and TRUTH, as it contained
"the end of the law," and the accomplishment of the promise.
(Rom. x, 4; i, 1, 2.)
VIII. The Functions which appertain to the prophetic office
of Christ, are, the proposing of his doctrine, its
confirmation and prayers for its felicitous success; all of
which were executed by Christ in a manner which evinced the
utmost power and fidelity. (1.) He proposed his doctrine,
with the greatest wisdom, which his adversaries could not
resist; with the most ardent zeal for the glory of God his
Father, and for the salvation of men; without respect of
persons; and with an authority which was never exercised by
other teachers, not even by the prophets. (2.) His
confirmation was added to the doctrine, not only by the
Scriptures of the Old Testament, but likewise by signs of
every kind by which it is possible to establish the divinity
of any doctrine. (i.) By the declaration of the knowledge
which is peculiar to God, such as the inspection of the
heart, the revelation of the secrets of others, and the
prediction of future events. (ii.) By a power which belongs
to God alone, and which was demonstrated "in signs and
wonders, and mighty deeds." (iii.) By the deepest patience,
by which He willingly suffered the death of the cross for the
truth of God, that he might confirm the promises made to the
fathers, "having witnessed before Pontius Pilate a good
confession." (3.) Lastly. He employed very frequent and
earnest prayers, with the most devout thanksgiving; on which
account he often retired into solitary places, which he spent
whole nights in prayer.
IX. The Issue or consequence of the prophetic office of
Christ, so far as he executed it in his own person while he
remained on earth, was not only the instruction of a few
persons, but likewise the rejection [of Himself and his
doctrine] by great numbers, and even by their rulers. The
former of these consequences occurred according to the nature
and merit of the doctrine itself. The latter, accidentally
and by the malice of men. Christ himself mentions both of
these issues in Isaiah's prophecy, when he says, not without
complaining, "Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath
given me, are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the
Lord of hosts." (viii, 18.) "I have laboured in vain, I have
spent my strength for naught and in vain." (xlix, 4.) But
because this repulse of Christ's doctrine could not occur
without proving a stumbling block to the weak, it was the
good pleasure of God to obviate it in a manner at once the
wisest and the most powerful, (i.) By a prophecy which
foretold that this rejection would actually take place: "The
stone which the builders refused, is becoming the head-stone
of the corner:" (Psalm cxviii, 22.) (ii.) And by the
fulfillment of that prediction, which was completed by the
resurrection of Christ from the dead, and by his being placed
at the right hand of God; by which Christ became the head and
foundation of the angle, or corner, uniting the two walls,
that of the Jews and that of the Gentiles, in accordance with
these words of the prophet Isaiah, "It is a light thing that
thou shouldest be my servant, to raise up the tribes of
Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I have also
given thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be
my salvation unto the end of the earth." (xlix, 6.) These
words contain an intimation of the fruit of Christ's
prophesying as administered by his ambassadors.
X. Topics, similar to the preceding, come under our
consideration in the Priestly Office of Christ. (1.) The
Messiah, promised of old, was to be a Priest, and Jesus of
Nazareth was a Priest. This is proved (i.) by express
passages from the Scriptures of the Old Testament; and which
attribute to the Messiah the Name of "Priest," and the Thing
signified by the name. With regard to the Name: "Thou an a
Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec." (Psalm cx,
4.) With regard to the Thing signified, "Surely He hath borne
our griefs: He was wounded for our transgressions: And the
Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. When thou shalt
make his soul an offering for sin, He shall see his seed, &c.
He bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the
transgressor" (Isa. liii, 4-6, 10-12; Rom. iv, 15.) (2.) By
arguments taken from a comparison of the dignity of his
person and priesthood. For the Messiah is the first-begotten
Son of God, the principal dignity of the priesthood, and
governor over the house of his Father. (Psalm ii, 7; lxxxix,
27; Gen. xlix, 3.) Therefore, to Him appertains the
excellence of administering the priesthood in the house of
God, which is Heaven. (Heb. iii, 6; x, 21.) For that is
properly typified by a temple, the place of the priesthood;
and principally by the innermost part of it, which is called
"the holy of holies." (ix, 24.) Also, by arguments deduced
from the nature of the people over whom He is placed. This
people is "a kingdom of priests" (Exod. xix, 6,) and "a royal
priesthood" (1 Pet. ii, 9.) But the Christian Faith holds it,
an indisputable axiom, that "Jesus of Nazareth is a priest,"
by the most explicit Scriptures of the New Testament, in
which the title and all things pertaining to the sacerdotal
office are attributed to him. (Heb. ii, 5.) For the Father
conferred that honour upon Him, sanctified and consecrated
Him; (ii, 10;) and "He was made perfect through sufferings,"
"that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest, and be
able to sympathize with, or to succour them that are
tempted." (ii, 18.) The Father also "opened his ears," (Psalm
xl, 6,) or "prepared a body for Him," (Heb. x, 5,) "that He
might have somewhat also to offer," (viii, 3,) and hath
placed Him, after his resurrection from the dead, at his own
right hand in heaven, that He may there perpetually "make
intercession for us." (Rom. viii, 34.)
XI. But the Scriptures of the Old Testament speak of the
Nature and Quality peculiar to Messiah the Priest, and assert
that his priesthood is not according to the order of Levi.
(Psalm cx, 4; Heb. v, 5, 6.) For David speaks thus, in the
person of the Messiah, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not
desire. Mine ears thou hast opened. Burnt-offering and sin-
offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come. In
the volume of the book it is written of me, to do thy will, O
my God! Yea, I have willed; and thy law is within my heart."
(Psalm xl, 6-8.) That is, "Thou hadst no pleasure in the
sacrifices which are offered by the law" according to the
Levitical ritual. (Heb. x, 6-9.) They also assert, that "He
is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec." (Psalm
cx, 4.) But the entire nature of that priesthood is more
distinctly explained in the New Testament, especially in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, the excellence and superiority of the
Messiah's priesthood above the Levitical having been
previously established. (Heb. x, 5.) This pre-eminence is
shewn by the contrast between them. (1.) The Levitical
priesthood was typical and shadowy; but that of the Messiah
is real and true, and contains the very body and express
pattern of the things. (2.) In the Levitical priesthood, the
Priest and the victim differed in the subject. For the Priest
after the order of Levi offered the sacrifices of other men.
But the Messiah is both the Priest and the victim. For "He
offered himself," (Heb. ix, 14,) and "by his own blood has
entered into heaven," (ix, 12,) and all this as it is an
expiatory priesthood. But as it is eucharistical, (for it
embraces the entire amplitude of the priesthood,) the Messiah
offers sacrifices which are distinguished by him according to
the person; yet they are such as, being born again of his
Spirit from above, are flesh of his flesh and bone of his
bones. (x, 14; ix, 26; Ephes. v, 30; 1 Pet. ii, 5.) (3.) They
differ in the mode of their institution and confirmation. The
Levitical priesthood was "instituted after the law of a
carnal commandment;" but that of the Messiah, after the law
of a spiritual commandment, and "the power of an endless
life." (Heb. vii, 16.) The Levitical was instituted "without
an oath;" but Christ's "with an oath," by which it was
corroborated beyond the other. (vii, 20, 21, 28.) (4.) The
fourth difference is in the time of their institution. The
Levitical priesthood was instituted first; that of Christ,
afterwards. The first, in the times of the Old Testament: the
other, in those of the New. The former, when the church was
in its infancy; the latter, when it had arrived at maturity.
The former, in the time of slavery; the latter, in that of
liberty.
XII. (5.) The fifth distinction lies in the persons
discharging the functions of the priesthood. In the former,
the Priests were of the tribe of Levi, "men who had
infirmities," who were mortal and sinful, and who, therefore,
accounted it "needful to offer up sacrifice for their own
sins and for the people's." (Heb. vii, 28; v, 3.) But the
Messiah was of the tribe of Judah, (vii, 14,) weak indeed "in
the days of his flesh," (5, 7,) but now when raised immortal
from the dead and endued with "the power of an endless life,"
He is "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,
and therefore needeth not to offer up sacrifice for himself."
(7, 26, 27) (6.) We may denote a sixth difference in the end
of the institution. The Levitical priesthood was instituted
to ratify the old covenant; but that of the Messiah, for
confirming the New. He is on this account called both "the
Mediator of the New Testament," (ix, 15,) and "the surety of
a better covenant, which was established upon better
promises." (viii, 6.) (7.) They differ in their efficacy. For
the Levitical is useless and inefficacious, "not being able
to take away sins, (x, 11,) (for they remained under the old
covenant,) nor could it sanctify or perfect the worshippers
in their consciences, for "it sanctifieth only to the
purifying of the flesh." (ix, 9, 10, 13.) But the priesthood
of the Messiah is efficacious. For He hath destroyed sin and
obtained eternal redemption, (ix, 12, 14.) He consecrates
priests and sanctifies the worshipers in their consciences,
and "saves them to the uttermost that come to God by Him."
(vii, 25.) (8.) With the Apostle we place the eighth
difference in the duration of each. It was necessary that the
Levitical priesthood should be abrogated, and it was
accordingly abrogated; (viii, 13;) but that of the Messiah
endures for ever. For this difference between them we have as
many reasons as for the differences which we have already
enumerated.
XIII. (9.) The ninth quality by which the Messiah's
priesthood is distinguished from the Levitical, is this, "Now
once in the end of the world, the Messiah hath appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself; (Heb. vii, 26;) and
thus "by one offering hath He perfected for ever them that
are sanctified." (x, 14.) But the Priests after the order of
Levi "offered oftentimes the same sacrifices, "through each
succeeding day, and month, and year. (x, 11; ix, 25.) (10.)
The tenth property of the Messiah's priesthood is that of its
nature. It does not pass from one person to another. For the
Messiah has neither a predecessor nor a successor. (vii, 24,
25, 3.) But the Levitical priesthood was transmitted down
from father to son. (11.) To this we add the eleventh
difference, the Messiah was the only person of his order. For
Melchizadeck was a type of Him, "like unto Him," but by no
means equal with Him. (vii, 3.) But the Levitical Priests
"truly were many, because they were not suffered to continue
by reason of death;" (vii, 23;) and among them, some were of
superior, some of inferior, and others of equal dignity.
(12.) We deduce the twelfth and last distinction from the
place in which each of them was administered. For the
Levitical priesthood was administered on earth, and in fact
in a certain spot peculiarly assigned to it; but though that
of the Messiah commenced on earth, yet it consummated in
heaven. (ix, 24.)
XIV. The Actions which appertain to the priestly office of
Christ, are those of oblation and intercession, according to
the following passages: "Every high priest taken from among
men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he
may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: (Heb. v, 1.)
And "He ever liveth to make intercession for them." (1.) Of
the Messiah's Oblation two acts are described to us: the
first of which is performed on earth; the delivering of his
own body unto death, and the shedding of his blood. By this
act He was consecrated or perfected, and opened heaven to
himself: (ix, 12; x, 29, 10; ix, 24 -- xxvi, ) For it was a
part of his office to enter into heaven by his own blood, and
"through the veil, which is his flesh," (x, 22,) flesh
indeed, destitute of blood, that is, destitute of life, and
delivered up to death "for the life of the world," (John vi,
51,) although it was afterwards raised up again from death to
life. The second act is, the presenting of himself, thus
sprinkled with his own blood, before the face of his Father
in heaven; and the offering of the same blood. To which we
must add, the sprinkling of this blood on the consciences of
believers, that they, "being purged from dead works, might
serve the living God." (ix, 14.) (2.) Intercession is the
second act of the priesthood of Christ, which also contains
the prayer of Christ for us, and his advocacy or defense of
us against the accusation with which we are charged by the
grand adversary. (vii, 25; Rom. viii, 34; 1 John ii, 1, 2.)
Because the force of this intercession is partly placed in
the blood by which, not only Christ himself, but also our
consciences, are sprinkled; the blood of Christ is said "to
speak better things than that of Abel," (Heb. xii, 24,) which
cried unto God for vengeance against the fratricide.
XV. The fourth part of the priesthood of Christ lies in the
Results or Consequences. That the sacerdotal office concurs
to the general effect of salvation, is apparent from this --
that He is called Christ by consecration, which was effected
"through sufferings," through which He is said "to have been
made perfect," (Heb. ii, 10,) and thus to have "become the
author of eternal salvation," (v, 9, 10,) being denominated
"an High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec." "But
Christ, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable
priesthood: wherefore he is able also to save them to the
uttermost that come unto God by Him." (vii, 24, 25.) But the
particular results which flow from the sacerdotal functions,
when considered according to the two-fold act of oblation and
intercession, are chiefly these: From Oblation, accrue the
reconciling of us unto God the Father, (2 Cor. v, 19,) the
obtaining of the remission of sins, (Rom. iii, 24-25,) of
eternal redemption, (Heb. ix, 12,) and of the Spirit of
grace, (Zech. xii, 10,) the laying open of the vein for the
expiation of sin, and the disclosing of the fountain for
sprinkling, (Zech. xiii, 1,) the removal of the curse, (Gal.
iii, 13,) and the acquisition of everlasting righteousness
and of life eternal, (Dan. ix, 24,) as well as a supreme
power over all things in heaven and earth, (Phil. ii, 6-10,)
for his church, to whom all these blessings are communicated:
(Acts xx, 28) And, to sum up all in one expression, the
procuring of the entire right to eternal life, and to all
things whatsoever that are necessary either for its being
given, or for its reception. Intercession obtains, that we,
being reconciled to God, are saved from future wrath. (Rom.
v, 9.) Christ as our intercessor offers to God, perfumed with
the fragrant odour of his own sacrifice, the prayers and
thanksgivings, and thus the whole rational worship which
justified persons perform to God; (1 Pet. i, 5;) and he
receives and turns aside the darts of accusation which Satan
hurls against believers. (Rom. viii, 34.) All these blessings
really flow from the sacerdotal functions of Christ; because
he hath offered to God the true price of redemption for us,
by which He has satisfied Divine justice, and interposed
himself between us and the Father, who was justly angry on
account of our sins; and has rendered Him placable to us. (1
Tim. ii, 6; Matt. xx, 28.) But the results per accidens is a
greater pollution and the demerits of "a much sorer
punishment" from having "trodden under foot the Son of God,
and counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing." (Heb.
x, 29.)
XVI. Nor is it at all repugnant to the merits and
satisfaction of Christ, which belong to him as a priest and a
victim, that God is himself said to have "loved the world and
given his only begotten Son," (John iii, 16,) to have
delivered him unto death, (Rom. iv, 25,) to have reconciled
the world unto himself in Christ, (2 Cor. v, 19,) to have
redeemed us, (Luke i, 68,) and to have freely forgiven us our
sins. (Rom. iii, 25.) For we must consider the affection of
love to be two-fold in God. The first is a love for the
creature -- The other, a love for justice, united to which is
a hatred against sin. It was the will of God that each of
these kinds of love should be satisfied. He gave satisfaction
to his love for the creature who was a sinner, when he gave
up his Son who might act the part of Mediator. But he
rendered satisfaction to his love for justice and to his
hatred against sin, when he imposed on his Son the office of
Mediator by the shedding of his blood and by the suffering of
death; (Heb. ii, 10; v, 8, 9;) and he was unwilling to admit
him as the Intercessor for sinners except when sprinkled with
his own blood, in which he might be made the propitiation for
sins. (ix, 12.) Again, he satisfies his love for the creature
when he pardons sins, and that freely, because he pardons
them through his love for the Creature; although by
inflicting stripes upon his Son, in which he was "our peace,"
he had already rendered satisfaction to his love for justice.
For it was not the effect of those stripes that God might
love his creature, but that, while love for justice presented
no hindrance, through his love for the creature he could
remit sins and bestow life eternal. In this respect also it
may with propriety be said that God rendered satisfaction to
himself, and appeased himself in the Son of his love."
XVII. It remains for us to discuss the Kingly Office of
Christ. We must first consider, that the Messiah, according
to the promise, was to be a King, and that Jesus of Nazareth
is a King: "I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a
King shall reign and prosper." (Jer. xxiii, 5.) "David my
servant, shall be king over them." (Ezek. xxxvii, 24.) But he
was constituted king by unction: "Yet have I anointed my King
upon my holy hill of Zion." (Psalm ii, 6.) On this account,
the title of "the Messiah" belongs to him for a certain
peculiar reason. Nor should He be merely a King, but the most
eminent and famous among kings: "Thy God hath anointed thee
with the oil of joy above thy fellows." (Psalm xlv, 7.) "I
will make him my First-born, higher than the kings of the
earth." (lxxxix, 27.) Nay, he is the Lord and Master of all
kings: therefore, O ye kings and judges of the earth, kiss
the Son." (ii, 12.) "All kings shall fall down before Him."
(lxxii, 11.) He was also to be instructed in all things
necessary for the administration of his kingdom: "Give the
King thy judgments, O God!" (lxxii, 1.) "The Lord shall send
the rod of thy strength out of Zion." (cx, 2.) "Thou shalt
break them with a rod of iron" (ii, 9.) "The Spirit of
Jehovah shall rest upon him." (Isa. xi, 2.) God will likewise
perpetually stand near Him: "With him shall my hand be
established, mine arm also shall strengthen him." (Psalm
lxxxix, 21.) But God hath made Jesus of Nazareth Lord and
Christ, (Matt. ii, 2, 6,) "King of kings, and Lord of lords,"
(Rev. xvii, 14,) "all power being given unto Him in heaven
and in earth," (Matt. xxviii, 19; Acts ii, 33,) and
"authority over all flesh," (John xvii, 2,) that "unto Him
every knee may bow." God also furnished or supplied Him with
his Word and Spirit, as necessary means for the
administration of his kingdom. He hath made angels also his
servants to execute his commands. (Heb. i, 6, 14.) He stands
constantly nigh to Him, "being placed at his right hand till
he has made his enemies his footstool." (1 Cor. xv, ,5; Psalm
cx, 1.)
XVIII. We say, in one expression, concerning the Quality of
the Messiah's kingdom, that it is a spiritual kingdom, not of
this world, but of that which is to come, not earthly, but
heavenly. For it was predicted, that such would be the
kingdom of the Messiah; and such also, we assert, is the
kingdom of Jesus of Nazareth. We prove the First, (1.)
Because David and Solomon, and the reign of each, were types
of the Messiah and his kingdom; for the Messiah is called
David; (Ezek. xxxvii, 25;) and all the things spoken about
Solomon which are high and excellent, belong with far more
justness to the Messiah, and some of them to him alone. (2
Sam. vii, 12-16.) But earthly and carnal things are types of
spiritual and heavenly things, not being homogeneous with
them. (Psalm 1, 2.) (2.) It was predicted of the Messiah,
that he should die and rise again, (Psalm xvi, 10,) that "he
should see his seed," (Isa. liii, 10,) and that he should
rise again into a spiritual life. (Psalm cx, 3.) Therefore,
that he should be a spiritual King, and that his kingdom also
should be spiritual. (Psalm lxxxix, 5-8; xcvi, 6-9.) (3.) It
was predicted that the priesthood of the Messiah should be
spiritual, a real priesthood, and not a typical one.
Therefore, his kingdom also is of the same description; for
there is a mutual analogy between them, according to that
expression -" Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests," &c.
(Exod. xix, 6.) (4.) Because the law of Moses was to be
abrogated on account of its being carnal. But the
administration of the priesthood and of the kingdom of Israel
was conducted according to that law. Therefore the kingdom of
the Messiah ought to be administered according to another
law, which was more excellent, and therefore spiritual. (Jer.
xxxi, 31-34.) But such as was the law, such were the King and
his kingdom. (5.) Because the gentiles were to be called to a
participation of the kingdom of the Messiah, and all of them
were to be added to it with their kings, who should still
continue as kings, and yet voluntarily serve the Messiah,
(Psalm ii, 10, 11; cx, 3,) who should glory in him, and in
him place all their blessedness. Nothing of this kind can be
done, unless the kingdom of the Messiah be spiritual. (6.)
Because the Jews were to be rejected by the Messiah, for
their rebellion, who was unwilling to have them for his
people, not to the prejudice of the Messiah himself, but to
the injury of the Jews alone. (Mal. i, 10, 11; Isa. lxv, 2,
3.) This is a strong indication of a King and of a kingdom
that are spiritual. (7.) The same conclusion may be drawn
from the excellence, amplitude, duration, and mode of
administration, of the Messiah's kingdom. But the kingdom of
Jesus of Nazareth is spiritual and heavenly. For he said,
"Repent, because the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt.
iv, 17.) "My kingdom is not of this world." (John xviii, 36.)
This may also be shown in all those things which relate to
that kingdom. For the King is no more known after the flesh,
because he is become spiritual by his resurrection, and is
"the Lord from heaven." (Rom. viii, 1 Corinthians 15.) His
Subjects are those who are already born again, in their
souls, of his Spirit, and who shall likewise hereafter be
spiritual in their bodies, and conformed unto him. The Law of
the kingdom is spiritual: for it is the gospel of God, and
the prescription of a rational and spiritual worship. (Rom.
xii, 8; John iv, 23, 24.) Its Blessings are likewise
spiritual -- remission of sins, the Spirit of grace and life
eternal. The Mode of Administration, and all its Means, are
spiritual; for though all temporal things are subjected to
Christ, yet he administers them in such a way as he knows
will be conducive to the life that is spiritual and
supernatural.
XIX. The Acts which belong to the regal office of Christ are
generally comprehended in vocation and judgment. If we be
desirous to consider these two acts more distinctly, we may
divide them into the four parts following: vocation,
legislation, the communication of blessings and the removal
of evils, and the final and universal judgment. (1.) Vocation
is the first function by which Christ, the King, calls men
out of a state of animal life and of sin, to the
participation of the covenant of grace which he has confirmed
by his own blood. For he did not find subjects in the nature
of things; (Isa. lxiii, 10;) but as it was his office by the
priesthood to acquire them for himself, so likewise as King,
it is his province to call them to him by his word, and to
draw them by his Spirit. (Psalm cx, 1-3; Ephes. iii, 17.)
This vocation has two parts -- a command to repent and
believe, (Mark i, 14, 15,) and a promise, (Matt. xxviii, 19,
20,) to which is also subjoined a threatening. (Tit. iii, 8;
Mark xvi, 16.) (2.) Legislation, which we consider in a
distinct form, is the second function of the regal office of
Christ, by which he fully prescribes, to those who have been
previously called and drawn to a participation of the
covenant of grace, a rule by which they may live godly,
righteously and soberly, and to which are also annexed
promises and threatenings. To this must be added the act of
the Holy Spirit by which believers are rendered fit to
perform their duty. (3.) The third act is the communication
of blessings, whether they be necessary or conducible to this
animal life or to that which is spiritual, and the removal of
the opposite evils, not through strict justice, but according
to a certain dispensation, which is suited to the period of
the present life. It is according to this that God equally
"sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust," (Matt. v, 45,)
and his "judgment often begins at his own house." (1 Pet. iv,
17.) (4.) The fourth and last act is the final and universal
judgment, by which Christ, having been appointed by God to be
the judge of all men, will pronounce a sentence of
justification on his elect, and will bestow on them
everlasting life; but after the sentence of condemnation has
been uttered against the reprobates, they will be tormented
with everlasting punishments. (Matt. 25.)
XX. To these functions it is easy to subjoin their Results or
Consequences, which exist from the functions themselves,
according to their nature; and, at the same time, the Events
which flow from the malice of men who reject Christ as their
King. Among the former are repentance, faith, and thus the
church herself, and her association with Christ her head,
obedience performed to Christ's commands, the participation
of blessings which are bestowed on men in the course of the
present life, immunity from evils, and lastly, life eternal.
Among the latter, are blinding, hardening, the giving over to
a reprobate mind, the delivering unto the power of Satan, the
imputation of sin, the gnawings of conscience in this life,
and the feeling endurance of many evils, and, lastly, eternal
death itself. All these evils Christ inflicts as an
omniscient, omnipotent, and inflexible judge, who loves
goodness and hates sin, from whose eyes we cannot hide
ourselves, whose power we cannot avoid, and whose strictness
and rigor we are unable to bend. May God grant, through his
Son, Jesus Christ, in the power and efficacy of the Holy
Spirit, that these considerations may serve to beget within
us a filial and serious fear of God and Christ our Judge.
AMEN!
DISPUTATION 15
ON DIVINE PREDESTINATION
RESPONDENT: WILLIAM BASTINGIUS
I. We call this decree "Predestination," in Greek, Proorismon
from the verb Proorizein which signifies determine, appoint,
or decree any thing before you enter on its execution.
According to this general notion, predestination, when
attributed to God, will be his decree for the governance of
all things, to which divines usually give the appellation of
PROVIDENCE. (Acts ii, 28; xvii, 26.) It is customary to
consider in a less general notion, so far as it has reference
to rational creatures who are to be saved or damned, for
instance, angels and men. It is taken in a stricter sense
about the predestination of men, and then it is usually
employed in two ways; for it is sometimes accommodated to
both the elect and the reprobate. At other times, it is
restricted to the elect alone, and then it has reprobation as
its opposite. According to this last signification, in which
it is almost constantly used in Scripture, (Rom. viii, 29,)
we will treat on predestination.
II. Predestination, therefore, as it regards the thing
itself, is the decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ,
by which he resolved within himself from all eternity, to
justify, adopt and endow with everlasting life, to the praise
of his own glorious grace, believers on whom he had decreed
to bestow faith. (Ephes. 1; Rom. 9.)
III. The genus of predestination we lay down as a decree
which is called in Scripture Proqesiv "the purpose of God,"
(Rom. ix, 11,) and Boulhn tou qelhmatov Qeou "the counsel of
God's own will." (Ephes. i, 11.) And this decree is not
legal, according to what is said, "The man who doeth those
things shall live by them;" (Rom. x, 5;) but it is
evangelical, and this is the language which it holds: "This
is the will of God, that every one who seeth the Son, and
believeth on him, may have everlasting life." (John vi, 40;
Rom. x, 9.) This decree, therefore, is peremptory and
irrevocable; because the final manifestation of "the whole
counsel of God" concerning our salvation, is contained in the
gospel. (Acts xx, 27; Heb. i, 2; ii, 2, 3.)
IV. The Cause of this decree is God, "according to the good
pleasure" or the benevolent affection "of his own will."
(Ephes. i, 5.) And God indeed is the cause, as possessing the
right of determining as he wills both about men as his
creatures, and especially as sinners, and about his
blessings, (Jer. xviii, 6; Matt. xx, 14, 15,) "according to
the good pleasure of his own will," by which, being moved
with and in himself, he made that decree. This "good
pleasure" not only excludes every cause which it could take
from man, or which it could be imagined to take from him; but
it likewise removes whatever was in or from man, that could
justly move God not to make that gracious decree. (Rom. xi,
34, 35.)
V. As the foundation of this decree, we place Jesus Christ,
the mediator between God and men, (Ephes. i, 4.) "in whom the
Father is well pleased;" (Matt. iii, 17; Luke iii, 22;) "in
whom God reconciled the world unto himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them" and "whom God made to be sin for
us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
(2 Cor. v, 19, 21.) Through Him "everlasting righteousness
was to be brought in," (Dan. ix, 24,) adoption to be
acquired, the spirit of grace and of faith was to be
obtained, (Gal. iv, 5, 19, 6,) eternal life procured, (John
vi, 51,) and all the plenitude of spiritual blessings
prepared, the communication of which must be decreed by
predestination. He is also constituted by God the Head of all
those persons who will, by divine predestination, accept of
the equal enjoyment of these blessings. (Ephes. i, 22; v, 23;
Heb. v, 9.)
VI. We attribute Eternity to this decree; because God does
nothing in time, which He has not decreed to do from all
eternity. For "known unto God are all his works from the
beginning of the world:" (Acts xv, 18) and "He hath chosen us
in Christ before the foundation of the world." (Ephes. i, 4.)
If it were otherwise, God might be charged with mutability.
VII. We say that the object or matter of predestination is
two-fold -- Divine things, and Persons to whom the
communication of those Divine things has been predestinated
by this decree. (1.) These Divine Things receive from the
Apostle the general appellation of "spiritual blessings:"
(Ephes. i, 3.) Such are, in the present life, justification,
adoption as sons, (Rom. viii, 29, 30,) and the spirit of
grace and adoption. (Ephes. i, 5; John i, 12; Gal. iv, 6, 7.)
Lastly, after this life, eternal life. (John iii, 15, 16.)
The whole of these things are usually comprised and
enunciated, in the Divinity schools, by the names of Grace
and Glory. (2.) We circumscribe the Persons within the limits
of the word "believers," which presupposes sin: for no one
believes on Christ except a sinner, and the man who
acknowledges himself to be that sinner. (Matt. ix, 13; xi,
28.) Therefore, the plenitude of those blessings, and the
preparation of them which has been made in Christ, were
necessary for none but sinners. But we give the name of
"believers," not to those who would be such by their own
merits or strength, but to those who by the gratuitous and
peculiar kindness of God would believe in Christ. (Rom. ix,
32; Gal. ii, 20; Matt. xi, 25; xiii, 11; John vi, 44; Phil.
i, 29.)
VIII. The form is the decreed communication itself of these
blessings to believers, and in the mind of God the pre-
existent and pre-ordained relation and ordination of
believers to Christ their Head: the fruit of which they
receive through a real and actual union with Christ their
Head. In the present life, this fruit is gracious, through
the commencement and increase of the union; and in the life
to come, it is glorious, through the complete consummation of
this union. (2 Tim. i, 9, 10; John i, 16, 17; xvii, 11, 12,
22-24; Ephes. iv, 13, 15.)
IX. The end of predestination is the praise of the glorious
grace of God: for since grace, or the gratuitous love of God
in Christ, is the cause of predestination, it is equitable
that to the same grace the entire glory of this act should be
ceded. (Ephes. i, 6; Rom. xi, 36.)
X. But this decree of predestination is "according to
election," as the Apostle says: (Rom. ix, 6, xi, ) This
election necessarily infers reprobation. Reprobation
therefore is opposed to predestination, as its contrary; and
is likewise called "a casting away," (Rom. ix, 1,) "an
ordination to condemnation," (Jude 4,) and "an appointment
unto wrath." (1 Thess. v, 9.)
XI. From the law of contraries, we define reprobation to be a
decree of the wrath, or of the severe will, of God; by which
he resolved from all eternity to condemn to eternal death
unbelievers, who, by their own fault and the just judgment of
God, would not believe, for the declaration of his wrath and
power. (John iii, 18; Luke vii, 30; John xii, 37 40; 2 Thess.
ii, 10, 11; Rom. ix, 22.)
XII. Though by faith in Jesus Christ the remission of all
sins is obtained, and sins are not imputed to them who
believe; (Rom. iv, 2-11;) yet the reprobate will be compelled
to endure the punishment, not only of their unbelief, (by the
contrary of which they might avoid the chastisement due to
the rest of their sins,) but likewise of the sins which they
have committed against the law, being "everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory
of his power." (John viii, 24; ix, 41; 2 Thess. i, 9.)
XIII. To each of these decrees, that of predestination and
that of reprobation, is subjoined its execution; the acts of
which are performed in that order in which they have been
appointed in and by the decree itself; and the objects both
of the decree and of its execution are the same, and entirely
uniform, or invested with the same formal relation. (Psalm
cxv, 3; xxxiii, 9, 11.)
XIV. Great is the use of this doctrine, as thus delivered
from the Scriptures. For it serves to establish the glory of
the grace of God, to console afflicted consciences, to
terrify the wicked and to drive away their security. (1.) But
it establishes the grace of God, when it ascribes the whole
praise of our vocation, justification, adoption, and
glorification, to the mercy of God alone, and takes it
entirely away from our own strength, works and merits. (Rom.
viii, 29, 30; Ephes. 1.) (2.) It comforts afflicted
consciences that are struggling with temptation, when it
renders them assured of the gracious good will of God in
Christ, which was from all eternity decreed to them,
performed in time, and which will endure forever. (Isa. liv,
8.) It also shews, that the purpose of God according to
election stands firm, not of works, but of Him that calleth.
(1 Cor. i, 9; Rom. ix, 11.) (3.) It is capable of terrifying
the ungodly; because it teaches, that the decree of God
concerning unbelievers is irrevocable; (Heb. iii, 11, 17-
19;) and that "they who do not obey the truth, but believe a
lie," are to be adjudged to eternal destruction. (2 Thess.
ii, 12.)
XV. This doctrine therefore ought to resound, not only within
private walls and in schools, but also in the assemblies of
the saints and in the church of God. Yet one caution ought to
be strictly observed, that nothing be taught concerning it
beyond what the Scriptures say, that it be propounded in the
manner which the Scriptures have adopted, and that it be
referred to the same end as that which the Scriptures propose
when they deliver it. This, by the gracious assistance of
God, we think, we have done. "Unto Him be glory in the church
by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.
Amen!"
"The power of God is great, but it obtains glory from the
humble. Do not inconsiderately seek out the things that are
too hard for thee; neither foolishly search for things which
surpass thy powers. But meditate with reverence upon those
things which God has commanded thee: for it is not requisite
for thee to see with thine eyes those things which are
secret. Do not curiously handle those matters which are
unprofitable and unnecessary to thy discourse: for more
things are shewn unto thee, than the human understanding can
comprehend. Ecclesiasticus iii, 20-23.
DISPUTATION 16
ON THE VOCATION OF MEN TO SALVATION
RESPONDENT: JAMES BONTEBAL
I. The title contains three terms -- vocation, men,
salvation, (1.) The word Vocation denotes a total and entire
act, consisting of all its parts, whether essential or
integral, what parts soever are necessary for the purpose of
men being enabled to answer the Divine Vocation. (Prov. i,
24; Matt. xi, 20, 21; xxiii, 37.) (2.) Men may be considered
in a two-fold respect, either as placed in the state of
animal life without sin, or as obnoxious to sin. We consider
them here in this last respect. (Gen. ii, 16, 17; Matt. ix,
13.) (3.) Salvation, by a Synecdoche, in addition to vocation
itself by which we are called to salvation, contains also
whatsoever is necessary, through the appointment of God, for
obtaining salvation or life eternal (Luke xix, 9; 2 Cor. vi,
2.)
II. We define Vocation, a gracious act of God in Christ, by
which, through his word and Spirit, He calls forth sinful
men, who are liable to condemnation and placed under the
dominion of sin, from the condition of the animal life, and
from the pollutions and corruptions of this world, (2 Tim. i,
9; Matt. xi, 28; 1 Pet. ii, 9, 10; Gal. i, 4; 2 Pet. ii, 20;
Rom. x, 13-15; 1 Pet. iii, 19; Gen. vi, 3,) unto "the
fellowship of Jesus Christ," and of his kingdom and its
benefits; that, being united unto Him as their Head, they may
derive from him life, sensation, motion, and a plenitude of
every spiritual blessing, to the glory of God and their own
salvation. (1 Cor. i, 9; Gal. ii, 20; Ephes. i, 3, 6; 2
Thess. ii, 13, 14.)
III. The efficient cause of this vocation is God the Father
in the Son. The Son himself, as appointed by the Father to be
the Mediator and the king of his church, calls men by the
Holy Spirit; as He is the Spirit of God given to the
Mediator; and as He is the Spirit of Christ the king and the
head of his church, by whom both "the Father and the Son
hitherto work" (1 Thess. ii, 12; Ephes. ii, 17; iv, 11, 12;
Rev. iii, 20; John v, 17.) But this vocation is so
administered by the Spirit, that the Holy Spirit is himself
its effector: for He appoints bishops, sends forth teachers,
endues them with gifts, grants them his assistance, and
obtains authority for the word and bestows efficacy upon it.
(Heb. iii, 7; Acts xiii, 2; xx, 28; 1 Cor. xii, 4, 7, 9, 11;
Heb. ii, 4.)
IV. The Inly-moving cause is the grace, mercy and
(philanthropy) "love of God our saviour toward man;" (Tit.
iii, 4, 5;) by which He is inclined to relieve the misery of
sinful man, and to impart unto him eternal felicity. (2 Tim.
i, 9, 10.) But the disposing cause is the wisdom and justice
of God; by which he knows how it is proper for this vocation
to be administered, and wills it to be dispensed as it is
lawful and befitting; and from which is formed the decree of
his will concerning the administration and its mode. (1 Cor.
i, 17, 18.)
V. The external cause, which outwardly moves God, is Jesus
Christ by his obedience and intercession. (2 Tim. i, 9.) But
the instrumental cause is the word of God, administered by
means of men, either through preaching or writing, which is
the ordinary method; (1 Cor. xii, 28-30; 2 Thess. ii, 14;) or
without human assistance, when the word is immediately
proposed by God inwardly to the mind and the will, which is
extraordinary. And this is in fact both the word of the law
and that of the Gospel, which are subordinate in the
operations apportioned to each other.
VI. The matter or subject of vocation is mankind constituted
in the animal life; men worldly, natural, animal, carnal,
sinful, alienated from the life of God, and dead in sins; and
therefore Unworthy to be called, and Unfit to answer to the
call, unless by the gracious estimation of God they be
accounted worthy, and by his powerful operation they be
rendered Fit to comply with the vocation. (Matt. ix, 13; Tit.
ii, 12; Ephes. ii, 11, 12; iv, 17, 18; v, 14; John v, 25; vi,
44; Matt. x, 11-13; Acts xvi, 14.)
VII. The form of vocation is placed in the very
administration of the word and of the Holy Spirit. God hath
instituted this administration so, as He knows to be suitable
and becoming to himself, and to his justice tempered with
mercy in Christ; always reserving to himself the fall and
free power of not employing, for the conversion of men, all
the methods which are possible to himself according to the
treasures of his wisdom and power, and of bestowing unequal
grace on those who are [in every respect,] equals, and equal
grace on those who are unequal, nay, of employing greater
grace on those who are more wicked. (Rom. ix, 21-26; x, 17-
21; xi, 25, 29-33; Ezek. iii, 6; Matt. xi, 21, 23.)
VIII. But in every vocation the point of commencement, and
that of termination, come to be considered. The point of
commencement, whence men are called by divine vocation, is
not only the state of this animal life, but likewise that of
sin and of misery on account of sin, that is, out of guilt
and condemnation. (1 Pet. ii, 9; 2 Pet. i, 4; Ephes. ii, 1-6;
Rom. vi, 17, 18.) The point of termination is, First, the
state of grace, or a participation of supernatural good and
of every spiritual blessing, during the present life, in
Christ, in whom resides a plenitude of grace and truth; and,
Afterwards, the state of glory, and the perfect fruition of
God himself. (Ephes. i, 3, 4,; John i, 14, 16; Rom. viii, 28-
30.)
IX. The proximate end of vocation is, that they who have been
called answer by faith to God and to Christ who give the
call, and that they thus become the covenanted people of God
through Christ the Mediator of the New Covenant; and, after
having become believers and parties to the covenant, that
they love, fear, honour, and worship God and Christ, render
in all things obedience to the divine precepts "in
righteousness and true holiness," and that by this means they
"make their calling and election sure." (Prov. i, 24,; Heb.
iii, 7; Rev. iii, 20; Ephes. ii, 11-16; Tit. iii, 8; Deut.
vi, 4, 5; Jer. xxxii, 38, 39; Luke i, 74, 75; 2 Pet. i, 1,
10.)
X. The remote end is the salvation of the elect and the glory
of God, in regard to which the very vocation to grace is a
means ordained by God, yet through the appointment of God it
is necessary to the communication of salvation. (Phil. i, 6;
Ephes. i, 14.) But the answer by which obedience is yielded
to this call, is the condition which, through the appointment
of God, is also requisite and necessary for obtaining this
end. (Prov. i, 24-26; Acts xiii, 46; Luke vii, 30.) The glory
of God, who is supremely wise, good, merciful, just and
powerful, is so luminously displayed in this communication
both of his grace and glory, as deservedly to raise into
rapturous admiration the minds of angels and men, and to
employ their loosened tongues in celebrating the praises of
Jehovah. (Rev. iv, 8-11; v, 8-10.)
XI. Vocation is partly external, partly internal. External
vocation is by the ministry of men, who propound the word of
the law and of the gospel, and who are on this account called
"workers together with God, planters, waterers, builders, and
ministers by whom the [members of the] church believe." (1
Cor. i, 5-9; iii, 3-6.) Internal vocation is by the operation
of the Holy Spirit illuminating the mind and affecting the
heart, that serious attention may be given to those things
which are spoken, and that faith or credence may be given to
the word. The efficacy consists in the concurrence of both
the internal and external vocation. (Acts xvi, 14; 2 Cor.
iii, 3; 1 Pet. i, 22.)
XII. But that distribution is not of a genus into its
species, but of a whole into its parts, or of the entire
vocation into partial acts which concur to produce one
conclusion -- which is, obedience yielded to the call. Hence
an assemblage, or congregation of those who are called, and
of those who answer to the call, is denominated "the Church;"
(1 Cor. iii, 5, 6; Rom. i, 5;) which is itself, in the same
manner, distinguished into the visible and the invisible --
the visible, that "maketh confession with the mouth," and the
invisible, "that believeth with the heart." (Rom. x, 10.) As
man himself is likewise distinguished into "the outward" and
"the inward." (2 Cor. iv, 16.)
XIII. But we must be cautious, lest with the mystics and the
enthusiasts, we consider the word which is propounded by the
ministry of men as only preparatory; and believe that another
word is inwardly employed, which is perfective, or, (which is
the same thing,) lest we suppose, that the Spirit by his
internal act illuminates the mind into another knowledge of
God and Christ, than that which is contained in the word
outwardly propounded, or that he affects the heart and the
soul with other meanings, than those which are proposed from
the very same word. (1 Pet. i, 23, 25; Rom. x, 14-17; 2 Cor.
iii, 3-6; 1 Cor. xv, 1-4.)
XIV. The accidental result of vocation, and that which is not
of itself intended by God, is the rejection of the word of
grace, the contemning of the divine counsel, the resistance
offered to the Holy Spirit. The proper and per se cause of
this result is, the malice and hardness of the human heart.
But this result is, not seldom, succeeded by another, the
just judgment of God, avenging the contempt shewn to his word
and call, and the injury done to his Holy Spirit; and from
this judgment arise the blinding of the mind, the hardening
of the heart, "the giving over to a reprobate mind," and "the
delivering unto the power of Satan." (Acts xiii, 46; Luke
vii, 30; Acts vii, 51; 2 Thess. iii, 2; 2 Cor. iv, 4; Psalm
lxxxi, 11-14; Isa. lxiii, 10; vi, 9, 10; John xii, 37-40.)
XV. But, because "known unto our God are all his works from
the beginning of the world," (Acts xv, 18,) and as God does
nothing in time which He has not decreed from all eternity to
do, this vocation is likewise instituted and administered
according to God's eternal decree. So that what man soever is
called in time, was from all eternity predestinated to be
called, and to be called in that state, time, place, mode,
and with that efficacy, in and with which he was
predestinated. Otherwise, the execution will vary from the
decree; which charge of mutability and change cannot be
preferred against God without producing mischievous effects.
(Ephes. iii, 5, 6, 9-11; James i, 17, 18; 2 Tim. i, 9.)
DISPUTATION 17
ON REPENTANCE
RESPONDENT: HENRY NIELLUIS
As in succeeding Disputations are discussed Faith, and
Justification through Faith, the order which has hitherto
been observed requires us now to treat on Repentance without
which we can neither have fellowship with Christ, nor be made
partakers of his righteousness.
I. The matter on which we are at present treating, is usually
enunciated in the three Latin words, resipiscentia,
pænitentia, and conversio, repentance, penitence and
conversion. The Greek word, Metanoia "change of mind after
reflection," answers to the first of these, terms;
Metameleia, "regret on account of misdeeds," to the second;
and Ewisrofh "a turning about, a return," to the third. On
this subject the Hebrews frequently employ the word h b w t
"a returning," as corresponding with the third of the
preceding terms; and the word µ j n or h m j n which
expresses the sense of the second. But though these words
are, according to the essence and nature of the thing,
synonymous, yet each of them signifies a particular formal
conception. The First, repentance, is a conception of the
understanding; the Second, penitence, a conception of the
affections or passions; and the Third, conversion, is a
conception of an action resulting from both the others. The
general term, therefore, comprises the understanding, the
affections, and an ulterior act resulting from both the
preceding. The First signifies a change of mind after any
thing has been done; and, after the commission of evil, a
change of mind to a better state. The Second expresses grief
or sorrow of mind after a deed; and, after an evil deed,
"sorrow after a godly sort," and not "the sorrow of the
world," although the word is sometimes thus used even in the
Scriptures. The Third denotes conversion to some thing, from
which aversion had been previously formed. And, in this
discussion, it is that conversion which is from evil to good;
from sin, Satan and the world, to God. The First comprehends
a disapproval of evil and an approval of the opposite good.
The Second comprises grief for a past evil, and an affection
of desire towards a contrary good. The Third shews an
aversion from the evil to which it adhered, and a conversion
to the good from which it had been alienated. But these three
conceptions, according to the nature of things and the
command of God, are so intimately connected with each other,
that there cannot be either true and right repentance,
penitence, or conversion, unless each of these has the other
two united with it, either as preceding it, or as succeeding.
II. According to this distinction of the various conceptions,
have been invented different definitions of one and the same
thing as to its essence. For instance, "repentance is a
change of mind and heart from evil to good, proceeding from
godly sorrow." It is also "sorrow after the commission of sin
on account of God being offended, and through this sorrow a
change of the whole heart from evil to good." And "It is a
true conversion of our life to God, proceeding from a sincere
and serious fear of God, which consists in the mortification
of our flesh and of the old man, and in the quickening of the
Spirit." We disapprove of none of these three definitions,
because in substance and essence they agree among themselves,
and, sufficiently for [the purposes of] true piety, declare
the nature of the thing. But a more copious definition may be
given, such as the following: "Repentance, penitence, or
conversion is an act of the entire man, by which in his
understanding he disapproves of sin universally considered,
in his affections he hates it, and as perpetrated by himself
is sorry for it and in the whole of his life avoids it. By
which he also in his understanding approves of righteousness,
in affections loves it, and in the whole of his life follows
after it. And thus he turns himself away from Satan and the
world, and returns unto God and adheres to Him, that God may
abide in him, and that he may abide in God."
III. We call repentance "the act of man," that we may
distinguish it from Regeneration which is "the act of God."
These two have some things in common, are on certain points
in affinity; yet, in reality, according to the peculiar
nature which each of them possesses, they are distinct;
though, according to their subjects, they are not separated.
We add that it is "the act of the entire man:" for it is his
act with regard to the entire mind or soul, and all its
faculties; and with regard to the body as it is united to the
soul, and is an organ or instrument subjected to the pleasure
and command of the soul. (1 Kings xviii, 37; Rom. xii, 1, 2.)
It is an act which concerns the whole life of man as it is
rational, and as it was born with an aptitude to tend towards
sin and towards God, and to turn aside from either of them.
It consists of the understanding, the affections, the senses,
and motion, and concurs with all these conjointly, though
subordinately, to [the production of] repentance, penitence
or conversion. (1.) In this act, the Understanding performs
its office both by a general appreciation of its value and by
its particular approbation and disapprobation. (2.) The
Affections or passions perform theirs, as they are
ewiqumhtikov concupiscible, by loving, hating, mourning and
rejoicing; and as they are qumoeidhv, irascible, by being
angry, zealous, indignant, fearful, and hopeful. (Ephes. 3 &
4.) (3.) The Senses, both internal and external, perform
their office by their aversion from unbecoming objects, and
by their conversion to those which are suitable and proper.
(Rom. vi, 13, 19.) (4.) Lastly, the Motions of the tongue,
hands, feet, and of the other members of the body, perform
their office by removal from things unlawful and inexpedient,
and by their application to those which are lawful and
expedient.
IV. The object of repentance is the evil of unrighteousness
or sin, (considered both universally, and as committed by the
penitent himself,) and the good of righteousness. (Psalm
xxxiv, 15; Ezek. xviii, 28.) The evil of unrighteousness is
first in order, the good of righteousness is first in
dignity. From the former, repentance has its commencement; in
the latter, it terminates and rests. The object may be
considered in a manner somewhat different; for, since we are
commanded to return to God, from whom we had turned away, God
is also the object of conversion and repentance, as he is the
hater of sin and of evil men, the lover of righteousness and
of righteous men, good to those who repent, and their chief
good, and, on the contrary, the severe avenger and the
certain destruction of those who persevere in sin. (Mal. v,
7; Zech. i, 3; Deut. vi, 5.) To this object, may be directly
opposed another personal object, the devil, from whom by
repentance we must take our departure. (Ephes. iv, 27; James
iv, 7.) To the devil may be added an object which is an
accessory to him, and that is, the world, of which he is
called "the prince," (John xii, 31; xiv, 30,) both as it
contains within it arguments suitable for Satan to employ in
seduction, such as riches, honours and pleasures, (Luke iv,
5, 6; 1 John ii, 15, 16,) and as it renders to the devil
something that resembles personal service. (Rom. vi, 9, 7.)
In both these methods, the world attracts men to itself, and
detains them after they are united to it. From it, also, we
are commanded to turn away. Nay, man himself may obtain the
province of an object opposed to God; and he is commanded to
separate himself from himself, that he may live not according
to man, but according to God. (Ephes. iv, 22; Col. iii, 9-
17; Rom. vi, 10-23.)
V. The primary efficient cause of repentance is God, and
Christ as he is through the Spirit mediator between God and
man. (Jer. xxxi, 18; Ezek. xxxvi, 25, 26; Acts v, 31; xvii,
30.) The inly moving cause is the goodness, grace, and
philanthropy of God our creator and redeemer, who loves the
salvation of his creature, and desires to manifest the riches
of his mercy in the salvation of his miserable creature.
(Rom. xi, 5.) The outwardly moving cause, through the mode of
merit, is the obedience, the death and the intercession of
Christ; (Isa. liii, 5; 1 Cor. i, 30, 31; 2 Cor. v, 21;) and,
through the mode of moving to mercy, it is the unhappy
condition of sinners, whom the devil holds captive in the
snares of iniquity, and who will perish by their own demerits
according to the condition of the law, and necessarily
according to the will of God manifested in the gospel, unless
they repent (John iii, 16; Ezek. xvi, 3-63; Luke xiii, 3, 5;
Isa. xxxi, 6; Jer. iii, 14; Psalm cxix, 71; in the prophets
passim; Rom. vii, 6, 7.)
VI. The proximate, yet less principal cause, is man himself,
converted and converting himself by the power and efficacy of
the grace of God and the Spirit of Christ. The external cause
inciting to repent is the miserable state of the sinners who
do not repent, and the felicitous and blessed state of those
who repent -- whether such state be known from the law of
Moses or from that of nature, from the gospel or from
personal experience, or from the examples of other persons
who have been visited with the most grievous plagues through
impenitence, or who, through repentance, have been made
partakers of many blessings. (Rom. ii, 5; Acts ii, 37.) The
internal and inly moving cause is, not only a consciousness
of sin and a sense of misery through fear of the Deity, who
has been offended, with a desire to be delivered from both,
but it is likewise [an incipient] faith and hope of the
gracious mercy and pardon of God.
VII. The instrumental causes which God ordinarily uses for
our conversion, and by which we are solicited and led to
repentance, are the law and the gospel. Yet the office of
each in this matter is quite distinct, so that the more
excellent province in it is assigned to the gospel, and the
law acts the part of its servant or attendant. For, in the
first place, the very command to repent is evangelical; and
the promise of pardon, and the peremptory threat of eternal
destruction, unless the man repents, which are added to it,
belong peculiarly to the gospel. (Matt. iii, 1; Mark i, 4;
Luke xxiv, 47.) But the law proves the necessity of
repentance, by convincing man of sin and of the anger of the
offended Deity, from which conviction arise a certain sorrow
and a fear of punishment, which, in its commencement is
servile or slavish solely through a regard to the law, but
which, in its progress, becomes a filial fear through a view
of the gospel. (Rom. iii, 13, 20; vii, 7.) From these, also,
proceed, by the direction of an inducement to remove, or
repent, a certain external abstinence from evil works, and
such a performance of some righteousness as is not
hypocritical. (Matt. iii, 8; vii, 17; James ii, 14-26.) But
as the law does not proceed beyond "the ministration of death
and of the letter," the services of the gospel here again
become necessary, which administers the Spirit, by whose
illumination, inspiration and gracious and efficacious
strengthening, repentance itself, in its essential and
integral parts is completed and perfected. Nay the very
conviction of sin belongs in some measure to the gospel,
since sin itself has been committed against the command both
concerning faith and repentance. (Mark xvi, 16; John xvi, 8-
15.)
VIII. There are likewise other causes aiding or auxiliary to
repentance, some of which are usually employed by God
himself, and others of them by those who are penitent. (1.)
For God sometimes sends the cross and afflictions, by which,
as with goads, he excites and invites to repentance. At other
times, he visits them with the contrary blessings, that he
may lead them, after having been invited, by goodness and
lenity to repentance. (1 Cor. xi, 32; Jer. xxxi, 18; Psalm 80
& 85.) (2.) The causes employed by penitents themselves are
watching, fasting, and other corporeal chastisements, as well
as prayers, which are of the greatest efficacy in obtaining
and performing repentance. The other causes employed by men
are likewise serviceable in exciting the ardour of these
prayers. (Psalm 119; Rom. ii, 4; v, 3, 4; xii, 11, 12.) It is
possible for this relation to exist between these auxiliary
and the preceding instrumental causes, (§ 7,) that the
auxiliary causes are subservient to the instrumental, since
they excite men to a serious and assiduous meditation on the
law and the gospel, and by the grace of God obtain yet more
and more a right understanding of both.
IX. The form of repentance is the uprightness of the turning
away from evil, and of the return to God and to
righteousness. It is conformed to the rule of the divine
command, and is produced by an assured faith and hope of the
divine mercy, and by a sincere intention to turn away and to
return. As the penitence of Saul, Ahab and Judas was
destitute of this uprightness, it is unworthy to be reckoned
under this title. (1 Sam. xv, 24, 25; 1. Kings, xxi, 27;
Matt. xxvii, 3.) But since the mind of the penitent is
conscious to itself of this rectitude, or uprightness, no
necessity exists for such a man anxiously and solicitously to
examine whether it be so great, either intensively,
extensively, or appreciatively, as the rigor of justice might
demand.
X. The fruits of repentance, which may also have the relation
of ends, are, (1.) On the part of God, the remission of sin
according to the condition of the covenant of grace in
Christ, and on account of his obedience, and through faith in
him. (Luke xxiv, 47; Acts v, 31; Rom. iii, 24) (2.) On our
part, the fruits are good works, which are "meet for
repentance," (Matt. iii, 8; Luke iii, 8,) and "which God
foreordained," that believers and penitents, who are "created
in Christ Jesus unto good works, should walk in them."
(Ephes. ii, 10.) The ultimate end is the glory of God the
Redeemer, who is at once just and merciful in Jesus Christ
our Lord. (Rev. xvi, 9.) It results not only from the
gracious and efficacious act of God, who bestows repentance,
and converts us to himself; but likewise from the act of the
penitents themselves, by which turning themselves away from
sins, and returning to God, they "walk in newness of living"
all the days of their life. It also results from the very
intention of repentance itself.
XI. The parts of repentance, as is abundantly evident from
the preceding Theses, according to its two boundaries, (both
that from which it commences, and that towards which it
proceeds and in which it terminates,) are two, an aversion,
or turning away from the Devil and sin, and a conversion or
returning to God and righteousness. (Psalm xxxiv, 14; Jer.
iv, 1.) They are united together by an indissoluble
connection; but the former is preparatory to the latter,
while the latter is perfective of the former. The Papists,
however, make penitence to consist of three parts; and seem
to derive greater pleasure from employing the word penitence
about this matter, than in the use of the terms repentance
and conversion. Their three parts are, the contrition of the
heart, the confession of the mouth, and the satisfaction of
the work; about which we make two brief affirmations. (1.) If
these be received as parts of the penitence which is
necessary before God, then no contrition can be so great,
either intensively or appreciatively, as to be in any wise
either meritorious or capable of obtaining remission of sins.
No confession of the mouth, not even that which is made to
God, (provided the confession of the heart only be present,)
is necessary to receive remission; much less is the
confession which is made to any man, even though he be a
priest. And there is no satisfaction, except the obedience of
the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the justice of
God can be satisfied either for sin or for its punishment,
even for the very least of either. (Acts iv, 12; Heb. x, 10,
14; 1 Cor. i, 30.) (2.) If these be received as part of the
penitence to which, before the church, that man submits who
has injured her by scandal, that he may render her
satisfaction and may contribute to her edification; then
indeed those words, [contrition, confession and
satisfaction,] may bear an accommodated sense, and such a
distribution of them may be useful to the church.
XII. The contrary to repentance is impenitence, and a
pertinacious perseverance in sinning: of which there are two
degrees, one the delay of penitence, the other final
impenitence unto death. The latter of them has a certain
expectation of eternal destruction, even according to the
most merciful will of God revealed in Christ and in the
Gospel; lest any one should persuade himself, that the devils
themselves, and men who have passed their lives in impiety,
will at length experience the mercy of God. The former of
them, the delay of penitence, is marvelously dangerous, for
three reasons: (1.) Because it is in the power and hand of
God to make even the delay of a single hour to be a final
impenitence, since to Him belongs the dominion and lordship
over our life and death. (2.) Because after a habit of
sinning has been introduced by daily exercise, a man is
rendered anaisqhtov, incapable of feeling, and his conscience
becomes "seared with a hot iron." (1 Tim. iv, 2.) (3.)
Because, after the gate of grace has by the just judgment of
God been closed on account of a malicious continuance in
sins, no passage is open for the Spirit, who is necessarily
the author of repentance. Therefore let these words always
resound in our ears, "Today if ye will hear his voice, harden
not your hearts." (Heb. iii, 7, 8; Psalm xcv, 7, 8.) And this
exhortation of the Apostle, "Workout your own salvation with
fear and trembling: for it is God who worketh in you both to
will and to do of his good pleasure," (Phil. ii, 12, 13.) May
this be graciously granted to us by God the Father of
mercies, in the Son of his love, by the Holy Spirit of both
of them. To whom be praise and glory forever. Amen.
COROLLARIES
It is not a correct saying, that "to those who relapse after
having been baptized, penitence is a second plank [for their
escape] after shipwreck."
Those persons act harshly who, from the example of God not
pardoning sins except to him that is penitent, refuse to
forgive their brother unless he confesses his fault, and
earnestly begs pardon.
DISPUTATION 18
ON THE CHURCH AND ITS HEAD
RESPONDENT: GERARD, THE SON OF HELMICHIUS
As it is of the greatest utility to hold a right belief about
the church of God and its Head, and as there is at present a
great controversy between the Orthodox and the Papists
respecting this matter, it appears to us that we shall not be
profitably occupied , if we treat of the Church and of its
Head in a few Theses.
I. The Church, ecclesia, is a word of Greek origin, used in
the Greek version of the Old Testament for the Hebrew word l
h q , "the assembly;" (Deut. xxiii, 2; Judges xx, 2) and
properly signifies a "congregation of persons called out,"
from the very etymology of the word and from the most
frequent usage of the Sacred writings, without any
distinction of the small or the great number of those who
belong to such an assemblage. For sometimes it signifies the
universal assembly of all those who have been called out;
(Acts xx, 28; Ephes. i, 22;) at other times, an extraordinary
multitude; (Acts ii, 41, 47;) and at other times, only a few
persons, comprised in a single family. (Rom. xvi, 5.) This
diversity in its application is made on account of one
essential reason in all of them; and as this reason belongs
equally to an assembly of few persons, of many, and of all,
these several assemblages equally partake of the name of "the
church," with this difference alone, that a congregation
consisting of numerous members is called a greater church,
but not more a church, according to the axiom of the
Logicians, "A substance does not receive more and less."
II. According to this very general notion the church of God
is defined, "A congregation of men called forth by God, out
of their own nature, into the supernatural dignity of
adoption as sons of God to his glory, and of those who answer
this call of God." For the act of vocation, as proceeding
from God who calls, and as properly received by those who are
called, completes his church. Under this definition are
likewise comprehended those angels who are called in
Scripture "the elect;" (1 Tim. v, 21;) whether they be
considered as an assembly separated from men, or as belonging
to one church with men. (Psalm lxviii, 17; Jude. 14; Rev. v,
11; Heb. xii, 22.) According to this notion, the church,
embracing all, is especially called "Catholic." But omitting
any further mention of angels, about whose vocation the
Scriptures speak sparingly, we will contemplate the church as
consisting of human beings. We must here consider men in two
respects -- according to the primeval state in which they
were created after the image of God, and in reference to
their fall from that state into corruption and misery.
III. Because, when men are considered in their primitive
state, they were created to be not only what they actually
were, but likewise to be elevated to a state of higher
felicity, agreeing with the image of God; bearing the impress
of which, as children they resembled their Heavenly Father;
(Gen. i, 27; Luke iii, 38;) therefore, in this state, theirs
was the calling forth, by which they were called out from
nature and natural felicity to partake of the fruit of Divine
adoption, by the observance of the law which had been imposed
on them, and which had been sanctioned by the promise of a
life of blessedness assured to them through the sacrament of
the tree of life, (Gen. ii, 9, 10,) and by a threat of death.
They were therefore the church of God, neither redeemed by
the blood of Christ, nor formed anew by regeneration of the
Spirit, nor by a new creation, but they were instituted as a
church by the primitive creation of God, and formed by a
vocation according to the legal covenant.
IV. Before the fall, this church in reality consisted only of
our first parents, Adam and Eve; but in capacity it embraced
the whole of the human race that were included in their
loins, and that were afterwards to proceed from them by
natural propagation. This was done by God's constant and
perpetual ordinance, according to which he included all their
posterity in the covenant into which He had entered with the
parents, provided the parents continued in this covenant.
(Gen. xvii, 7; Rom. v, 12, 14.) And in this respect, the
church before the fall may take to itself the epithet of
"Catholic." But, as a promise of the remission of sins was
not annexed to this covenant, when our first parents
transgressed this law, which had been imposed as a trial of
obedience, they fell from the covenant and ceased to be the
church of God, (Jer. xi, 3,) they were expelled from the tree
of life and out of Paradise, the symbols of life eternal and
of the place in which it was to be enjoyed, and were thus by
nature rendered "children of wrath." (Gen. 3.)
V. Wherefore, if a church was to be again collected from
among men, it was to be called out from that state of sin and
misery; but it was to be collected through the decree of the
gracious mercy of God. He therefore employed such a mode of
calling the members forth as was agreeable to that state,
that is, the institution of a new and gracious covenant, as
the word is used in the writings of the evangelism. (Jer.
xxxi, 33; Matt. xxvi, 28.) This covenant exhibits remission
of sins ratified by the blood of the Mediator, Christ the
only begotten Son of God, and the Spirit of grace through
faith in Him. (Heb. ix, 15; Gal. iii, 2, 5; iv, 19.) To a
participation in this covenant men have been called "in
divers manners," according to the economy of time most wisely
arranged by God. First, by the declaration or solemn promise
of the blessed seed, (Gen. iii, 15; Rom. i, 2,) when the heir
was by appointment constituted an infant: wherefore He was
also to be detained for a time under the preparatory
discipline of the law economically repeated. Afterwards, by
that full manifestation in the Gospel, when, according to
"the time appointed of God the Father," the heir had arrived
at maturity. (Gal. iv, 1-4; Matt. xi, 11-13.)
VI. But this economic distinction, and this diversity in the
method of calling forth, do not make a double and in
substance a different church. For it is one and the same
person that is an infant and afterwards a full-grown man, not
distinguished except with regard to age and advancement
according to increased age. But the whole church, both before
and after Christ, is called one heir. (Gal. 4.) The whole
church, collected together from among the Jews and the
Gentiles, is also called "one new man;" and not from those
Jews only who lived after the advent of Christ, but likewise
from those who lived prior to his coming, when the Gentiles
were without Christ," being then aliens from the commonwealth
of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise."
(Ephes. ii, 12-15.) The church is one city, the heavenly
Jerusalem, "the mother of all" those who are blessed with
faithful Abraham, and who, "as Isaac was, are the children of
promise." (Gal. iv, 26-28.) It is also one house of God
founded upon Christ the chief corner-stone, which has been
laid in a foundation the most firm and stable, through the
preaching not only of the apostles, but likewise of the
prophets, (Ephes. ii, 20-22,) to the latter of whom also
belong Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as Moses himself,
who according to the authority of the promise was a son,
(Heb. xi, 24-26,) although a servant in the house with regard
to the economical legislation which was administered by his
hands. (iii, 4.)
VII. This assembly being distinguished in the manner already
described, by the names of "the one heir" and "the one new
man," of "the one city" and "the one house of God," is in the
most ample signification and in the widest latitude called
"the Catholic Church," collected together from among men of
every period and age from the first promise of the seed of
the woman to the end of the world, and of all places; men who
have been called forth to the participation of the grace of
God, and to the service of his glory; and who are obedient to
this Divine calling. (Heb. 11; xii, 22- 24.) It is
distributed into two integral members, each of which is
homogeneous and similar to the whole; that is, into the
church before Christ, and that after Him: (Gal. iv, 1-4; Heb.
xi, 40.) But as a discussion upon their agreement and
difference will be a labour rather too prolix, we will not
enter into it on this occasion: omitting therefore the
peculiar consideration of that which was before Christ, our
further attention shall be directed to that which is
specially called "Christian," yet not to the entire exclusion
of the other.
VIII. We may be permitted, therefore, to define the Christian
church, "A congregation of believers, who have been called by
the saving vocation of God from the state of corruption to
the dignity of the sons of God through the gospel, and are by
a true faith engrafted into Christ, as living members are to
the Head, to the praise of the glorious grace of God. (Matt.
v, 15, 16; Acts iv, 31; 1 Pet. ii, 9; v, 10; Rom. viii, 28-
30; vi, 5; Ephes. iii, 17; v, 30.) This, as a general
definition, belongs to every congregation of believers,
whether it be small or large; it also appertains to the
Catholic church, which contains the entire number of
believers from the time when Christ came into his kingdom
unto the consummation of all things: which universal company
we properly describe, if we add these few words to the
previous description, "Of all the believers who have been
called out from every tongue, tribe, people, nation and
vocation," &c. From this it is apparent, that the Catholic or
universal church differs from particular churches in nothing
which relates to the substance of the church, but solely in
its amplitude: an argument which ought to be diligently
observed in our controversy with the Papists.
IX. The efficient cause of the church, that both produces her
by regeneration and preserves her by daily education, and
that perfects her by an immediate union of her to himself, is
God the Father, in his well beloved Son Jesus Christ, by the
Spirit of Christ who is the Redeemer and the Head of the
church. (2 Tim. i, 9; 1 Pet. i, 12.) We view the gospel as
the instrument, that is, "the incorruptible seed by which the
church is born again." (1 Pet. i, 23, 25.) Hence those
persons also whom God appointed to be ministers of the
Gospel, were the instrumental causes, and are called "co-
operators," or "workers together with God," of whom some are
employed in laying the foundation, others in raising the
superstructure. (1 Cor. iii, 5, 10; Rev. xv, 18-21; Ephes.
ii, 20.) They are indeed the founders of many particular
churches, by their oral preaching; but by their writings
which have been delivered down to us, they are the founders
of all churches and of the whole Catholic church; on this
account the entire church of Christ is called Apostolical.
X. We call the act of this cause that produces the church,
and preserves her, "a calling forth." This word includes,
First, the point from which a commencement is made to that in
which it terminates, and, then, the means by which men
proceed from the one to the other. (1.) The point of
commencement is the state of sin and misery, in which state,
a sinner without the law is at ease and flatters himself; but
to which a sinner is averse who is under the law through the
vocation previously administered by the legal spirit, that
is, the spirit of bondage, and from which he desires to be
delivered. (Matt. ix, 13; xi, 28; Rom. 7.) The point of
termination is the dignity of being adopted as the sons of
God, which, also, with respect to the desire of those who
have been called forth, may be fitly denominated their end.
(2.) The means by which men proceed from the one point to the
other, is faith in Christ, by which we obtain this dignity,
and are "translated from the kingdom of darkness into the
kingdom of light" and of the Son of God, through the decree
of divine predestination. (Jer. i, 12; Col. i, 13; Acts xvi,
17.)
XI. Hence it will easily appear what it is that we have laid
down as the matter or substance of this calling forth, about
which it is conversant, and in which it exercises its
operation. Sinners are the remote matter; for to them alone
is an entrance into this way necessary. The still nearer
matter are sinners through the law acknowledging their sins,
deploring their state, and expecting redemption. (Gal. ii,
15, 16, 21; Matt. ix, 13; xi, 28; Rom. viii, 28-30.)
Believers are the proximate matter, who, alone, are called to
the fellowship of Jesus Christ, and to a participation of the
inheritance which he has purchased for his children with his
own blood, and of which he is constituted the dispenser to
those who obey him. (Heb. v, 9.) For however perfect in the
act, vocation is, when it has proceeded from Him who calls
us, yet a relative effect is required for this purpose, that
they who are called may be numbered in the name of the
church. (Acts ii, 41.) Wherefore we exclude from the church,
unbelievers, apostates, hypocrites, and those heretics who do
not hold Christ as the head. (Ephes. i, 22.) We make a
distinction between those who have not been baptized with the
external baptism of water, those who have been excommunicated
by the sentence of the church, and schismatics; and according
to the varying distinction in each case, we affirm either
that they belong to the church, or that they do not belong to
her.
XII. As the form of the church is of the genus of relatives,
we place it as relatively necessary, and in reality in the
relation of disquiparancy, as we are enjoined to do by the
relative names by which the church is called. For she is
called "the body," (Ephes. i, 23,) "the bride" (John iii,
29,) "the city of the kingdom," (Heb. i, 8,) and "the house"
(1 Tim. iii, 15,) in relation to "the Head," (Ephes. i, 22;
Col. i, 18,) to "the Bridegroom" to "the King," and "the
Master," or the Father of the family. But the relation
between these things which are thus relatively placed,
consists of three points or degrees, union, appointment and
communication. (1.) The form therefore of the church in union
is with her Head, Husband, King and Master of the house or
family; which is formed by his Spirit, and by the faith of
the church. (Gal. ii, 30; Rom. viii, 9-11.) (2.) In her
subordination under her Head, Husband and King, which is
required by the perfection and virtue of her Head, and by the
necessity and usefulness of the church herself. (Ephes. v,
23.) (3.) In the influence of life, sensation and motion,
which influence benevolently proceeds from the Head, and is
happily apprehended by the church.
XIII. The chief end of the church is the glory of Him by
whose gracious evocation the church is what she is; the glory
which He completes in His gracious acts towards the church,
by creating, preserving, increasing and perfecting her.
(Ephes. i, 12.) To this glory is justly subordinate, that
which the church is commanded to ascribe to Him, and which
she will ascribe as the perfecting of her "throughout all
ages, world without end." (Rom. xi, 36; 1 Pet.. ii, 9; Ephes.
iii, 21; v, 20.) As the salvation of the church is the gift
of her Head and King, it cannot be the end of his church,
though it may be the end which she intends by her faith, and
which she strives to obtain, that she may be blessed before
God.
XIV. But the church is herself now distinguished according to
the acts of God towards her, so far as she perceives all or
some of them. (1.) She that has a perception only of the act
of creation and preservation, is said to be in the way or
course, and is called militant, because she must still
contend with sin, the flesh, the world and Satan. (Ephes. vi,
11, 12; Heb. xii, 1-4. (2.) But she that is made partaker
besides, of the consummation, is said to be in her own land,
and is called triumphant. After conquering her enemies, she
rests from her labours, and reigns with Christ in heaven.
(Rev. iii, 21; xiv, 13.) To that part of the church which is
militant on earth, the title of Catholic or universal is
likewise ascribed, as embracing within her pale every
particular combatant or soldier. We place neither any church,
nor anything belonging to her, in purgatory, for that is a
real utopia, and of great notoriety among all men.
XV. Hence, since the calling forth of the church is made
inwardly by the spirit, and outwardly by the word preached
(Acts xvi, 14,) and since those who are called answer
inwardly by faith, and outwardly by the profession of their
faith, as they who are called have an inward man and an
outward; (2 Cor. iv, 16;) therefore, in reference to those
who are called, the church is distinguished into the visible
and the invisible from an external adjunct and accident. She
is invisible, as "believing with the heart unto
righteousness;" and she is visible, as "making confession
with the mouth unto salvation." (Rom. x, 9, 10.) This
visibility and invisibility belong neither less nor more to
the whole catholic church than to each particular church. For
that which is called "the catholic invisible church" does not
appertain to this subject, because it can not come together
into one place, and thus be exposed to view. But as more
persons "are called" than "are chosen" or elected. (Matt. xx,
16.) And as many of the called profess with their mouths
"that they know God, while in works they deny him;" (Tit. i,
16;) and since of the hearts of these men, God is the sole
judge, who alone "knoweth them that are his;" (2 Tim. ii,
19;) therefore such persons are judged, on account of the
promise, to belong to the visible church, although
equivocally, since they do not belong to the invisible
church, and have none of that inward communion with the Head,
which is the Form of the church.
XVI. Then, since the church is collected out of "the world
that lieth wholly in wickedness," (John xv, 19; Matt. xv, 9,)
and as this office is frequently performed by ministers who
preach another doctrine than that which the word of God
contains; (2 Cor. xi, 15; Gal. iii, 1-3;) and since the
church is composed of men who are exposed to deception and to
falling -- nay, of such as are actually deceived and fallen;
on this account, the church is distinguished, with respect to
the doctrine of faith, into "the orthodox" and "the
heretical;" with respect to divine worship, into "the
idolatrous," and that which retains the "right worship of God
and of Christ;" and with respect to the moral virtues
prescribed in the second table of the law into "a purer
church, or into "one that is more impure." In all these
respects, degrees are also to be observed, according to which
one church is more heretical, idolatrous and impure, than
another. But concerning all these things, a right judgment
must be formed according to the Scriptures. In this relation,
too, the word "catholic" is used respecting those churches
which are neither oppressed with destructive heresy nor are
idolatrous.
XVII. Wherefore, that question is confused and preposterous
which asks, "Can the Catholic church err?" when the inquiry
ought rather to be, "Can the assembly that errs be the
church?" For as faith is prior to the church, and as the
church obtains this appellation on account of her believing,
so the name of "the church" is taken away from any church so
far as she errs from the faith. Yet if this question be
pressed by any one, we say that by it nothing more is asked
than this, "Can it happen that at any one time there can be
no assemblage or congregation of men in the whole world who
have not a right faith in Christ and God," To which an answer
is readily made by a negation; because the church on earth
will never totally fail, but must continue to be collected
together without interruption to the end of the world,
although not always from the same places and nations. (Matt.
xxviii, 20; Rev. ii, 5.) Otherwise, Christ will not have any
kingdom on earth, and will not rule in the midst of his
enemies until they be made his footstool. (Psalm cx, 1, 2.)
We have hitherto treated of the church herself, let us now
briefly consider her head.
XVIII. The conditions of the Head of the church are, that it
should contain within itself, in a manner the most perfect,
all things necessary to the life and salvation of the church,
that it should have a due proportion to the church, should be
fitly united to her and placed in order with her, and that by
its own virtue it may supply to her life, sensation and
motion. But these conditions agree with Christ alone. For "in
Him all fullness dwells;" (Col. i, 19;) "and of his fullness
have all we received." (John i, 16.) Him hath the Father
constituted "the Head over all things to the church;" and he
bestows salvation on his body, which is the church. (Ephes.
i, 22; v, 25.) By his spirit, the church is animated,
perceives and moves. (Rom. viii, 9-12.) Nor is this to be
understood only about internal communication, but likewise
concerning external administration; for it is He who sends
forth his word and his Spirit, (Matt. xxviii, 19; Acts ii,
33,) who institutes a ministry in the church, who appoints,
as presidents over this ministry, apostles, evangelists,
pastors and teachers. (Ephes. iv, 11, 12.) On this account,
He is called "the chief Pastor or Shepherd," (1 Pet. v, 4,)
who assists and "works with" his ministers, "both with signs
and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy
Ghost;" (Mark xvi, 20; Acts iv, 30;) and who defends his
church against her enemies, and procures likewise her
temporal good, so far as He considers it to be requisite for
her inward and eternal benefit.
XIX. This name therefore, "the Head of the Church," cannot be
adapted, according to any consideration, either to the
apostle Peter or to the Roman pontiff. The papists,
themselves, grant that it cannot be according to internal
communication; and we prove that it cannot be according to
external administration, in the following manner: (1.) St.
Peter was himself constituted an apostle by Christ, after the
same constitution as that by which Christ is said to have
appointed apostles. (Ephes. iv, 7, 11; 1 Pet. i, 1.)
Therefore, the rest of the apostles were not constituted by
St. Peter, which appointment St. Paul expressly denies
respecting himself, when he says that he obtained his
apostleship "neither of men nor by man;" (Gal. i, 1.) (2.)
St. Peter is a fellow-elder. Therefore, he is not the chief
of the elders. (1 Pet. v, 1.) (3.) To St. Peter "was
committed the gospel of the circumcision," as that of the
uncircumcision was by equal right and authority committed to
St. Paul. Therefore "they gave to each other the right hand
of fellowship." (Gal. ii, 7-9.) (4.) St. Peter was
reprehended by St. Paul, "because he did not walk uprightly,
according to the truth of the gospel;" Therefore, he was not
a suitable person to receive in charge the administration of
the whole church. (5.) St. James, Cephas and John, are all
placed by the apostle Paul as equal in degree; nay, as being
accounted columns by the churches, with no difference among
them. (6.) On the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem are
inscribed "the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb,"
each name on each foundation without the pre-eminence of any
single one apart. (7.) St. Paul says that "in nothing was he
behind the very chief apostles." (2 Cor. xii, 11.) Therefore,
he was not inferior to St. Peter, who was one of them. (8.)
St. Paul says that he "laboured more abundantly than all the
rest." (1 Cor. xv, 10.) But he could not have spoken this
with truth, if the care of managing the whole church lay upon
St. Peter, and if he administered its concerns through St.
Paul and other persons. The objections which the papists urge
in favour of the primacy or pre-eminence of St. Peter, will
be examined in the disputation itself.
XX. Hence it follows that neither does this title of "the
Head of the church" belong to the Roman pontiff. For whatever
portion of right and dignity belongs to him, the papists say,
it is derived from St. Peter, because he has succeeded to the
chair and to the functions of that apostle. But let it be
allowed for the sake of argument, though by no means
conceded, that the primacy of administration over the whole
church was granted to Peter; yet it does not follow from this
that the same right has devolved on the Roman pontiff; for,
before this inference can be deduced from such a supposition,
the following propositions must be previously proved: (1.)
That this right was not personal but successive. (2.) That
this succession was inseparably connected with a certain
chair; that he who succeeded to it enjoyed this right; and
that he had in fact, by some means or other, irrefragibly
gained possession of this chair. (3.) That St. Peter was
bishop of Rome, and that he died in Rome while discharging
the duties of that bishopric. (4.) That, from the period of
St. Peter's death in the discharge of his episcopal functions
at Rome, this primacy has been inseparably connected with the
papal chair. All these things, therefore, they must prove by
undoubted arguments, since they teach it to be of the
necessity of salvation that every man be subject to the Roman
pontiff.
To that God in whom, by whom, and for whom all things
subsist, be praise and glory forever and ever!
DISPUTATION 19
ON THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN BEFORE GOD
RESPONDENT: ALARD DE VRIES
As frequent mention is made in Scripture of Justification,
and since this doctrine is of great importance to salvation,
and is in these days, not a little controverted, it seems
that we shall not be acting unprofitably if we institute a
disquisition on this subject from the Scriptures.
I. Since the word "justification" is deduced from justice,
from this notion its signification will be appropriately
derived. justice or righteousness, when properly considered,
signifies rectitude or an agreement with right reason. (Psalm
xi, 7; Ephes. vi, 14; Phil. i, 11; 1 John, iii, 7.) And it is
contemplated either as a quality or as an act -- a quality
inhering in a subject, an act produced by an efficient cause.
The word "justification" denotes an act that is occupied
either in infusing the quality of righteousness into some
person or in acquiring it for him, or in forming a judgment
on a person and his acts, and in pronouncing sentence on
them.
II. If, therefore, according to its quality, justification be
the acquisition of righteousness, it is the act of one who by
repeated acts acquires a habit of righteousness, that is, the
act of a rational creature. (Ephes. iv, 24.) If it be the
infusion of righteousness, it is the act of Him who infuses
the habit of righteousness into a rational creature, that is,
the act of God either as creator or regenerator. (Isa. v,
23.) The justification which is occupied about a person and
his acts, is the act of a Judge making an estimate in his own
mind of the deed, and of the author of it, and according to
that estimate, forming a judgment and pronouncing sentence,
that is, the act of a man justifying the wisdom and the
justice of God. (Matt. xi, 19; Psalm 81,) of a Prince
justifying the cause of his subject, of a Pharisee justifying
himself, (Luke xvi, 15,) of God justifying the deed of
Phinehas, (Psalm cvi, 31,) and our Lord's justification of
the conduct of the publican. (Luke xviii, 14.)
III. From this necessary distinction of the words it appears
that Bellarmine both admits an equivocation, and feigns an
adversary for himself that is not adverse to him, when he
proposes the state of the controversy which exists between
him and us on this doctrine in these words: "Is the
righteousness by which we are formally justified, inherent or
imputative?" (1.) The equivocation lies in this -- that the
word "justification," when it is occupied about inherent
righteousness, signifies the infusion of righteousness; but
when it is employed respecting imputative righteousness, it
signifies the estimate of the mind, the judgment, and the
pronouncing of the sentence. (3.) He invents an adversary;
because no one denies that the form by which any man is
intrinsically righteous, and is declared to be so, is the
habit or inherent quality of righteousness. But we deny that
the word "justification" is received in this sense in St.
Paul's disputation against the gentiles and the Jews, (Rom.
2, 3, 4, 5,) and against the false brethren, (Gal. 2, 3, 5,)
or even by St. James in his epistle. Wherefore, we must
maintain, either that the controversy between the papists and
us, is respecting justification when received as the act of a
judge, or that our controversy has nothing in common with
that of St. Paul. (James 2.)
IV. The justification, therefore, of a man before God is that
by which, when he is placed before the tribunal of God, he is
considered and pronounced, by God as a judge, righteous and
worthy of the reward of righteousness; whence also the
recompense of reward itself follows by necessity of
consequence. (Rom. 2, 3; Luke xviii, 14.) But since three
things come under consideration in this place -- man who is
to be judged, God the judge, and the law according to which
judgment must be passed. Each of them may be variously
considered, and it is also necessary, according to these
three to vary justification itself. (1.) For man may be
considered either as having discharged the works of
righteousness without sin, (Rom. ii, 16,) or as a sinner.
(iii, 23.) (2.) God may be viewed as seated on a throne of
rigid and severe justice, (Psalm cxliii, 2,) or on a throne
of grace and mercy. (Heb. iv, 16.) (3.) The law is either
that of works, or that of faith; (Rom. iii, 27;) and since
each of these has a natural correspondence together and
mutually agree with each other, justification may be reduced
to two opposite species or forms; of which the one is called
that "of the law, in the law, or through the law, of the
works of the law, of him that worketh and performs the law,
of debt and not of grace." (Rom. 2, 3, 4, 9, 11,) But the
other is styled that "of faith, from faith, through faith, of
a sinner who believes, freely bestowed, of grace and not of
debt, and without the works of the law." (Gal. 2, 3, 5.)
V. But since the law is two-fold, of which mention is made in
the question of justification, that is, the moral and the
ceremonial, (for the judicial part of the law does not in
this place come under discussion,) we must see how and in
what sense justification is either attributed to each of them
or taken away from it. (1.) Justification is ascribed to the
MORAL LAW because the works prescribed are of and in
themselves pleasing to God, and are righteousness itself
strictly and rigidly taken, so that he who does them is on
that very account righteous, without absolution or gratuitous
imputation. For this reason justification cannot be taken
away from it, unless for its non-performance. (1 Sam. xv, 21,
22; Amos v, 21-,3; Rom. x, 5.) Hence justification by the
moral law may be defined: "It is that by which a man, having
performed the duties of the moral law without transgression,
and being placed before the tribunal of the severe justice of
God, is accounted and declared by God to be righteous and
worthy of the reward of eternal life, in himself, of debt,
according to the law, and without grace, to his own
salvation, and to the glory both of divine and human
righteousness." (Rom. iv, 4; iii, 27; Ephes. ii, 8, 9.)
VI. (2.) But the rule of the Ceremonial law is widely
different. For its works are neither of themselves pleasing
to God, to enable them to come under the name of
righteousness; nor have they such a consideration that
absolution from sins committed against the moral law can be
obtained through them, or that they can be graciously imputed
for righteousness. (Micah vi, 6-8; Col. ii, 16, 20, 21.) For
this reason, in the Scriptures, justification is taken away
from it, not because it was not performed, but simply on
account of the weakness of itself, and not of the flesh which
sinned. (Acts xiii, 39; Heb. ix, 10.) Yet its use for
justification is two-fold according to its double reference
to the moral law and the offenses committed against it, and
to Christ and faith in Him. According to the former, it is
the hand-writing recording debts and sins. (Col. ii, 14 --
17.) According to the latter, it contains a shadow and type
of Christ, and of "good things to come," that is, of
righteousness and life. (Heb. x, 1.) According to the latter,
it shewed Christ typically; (Gal. ii, 16;) according to the
former, it compelled men to flee to Him, through faith in
him. (Gal. iii, 21-24.)
VII. And this is the cause why the Apostle Paul takes away
justification together and at once from the whole law, though
for different causes which it is not always necessary to
enumerate. (Rom. iii, 20, 28; Gal. ii, 16; John v, 24; Psalm
cxliii, 2; Rom. 3, 4.) But justification is attributed to
faith, not because it is that very righteousness which can be
opposed to the rigid and severe judgment of God, though it is
pleasing to God; but because, through the judgment of mercy
triumphing over justice, it obtains absolution from sins, and
is graciously imputed for righteousness. (Acts xiii, 39.) The
cause of this is, not only God who is both just and merciful,
but also Christ by his obedience, offering, and intercession
according to God through his good pleasure and command. But
it may be thus defined, "it is a justification by which a
man, who is a sinner, yet a believer, being placed before the
throne of grace which is erected in Christ Jesus the
Propitiation, is accounted and pronounced by God, the just
and merciful Judge, righteous and worthy of the reward of
righteousness, not in himself but in Christ, of grace,
according to the gospel, to the praise of the righteousness
and grace of God, and to the salvation of the justified
person himself." (Rom. iii, 24-26; 3, 4, 5, 10, 11.)
VIII. It belongs to these two forms of justification, when
considered in union and in opposition. First. To be so
adverse as to render it impossible for both of them at once
to meet together in one subject. For he who is justified by
the law, neither is capable nor requires to be justified by
faith; (Rom. iv, 14, 15;) and it is evident that the man who
is justified by faith could not have been justified by the
law. (xi, 6.) Thus the law previously excludes faith by the
cause, and faith excludes the law by the consequence of
conclusion. Secondly. They cannot be reconciled with each
other, either by an unconfused union, or by admixture. For
they are perfect simple forms, and separated in an individual
point, so that by the addition of a single atom, a transition
is made from the one to the other. (Rom. iv, 4, 5; ix, 30-
32.) Thirdly. Because a man must be justified by the one or
the other of them, otherwise he will fall from righteousness
and therefore from life. (Rom. x, 3-6, Gal. iii, 10; James
ii, 10.) Because the gospel is the last revelation; "for
therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to
faith;" and, after this, no other revelation must be
expected. (Heb. i, 1.)
IX. From the premises thus laid down according to the
Scriptures, we conclude, that justification, when used for
the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of
righteousness through mercy from the throne of grace in
Christ the propitiation made to a sinner, but who is a
believer; (Rom. i, 16, 17; Gal. iii, 6, 7;) or that man is
justified before God, of debt, according to the rigor of
justice without any forgiveness. (Rom. 3, 4.) Because the
Papists deny the latter, they ought to concede the former.
And this is such a truth, that, how high soever may be the
endowments of any one of the Saints in faith, hope and
charity, and however numerous and excellent the works of
faith, hope and charity may be which he has performed, he
will receive no sentence of justification from God the Judge,
unless He quit the tribunal of his severe justice and ascend
the throne of grace, and from it pronounce a sentence of
absolution in his favour, and unless the Lord of his mercy
and pity graciously account for righteousness the whole of
that good with which the saint appears before Him. For, woe
to a life of the utmost innocency, if it be judged without
mercy. (Psalm xxxii, 1, 2, 5, 6; cxliii, 2; 1 John i, 7-10; 1
Cor. iv, 4.) This is a confession which even the Papists seem
to make when they assert, that the works of the Saints cannot
stand before the judgment of God unless they be sprinkled
with the blood of Christ.
X. Hence we likewise deduce: That if the righteousness by
which we are justified before God, the Judge, can be called
formal, or that by which we are formally justified, (for the
latter is Bellarmine's phraseology,) then the formal
righteousness, and that by which we are formally justified,
can on no account be called "inherent;" but that, according
to the phrase of the Apostle, it may in an accommodated sense
be denominated "imputed," as either being that which is
righteousness in God's gracious account, since it does not
merit this name according to the rigor of justice or of the
law, or as being the righteousness of another, that is, of
Christ, which is made ours by God's gracious imputation. Nor
is there any reason why they should be so abhorrent from the
use of this word, "imputed," since the apostle employs the
same word eleven times in the fourth chapter of his Epistle
to the Romans, where the seat of this point or argument lies,
and since the efficacy to salvation of God's gracious
estimation is the same, as that of His severe and rigid
estimation would be if man had perfectly fulfilled the law
without any transgression. (2 Cor. v, 19, 21.)
XI. And though Bellarmine, by confounding the word
"justification," by distinguishing faith into that which is
formed and unformed, by making a difference between the works
of the law, and those performed by renewed persons through
the virtue of the Holy Spirit, and by not ascribing a reward
even to these works, unless because it has been promised
gratuitously, and promised to those who are already placed in
a state of grace and of the adoption of sons, by which he
confesses they have likewise a right to the heavenly
inheritance, by granting besides, that the reward itself
exceeds the worthiness of the work, and by bringing down to a
rigid examination the whole life of the man who is to be
judged, though by these methods Bellarmine endeavours to
explain the sentiments of the Romish Church so as to make
them appear in unison with those of the apostle; (or, at
least that they may not openly clash with those of St. Paul;)
yet, since the Church of Rome asserts, that the good works of
the Saints fully satisfy the law of God according to the
state of this life, and really merit eternal life; that when
we suffer for sins by rendering satisfaction, we are made
conformable to Christ Jesus who gave satisfaction for sins;
and that the works of the Saints, prayer, fasting, alms-
giving, and others, are satisfactory [to divine justice] for
temporal punishment, indeed for every punishment, and, what
is more, for guilt itself, and are thus expiatory for sins;
since she declares that the sacrifice of the mass is a
propitiation for the sins and punishments both of the living
and the dead; and since she says that the works of some men
are super-erogatory, and extols them so much as to affirm
that they are useful to others for salvation; since these are
the assertions of the Church of Rome, we declare that her
doctrine stands directly opposed to that of the apostle.
DISPUTATION 20
ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY
RESPONDENT: ENGELBERT SIBELIUS
I. Liberty, generally, is a state according to which every
one is at his own disposal, and not bound to another person.
Bondage or slavery is opposed to it, according to which a man
is not his own master, but is subject to another, either to
do what he commands, to omit what he forbids, or to endure
what he inflicts. Christian Liberty is so called chiefly from
Christ the Author, who procured it; it has received this
appellation also from its subjects, because it belongs to
Christians, that is, to believers in Christ. But it pre-
supposes servitude; because Christ was not necessary for any,
except for "those who, through fear of death, were all their
life-time subject to bondage." (Heb. ii, 15.)
II. Christian Liberty is that state of the fullness of grace
and truth in which believers are placed by God through
Christ, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit. It consists partly
of a deliverance from both the real and the economic bondage
of sin and the law, and partly of adoption into the right of
the sons of God, and of the mission of the Spirit of the Son
into their hearts. Its end is the praise of the glorious
grace of God in Christ, and the eternal salvation of
believers.
III. The efficient cause of Christian Liberty is God the
Father, who offers it; (Col. i, 12, 13;) the Son, who, as
Mediator, confers it; (John viii, 36; Gal. v, 1;) and the
Holy Spirit, who inwardly seals it. (2 Cor. iii, 17, 18.) The
internal cause is the grace of God, and his love for man in
Christ Jesus. (Luke i, 78.) The external cause is the ransom,
or the price of redemption, and the satisfaction, which
Christ has paid. (Rom. v, 6-21; vii, 2, 3.) The sealing and
preserving cause is the Holy Spirit, who is both the earnest
and the witness in the hearts of believers. (Rom. viii, 15,
16; Ephes. i, 13, 14.) The instrument is two-fold. One on the
part of God, who exhibits this liberty; the other on the part
of man, who receives it. (1.) On the part of God, the
instrument is the saving doctrine concerning the mercy of God
in Christ, which is therefore called "the ministry of
reconciliation." (2 Cor. v, 19.) (2.) On the part of man, it
is faith in Christ. (John i, 12; Rom. v, 2; Gal. iii, 26.)
The matter about which it is exercised is not only sin, and
the law "which is the strength of sin;" but also the power or
privilege of the sons of God, and the Spirit of Christ.
IV. The form consists in deliverance from the spiritual
bondage of sin and the law, both real and economical, in the
donation of the right to be the sons of God, (Col. i, 13,)
and in the sending forth of the Holy Spirit into the hearts
of believers. (Gal. iv, 6.) Its subjects are all believers,
who are freed from the tyranny of sin and of the law, and
received by God on account of Christ as sons, through the
grace of adoption. (Gal. iii, 26.) The chief end is the
praise of the glorious grace of God; (Ephes. i, 14;) the
subordinate end is the salvation of believers. (Rom. vi, 22.)
The effects or fruits are two: The first serves for
consolation. (Heb. vi, 18- 20.) The other, for admonition,
that "being made free from sin, we may become the servants of
righteousness." (Rom. vi, 18-22; 1 Pet. ii, 16.)
V. But because this liberty is opposed to the bondage which
preceded it, we must on this account treat in the first place
about that bondage, that the design of this liberty may be
the more easily rendered evident. We must know, that the
first man was created free by God; but that, having abused
his liberty, he lost it, and was made the slave of him to
whom he yielded obedience, that is, to sin, both as it
respects the guilt of condemnation and its dominion; which is
real bondage and consummate misery. To this succeeded the
economical bondage, [or that of the dispensation of Moses,]
which God introduced by the repetition of the Moral Law, and
by the imposition of the Ceremonial. The bondage under the
Moral Law was its rigid demands, by which man, being reduced
to despair of fulfilling it, might acknowledge the tyranny of
sin which reigned or held dominion over him. The bondage
under the Ceremonial Law was its testifying to condemnation;
by which man might be convinced of guilt, and thus through
both these kinds of bondage might flee to Christ, who could
deliver him from the guilt of sin and from its dominion.
VI. Let us now see how believers are delivered from this
bondage by Christian liberty. We will restrict this
consideration to the church of the New Testament, to which
the whole of this liberty belongs, omitting the believers
under the Old Testament. Though to these likewise belonged,
through the promise of the blessed seed and through faith in
Him, (Gen. iii, 15; xv, 6,) a deliverance from real bondage,
the privilege of the sons of God, and the Spirit of adoption,
which was intermixed with the spirit of economical bondage.
(Gal. iv, 1-3.)
VII. We circumscribe Christian liberty within four ranks or
degrees. The First degree consists in a freedom from the
guilt and condemnation of sin, which has been expiated by the
blood of Christ, by faith in which we obtain remission of
sins, and justification from those things from which we could
not be absolved by the law of Moses. The Second degree
consists in the deliverance from the dominion and tyranny of
indwelling sin; because its power is mortified and weakened
by the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us, that it may no longer
have dominion over those who are under grace. (Rom. vi, 14.)
But both these degrees of Christian Liberty have their origin
in this -- that sin was condemned in the flesh of Christ, and
it therefore does not possess the power either to condemn or
to command. (Rom. viii, 3.)
VIII. We place the Third degree in the attempering of that
rigor by which God demanded the observance of the Moral Law
in the primeval state, and could afterwards have demanded it,
if it had been his pleasure still to act towards men in the
same manner. Indeed, God did actually demand it, but in an
economical way, from the people of the Old Testament; of
which he gave manifest indications in that terrific
legislation on Mount Sinai. (Exod. xx, 18; Gal. iv, 24, 25.)
"But we are come unto Mount Sion, and to Jesus the Mediator
of the new covenant," whose "yoke is easy and his burden
light;" (Isa. ii, 3; Micah iv, 2; Heb. xii, 18-24; Matt. xi,
30;) because Christ has broken the yoke of exaction, and it
has been the good pleasure of God to treat with man according
to clemency in the compact of the New Testament.
IX. We place the Fourth degree in a freedom from the
economical bondage of the ceremonial law, which had a
fourfold respect under the Old Testament. (1.) For it was the
seal of condemnation, and the hand-writing, or bond of our
debt. (Gal. iii, 21; Heb. x, 3, 4.) (2.) It was a symbol and
token, by which the Jews might be distinguished from all
other nations till the advent of Christ. (Gen. xvii, 13. 14.)
(3.) It was a typical shadowing forth of Christ, and a
prefiguration of his benefits. (Heb. ix, 9, 10; x, 1.) (4.)
Lastly, it resembled a sentinel or guard, a schoolmaster and
tutor, by whom the church might be safely kept, in its state
of infancy, under the elements of the world, in hopes of the
promised and approaching Messiah, and might be led to faith
in Him, and be conducted to Him, as St. Paul teaches at the
conclusion of the third chapter of his Epistle to the
Galatians, and at the commencement of the fourth.
X. The First of these respects of the Ceremonial Law must
have been removed, after the condemnation of sin was taken
away, of which it was the seal. But we have already shewn in
the seventh Thesis, that this condemnation has been abolished
by Christ. The consequence, therefore is, that it has also
obtained its end or purpose; as St. Paul teaches us in Col.
ii, 14, where he says, Christ has blotted out the hand-
writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary
to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."
He sprinkled it over with his own blood and obliterated it.
For the Second also of these respects, a place can no longer
be found, since the Gentiles, "who were formerly far off,
have been made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our
peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the
middle wall of partition between us. Having abolished in his
flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in
ordinances; for to make in himself, of twain, One New Man, so
making peace," &c. (Ephes. ii, 13-15.) The Third respect
consisted of types and shadows which prefigured Christ with
his benefits. This can on no account continue after the body
or substance itself has been already displayed. (Col. ii,
17.) And, lastly, the Fourth respect, since the advent of
Christ, is useless. For when the heir has arrived at the age
of maturity, he no longer requires a governor, tutor and
schoolmaster, but is himself capable of managing his
inheritance, of being his own adviser, and of consulting his
own judgment in the things to be possessed. Thus, after the
church has passed through the years of infancy, and has
entered on the age of maturity in Christ, it is no longer
held under the Mosaic worship, under the beggarly elements of
this world," but is subject to the guidance of the Spirit of
Christ. (Rom. viii, 15; Gal. iv, 4-7.)
Grievous, therefore, is the error of the Pharisees and the
Ebionites, in which they maintained, that the observance of
the ceremonial law must be joined to the gospel, even by
those Christians who had previously been Gentiles.
XI. To this Fourth degree of Christian Liberty we add, the
free use and exercise of things indifferent. Yet it has been
the will of God, that this liberty should be circumscribed by
two laws, that of charity and that of faith, (Rom. xiv, 5,
14; 13,) thus consulting his own glory and the salvation of
his church. The law of faith prescribes that you be rightly
instructed concerning the legitimate use of things
indifferent; and sufficiently confirmed [or "fully persuaded
in your own mind."] The law of charity commands you to
procure the edification of your neighbour, whether he be a
weak brother or one who is confirmed. You have examples in
Romans 14; 1 Cor. 8; 9; x, 27-33; Acts xvi, 3. It is a part
of the same law, that you should abide by the ceremonies
which are received in the church, lest by an outrageous and
unseasonable change you produce a schism in the church, or be
the cause of much trouble.
I. Those persons, therefore, err greatly who, in abstaining
from this liberty, prefer their own private advantage and
happiness to the edification of their neighbour.
II. They err still more grievously who abuse this liberty to
satiate the lusts of the flesh, (Gal. v, 13,) or by an
unseasonable zeal to despise and offend their weak brethren.
(Rom. xiv, 3, 10.)
III. But those err the most grievously of all who either
affix the observance of necessity to things indifferent, or
suppose those things to be indifferent which are by no means
such.
XII. To these, perhaps not without profit, we shall add a
Fifth degree of liberty, that is, an immunity from the
judicial laws of the Jewish courts. On this subject we must
hold, that the political laws of Moses contain, (1.) The
political common law of nature. (2.) A particular law suited
to the Jewish nation. The common law of nature embraces the
universal notions of justice, equity and honesty. The
particular law, as it was peculiar to the Jewish nation, was
so far defined by certain determinations, according to the
persons for whose benefit it was confirmed, according to the
affairs and transactions concerning which it was confirmed,
and the circumstances with which it was confirmed. Hence a
judgment ought to be formed of the immutability and
mutability of these laws. Whatever has been appointed for the
general good, according to the universal principles of nature
and the common design of the moral law, either by commanding
or forbidding, by rewarding or punishing, it is immutable.
Therefore, to such a thing Christian Liberty does not extend
itself. What portion soever of the particular law has a
particular respect, it is changeable. Christians, therefore,
are not bound by these laws, so far as they are determined by
a particular law after the manner of the Jewish Commonwealth,
that is, of particular persons, actions, and of a particular
end or good. But with regard to those portions of these laws
which are of a mixed kind, we must distinguish in them that
which is moral from that which is political. Whatever is
moral, is binding, and remains either by common reason or by
analogy. Whatever is political, is not binding with regard to
particular determinations.
Therefore, we disapprove of the ridiculous imitation adopted
by Monetarius and Carolastadius, who obliged Christian
magistrates to the necessity of observing the peculiar
forensic laws of Moses in their administration of justice.
XIII. The privilege or right of the sons of God, and the
sending of the spirit of adoption into the hearts of
believers follow this liberty from the bondage of sin and the
law, to which is annexed peace of conscience. (Rom. viii, 15;
Gal. iv, 5, 6.) That right consists in their being
constituted heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ; and to
this privilege belongs not only the blessed immortality of
their souls, but likewise the deliverance of their bodies
from vanity, and from the bondage of corruption into the
glorious liberty of the children of God; which also comes
under the name of adoption, and is called "the redemption of
our bodies." (Rom. viii, 15-23.) Hence, likewise those who
shall be "the children of the resurrection," are called "the
children of God." (Luke xx, 36.) But the Spirit of adoption
is sent into the hearts of the sons of God, as being the
Spirit of the Son, that He may be the earnest, the seal, and
the first-fruits of this inheritance; (Gal. iv, 6; 2 Cor. i,
22; Ephes. i, 14;) by which we are assured, that, as "our
life is hidden with Christ in God, when Christ shall
gloriously appear we shall also be manifested with him in
glory." (Col. iii, 4.) And thus the liberty of glory, that
will endure forever, will succeed to this liberty of grace,
which we obtain in this world by Christ Jesus our Lord,
through faith in his blood: To whom be praise forever!
In the place of a conclusion it is inquired,
I. Whether freedom from the bondage of sin, and from
economical bondage, be effected by one and the same act, or
by two acts? We affirm the former.
II. Whether it is lawful to eat those things which are
offered in sacrifice to idols? We make a distinction.
DISPUTATION 21
ON THE ROMAN PONTIFF, AND THE PRINCIPAL TITLES WHICH ARE
ATTRIBUTED TO HIM
RESPONDENT: JOHN MARTINIUS
I. For many ages past, all who have had any knowledge of the
Pope of Rome, have held no low or moderate sentiments about
him, but have entertained exaggerated notions about him and
uttered the most lofty and excessive eulogies. This was
required by that sublime degree of dignity to which he has
been elevated. Yet the things which have been spoken
concerning him are so diverse, as well as adverse, as to
render it matter of wonder that such various and contrary
judgments and eulogies about one and the same person, can be
found among men who are Christians, at least so far as their
own profession is concerned. For some persons not only adorn,
but literally load him with titles the most honourable, when
they give him the appellation of the spouse, the head, the
foundation of the Catholic Church, the vicar of God and
Christ on earth, the absolute lord of the whole Christian
world with regard to spiritual things, in temporal things
likewise, so far as they are ordained for spiritual things,
and the Prince of Pastors and of Bishops. Others disparage
him with titles quite contrary, such as, the adulterer and
pimp of the Church, the false prophet, the destroyer and
subverter of the Church, the enemy of God and the Antichrist,
the wicked and perverse servant, who neither discharges the
duties of a Bishop, nor is worthy to bear the name. Uniting
ourselves with the band of those who bestow on the Roman
Pontiff the epithets last cited, we assert that he is
unworthy of the honourable titles which precede them, and
that the latter disparaging epithets are attributed to Him
through his just deserts, which we now proceed to prove in a
few Theses.
II. The Spouse and Husband of the church universal is one by
a most particular unity, otherwise the church would be an
adulteress. His properties are these: He has loved the
church, has exposed or given himself for her, has purchased
her for himself, with his own blood, has formed her of his
own flesh and bones by the Spirit of regeneration, hath
sanctified and cleansed her by his own blood and by his
Spirit, that he might present her holy, unblamable and
glorious. (Ephes. v, 25-27; Acts xx, 28.) He has sealed her
for an espoused wife to himself by the earnest of his Spirit,
as with a nuptial ring, (2 Cor. i, 21, 22; Rom. viii, 9, 15,
16,) and imparts to her his own blessings necessary and
sufficient for life and salvation. (Ephes. v, 23.) To Him the
church has respect, and asks, expects and receives all good
things from Him alone. (Acts iv, 12; Rev. xxii, 17.) And to
Him the apostles [and their successors] are preparing to
present her as a chaste virgin to one husband." (2 Cor. xi,
2.) These properties belong to Christ alone: But the Roman
Pontiff is not Christ. Therefore, he is neither the spouse
nor the husband of the church universal. Nor can any greater
affinity be framed between Christ and the Roman Pontiff, even
when conducting himself in the best manner, than that which
is signified by the word "the friend of the bridegroom," and
"the brideman." (John iii, 29.)
III. The Head of the church is but one; otherwise the church
would be a monster. His properties are these: He is united to
the church by the internal bond of the Spirit and of faith
(John xvii, 15-17; 1 Cor. vi, 17, 19; Ephes. iii, 17.) The
church is subject and subordinate to Him. (Ephes. v, 24, 25.)
He perfectly contains within himself all things necessary for
the life and salvation of the church. He inspires life,
sensation and motion into the church by the efficacy of the
Spirit. (Gal. ii, 20.) He is affected with the evils which
afflict the whole church and the members in general and in
particular. (Heb. iv, 15.) He suffers the persecutions and
afflictions which are endured by the church, feeling them as
much as if they were inflicted on his own body, and He
relieves them. (Acts ix, 4, 5.) In his person the church is
raised up together, and seated together in heavenly places in
Him. (Ephes. ii, 6.) And therefore, she has her woliteuma
"the administration of her public affairs," in heaven. (Phil.
iii, 20.) All these properties agree with Christ only. But
the Roman Pontiff is not Christ; and therefore, he is neither
the head of the church, nor can any affinity be established
between Christ, and the Roman Pontiff, which is not signified
in the name of some particular member of the body, or of a
duty belonging to some member. (Rom. xii, 4-8.) And no
greater dignity can belong to the Pope of Rome, under Christ
the head, than that which is comprehended under the words, an
apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher, pastor, bishop, [one
who can exercise] the power [of working mirades,] the gift of
healing, help and government. (1 Cor. xii, 4, 6-31.) All
these dignities are ascribed to the members of the body of
the church. Therefore, on account of none of them does the
title of "head" appertain to this Pontiff.
IV. The Foundation of the church universal is only one,
because there is but one house of God and Christ. Its
properties are these: It stands by its own power, and does
not rest on any extrinsic foundation. (1 Tim. iii, 15.) The
whole house, consisting of two people, the Jews and the
Gentiles, is built upon this foundation, as upon a chief
corner-stone, and is sustained, by the power implanted in it,
against all things which can assail it from without, whether
from above or from below, on its sides, on the right hand and
on the left; it continues immovable, does not totter, is not
sunk or overwhelmed, and does not fall. (Heb. iii, 6; Ephes.
ii, 20-22; Matt. xvi, 18.) This foundation is the immediate
fulcrum or prop and firm support to all the lively stones
that are built upon it; "they who believe on Him shall not be
ashamed;" but it is a stone of stumbling and a rock of
offense to those who do not believe and are disobedient; it
dashes them in pieces, and they perish. (Isa. xxviii, 16; 1
Pet. ii, 4-6.) All these properties, both generally and
severally, belong to Christ alone. But the Roman Pontiff is
not Christ. Therefore, neither is he the foundation of the
church. But the metonymy, by which the Prophets and Apostles
are called "the foundations of the church," (Rev. xxi, 14,)
and by which the saints are said to be "built upon the
foundation of the Apostles and Prophets," (Ephes. ii, 20,)
attributes nothing more to them, than their being "labourers
together with God" in laying down Christ as this foundation,
and in building up the whole house on Him. (1 Cor. iii, 5-
12.) But St. Peter was also among these; yet he excelled none
of the other Apostles in any prerogative, but was inferior to
St. Paul, not indeed in power, but in "the more abundant
labour" of the latter in building up the church. (1 Cor. xv,
10.)
V. God's Vicar-General, or Universal, is one who administers
all things in heaven and on earth in the name, at the
command, and by the authority of God. To this individual must
necessarily appertain, (1.) A Power, inferior indeed, by
reason of the dispensation, to his who appointed him, yet
most closely approaching to it, and dependent on no other
power than that of God. (John v, 22, 26, 27.) So that this
power may, not undeservedly, be called autocratorical,
possessing within itself absolute sovereignty, and
pantocratorical, omnipotent or having power over all things.
(John xvii, 2, 24.) (2.) The Knowledge, as well as the Power
necessary to administer all things. It cannot be less than
divine; for it must be extended to all things generally, and
to every thing in particular, and this in an immediate manner
if we consider the internal efficacy of government. (1 Cor.
xv, 27; Rev. 2 and 3; Phil. iii, 21; Gal. ii, 20.) And this
Vicar of God is only Christ, to whom alone these properties
belong. But the Roman Pontiff is not Christ. Therefore, he is
not God's Universal Vicar, not even in the church, because
the same considerations, apply to her as to the whole
universe. In the same way, the Universal Vicar of Christ will
be one who pleads the cause of Christ, and who, with a power
and wisdom purely divine administers all things in His name
and by his authority. (John i, 6-8, 13-15.) And this is the
Spirit of Christ, his advocate, the Spirit of wisdom and of
the power of God, who, in the name of Christ, appoints
apostles, prophets, teachers, and bishops; who leads and
governs believers, but who convinces and condemns
unbelievers. (Acts xx, 28; xiii, 2; Rom. viii, 14.) The Roman
Pontiff is not that Spirit, nor hath he received the Spirit
without measure. (Rom. xii, 3.) Neither can the Roman
Pontiff, even when his conduct is most exemplary, have any
other delegated power under Christ, than that which is
particular; because he is not endued with the Spirit, except
"according to the measure of the gift of Christ." (Ephes. iv,
7.) And this is bestowed [on the pontiff] not with regard to
Christ as a priest, (for that office does not admit of a
vicar, or substitute,) but as he is king and prophet supreme,
and only so far as concerns the external administration of
some part of Christ's kingdom and people, either by doctrine
or by government, the internal administration in the mean
time remaining entirely vested in Christ, as does also his
Spirit. (1 Cor. iii, 5-23.)
VI. The Dominion Over Heaven And Earth, or over the whole
church, (for these cannot be separated,) appertains by divine
gift to Him alone who has said, "All things are delivered
unto me of my Father." (Matt. xi, 27.) "All things which the
Father hath, are mine." (John xvii, 10.) "All power is given
unto me in heaven and in earth: Go ye therefore, and teach
all nations." (Matt. xxviii, 18.) "As thou hast given Him
power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as
many as thou hast given Him." (John xvii, 2.) "Whom God hath
set at his own right hand in the heavens, far above all
principality, and power, 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.) Who is called the
beginning," or the principle, "the first-born from the dead;
that in all things He might have the preeminence." (Col. i,
18.) In whom the church is "complete; who is the head of all
principality and power." (Col. ii, 10.) "On whose vesture and
thigh a name is written KING of Kings, and LORD of Lords."
(Rev. xix, 16.) Christ alone is thus described. But the Roman
Pontiff is not Christ. The distinction of plenary power, with
regard to spiritual, and temporals, is contrary both to
plenitude of power and to the subordination of things
spiritual and temporal; and has been fabricated on account of
the defect of the capability of which the pontiff is
destitute, to subject temporal things to himself, even among
those nations over whom he has obtained the power in
spiritual matters.
VII. The Prince of bishops, apostles, prophets, evangelists,
pastors, and teachers, is one. (1 Cor. xii, 4, 5, &c.) If it
were otherwise, there would be more than a single monarch and
dictator in the church, when only one is requisite in a
monarchical state and government; but then Duumviri, two
governors, would hold the pre-eminence. His properties are
these: To institute, sanctify, and set apart to the work of
the ministry, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors,
teachers, and all bishops in the church. (Ephes. iv, 5, 6,
11-13.) To prescribe to them what they must say and do.
(Matt. xxviii, 18-20.) To furnish them with necessary and
sufficient gifts. (Rom. xii, 3; 2 Cor. iii, 5, 6.) To be
present with them, in the power of his Spirit and grace,
while engaged in the discharge of their functions. (Matt.
xxviii, 20.) To give efficacy to their ministrations. (Mark
xvi, 20; 1 Cor. iii, 6.) To compel them to render an account.
To make a distinction between the acts and omissions of each;
and, according to the different mode of their
administrations, to adjudge rewards or punishments. (1 Pet.
v, 4; Matt. xxv, 19-30.) And these properties belong to
Christ alone. But the Roman Pontiff is not Christ. Therefore,
he is not the Prince of bishops; but if he have any claim to
this office, even when he behaves himself in his best manner,
he cannot be called by any other name than that of a bishop,
pastor, or teacher, who ought to acknowledge all bishops as
his fellow elders, without any disparity of the power which
belongs to the essence of the office. (1 Pet. v, 1.)
VIII. Since, therefore, the Roman Pontiff either attributes
these most honourable titles of Christ to himself, or
willingly suffers them to be ascribed to him; and since he
evinces no horror at the blasphemy contained in these titles,
and gives no tokens of his displeasure at this ascription of
them; it follows, that he puts himself in the place of
Christ, and is supremely opposed to Him. There is no excuse
in the explanation which is given, that "the head and
foundation is ministerial, and that he attributes all these
things to himself under Christ, as having been elevated by
the grace or favour of God and Christ to that dignity." For
the protestation is directly contrary to the fact; and he is
so much the more the bitter enemy of God and Christ, as he
the more confidently boasts of being defended by the
authority of God and Christ. Such conduct is, in fact, under
the semblance of friendship to exercise the deepest enmity,
and, under the disguised pretext of a minister of light and
of righteousness, to promote the interests of the kingdom of
darkness and of unrighteousness. On this very account,
therefore, we assert that the disparaging epithets which we
laid down in our first Thesis, most justly belong to him; and
this we now proceed to show by descending to particulars.
IX. First. The name of the Adulterer and The Pimp of the
Church is his. (1.) He is the Adulterer of the church, both
by the public and mutual profession of each other; because he
calls the [Roman Catholic] church his and she neither disowns
the arrogance of this title nor is afraid of the odium
[attached to such assumption,] and he is the adulterer in
reality. For he practices spiritual adultery with the church,
and she in return with him. He commands the apocryphal
writings to be accounted divine and canonical; the ancient
Latin version of the Scriptures, [commonly called] the
vulgate, to be every where received as the true original, and
under no pretense whatever to be rejected; his own
interpretations of the Scriptures to be embraced with the
most undoubting faith; and unwritten traditions to be
honoured with an affection and reverence equal to that
evinced for the written word of God. He enacts and rescinds
laws that pertain to faith and morals, and binds them as
fetters on consciences. He promises and offers plenary
indulgences, and the remission of all sins, through the
plenitude of his power. "He exalteth himself above all that
is worshipped," and offers himself as some god to be adored
with religious worship. In all these acts the church,
deceived by his artifices, complies with his wishes. He is,
therefore, the Adulterer of the church. (2.) But he is also
the Pimp or Pander of the church, because he acts towards her
as the author, persuader, impelling exciter and procurer of
various spiritual adulteries committed, or to be hereafter
committed, with different husbands, with angels, Mary and
other deceased saints, with images of God, of Christ, of the
Holy Ghost, of the cross, of angels, of Mary, and of saints;
with the bread in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; and
with other inanimate objects.
X. To him likewise belongs the name of The False Prophet,
whom the Scripture calls "the tail," in opposition to "the
head;" (Isa. ix, 15;) and this, whether it be received in a
general acceptation, or in a particular sense and restricted
to a certain and determinate person. (1.) In its general
meaning, whether it signifies him who teaches falsehood
without arrogating to himself the name of a prophet, or him
who falsely boasts of being a prophet, the latter of which
seems to be the proper signification of the word. (2 Pet. ii,
1; Acts xiii, 6.) For, first, he partly introduced into the
church many false dogmas; and partly those which were
introduced when such a great mystery of iniquity was
finished, he defends, maintains and propagates. Of this kind,
the dogmas concerning the insufficiency of the scriptures
without traditions, to prove and confirm ever necessary
truth, and to confute all errors; that it is of the last
necessity unto salvation for every human creature to be under
subjection to the Roman pontiff; that the bread in the Lord's
supper is transubstantiated, or changed in substance, into
the body of Christ; that in the mass Christ is daily offered
by the priest as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the
living and of the dead; that man is justified before God,
partly by faith, and partly by works; that there is a
purgatory, into which the souls of those enter who are not
yet sufficiently purified, and that they are released from it
by prayers, intercessions, watchings, alms-deeds,
indulgences, &c. In the Second sense, this epithet is due to
him, because he says that he is a prophet, who, on account of
the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit, which is
attached to that chair, cannot possibly err in things which
pertain to faith and morals. (2.) But it also belongs to him
in the restricted meaning of the word; because the Roman
pontiff is "the false prophet who works miracles before the
beast, (Rev. xix, 20,) "out of whose mouth comes out three
unclean spirits like frogs," (xvi, 13,) and who is not
improperly understood to be "the tail of the great red
dragon, that drew the third part of the stars of heaven."
(xii, 4.)
XI. He is also deservedly called The Destroyer And Subverter
Of The Church. For since the superstructure of the church "is
built by the faith of the doctrine of the apostles and
prophets, which rests on Jesus Christ himself, the chief
Corner-stone," since it likewise increases more and more
through the obedience of faith in the right worship of the
Deity and in the pursuit after holiness; and since it is
built up in the Lord, being fitly framed together into one
body through the bond of peace and concord; (Ephes. ii, 20,
21; iv, 3; 2 Pet. ii, 5, 6;) the Roman pontiff demonstrates
himself to be, in a four-fold manner, the subverter of this
edifice: First, by perverting the faith. This he effects,
(1.) By adding the books of the apocrypha and unwritten
traditions to the prophetical and apostolical scriptures.
(2.) By joining himself, as another foundation, with Christ
who is the only foundation. (3.) By mixing numerous false
dogmas with those which are true. (4.) By taking away some
things that are true, or corrupting them by false
interpretations. Secondly, by adulterating the integrity of
divine worship. This he does, (1.) By an addition to the
persons who alone, according to God and his command, are to
be objects of worship. (2.) By the introduction of a method
which is expressly forbidden by God. (3.) By introducing
vain, ridiculous and old wives' superstitions. (4.) By the
institution of various peculiar societies of devotees,
separate fraternities, and newly fabricated religious orders
of Francis, Dominic, &c. Thirdly, by vitiating the purity or
soundness of holiness and morals. This he accomplishes
chiefly by the following acts: (1.) By inventing easy methods
of obtaining remission of sins and plenary indulgences. (2.)
By declaring certain precepts in the name of councils. (3.)
By absolving many persons from the obligation of their
duties. (4.) By binding men to [the performance of] those
things, which no one whatever is capable of understanding or
accomplishing. (5.) By bringing into the Christian world the
worst examples of all wickedness. Fourthly, by breaking the
bond of concord and unity. This he effects chiefly by these
acts and artifices, (1.) When he arrogates to himself a power
over others, which by no right belongs to him. (2.) When he
obtrudes many false dogmas to be believed as true, and
unnecessary things as absolutely necessary. (3.) By
excommunications and senseless fulminations, by which he
madly rages against those who have not deserved such
treatment, and who are not subject to his diocese. (4.) When
he excites dissensions between princes, republics and
magistrates and their subjects; or when he foments, increases
and perpetuates such dissensions, after they have been raised
in other quarters.
XII. It is demonstrable by the most evident arguments that
the name of Antichrist and of The Adversary of God belongs to
him. For the apostle ascribes the second of these epithets to
him when he calls him "the man of sin, the son of perdition,
who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in
the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thess.
ii, 3-8.) It was he who should arise out of the ruins of the
Roman empire, and should occupy its vacant digaity. These
expressions, we assert, must be understood, and can be
understood, solely respecting the Roman pontiff. But the name
of "The Antichrist" belongs to him pre-eminently, whether the
particle anti signifies opposition, or the substitution of
one thing for another; not indeed such a substitution as is
lawfully and legitimately made by Him who has the power of
placing things in subordination, but it signifies one by
which any man is substituted, either by himself or by another
person through force and fraud. For he is both a rival to
Christ, and his adversary, when he boasts of himself as the
spouse, the head, and the foundation of the church, endowed
with plenitude of power; and yet he professes himself to be
the vicegerent of Christ, and to perform his functions on
earth, for the sake of his own private advantage, but to the
manifest injury of the church of Christ. He has, however,
considered it necessary to employ the name of Christ as a
pretext, that under this sacred name he may obtain that
reverence for himself among Christians, which he would be
unable to procure if he were openly to profess himself to be
either the Christ, or the adversary of Christ.
XIII. Although the Roman pontiff calls himself "the servant
of the servants of God," yet we further assert that he is by
way of eminence, That Wicked And Perverse Servant, who, when
he saw that his Lord delayed his coming, "began to smite his
fellow-servants." (Matt. 24, 48.) For the Roman pontiff has
usurped domination and tyranny, not only over his fellow-
servants, the bishops of the church of God, but likewise over
emperors and kings themselves, whose authority and dignity he
had himself previously acknowledged. To acquire this
domination for himself, and still further to augment and
establish it, he has employed all kinds of satanic
instruments -- sophistical hypocrisy, lies, equivocations,
perfidy, perjury, violence, poison, and armed forces -- so
that he may most justly be said to have succeeded that
formidable beast which "was like unto a leopard, a bear and a
lion," and by which the Roman empire was prefigured -- and to
have "had power to give life unto the image of the beast, and
to cause that as many as would not worship the image of the
beast, should be killed."
XIV. Lastly, though from all these remarks it will readily
appear that the Roman pontiff is unworthy of the name of
apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, and of
universal bishop; (1 Cor. iii, 5; xii, 28; Ephes. iv, 11;)
yet, by this single argument, which is deduced from their
peculiar attributes and duties, the very same satisfactory
conclusions may be rendered evident to all who search the
scriptures of the Old and the New Testament, and especially
the epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus. (1 Tim. 3;
Tit. 1.) Nor will this evasion avail any thing, "that
whatever a man does through another who is his vicar or
substitute, he seems to do it himself;" for it is Christ
alone who makes use of the vicarious aid of these persons as
ministers; and the duties which they perform, are such as
ought to be discharged by those who are distinguished by
those titles. (Gal. i, 7-9.) Therefore, that rightly
appertains to the Roman pontiff which God threatens through
the prophet Zechariah, that he will raise up a foolish
shepherd, and an idol shepherd, who shall devote no attention
to the sheep, but who "shall eat the flesh of the fat, and
tear their claws in pieces." (Zech. xi, 15-17.) God grant
that the church, being delivered from the frauds and tyranny
of Antichrist, may obtain shepherds that may feed her in
truth, charity and prudence, to the salvation of the sheep
themselves, and to the glory of the chief Shepherd. Amen.
COROLLARIES
I. It is a part of religious wisdom to separate the Court of
Rome from the church, in which the pontiff sits.
II. The Roman pontiff, even when conducting himself with the
greatest propriety, must not be acknowledged by any human or
positive right as the head of the church, or the universal
bishop; and such acknowledgment of him has hitherto
contributed, and does in its very nature contribute, not so
much to preserve unity in the church, and to restrain the
license of thinking, speaking and teaching differently on the
chief articles of religion, as to take away necessary
liberty, and that which is agreeable to the word of God, and
to introduce a real tyranny.
DISPUTATION 22
THE CASE OF ALL THE PROTESTANT OR REFORMED CHURCHES, WITH
RESPECT TO THEIR ALLEGED SECESSION
RESPONDENT: JAMES CUSINE
We assert that the Reformed Churches have not seceded from
the church of Rome; and that they have acted properly in
refusing to hold and profess a communion of faith and of
divine worship with her.
I. I feel disposed to prove, in few words, for the glory of
God, for the tranquillity of weak consciences, and for the
direction of erring minds -- that those congregations who
take upon themselves the title of "Reformed or Protestant
Churches," have not made a secession from the church of Rome,
and that they have acted aright, that is, wisely, piously,
justly, and moderately, in refusing to hold and profess
communion of faith and worship with the Romish church.
II. By the term, "the Church of Rome," we understand, not
that congregation of men, who, confined within the walls of
the city of Rome, profess the Christian faith, (although this
is the only proper interpretation of that term;) not the
court of Rome, which consists of the pope and of the
cardinals united with him -- not the representative church,
assembled together in council, and having the Roman pontiff
as president, nor the pope of Rome himself, who, under the
cover of that title, extols and makes merchandise of his
power. But by "the church of Rome" we understand a
congregation of Christian, which was formerly dispersed
through nearly the whole of Europe, but which is now become
more contracted, and in which the Roman pontiff sits, either
as the head of the church under Christ, but placed above a
general council, or as the principal bishop inferior to a
general council, the inspector and guardian of the whole
church. This congregation professes, according to the canons
contained in the council of Trent, that it believes in God
and Christ, and performs acts of worship to them; and it
approves of those canons, either because they were composed
by the council of Trent, which could not err -- or because it
thinks that they are agreeable to the holy Scriptures and to
the doctrine of the ancient fathers, without any regard to
that council.
III. We call "Reformed churches" those congregations
professing the Christian faith which disavow every species of
presidency whatever, assumed by the Roman pontiff, and
profess to believe in and to perform acts of worship to God
and Christ, according to the canons which each of them has
comprised in its own confession or catechism; and they
approve of such canons, therefore, only because they consider
them to be agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, though they
yield to the primitive church and the ancient fathers
severally their proper places, but always in subordination to
the Scriptures.
IV. It cannot be said, that every church makes a secession,
which separates from another, neither does the church that is
in any manner whatever severed from another, to which it had
been united; but a church is said to make a secession from
another church to which it was formerly united, when it first
and willingly makes a separation in that matter about which
they were previously at unity. On this account it is
necessary, that these four conditions concur together in the
church which can justly be said to have made a secession. One
of them is a prerequisite, as if necessarily precedent; the
other three are requisites, as if natural to the secession
and grounded upon it. The First is that it was formerly in
union with the other; to which must be added, an explanation
of the matter in which this union consists. The Second is,
that a separation has been effected, and indeed in that thing
about which it was formerly at unity with the other. The
Third is, that it was the first to make the secession. And
the Fourth is, that it voluntarily seceded. The whole of
these conditions will come under our diligent consideration
in the disputation on the present controversy about the
dissension between the church of Rome and Reformed churches.
V. But the explanation of another matter must be given, prior
to the discussion of this question according to the
circumstances now premised; and this is, "In what generally,
do the union and the separation of churches consist?" So far
as they are the churches of God and of Christ, their Union
consists in the following particulars: they have one God and
Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, one faith, (or one doctrine of
faith,) one hope of their calling, (that is, an inheritance
which has been promised and for which they hope,) one
baptism, (Ephes. iv, 3-6,) one bread and wine, (1 Cor. x, 16,
17,) and have been joined together in one Spirit with God and
Christ, by the bond of faith and charity. (Ephes. iv, 15;
Phil. ii, 2.) That is, that by agreement of faith according
to truth, and by concord of the will according to charity,
they may be one among themselves. This is in no other manner,
than as many members of the same body are one among
themselves, because all of them have been united with their
head, from which, by the bond of the Spirit, life, sensation
and motion are derived to each; (Rom. xii, 4; 1 Cor. xii, 12,
13; Ephes. i, 22;) and as many children in the same family
are one among themselves, because all of them are connected
with their parents by the bond of consanguinity and love. (1
Cor. xiv, 33; Rev. ii, 23.) For all particular churches,
whether in amplitude they be greater or less, are large or
small members of that great body which is called "the
Catholic church;" and in this great family, which is called
"the house of God," they are all sisters, according to that
passage in Solomon's Song, "We have a little sister." (viii,
8.) No church on earth is the mother of any other church,
(Gal. iv, 26,) not even that church from which proceeded the
teachers who founded other churches. (Acts viii, 1, 4; xiii,
1, 2.) For no church on earth is the whole body, that is
united to Christ the Head. (Heb. xii, 22, 23.)
VI. From this description of union among churches, and by an
explanation made through similar things according to the
Scriptures, it is evident, that, for the purpose of binding
churches together, the intervention of two means is
necessary. The First is, the bond itself by which they are
united. The Second is, God and Christ, with whom being
immediately united, they are mediately further united with
each other. For the first and immediate relation is between
each particular church and Christ. The second and mediate is
between a particular church and another of its own kindred.
(1 Cor. xii, 12, 13; Ephes. iv, 3; Rom. xii, 5; John xvii,
21; Ephes. ii, 11 13; iv, 16.) From these a two-fold order
may be laid down, according to which this conjunction may be
considered. (1.) One is, if it take its commencement from
Christ, and if that bond intervene, which, issuing from Him,
proceeds to every church and [adunat, makes it one,] unites
it with Him. Where (i.) Christ must be constituted the Head
and the very center of union. (ii.) The Spirit, which,
issuing from Christ, proceeds hither and thither. (Ephes. ii,
18; v, 23; Rom. viii, 9.) (iii.) The church of Corinth, at
Rome, at Philippi, &c., each of which is united to Christ, by
the Spirit that goes forth from Him and proceeds towards the
churches, and that abides in them. (1 John iii, 24; iv, 13.)
(2.) The other order is, if it take its commencement from the
churches, and if that bond intervene which, issuing from
them, proceeds to Christ, and binds them to Him. Where (i.)
must be placed the churches of Corinth, of Rome, of Philippi,
&c. (ii.) Then may be laid down the faith proceeding from
each of them. (iii.) Christ, to whom the faith of all these
churches tends and connects each of them with Him. (1 John
ii, 24; Ephes. iii, 17.) Because the bond of charity is
mutual, it proceeds from Christ to each church, and from
every church to Christ. (Ephes. v, 25.) It does not, however,
remain there, but goes on to each kindred church; yet so that
every church loves her sister church in Christ and for his
sake, otherwise it is a confederacy without Christ, or rather
against Christ. (1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2, 19.)
VII. From the relation of this union, must be estimated the
Separation which is opposed to it, and which cannot be made
or explained except by an analysis and resolution of their
uniting together. Every particular church therefore must be
separated from God and Christ before it can be separated from
the church which is allied to it and of the same body;
(Ephes. ii, 10, 19-22;) and the bond of faith and charity
must be broken before any church can be separated from God
and Christ, and thus from any other church. (Rom. xi, 17-24.)
But since the Spirit of Christ, the faith by which we
believe, and charity, are invisible things which belong to
the very inward union and communion of Christ and the
churches, it is impossible for men to form any estimate or
judgment from them, respecting the union or separation of
churches. On this account it is necessary, that certain
external things, which are objects of the senses, and which
by a certain analogy answer to those inward things, should be
placed before men, that we may be able to form a judgment
concerning the union of the churches with Christ and among
each other, and about their opposite separation. Those
external things are the word, and the visible signs annexed
to the word, by which Christ has communication with his
church; the profession of faith and of worship, and the
exercise of charity by outward works, by which each church
testifies its individual union and communion with Christ and
with any other church. (Isa. xxx, 21; Rom. x, 15, 17, 10, 13;
John xiii, 35.) To this is opposed its separation, consisting
in this, that Christ "removes its candlestick out of his
place," and the churches vary among themselves in the
profession of the faith, omit the requisite duties of
charity, and evince and practice hatred towards each other.
(Rev.s ii, 5; 2 Chron. xiii, 8, 2, 10.)
VIII. But the churches of God and Christ, even those which
were instituted by prophets and apostles, may decline by
degrees, and sometimes do decline, from the truth of the
faith, from the integrity of divine worship, and from their
first love, (2 Cor. xi, 3; Gal. i, 6; Rev. ii, 4,) either by
adding to the doctrines of faith, to that which is the object
of worship, and to the modes and rites with which it is
worshipped; or by taking away or by perverting the right
meaning of faith, by not considering in a lawful manner that
which is worshipped, and by changing the legitimate mode of
worship into another form; and yet they are still
acknowledged, by God and Christ, as God's churches and
people, even at the very time when they worship Jehovah in
calves, when they pay divine honours both to Jehovah and to
Baal, when they offer to Moloch through the fire the children
whom they had borne and reared for Jehovah, (Jer. ii, 11-13;
2 Kings xvi, 3; 1 Kings xviii, 21; Ezek. xvi, 20,) and when
they suffer legal ceremonies to be appended to the faith of
Christ, and the resurrection to be called in question: (Gal.
iii, 1-3; 6; 1 Cor. xv, ) even under these circumstances they
are acknowledged as the churches and the people of God,
according to external communion by the word and the
sacramental signs or tokens, because God does not yet remove
the candlestick out of its place, or send them a bill of
divorcement. (Rev. ii, 5; Isa. i, 1.) Hence it arises that
the Union between such churches, as have something still left
of God and Christ and something of the spirit of lies and
idolatry, is two-fold: the One, in regard to those things
which they have yet remaining from the first institution
which was made by the prophets and apostles: the Other, with
respect to those things which have been afterwards introduced
by false teachers and false prophets, and especially by that
notorious false prophet, "the man of sin, the son of
perdition." For though "their word eats as doth a canker," (2
Tim. ii, 17,) yet the goodness and grace of God have
prevented it from consuming the whole pure doctrine of the
Christian faith. On the other side, its corresponding
Separation is as fully opposed to this last mentioned union,
as the former union is opposed to its separation. When
therefore the discourse turns on the separation of churches,
we ought diligently to consider what thing it is about which
the separation has been made.
IX. These things having been thus affirmatively premised, let
us now come to the hypothesis of our question, according to
the conditions which we said must necessarily be ascribed to
the church that may justly be said to have made a secession
from another. With regard to the First, which we have said
was required as necessarily precedent, we own, that the
churches which are now distinguished by the title of "there
formed," were, prior to that reformation, one with the church
of Rome, and had with her communion of faith and of worship,
and of the offices of charity; nay, that they constituted a
part of that church, as she has been defined in the second
thesis of this disputation. But we distinctly and expressly
add two particulars. (1.) That this union and communion is as
that between equals, collaterals, sisters and members; (Sol.
Song viii, 8; 1 Cor. xii, 12, 13, 17;) and not as the union
which subsists between inferiors and a superior, between sons
and their mother, between members and their head: that is, as
they speak in the schools of philosophy, the relation between
them was that of equiparancy, in which one of the things
related is not more the foundation than the other, and
therefore the obligation on both sides is equal; yet the
Roman pontiff, seated in the chair which he calls
apostolical, and which he says is at Rome, affirms the church
of Rome to be the mother and head of the rest of the
churches. (2.) That this union and communion is partly
according to those things which belong to God and Christ, and
partly according to those things which appertain to the
defection or "falling away" predicted by the apostle as about
to come: for "the son of perdition" is said to be "sitting in
the temple of God." (2 Thess. ii, 2-4.) As far therefore as
the doctrine of the true faith sounded in these churches, and
as far as God and Christ were worshipped, and the offices of
charity were legitimately exercised, so far were they One
Church of Christ, who patiently bore with them and invited
them to repentance. (Rev. ii, 20, 21.) But as far as the
faith has been interpolated with various additions and
distorted interpretations, and as far as the divine worship
has been depraved by different idolatries and superstitions,
and the tokens of benevolence have been exhibited in
partaking of the parts offered to idols, so far has the union
been according to the spirit of defection and the communion
of iniquity. (Rev. ii, 14, 20.)
X. With regard to what belongs to the separation of the
reformed churches from that of Rome, we must discuss it in
two ways; because, as we have already seen, (Thesis 8,) the
separation of churches is usually made both with respect to
faith and worship, and with respect to charity. These
separations are considered to be thus far distinguished, by
the churches themselves; so that the church which is
separated in reference to faith and worship, is called
heretical and idolatrous; and that which is separated in
reference to charity, is called schismatical. The first part
of the question therefore will be this: "Have the churches
which are now called the reformed, made a secession with
regard to faith and worship?" Respect being had to the Second
condition, (Thesis 4,) we reply, we confess that a secession
has been made with regard to faith and worship. For the fact
itself testifies, that they differ [from the church of Rome]
in many doctrines relating to faith, and that they differ in
divine worship. But the reformed deny, that they differ from
the Romish church according to those articles of faith which
she yet holds through apostolical tradition, or according to
[that part of] worship which, being divinely prescribed, the
church of Rome yet uses. Of this, proof is afforded in the
following brief manner. (1.) For in addition to her laying
down the word of God as the only rule of the truth, she
professes to approve, in the true and correct sense, of the
articles of belief contained in the apostles' creed, as those
articles have been explained by the first four general
councils; she likewise professes to esteem as certain and
ratified those things which the ancient church decreed
against Pelagius. (2.) Because she worships God and Christ in
spirit and truth, by that method, and with those rites, which
have been prescribed in the word of God. She, therefore,
confesses that the separation has been made in those things
which the church of Rome holds, not as she is the church of
Christ, but as she is the Romish and popish church; but that
the union remains in those things of Christ which she still
retains.
XI. With regard to the Third condition, (Thesis 4,) the
reformed churches deny, that they were the first to make the
secession. That this may be properly understood, since a
separation consists in a variation of faith and worship, they
say that the commencement of such variation may be dated from
two periods. (1.) Either from the time nearest to the
apostles, nay at a period which came within the age of the
apostles, when the mystery anomiav, that is. of iniquity, or
rather, (if leave may be granted to invent a word still more
significant,) when "the mystery of lawlessness began to
work," which mystery was subsequently revealed, and which
lawlessness was afterwards openly produced by "that man of
sin, the son of perdition," who is on this very account
called "that wicked," or "that lawless one," and is said to
be "revealed." (2 Thess. ii, 3-8.) The reformed say, that the
personage thus described is the Roman pontiff. (2.) Or the
commencement of this variation may be dated from the days of
Wickliffe, Huss, Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, Œcolampadius,
Bucer and Calvin, when many congregations of men in various
parts of Europe began, at first secretly, but afterwards
openly, to recede from the Roman pontiff. The reformed say,
that the commencement of the detection and secession must be
dated from the former of these two periods; and they confess
and lament, that they were themselves, in conjunction with
the modern church of Rome, guilty of a defection from the
purity of the apostolic and the Roman faith, which the
apostle Paul commended in the ancient church of Rome that
existed in his days. The papists say that the commencement of
the defection and secession must be dated from the latter
period, [the days of Huss, Luther, etc,] and affirm that they
are not to be accounted guilty of any defection.
XII. This is the hinge of the entire controversy. Here,
therefore, we must make our stand. If the reformed churches
place the beginning of the defection at the true point, then
their separation from the modern church of Rome is not a
secession from the church of Christ, but it is the
termination and completion of a separation formerly made, and
merely a return and conversion to the true and pure faith,
and to the sincere worship of God -- that is, a return to God
and Christ, and to the primitive and truly apostolical
church, nay to the ancient church of Rome itself: But, on the
other hand, if the beginning of the defection be correctly
placed by the papists, then the reformed churches have really
made a secession from the Romish church, and indeed from that
church which still continues in the purity of the Christian
religion. But the difference consists principally in this,
that the Romish church is said to have added falsehoods to
the truth, and the reformed churches are said, by the
opposite party, to have detracted from the truth: this
controversy, therefore, is of such a nature, that the burden
of proof lies with the church of Rome as affirming, that
those things of her own which she has added are true. Yet the
reformed churches will not decline the province of proof, if
the Romish church will permit the matter to be discussed and
decided from the pure Scriptures alone. Because the church of
Rome does not consent to this, but produces another unwritten
word of God, she thus again imposes on herself the necessity
of proving, not only that there is some unwritten word of
God, but also that what she produces is the real word of God.
XIII. Lastly, the reformed churches say, what is contained in
the fourth condition, (Thesis 4,) that they did not secede
voluntarily, that is, they did not secede at their own
instigation, motion, or choice, but with lingering sorrow and
regret; and they ascribe the cause [of this secession] to
God, and throw the blame of it upon the church of Rome
herself, or first on the court of Rome and the pontiff, and
then on the Romish church so far as she listens to the
pontiff and the court of Rome, and is ready to perform any
services for them. 1. They attribute the cause of this
secession to God; because he has commanded his people to
depart out of Babylon, the mother of fornications, and to
keep themselves from idols. (Rev. xviii, 4; 1 John v, 21.) 2.
They throw the blame of it on the Court or Church of Rome,
which in three ways drove away the protestant churches from
her communion. (1.) By her mixture of deadly poison in the
cup of religion, (Rev. xvii, 4,) from which she administered
those dogmas that relate to faith and to the worship of God.
This mixture was accompanied by a double command. The first,
a prohibitive command, that no person should draw any of the
waters of the saviour from the pure fountains of Israel; the
second, a preceptive, that all men should drink out of this
her cup of abominations. (Rev. xiii, 15-17.) (2.) By
excommunication and anathemas; by the former she excluded
from her communion as many persons as refused to drink the
deadly poison out of the cup which she had filled with this
mixture. By the latter, she devoted them to all kinds of
curses and execrations, and exposed them for plunder and
destruction to the madening fury of her own satellites. (3.)
Not only by instituting tyranny and various persecutions, but
also by exercising them against those who were unwilling to
defile their consciences by that shameful abomination. (Rev.
xvii, 6.) But with what lingering sorrow and regret they have
departed, or, rather, have suffered themselves to be driven
away, they say, they have declared by three most manifest
tokens: (1.) By serious admonitions proposed both verbally
and in writing, in which they have shewn the necessity of the
reformation, and the method and means of it to be a free
ecclesiastical council. (2.) By prayers and supplications,
which they have employed in earnest intreaties for such an
assembly, for this purpose at least -- that a serious and
general inquiry should be made, whether some kind of abuses
and of corruption had not crept into the church, and whether
they might not be corrected wherever they were discovered.
(3.) By the continued patience with which they have endured
every description of tyranny, that has been exercised against
them. After all this, the only result has been that the
existing corruptions and abuses are confirmed and fully
established by the plenary authority of the pope and of the
court of Rome.
XIV. We have hitherto discussed this separation in reference
to faith and worship. (Thesis 10.) But the reformed churches
say, that they have by no means made a separation from the
church of Rome in reference to charity. They invoke Christ as
a witness in their consciences to the truth of this their
declaration, and they think they have hitherto given
sufficient proofs of it. (1.) By the exposition of their
doctrine to the whole world, both verbally and by their
writings, which disclose from the word of God the errors of
the Romish church, and solicitously invite to conversion, the
people who remain in error. (2.) By the prayers and groans
with which they do not cease to importune the divine Majesty
to deliver his miserable people from the deception and
tyranny of Antichrist, and firmly to subject them to his Son,
Jesus Christ. (3.) By the friendly and mild behaviour which
they use towards the adherents of the popish religion, even
in many of those places in which they have, themselves, the
supremacy, while they neither employ force against their
consciences, nor drive them by menaces to the profession of
another faith or to the exercise of a different worship, but
permit them, privately, at least, to offer that fealty and
worship to God of which they mentally approve. Protestants
use only the spiritual sword, that, after all heresy and
idolatry have been destroyed, men, being saved, even in this
life, with regard to their bodies, may be eternally saved to
the day of the Lord. The prevention of the public assemblies
of the Roman Catholics, and the compelling of them by
pecuniary mulct or fines to hear the sermons of the reformed,
may be managed in such a manner as will enable the latter to
prove these to be offices of true charity. The reformed also
say, that those things of which the papists complain, as
being perpetrated with too much severity, and even with
cruelty, against themselves and their children, were brought
upon them either through the tumultuous and licentious
conduct of the military, of which deeds they have themselves
most commonly been the authors, partly by their demerits, and
partly by their previous example; or they were brought upon
them on account of crimes which they committed against the
state or commonwealth, and not on account of religion. We
conclude, therefore, that neither with respect to faith and
worship, nor with respect to charity, have the reformed
churches made a secession from that of Rome, so far as the
Romish church retains any thing which is Christ's; but they
rejoice and glory in the separation, so far as she is averse
from Christ.
XV. The second part of our proposition remains now to be
considered, which stands thus: "The reformed churches have
acted properly in refusing to hold and profess a communion of
faith and of divine worship with the church of Rome." This
may indeed be generally collected from the preceding
arguments; but it must be here more specially deduced, that
it may evidently appear in what things the corruption of
faith and of divine worship principally consists in the
church of Rome, according to the judgment of the reformed
churches. The causes of this their refusal are three. (1.)
The various heresies. (2.) The multifarious idolatry, and
(3.) The immense tyranny, which has been approved and
exercised by the church of Rome.
First. We will treat of heresies, but with much brevity;
because it would be a work of too much prolixity to enumerate
all. The first, and one which does not dash with any single
article, but which is directly opposed to the very principle
of faith, is this, in which it is maintained, "That there is
another word of God beside that which is recorded in the
canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, and is of the
same force and necessity with it, for the establishment of
truth and the refutation of error." To this is added "that
the word of God must be understood according to the sense of
our holy mother, the church," that is, of the church of Rome.
But this sense is that which the Romish church has explained,
and will hereafter explain, by her old Vulgate Latin
translation, by her confessions, catechisms and canons, in a
way the best accommodated, for the time being, to the
existing necessity or prevailing opinion. This is the first
foundation of the kingdom of Antichrist, directly opposed to
the first foundation of the kingdom of Christ, which is the
immovable truth and perfection of the doctrine comprised,
first, in the prophetical writings, and then, in those of the
apostles.
XVI. To this we next add another heresy, which is also
adverse to the principle of faith. By it the Roman pontiff is
constituted the prince, the head, the husband, the universal
bishop and shepherd of the whole church on earth -- a
personage who possesses, in the cabinet of his breast, all
the knowledge of truth; and who has the perpetual assistance
of the Holy Spirit, so that he cannot err in prescribing
those things which concern faith and divine worship -- that
"spiritual man who judgeth all men and all things, yet he
himself is judged of no man," (1 Cor. ii, 15,)
to whom all the faithful in Christ must, from the necessity
of salvation, be subject, and to whose decrees and commands,
no less than to those of God and Christ himself, every
Christian must assent and yield obedience, with simple faith
and blind submission. This is the second foundation of the
kingdom of Antichrist, directly opposed to the second
foundation of the kingdom of Christ, which God laid down when
he constituted Christ his Son, the King, the Husband, the
Head, the Chief Shepherd, and the sole Master of his church.
XVII. Particular heresies, and such as contravene some
article of faith, have reference either to the grace of God
which has been bestowed upon us in Christ, or to our duty to
God and Christ. Those which relate to Grace are opposed
either to Christ himself and his offices, to the benefits, or
to the sealing tokens of grace. (1.) To Christ himself are
opposed the transubstantiation of bread and wine into his
body and blood, with which is connected the presence of the
same person in many places. (2.) To the Priestly office of
Christ with respect to his Oblation, is opposed, in the first
place, the sacrifice of the mass, which is erected on the
same dogma of transubstantiation, and in which lies an
accumulation of heresies, (i.) That the body and blood of our
Lord are said to be there offered for a sacrifice, (ii.) To
be truly and properly propitiatory, (iii.) And yet to be
bloodless, for the sins, punishments, and satisfactions not
only of the living, but likewise of the dead. United with
this, or standing as a foundation to it, are a purgatory, and
whatever is dependent upon it, (iv.) In the sacrifice of the
mass, the body and blood of our Lord are also said to be
daily offered, ten, or a hundred, or a thousand times, (v.)
By a priest, himself a sinful man, (vi.) Who by his prayers
procures for it, from God, the grace of acceptance. Heresies
are likewise opposed to the priestly office of Christ with
respect to his Intercession, when Mary, angels, and deceased
saints are constituted mediators and intercessors, who can
obtain something important, not only by their prayers, but
also by their merits. The Roman Catholics sin against the
kingly office of Christ, when they believe these intercessors
of theirs to be the dispensers and donors of blessings. (3.)
Those heresies relating to Grace oppose themselves to the
benefits of justification and sanctification. (i.) To
justification, when it is attributed at once to both faith
and works. The following have the same tendency: "The good
works of saints fully satisfy the law of God for the
circumstances of the present life, truly merit life eternal,
are a real satisfaction for temporal punishment, for every
penalty, for guilt itself, and are an expiation for sins and
offenses. Nay, the good works of some saints are so far
supererogatory, as, when they perform more than they are
bound to do, those [extra] good works are meritorious for the
salvation of others. Lastly, when men by suffering render
satisfaction for sins, they are made conformable to Christ
Jesus, who satisfied for sins." (ii.) They are opposed to
sanctification, when they attribute to the natural man
without the grace of God, preparatory works, which are
grateful to God, and through congruity are meritorious of
greater gifts. (4.) They are opposed to the signs or tokens
of grace in several ways: by multiplying them, by
contaminating baptism with various additions, by mutilating
the Lord's supper of its second part, [the cup,] and by
changing it into a private mass. Those heresies which
infringe upon our Duty to God and Christ as they principally
relate to divine worship, and have idolatry united with them,
may be appropriately referred to the second cause of the
refusal of the reformed churches. (Thesis. 15.)
XVIII. The Second Cause, we have said, is the multifarious
idolatry which flourishes in the church of Rome -- both that
of the first kind against the first command, when that which
ought not to be worshipped is made the object of worship,
adoration, and invocation; and that of the second kind
against the second command, when the object of worship is
worshipped in an image, whether that object ought or ought
not to be worshipped. (1.) The church of Rome commits
idolatry of The First, with things animate and inanimate.
(i.) With animate things -- with angels, the virgin Mary, and
departed saints; by founding churches to them; by erecting
altars; by instituting certain religious services and rites
of worship, and appointing societies of men and women by whom
they may be performed, and the festival days on which they
may be observed; by invoking them in their necessities; by
offering to them gifts and sacrifices; by making them preside
[as tutelary beings] over provinces, cities, villages,
streets, and houses, also over the dispensing of certain
gifts, the healing of diseases, and the removal as well as
the infliction of evils; and, lastly, by swearing by their
name. She also commits idolatry with the Roman pontiff
himself; by ascribing to him those titles, powers, and acts
which belong to Christ alone; and by asking of him those
things which belong to Christ and his Spirit. (ii.) With
inanimate things -- with the cross and the bread of our Lord,
and with the relics of saints, whether such relics be real,
or false and fictitious. (2.) Idolatry of The Second Kind is
when the papists worship God, Christ, angels, the virgin Mary
and the rest of the saints in an image; and when they pay to
such images honour and worship by adorning them with fine
garments, gold, silver and jewels; by assigning them more
elevated situations in churches and placing them upon the
altars; by parading them on their shoulders through the
streets; by uncovering their heads to them; by kissing them;
by kneeling to them, and lastly, by invoking them, or at
least by addressing invocations to them, as the power or
deity who is there more immediately present. We assert that
the distinction of worship into latria, supreme religious
adoration, and douleia inferior worship, and uperdouleia an
intermediate adoration between LATRIA and DULIA -- of power,
into that which is superior, and that which is subordinate,
or ministerial -- of the representation of any thing, into
that by which any thing is performed to some kind of an image
and a carved shape as unto God and Christ, and that by which
it is performed to an image but not as unto God and Christ.
These distinctions, and the dogma of transubstantiation, we
assert to be mere figments, which are either not understood
by the greatest portion of the worshipers, or about which
they do not think when they are in the act of worship; and to
contain protestations which are directly contrary to facts.
This second cause is, of itself, quite sufficient to prove
our thesis.
XIX. The Third Cause is the tyranny which the church of Rome
has usurped and exercised against those who could not
conscientiously assent to these heresies and approve these
idolatries; and which that church will continue to exercise
so long as she listens to the Roman pontiff and his court.
The reformed churches very properly refuse to profess
communion of faith and worship with that of Rome, because
they are afraid to involve or entangle themselves in the
guilt of such great wickedness, lest they should bring down
upon their heads the blood of so many thousands of the saints
and of the faithful martyrs of Christ, who have borne
testimony to the word of the Lord, "and have washed their
robes in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. vii, 14.) For, beside
the fact that such a profession would convey a sufficiently
open approbation of that persecution, (especially if they did
not previously deliver a protestation against it, which,
however, the Roman pontiff would never admit,) even the
papistical doctrine itself, with the assent of the people,
establishes the punishment, by the secular arm, of those whom
the church of Rome accounts as heretics; so that those who,
on other points, are adherents to the doctrine of popery, if
they are not zealous in their conduct against heretics, are
slandered as men governed by policy, lukewarm creatures, and
even receive the infamous name of atheists. I wish all kings,
princes, and commonwealths, seriously to consider this, that,
on this point at least, they may protest that they have
seceded from the communion of the pontiff and of the court of
Rome. Besides, this exercise of tyranny is, in itself, equal
to an evident token, that the Roman pontiff is that wicked
servant who says in his heart, "My Lord delayeth his coming,"
and begins to eat and drink, and to be drunken, and to beat
his fellow-servants. (Luke xii, 45.)
DISPUTATION 23
ON IDOLATRY
RESPONDENT: JAPHET VIGERIUS
I. It always has been, and is now, the chief design of
diabolical perverseness, -- that even the devil himself,
should be considered and worshipped as a deity -- than which
nothing can be more reproachful and insulting to the true
God; or that all thought and mention of a Deity being
removed, pure atheism might obtain, and, after conscience was
taken away, men might be hurried along into every kind of
flagitious wickedness. But since he could not effect this, on
account of the notion of a Deity, and indeed of a good one,
which is deeply impressed on the minds of men; and since he
knew it to be the will of the true God that he should himself
alone be considered and worshipped as God, without any image;
(Exod. xx, 3-5; Deut. xxxii, 17; 1 Cor. x, 20;) the devil has
been trying to persuade men to consider and worship as God
some figment of their own brain or some kind of creature, or,
at least, to worship the true God in an image. In former days
he had great success in these, his attempts; and would to God
that in our times they were utterly fruitless! We might then
be emboldened to enter on this discussion, merely for the
purpose of knowing what idolatry is, and the description of
it which anciently prevailed among Jews and gentiles, without
being solicitous to deliver any admonition or caution
respecting it. But since, alas, this evil holds domination
far and wide in Christendom itself, we will, by divine aid,
briefly treat upon it in these theses, both for the purpose
of knowing what it is, and of giving some cautions and
dehortations against it.
II. Commencing, therefore, with the etymology of the word, we
say, Eidwlon an idol, generally, signifies some
representation and image, whether it be conceived only in the
mind or framed by the hands, and whether it be that of a
thing which never had an existence, or of something which
does exist. But, according to Scripture usage, and that of
the sacred writers, it signifies, (1.) An image fashioned for
the purpose of representing and honouring a deity, whether
true or false. (2.) Every false divinity, whether it be the
pure figment of the human brain, or any thing existing among
the creatures of God, and thus real, according to its
absolute essence, because it is something; but false with
regard to its relative essence, because it is not a Divinity,
which yet it is feigned to be, and for which it is accounted.
(Exod. xx, 4; Acts vii, 41; Psalm cxv, 4-8; 1 John v, 21; 1
Cor. viii, 4; 1 Thess. i, 9; Col. iii, 5; Deut. vi, 13;
[xiii, 6;] Matt. iv, 10; Deut. v, 6-9.) Latreuein (idolatry)
signifies, in its general acceptation "to render service, or
worship," "to wait upon;" in Hebrew, db[ : But in the
Scriptures, and among ecclesiastical writers, it is
peculiarly employed about [acts of] religious worship and
service; such as these -- to render love, honour, and fear to
God -- to repose hope and confidence in him -- to invoke him
-- to give him thanks for benefits received -- to obey his
commands without exception -- and to swear by his name. (Mal.
i, 6; Psalm xxxvii, 3; 1, 15; Deut. vi, 13.)
III. Idolatry, therefore, according to the etymology of the
word, is "service rendered to an idol;" but, with regard to
fact, it is when divine worship is paid to any other than the
true God, whether that be done by an erroneous judgment of
the mind, by which that is esteemed as a God which is no God,
or it be done solely by the performance of such worship,
though he who renders it be aware that the idol is not God,
and though he protest that he does not esteem it as a God,
since his protestation is contrary to fact. (Isa. xlii, 8;
Gal. iv, 8; Exod. xxxii, 4, 5.) In proof of this, the belly,
covetousness, and idolatry, are severally said to be the god
of some people, and covetous men are called "idolaters."
(Phil. iii, 19; Col. iii, 5; Ephes. v, 5.) But so far is that
opinion or knowledge (by which he does not esteem the idol as
a god) from acquitting him of idolatry, who adores, invokes,
and kneels to it, that from the very circumstance of his thus
invoking, adoring, and kneeling to an idol, he may rather be
said to esteem that as a god, which, according to his own
opinion, he does not consider to be a god. (1 Cor. x, 19,
20.) This is to say to the wood, with one portion of which he
has kindled the fire of his hearth and of his oven, and from
another has fashioned to himself a god, "Deliver me; for thou
art my god," (Isa. xliv, 15, 17,) and to a stone, "Thou hast
begotten me." (Jer. ii, 27.)
IV. Idolatry is also of two kinds. The First is, when that
which is not God is accounted and worshipped as God. (Exod.
xx, 3-5.) The Second is, when that which is either truly or
falsely accounted for God is fashioned into a corporeal
image, and is worshipped in an image, or according to an
image. The former of these is prohibited in the first
commandment: "Thou shalt not have other gods," or "another
god, before me," or "beside me." The latter, in the second
command, "Thou shalt not make unto thyself any likeness; thou
shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." (Exod.
xx, 3-5; 1 Cor. x, 7.) From this, it appears, that idolatry
may also be considered in another view, and in three
different ways. The First mode is, when the true God is
worshipped in an image. The Second is, when a false god is
worshipped. The Third, which partakes of both, is when a
false god is worshipped in an image. The first mode is of a
more venial description than the second, according to that
passage, "And it came to pass, as if it had been a light
thing, for Ahab to walk in the sins of Jeroboam," who had
worshipped Jehovah in calves, and had taught others to do the
same, "that he went and served Baal, and bowed himself down
before him." (1 Kings xvi, 31.) The third mode is the worst
of all; for it consists of a double falsehood, of a feigned
divinity, to whom such worship does not belong, and of an
assimilated divinity, when of The One to whom it is an
assimilation, it is not a likeness. (Isa. xl, 19, 20; Jer. x,
14) Varro has observed that, by the last of these modes, all
fear of God has been taken away, and error has been added to
mortals.
V. In the prohibition, that the children of Israel should
have no God except Jehovah, the Scriptures employ three words
to express "another God." The first is r j a (Exod. xx, 3)
The second, d z and the third, r k r (Psalm lxxxi, 9.) The
first signifies, generally, "any other god;" the second, "a
strange god;, and the third, "a strange and foreign god." But
though these words are not so opposed to each other, as not
occasionally to coincide, and to be indiscriminately used
about a god that is not the TRUE ONE; yet, from a collation
of them as they are used in the Scriptures, it is easy to
collect that "another god" may be conceived under a three-
fold difference; for they were either invented by their first
worshipers; or they were received from their ancestors, or
they were taken from other nations. (Deut. xxxi, 16, 17.) The
last of these occurs, (1.) Either by some necessity, of which
David complains, when he says, "They have driven me out this
day from abiding in the inheritance of Jehovah, saying, Go,
serve other gods.(1 Sam. xxvi, 19.) (2.) Or by persuasion; as
the heart of Solomon was inclined by his wives to worship
other gods. (1 Kings xi, 4, 5.) (3.) Or by the mere choice of
the will; as Amaziah took the gods of the children of Seir,
after he had come from the slaughter of the Edomites. (2
Chron. xxv, 14.) In these degrees the Scriptures present to
us a difference between a greater and a less offense. For
since Jeroboam is frequently accused of having made Israel to
sin and of increasing the crime of idolatry; (1 Kings xii,
30; xiv, 16;) and since the children of Israel are often said
to have "provoked God to jealousy with strange gods, whom
they knew not and whom their fathers did not fear," (Deut.
xxxii, 16,) it appears that the invention or fabrication of a
new god is a more grievous crime, than the adoration of
"another god" whom they received from their ancestry. And
since it greatly contributes to the dishonour and reproach of
Jehovah, to take the gods of foreign nations as objects of
worship, by which, those gods plainly seem to be preferred to
Jehovah, and the religion of those nations, to the law of
Jehovah, this crime, therefore, is, of all others, by far the
most grievous. (Jer. ii, 11, 13.)
VI. In the prescription of the second command, that nothing
which is esteemed as a god be worshipped in an image, the
Scriptures most solicitously guard against the possibility of
the human mind finding out any evasion or lurking place. For,
with regard to the matter, they forbade images to be made of
gold and silver, the most precious of the metals, and
therefore, of any metal whatever, or of wood or stone. (Exod.
xx, 23; Isa. xliv, 12 13; Jer. ii, 27.) It prohibits every
form, whether the image represent a living creature, any
thing in the heavens, the sun, the moon, or the stars; any
thing on the earth or under the earth, a man, a quadruped, a
flying creature, a fish or a serpent, or a thing that has no
existence, but by the madness and vanity of the human brain
is compounded of different shapes, such as a monster, the
upper parts of which are human, and the lower parts those of
an ox; or one whose upper parts are those of an ox, and the
lower, those of a man; or one, the higher parts of which are
those of a beautiful woman, and the lower those of a fish,
terminating in a tail. It prohibits every mode of making
them, whether they be formed by fusion, by sculpture, or by
painting; (Jer. x, 3, 9, 14; Ezek. viii, 10, 11;) because it
says uinversally, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any
likeness." And it adds a reason which excludes generally
every kind of material and every method of fabrication: "For
ye saw no manner of similitude, on the day that the Lord
spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire. Take
ye, therefore, good heed unto your souls, lest ye corrupt
yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of
any figure," &c. (Deut. iv, 15-19.)
VII. But with regard to the mode of worship, and to the
actions pertaining to it, scarcely any thing can be devised
or invented, and can be performed to idols, (that is, both to
false deities themselves and to the images of false
divinities, and to those of the true God,) which is not
expressly said in the Scriptures to be hateful to God, that
no one may have the least pretext for his ignorance. For the
Scriptures take away all honour and service from them,
whatever may be the manner in which they are performed,
whether by building temples, high places or groves by
erecting altars, and by placing images upon altars; or by
offering sacrifices, burning incense, by eating that which is
offered in sacrifice to idols, by bending the knees to them,
by bestowing kisses on them, and by carrying them on their
shoulders. (Exod. xx, 5; 1 Kings xi, 7; xii, 31-33; 2 Kings
xvii, 35; Ezek. viii, 11; Num. xxv, 2; 1 Kings xix, 18; Isa.
xlv, 20; Jer. x, 5.) The Scriptures also prohibit men from
placing hope and trust in idols, forbid invocation, prayers
and thanksgivings to be directed to them, and will not suffer
men to fear them and to swear by them; because idols are as
unable to save as to inflict injury. (Psalm cxv, 8; Jer. v,
7.) The Scriptures do not permit men to yield obedience to
idols, because a graven image is a teacher of lies and
vanity; (Jer. ii, 5-8, 20; xi, 8-13;) and false gods often
require of their worshipers those things from which all
nature, created and uncreated, that of God and of man, is
most abhorrent. (Lev. xviii, 21.)
VIII. But, because the human mind is both inclined and fitted
to excogitate and invent excuses, nay even justifications,
for sins, particularly for the sin of idolatry, and because
the pretext of a good intention to honour the Deity serves
the more readily as a plea for it, [this propensity of mind,]
on account of conscience not equally accusing a man either
for the worship which he offers to a false divinity, or for
that which he presents to the true God in an image, as it
does for the total omission of worship, and for a sin
committed against the rules of equity and goodness which
prevail among mankind; our attention will be profitably
called to the consideration of what is the judgment of God
concerning this matter, by whose judgment we must stand or
fall. Let us take our commencement at that species by which
the true Deity is worshipped in an image, as Jehovah was in
the calf which Aaron fashioned, and in those which were made
by Jeroboam. (Exod. xxxii, 4; 1 Kings xii, 28.) God has
manifested this, his judgment, by his word and by his acts.
(1.) First, by his word of declaration, God has shewn what
are his sentiments both concerning the fabrication of an
image and the worship offered to it. The Fabrication, he
says, is "a changing of the glory of the incorruptible God
into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass, into an image
made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to four-
footed beasts, and creeping things." (Psalm civ, 20; Rom. i,
23.) But the Worship, he says, is offered, not to God, whom
they wished to represent by an image, but to the calf itself,
and to the image which they had fabricated. (1 Kings xii,
32.) For these are his words: "They have made them a molten
calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto."
(Exod. xxxii, 8.) And St. Stephen says, "They made a calf in
those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol." (Acts vii,
41.) On this account also he calls them, "gods of gold and
silver," "other gods and molten images." (Exod. xxxii, 31; 1
Kings xiv, 9.) Secondly, by His word of threatening, by which
he denounces destruction to those who worshipped the calf
that Aaron formed, and to Jeroboam and his posterity. (Exod.
xxxii, 9, 10; 1 Kings xiv, 10, 11.) (2.) God has also
displayed his judgment about idolatry by his acts. He not
only fulfilled this, his word of threatening, by cutting off
Jeroboam and his posterity, (2 Chron. xiii, 15-20,) and by
destroying many thousands of the Israelites; (Exod. xxxii,
28;) but likewise by chastising similar sinners by another
horrible punishment, that of blindness, and of being
delivered over to a reprobate mind." (Rom. i, 24-28.)
IX. Such, then, is the judgment of God concerning that
species of idolatry which is committed with the intention of
worshipping that God who is truly God. Let us now see how
severe this judgment is against that species in which the
intention is to offer worship to that which is not the true
God, to another god, to Moloch, Baal, Chemosh, Baal-peor, and
to similar false gods, though they were esteemed as gods by
their worshipers. (Deut. xxix, 17; xxxii, 14-17.) Of this,
his judgment, God has afforded most convincing indications,
both by his word and his acts. In this word of declaration
two things occur, which are most signal indications of this.
First is, that he interprets this act as a desertion of God,
a defection from the true God, a perfidious dissolution of
the conjugal bond by spiritual adultery with another, and a
provoking of God himself to jealousy. The Second is, that he
says this adultery is committed with demons and devils. For
these are some of the strains of Moses in his very celebrated
song: "They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom
they knew not," &c. (Deut. xxxii, 17.) And the royal psalmist
sings thus: "They sacrificed their sons and their daughters
unto devils, unto the idols of Canaan," (Psalm civ, 37, 38,)
which they did when they compelled any of their offspring to
pass through the fire to Moloch. (Lev. xviii, 21.) The
apostle Paul agrees with this when he says, "The things which
the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to
God;" (1 Cor. x, 20;) whether this signifies, that some demon
lay concealed in those images; or that those sacred rites
were performed according to the will and prescription of
demons, either openly, by oracles, responses, and the verses
of prophesying poets, or secretly by the institutes or maxims
of the world, (Arnob. lib. 6; Aug. de Civ. Del. lib. 8, 23,)
that is, of wicked people, of whom Satan is called "the
prince," and among whom he is said to have his throne. (1
Pet. iv, 3; 2 Cor. iv, 4; Rev. ii, 13.) The denunciations of
punishments for this crime, and the execution of these
threats, are described generally throughout the whole of the
sacred Scriptures.
X. If the things, thus explained from the Scriptures, be
applied to Latriav, the divine adorations, and to Qrhskeiav,
the religious ceremonies or superstitions which are employed
in the popish church; it will clearly appear, that she is
guilty of the crime of the two-fold idolatry which has now
been described. (Thesis 4.) Of the First Kind she renders
herself guilty, because she presents divine worship to the
bread in the Lord's supper, to the virgin Mary, to angels and
departed saints, to the relics of Christ's cross and of the
saints, and to things consecrated. Of the Second Kind she
renders herself guilty, because her members worship, in an
image, God, Christ, the cross of Christ, the virgin Mary,
angels and saints. Each of these charges shall be
demonstrated; and, we will confirm them in as brief a manner
as possible, after having closed up all the evasions, through
which the worshipers of idols try to creep out when they are
held fast bound.
XI. 1. First. Concerning the sacrament of the Lord's supper,
to which "all the faithful in Christ, according to the method
always received in the [Roman] Catholic church, present in
veneration the worship of latria, or supreme adoration,
[which is due to the true God.] Nor is this most holy
sacrament to be the less adored because it was instituted by
Christ our Lord, that it might be received, as the Council of
Trent says, (Session 13, 5,) when it frees us from one part
of the sacrament. To this we subjoin, in the discharge of
another part of the duty we have undertaken: But the worship
of latria or supreme adoration, cannot be paid to the
sacrament of the eucharist without idolatry. (1.) It cannot
be paid even in the use of the eucharist, because bread
continues to be bread still, with regard to its substance,
and it is not transubstantiated or changed into the body of
Christ by consecration. For the eucharist would thus cease to
be a sacrament, of whose essence it is to consist of an
external thing; and the body of Christ would thus begin to
exist anew; for nothing can be changed into that which had no
previous existence. (2.) Much less can this worship be paid
to the sacrament in its abuse. Because, though a legitimate
consecration might [be supposed to] have the power of
transubstantiating, yet an illegitimate consecration cannot
effect a transubstantiation. For all right of consecration
depends on the divine institution: but a consecration to
adore, and not to receive, is foreign to the design of the
institution, and therefore inefficacious. (Matt. xxvi, 26;1
Corinthians x, 16; xi, 25.) Therefore, the Roman Catholic
church commits idolatry, as she presents to the sacrament of
the eucharist the service of latria, or supreme adoration,
which is due to the true God alone.
XII. Secondly. In the worship which the papists perform to
the virgin Mary, angels and departed saints, we say they
commit idolatry in two ways -- in reference to the act of
adoring them, and to that of invoking them. (1 Kings xix, 18;
2 Kings xvii, 11,16, 35.) (1.) In adoring them, when they do
reverence to all and to each of them by altars, masses,
festivals or holy days, vigils, fasts, images, candles,
offerings, by burning incense, by vows, pilgrimages, and
genuflections. All these acts relate to latria or supreme
adoration, and to divine worship, when presented to the true
God according to his will, or to false gods through the
superstition of men. (2.) In invoking them, when the papists
"betake themselves to the prayers, and to the help and
assistance, afforded by the saints," as the Council of Trent
says, (Session 25,) and when they return thanks to them for
the benefits which they receive. (Lombard. lib. 4, dist. 25.)
But they have this recourse to the Prayers of angels and
saints, as their intercessors, mediators, patrons and
advocates, who intercede. (1.) With a pious affection, by
which they desire the wishes of those who pray to them, to be
fulfilled. (2.) With their glorious and most holy merits,
which are presented in favour of those who, with suppliant
intreaties, require their prayers. They have this recourse,
also, to the Help and Assistance of angels and saints, as to
auxiliaries or helpers, preservers and the guardians of grace
and glory; that is, the liberal dispensers of all blessings,
their deliverers in necessities, whom they also denominate
their life, salvation, safety, hope, defense, refuse, solace,
yea, their only hope, and their safe fortress. But these are
titles which belong to God and Christ alone, as the
decorations of the highest excellence, wisdom, benevolence
and power; than which nothing can be conceived more
illustrious, as is manifest from the Scriptures, in which
these titles are read as attributed to God and Christ; (Psalm
xlvi, 1, 2; xviii, 1, 2; xxxvi, 7, 10; lxii, 2, 3, 6; Isa.
xlv, 20; Acts iv, 12;) when the supreme honour of invocation
and adoration is offered to them by holy men. And though the
turpitude of this idolatry be exceedingly foul and
disgusting, yet how immensely is it aggravated by rendering
the reason which serves as a pretext to them for that deed;
than which reason nothing can be imagined to be more
injurious to God and Christ. (1.) To God, when the papists
say that our heavenly Father has given half of his kingdom to
the blessed virgin, the queen of heaven, whom they also
denominate "the mistress of the world," "the star of the
sea," "the haven or port of salvation," and "God;" (Gul.
Biel. in Can. Miss. Lect. 80;) and when they say that since
God has both justice and mercy, he retains the former of
these himself, but has granted the exercise of mercy to his
virgin mother, and therefore, that we must appeal from the
court of the justice of God to the court of the mercy of his
mother. (2.) To Christ, nothing can be more injurious than
this; because the papists say that Christ is not only an
advocate, but that he is a judge, and as such, will discuss
all things, so that nothing will remain unpunished; and
therefore, that God has provided for us a female advocate,
who is full of mildness and suavity, and in whom is found
nothing that is harsh or unpleasant, who is, also, on this
account, called "the throne of Christ," on which he reposed.
(Anton. page 4, tit. 15, cap. 14.)
XIII. Thirdly. That the papists defile themselves with
idolatry in paying reverence to the relics of the cross of
Christ and of the saints, by performing unto them acts both
of adoration and of invocation, is proved, partly from their
own confession, and partly from the very exercise of those
religious acts which they offer to them. (1.) The Council of
Trent publishes the confession, when it says, (Session 25,)
"Those persons are to be wholly condemned, who affirm that
honour and veneration are not due to the relics of saints; or
that those relics, and other sacred monuments, are
unprofitably honoured by the faithful; and that resort is
vainly made to the sepulchers of saints, for the purpose of
obtaining their assistance." The next confessor on this
subject is "the angelical doctor," who is believed to have
written all things well concerning Christ. For he says, (Sum.
p. 3, Qu, 25,) that the adoration of latria, or supreme
worship, must be given to the cross of Christ on account of
the contract [into which it came] with the members of the
body of Christ. This is a reason quite sufficient to
Antoninus to affirm (Anton. p. 3, tit. 12, c. 5) that not
only is the cross of Christ to be adored, but likewise all
things belonging to it -- the nails, the spear, the
vestments, and even the sacred tabernacles. In accordance
with these confessions, the Roman Catholic church sings,
"Behold the wood of the Cross! We adore thy cross, O Lord."
(2.) Another method the papists have of declaring their
idolatry by various acts -- when they adorn the relics of the
cross of Christ and of the saints, with gold, silver, and
jewels; when they wrap them in fine lawn napkins and in
pieces of silk or velvet; when they carry them about with
great pomp, in processions instituted for the purpose of
returning thanks and making requests; when they place them on
altars; when they suspend before these relics gifts and
curses; when they present them to be viewed, kissed, and
adored by kneeling, and thus themselves adore them; when they
light wax candles before them, burn incense to them; when
they consecrate churches and altars by their presence, and
consider them as rendered holy; when they institute festivals
to them; when they celebrate masses to their honour, under
this idea, that masses celebrated upon an altar on which
relics are placed, become more holy and efficacious; when
they undertake pilgrimages to them; when they carry them
about as amulets and preservatives; when they put them upon
sick people; when they sanctify their own napkins or
handkerchiefs, their garlands, and other things of the same
kind, by touching them with these relics, that they may serve
for the same purposes; because they think that grace and a
divine virtue exist in them, which they seek to obtain from
them by invocations, and other services performed before
them; they use them for driving away and expelling devils and
bad spirits; and they do all these things which the heathen
did to the relics of their idolatry. To all these
particulars, must be added that most shameful illusion -- the
multiplication of relics, and the substitution of such as
belong to other persons than to those whose names they bear.
Hence, the origin of that witty saving, "The bodies of many
persons are honoured on earth, whose souls are burning in
everlasting torments." (Cal. de relig.)
XIV. The Fourth specimen, partly of the same idolatry, and
partly of a superstition much worse than that of the
heathens, the papists afford not only in the dedications and
consecrations of churches, alters, vases, and ornaments which
belong to them, such as the cross, the chalice and its
covers, linen clothes, the vestments of priests, and of
censers; also in the consecration of easter wax candles, holy
water, salt, oil for extreme unction, bells, small waxen
figures like dolls, each of which they call "Agnus Dei," and
of cemeteries or burial grounds, and things of a similar
kind, but likewise in the use of things thus consecrated, for
the papists pray in these consecrations, that God would
furnish or inspire the things now enumerated, with grace,
virtue and power to drive away and expel bodily and spiritual
evils, and to bestow the contrary blessings; they use them as
actually possessed of such grace and virtue; and perform to
them religious worship. We will here produce the following
few instances of this matter: They have ascribed remission of
Sins to visitations of churches thus consecrated. They use
the following words, among others, in their formularies of
consecrations, on the cross to be consecrated: "Deign, O
Lord, to bless this wood of the cross, that it may be a
saving remedy to mankind, that it may be the solidity of
faith, the advancement of good works, the redemption of
souls, and a safeguard against the fierce darts of enemies."
In the formularies on holy water, these words occur: "I
exorcise or adjure thee, O creature of water, that thou
become exorcised water to put to flight all the power of the
enemy, to root him out, and to displant friendly greetings
with his apostate angels," &c. This is part of the formulary
in the consecration of salt: "I exorcise or adjure thee, O
creature of salt, that thou be made exorcised salt for the
salvation of believers, that thou mayest be healthful
soundness of soul and body to those who receive thee," &c.
Also, the following words: "Deign, O Lord, to bless and
sanctity this creature of salt, that it may be, to all who
take it, health of mind and body; and that what thing soever
shall be sprinkled with it, may be devoid of all filth or
uncleanliness, and of every attack of spiritual wickedness."
But they attribute to the consecrated small wax figures,
which they call "Agni Dei," the virtue of breaking and
removing every sin, as the blood of Christ does; and,
according to this opinion, they use the same things, reposing
their hope and confidence in them, as if they were actually
endued with any such power.
XV. But that the papists commit the second species of
idolatry in the worshipping of images, (Theses 4, 6, & 10,)
is abundantly proved from their own confession, the forms of
consecration, and their daily practice. (1.) Their own
confession may be found in the canons and decrees of the
Council of Trent, in which it is affirmed, (Session 25,) "The
images of Christ, of the blessed virgin, and of other saints,
are to be held and retained, especially in churches; and due
honour and veneration are to be exhibited to them; so that by
the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our
heads, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ, and venerate
the saints whose likenesses those images bear; this is what
was sanctioned by the second Nicene Council." Let the acts of
that Council be inspected, and it will appear that the
adoration and invocation which were established by it, are
mere idolatry. To these, let Thomas, and the multitude of
their divines, be added, who are of opinion that images must
receive the same services of adoration, as those with which
the prototypes which they represent are worshipped. (2.) The
formularies of their consecrations make a similar
declaration; for the image of the virgin Mary is consecrated
in the following form: "O God, sanctify this image of the
blessed virgin, that it may bring the help of saving aid to
thy faithful people, if thunder and lightning prevail; that
hurtful things may be the more speedily expelled; that
inundations caused by rains, the commotions of civil wars, or
the devastations committed by pagans, may be repressed and
appeased at its presence. (1 Kings 8.) In the consecration of
the image of John the Baptist, the following words occur:
"Let this sacred image be the expeller of devils, the invoker
of angels, the protector of the faithful, and let its
intercession powerfully flourish in this place." (3.) In the
daily practice of the papist, most of those acts, both of
adoration and invocation, are performed to images, which we
have already mentioned as having been exhibited to the saints
themselves; and they usually perform those acts [which they
think due] to the saints, to their images, or in their
images, but seldom indeed do they by a pure [mental] glance
look up to the saints themselves, being under the influence
of this opinion -- that the honours [which they thus pay to
images] belong to the prototypes themselves, and therefore
that the prayers which they address to them will by this
means be the more readily and speedily heard and answered.
XVI. The papists do not indeed deny, that they present this
worship, these services, and acts both of adoration and
invocation, to the sacrament of the eucharist, to the virgin
Mary, to angels and departed saints, to relics and things
consecrated, and to these images: at least they are unable to
deny this, except by an evident untruth. Yet they excuse
themselves under the pretense of certain exceptions and
distinctions, which they consider to be of such value and
power, as to exempt from idolatry those acts which are
performed by themselves with such an intention of mind, but
which, when performed by others, are really idolatrous. These
exceptions are, First. According to the three-fold excellence
of divine, human and intermediate, there is a three-fold
honour. And here the distinction is produced of Latreia
"latria" or divine worship, douleia "dulia" or human worship,
and uperdouleia "hyperdulia" or intermediate, or between
both. To this may be added what they say, that most of the
acts which relate to this worship are analogous. The Second
exception is from the intention of those who offer those
religious services. The Third is in the difference between
intercession and bestowing, that is, between the office of
mediator as discharged by the [popish] saints, and as
discharged by Christ Jesus. The Fourth is in the distinction
between an image and an idol.
XVII. The First subterfuge has three members. To the first of
these we reply, (1.) The Scriptures do not acknowledge any
excellence that is called "hyperdulia or intermediate," or
that is different from divine excellence except what is
according to the functions, graces and dignities through
which some rational creatures, by divine command, preside
over others and minister to them -- men as long as they
remain in this mortal life -- and angels to the end of the
world. Therefore, no homage paid to a creature is pure from
idolatry, except that which is offered to superiors who live
in this world, and which is approved by the Scriptures.
(Psalm lxxxii, 1, 6; John x, 35.) (2.) That intermediate
excellence, and the worship which is accommodated to it, are
rejected by the Scriptures, since they condemn the "worship
paid to angels" (Col. ii, 18,) and commend Hezekiah for
having "broken in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had
made; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn
incense to it." (2 Kings xviii, 4) To the second monster of
this subterfuge we reply, the distinction of worship into
latria and dulia is vain in this case; for the apostle claims
the worship of dulia [which the papists call an inferior or
human adoration] for the true God alone, when he blames the
gentiles for having "done service to those which by nature
are no gods." (Gal. iv, 8.) And this word, in its general
acceptation, signifies the service which ought to be
performed, or which lawfully can be, to those only with whom
we have to do according to godliness, and this according to
the law which is either common to mutual charity, (Gal. v,
13,) or that which has a more particular reference to such
persons as have constant transactions with each other.
(Ephes. vi, 5, 6.) But with those persons to whom the present
discussion relates, (placing the angels as an exception,) we
have according to godliness no transactions, neither are we
bound, by any law, to them for service. To the third member
our answer is, (1.) To offer sacrifice, to burn incense, to
erect churches and altars, to make vows, to institute
festivals, fasts and pilgrimages, [to angels or saints,] and
to swear by their names, and not analogical or relative
services, but univocal or having one purpose, and such as are
due only to the true God. (2.) Though prostration itself is
law fitly given to men on account of their analogical
similitude to God, yet, when it is an act of religion, it is
considered as so peculiarly due to God, that the whole of
divine worship is designated by it alone. (1 Kings xix, 18;
Matt. ix, 18.) Christ likewise denies prostration to the
devil, (Matt. iv, 8,) and the angel in the Apocalypse refuses
it when offered to himself. (Rev. xix, 10.)
XVIII. The distinct intention of the worshipers, is the
Second subterfuge that they use to remove from themselves the
idolatries of every kind of which they have been accused. In
the first of these intentions they say, concerning the
adoration of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, that their
intention is to honour, not the bread, but the true body of
Christ. In the second, that the adoration, even divine
adoration itself, which they perform to a creature, is not
offered to it as to God; that is, they perform the acts of
worship with the design of procuring for the creature such
esteem and veneration as in reality belongs only to the
divine Majesty. In the third, that by giving honour to a
creature, they do not stop there, but that God may be
glorified in and through the creature. (Greg. de Val. lib. 2,
c. 1 & 3.) In the fourth, that they do not honour the image
itself, but its prototype. To all these distinctions we
reply, (1.) The deed is in every case contrary to the
intention; and they in reality do the very thing which, in
their intention, they profess themselves desirous to avoid.
(2.) The judgment of God is adverse to their intention; for
he does not interpret the deed from the intention, but forms
his judgment of the intention from the deed. God himself has
exposed an intention that is in accordance with such a deed,
although the man who does it puts in his protestation about
his contrary intention. This intention is evident from the
following passages: "They have made them a molten calf and
have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said,
these be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out
of the land of Egypt." (Exod. xxxii, 8.) "He falleth down
unto it and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith,
Deliver me, for thou art my god." (Isa. xliv, 17.) "They
sacrificed unto devils, not to God," &c. (Deut. xxxii, 17.)
(3.) We add, if these distinctions possess any validity,
neither Jews nor heathens could at any time have been accused
of having committed idolatry; for, by the same distinctions
as these, they would be able to justify all their acts of
worship, whether offered to a true or to a false deity, to
the supreme God, to inferior divinities, or to an image. For
[on these principles] their intention never feared the works
of their own fingers, but those persons after whose image
such works were formed, and to whose names they were
consecrated. Their intention never honoured angels, demons,
or the minor gods, except that such services should redound
to the honour of the supreme Deity; (Lactan. Inst. 1. ii c.
2;) it never wished to procure such esteem and veneration for
them as belongs solely to the majesty of God supreme; and it
never worshipped a false deity.
XIX. The Third exception has a special tendency to justify
the invocation of the virgin Mary and the saints; (Thesis
16;) for the papists say that they invoke them, not as the
prime authors and donors of blessings; nor as Christ, whom
God the Father hath constituted the high priest, and to whom
he has given all power in heaven and on earth; but that they
invoke them, in truth, as friends, intercessors and donors,
yet in subordination to Christ. To this we reply, First, from
the premises which they grant, they may themselves be
convicted of idolo-dulia, or inferior worship offered to
idols; for they confess that the invocation which they
practice to the virgin Mary and to saints is the adoration of
dulia. But they fabricate idols of the virgin Mary and of
saints before they invoke them by heresy, both by falsely
attributing to them the faculty of understanding their
prayers, of interceding for sinners, not only feelingly, but
also meritoriously, and of granting the things requested, and
by presenting to them, as possessed of these qualifications,
the worship of invocation; for this is the mode by which an
idol is fabricated of a thing that has had a real existence.
To this argument strength is added from the circumstance
that, although these saints might know the things for which
the papists pray, might intercede for them with a pious
feeling, and, as spirits," might bestow what they have
requested; yet as they could not bestow them, "with power"
they ought not to be invoked. Secondly. By the words,
"insubordination to Christ," they in reality destroy such a
subordination and introduce a collaterally. If this be true,
then on that very account they are likewise idolaters;
because the worship, which God the Father wishes to be given
to his Son, is that of latria, or divine adoration. For it is
the will of the Father, "that all men should honour the Son,
even as they honour the Father." (John v, 23.) But
subordination is removed, and collaterally is introduced,
(1.) Universally, when all these saints are said, by their
own merits, to intercede for and to obtain blessings, and to
dispense the blessings thus obtained, which are two tokens of
the eversion of subordination and of the introduction of
collaterally. (2.) Specially, this collaterally exists [from
their own showing] between Christ and the virgin Mary; as is
evident, (1.) the names under which they invoke her, when
they denominate her "the queen of heaven," "the mistress of
the world," "our salvation, harbor, defense, refuge and
solace," who is able to command our Redeemer in virtue of her
authority as his mother. These expressions place Christ in
subordination to her. (2.) But this is likewise evident, from
the cause on account of which they say she ought to be
invoked. As a Female Advocate, because, since Christ is not
only a man and an advocate, but likewise God and a Judge,
"who will suffer nothing to pass unpunished; the virgin Mary,
as having in her nothing that is harsh and unpleasant, but
being all mildness and suavity," (Thesis 12,) ought to act as
intercessor between him and sinners. And as a Female
Dispenser of Blessings; because "God the Father has given
half of his kingdom to her, (that is, to administer his mercy
while he reserves the exercise of justice to himself,") and
has conferred upon her a plenitude of all grace, that out of
her fullness all men may receive. This is nothing less than
to hurl Christ from his throne, and to exalt the virgin Mary
in his place.
XX. The Fourth subterfuge is the distinction between an image
and an idol. The papists say, an image is the likeness of
something real; an idol, that of something false. When
Bellarmine explains this definition, he commits a fallacy;
for, in interpreting "something false," he says, since it is
a being, it is not that which it is feigned to be, that is,
God. But that the difference which he here makes is a false
one, many passages of Scripture prove. The image which
Rachael purloined from her father, is called "anidol;" but it
was the image of a man. (Gen. xxxi, 34.) Stephen calls the
molten calf "anidol," and it was made to represent the true
God. (Acts. vii, 41.) The calves of Jeroboam were
representations or images of Jehovah, yet they are called
"idols" by the Greek and Latin translators. (1 Kings xii,
28.) Micah's image is also called "an idol" and yet it was
"set up" to Jehovah. (Judges xvii, 4; xviii, 31.) Among the
"dumb idols" unto which, the apostle says, the Corinthians
"were carried away," were statues of men, and probably images
of "four-footed beasts, of creeping things, and of birds."
(Rom. i, 23.) Yet Bellarmine would with difficulty prove that
these are things, which have no existence. Wherefore if an
idol be that which is nothing, that is, a sound without
reality and meaning, this very distinction, which is purely
an invention of the human brain, is itself the vainest idol,
nay one of the veriest of idols. Such likewise are those
distinctions and intentions which have been invented, for the
establishment of idols and of the impious and unlawful
adoration of idols, by the church of the malignants, by the
mother of fornications, who resembles the "adulterous woman"
mentioned in Prov. xxx, 20: "She eateth and wipeth her
mouth, and saith, I have done no harm," or "I have not
wrought iniquity."
COROLLARY
It can be proved by strong arguments from the Scriptures,
that the Roman pontiff is himself an idol; and that they who
esteem him as the personage that he and his followers
boastingly depict him to be, and who present to him the
honour which he demands, by those very acts shew themselves
to be idolaters.
DISPUTATION 24
ON THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS
RESPONDENT: JAMES A. PORT
I. From the hypothesis of the papists, we denominate those
persons "saints," whom the Roman pontiff has by his
canonization transferred into the book of saints. (Bellarm.
de Beat. Sanct. lib. 1, c. 8.) From the truth of the matter,
we also call those persons "saints," who being sprinkled with
the blood of Jesus Christ, (1 Pet. i, 2,) and sealed with the
characters of the Holy Spirit, the sacred fountain of all
holiness, have been illustrious in this world by the sanctity
of their lives, which flows from their spiritual union with
Christ; but who, as it regards the body, being now dead,
still live in heaven with Christ as it regards the soul.
(Rev. xiv, 13.) Of this description were the patriarchs of
old, the prophets, the apostles, the martyrs, and others like
them. The invocation of saints is that by which men have
recourse to their intercessions, interest, patronage and
assistance, for the sake of imploring, intreating, and
obtaining their aid.
II. But the papists assert, that the saints are invoked for
three reasons: (1.) That they may vouchsafe to intercede by
their prayers and their suffrages. (2.) That, through their
merits, and on account of them, they may obtain by their
petitions the things which are asked of them. (3.) That they
may themselves bestow the benefits which are required. For
the papists have invested departed saints with these three
qualities; that, being nearer to God, they have greater
freedom of access to him and to Christ, than the faithful who
are yet their survivors in the present life; that, by works
of supererogation performed in this life, they have obtained
by their merits [the privilege] that God shall hear and grant
their prayers; and that they have been constituted by God the
administrators of those blessings which are asked of them:
And thus are they appointed mediators, both by merit and
efficacy, between God, nay between Christ and living
believers.
III. Yet upon all these things the papists have not had the
hardihood to erect, as a superstructure, the necessity of
invoking the saints: They only say that "It is good and
useful suppliantly to invoke them;" and that "those persons
hold an impious opinion who deny that the saints ought to be
invoked." (Can. and Dec. Coun. of Trent, Sess. 25, c. 2.) But
perhaps by these last words, which have an ambiguous meaning,
they wished to intimate the existence of this necessity. For
not only does he deny that saints ought to be invoked, who
says that it is not necessary to invoke them, but likewise he
who says that it is not lawful: The words, when strictly
taken, bear the former signification, that invocation is not
necessary; but the latter meaning of its unlawfulness, when
they are understood as opposed to the words which preceded.
Even Bellarmine, when he had affixed this title, "The saints
ought to be invoked," immediately subjoined the following
thesis: "The saints are piously and usefully invoked by the
living." (De Beat. Sanct. lib. 1, c. 19.) But that most
subtle and evasive council often trifled with ambiguous
expressions, being either compelled into such a course on
account of the dissensions among its chief members, or else
being perversely ingenious on account of its adversaries,
whose blows it would not otherwise have been able, with any
degree of speciousness, to avoid. We will, therefore, inquire
concerning the invocation of saints, Is it necessary? Is it
lawful and useful?
IV. With regard to the First of these questions, we say,
(whether the papists assent to our affirmation or dissent
from it,) that it is not necessary for believers in the
present state of existence to invoke the saints who are
engaged with Christ in heaven. And since this necessity is --
either according to the duty which surviving believers are
bound to perform to the saints who have departed out of this
life, and who are living with Christ; or according to the end
for the sake of obtaining which, invocation is laid down as a
necessary means; we affirm that, by neither of these methods
is the invocation of saints necessary.
V. (1.) It is not necessary in reference to duty; because the
invocation of saints has neither been commanded by God, nor
is it sanctioned with any promise or threatening, which it
would of necessity have been if it had to be performed as a
duty by the faithful during their continuance in the world.
(2.) It is not necessary in reference to the means; because
neither the merits nor the intervening administration of the
saints is necessary to solicit and to obtain the blessings
which the faithful in the present life make the subject of
their prayers; for otherwise, the mediation and
administration of Christ either are not sufficient, or they
cannot be obtained except through the intercession of
departed saints, both of which are false; and that man who
was the first of the saints to enter heaven, neither required
nor employed any saint as a previous intercessor.
VI. Since, therefore, it is not necessary, that believers now
living upon earth should invoke the saints who reign with
Christ, if the papists take any pleasure in the approval of a
good conscience, they ought to employ the utmost
circumspection in ascertaining, whether it is not the better
course to omit this invocation than to perform it, even
though it might be made a subject of disputation whether or
not it be lawful, about which we shall afterwards inquire. We
affirm that it is preferable to omit all such invocation, and
we support this assertion by two arguments, (1.) Since
"whatever is not of faith," that is, whatsoever does not
proceed from a conscience which is fully persuaded that the
thing performed is pleasing to God, "is sin;" and since that
may, therefore, be omitted without sin, about which even the
smallest doubt may be entertained respecting its lawfulness,
since it is found that it is not necessary; it follows from
these premises, that it is better to omit than to perform
invocation. (2.) Since the papists themselves confess, "that
the difference between the worship of latria and that of
dulia, or between divine and human adoration, is so great,
that the man who presents that of latria to any object to
which no more than dulia is due, is guilty of idolatry;" and
since it is a matter of the greatest difficulty for the
common people, who are ignorant and illiterate yet full of
devotion to the saints, to observe this difference at all
times and without any error; there is much danger lest those
who invoke saints should fall into idolatry. This is a reason
which also militates against the invocation of saints, even
though it were proved that such invocation is lawful.
VII. The next inquiry is, "Is the invocation of saints lawful
and useful?" Or, as the Council of Trent has expressed it,
"Is it good and useful to invoke the saints?" Or, according
to Bellarmine's phraseology, "Are the saints piously and
usefully invoked?" (De Beat. Sanct. lib. 1, cap, 19.) We who
hold the negative, say, that it is neither pious nor useful
to invoke the saints. We prove this assertion, first,
generally; secondly, specially, according to the particular
respects in which the papists invoke the saints, and maintain
that they may be invoked.
VIII. First. We prove generally, that it is not pious, thus:
Since no action can, of itself and properly, come under the
appellation of piety or godliness, except that which has been
prescribed by God, by whose word and institution alone every
action is sanctified, otherwise it will be common; and since
it is certain, that the invocation of saints has not been
commanded by God, it follows that such an action cannot be
called "pious." Some action may, however, be called "pious"
by a metalepsis, because it has been undertaken for the sake
of performing a pious action. But such a case as this does
not here occur. By the same argument, we demonstrate that it
is not useful; because all religious worship, not prescribed
by God, is useless, (Lev. x, 1,) according to the express
declaration of God, (Isa. xxix, 13,) and of Christ: "But in
vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men." (Matt. xv, 9.) But the papists say,
that the invocation of saints is religious worship.
IX. Secondly. We prove the same thing, specially, according
to the relations in which the papists invest the saints when
they invoke them. (1.) We say, the saints cannot be piously
and usefully invoked as the donors of benefits; because God
has not constituted the saints dispensers of blessings either
celestial or terrestrial; for this is the office bestowed on
Christ, to whom the angels are under subjection as his
servants in this ministration. Besides, if even, in imitation
of angels, the saints did, in this world, perform their
subordinate service to Christ at the command of God; yet they
ought not on this account to be invoked; for, before this can
be done, a full power of dispensing is required, which may
distribute blessings as it pleases; but the angels render in
this world only a ministerial and instrumental service to
Christ, for which reason neither is it lawful to invoke them
as the donors of blessings. But the saints cannot, in
imitation of the angels, perform a service to Christ
ministerially and instrumentally, unless we assert that they
all ascend and descend after the manner of angels. Since,
therefore, they possess neither the power nor the capability
of bestowing blessings, it follows that they cannot be either
piously or usefully invoked as the donors of benefits. 10.
(2.) The saints cannot be piously and usefully invoked as
those who by their own merits have obtained the privilege of
being heard and answered by God; because the saints have not
been able to merit any thing for themselves or for others.
For they have accounted it needful to exclaim, with David,
"Our goodness extendeth not to thee." (Psalm xvi, 2.) And
"when they had done all those things which were commanded
them," they felt the necessity of confessing, not only with
humility but with the greatest truth, "We are unprofitable
servants;" (Luke xvii, 10;) and truly to intreat God "to
forgive the iniquity of their sins," and "not to enter into
judgment with his servants." (Psalm xxxii, 5; cxliii, 2.)
Therefore, we cannot piously plead, in our own behalf, that
which is falsely attributed to the saints; and that cannot be
usefully bestowed upon others, of which the saints themselves
had not a sufficiency.
XI. (3.) Lastly, they cannot be piously and usefully invoked
in the capacity of those who, as our friends, unite their
prayers with ours, or who intercede before God by their
prayers in our behalf; because the saints in heaven are
ignorant of our particular necessities, and of the prayers of
the faithful who are dwellers upon earth. (Isa. lxii, 16; 1
Kings viii, 36; 2 Kings xxii, 20.) For the assertions about
the mirror or glass of the trinity, is a very vain fable, and
receives its refutation from this very circumstance, that
those angels who always behold the face of God the Father,
(Matt. xviii, 20,) are said to be ignorant of the day of
judgment. (Mark xiii, 32.) Those assertions about a divine
revelation [to the saints and angels] have a foolish and
ridiculous circle; and those about the explanation which may
be given by means of angels, or of the spirits of persons
recently deceased, are equally vain; because the Scriptures
make no mention of those tokens or indications, even in a
single word: without such mention, we feel scrupulous, in
matters of such vast importance, about receiving any thing as
true, or about undertaking to do any thing as pious and
useful.
XII. We add, finally, that by the invocation of saints, the
papists are injurious towards Christ, and, therefore, cannot
engage in such invocation without sacrilege. They are unjust
to Christ in two ways: (1.) Because they communicate to the
saints the office of our Mediator and Advocate, which has
been committed by the Father to Christ alone; and the power
conferred [on that office]. (1 Tim. ii, 5; Rom. viii, 34; 1
John ii, 1.) Neither are they excused by what they say about
the saints being subordinate to Christ; for by the
circumstance of their alleging the merits of saints, and of
their invoking them as the dispensers of blessings, they
destroy this subordination and establish a collaterally. (2.)
Because they detract greatly from that benevolent affection
of Christ towards his people, from his most merciful
inclination, and from that most prompt and ready desire to
commiserate, which he manifests. These properties are
proposed to us in the Scriptures in a manner the most lucid
and plain, that, not being terrified with the consideration
of our own unworthiness, we may approach, with confidence and
freedom, to the throne of grace, "that we may obtain mercy,
and find grace to help in time of need." (Heb. iv, 16.)
XIII. When we say that the saints must not be invoked, we do
not take away all veneration from them, as the papists
calumniously assert. For we confess that their memory is to
be venerated with a grateful celebration. But we circumscribe
our veneration within these bounds: First. We commemorate
with thanksgiving the eminent gifts which have been conferred
on them, and commend them for having faithfully used those
gifts in the exercises of faith, hope and charity. Secondly.
As much as in us lies, we imitate their examples, and
endeavour to demonstrate, by our works, that the holy
conversation which they had in this world is grateful to us
who aspire to be like them. Lastly. We congratulate them on
the felicity which they enjoy with Christ in the presence of
God; and with devotion of soul we earnestly pray for the same
felicity for ourselves, while we hope and trust that we shall
enjoy it through the all-sufficient intercession of Christ,
through which, alone, they also themselves have been made
partakers of eternal happiness.
COROLLARY
In the invocation of saints, do the papists commit idolatry?
We decide in the affirmative.
DISPUTATION 25
ON MAGISTRACY
RESPONDENT: JOHN LE CHANTRE
I. Not feeling much anxiety about the origin and etymology of
the word, we say that from the manner in which it is used, it
has two meanings: for it either signifies in the abstract,
the power and the function itself; or, in the concrete, the
person who is constituted the administrator of this function
with power. But, because the abstract consideration is more
simple, and lays down the law to the concrete, therefore we
will occupy ourselves first and chiefly in the description of
it. (John xix, 10, 11; Ephes. i, 21; Rom. xiii, 1.)
II. We therefore define magistracy, in the abstract, a power
pre-eminent and administrative, or a function with a
preeminent power, instituted and preserved by God for this
purpose, that men may, in the society of their fellow-men,
"lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and
honesty," in true piety and righteousness, for their own
salvation and to the glory of God. (Rom. xiii, 1-3; 1 Tim.
ii, 2; 1 Pet. ii, 13; Prov. xxix, 4; Psalm 62; Isa. xlv, 22,
23.) For the more extensive explanation of this definition,
we will consider the object -- the efficient and the end,
which are the external causes of this function, and the
matter and the form, which are the internal causes, from
which we will derive all the rest.
III. The object of this function is the multitude of man
kind, who are sociable animals, and bound to each other by
many ties of indigence and communication according both to
nature and grace, and who live together in common society.
This object, likewise, comprehends the end for which, that
is, those for whose benefit magistracy has been instituted.
Hence, likewise, this power deservedly obtains the name of
public authority," as it is, first, immediately and
principally occupied concerning the condition and conduct of
all the people and the whole society; but, secondarily,
concerning the state and benefit of each member, though it
intends, of itself, both the good of the whole, and that of
each individual in the entire society. (Num. xi, 12; 2 Chron.
i, 9, 10; Rom. xii, 4, 5; 1 Cor. xii, 12-27; Ezek. xxxiv, 2.)
IV. The efficient cause which not only institutes magistracy,
but also maintains it, is God himself. In him must be
considered power purely free and independent, the best will,
and the greatest capability, as the principles of its
institution and preservation. (1.) Power rests on creation,
and through that, upon the right of the dominion which God
has over all created things, but especially over men. (Rom.
xiii, 1, 2; John xix, 10, 11; Psalm xxiv, 1 Jeremiah xxvii,
2, 6.) (2.) The will of God, in its institution, is through
four kinds of his love: (i.) His love of order among all
created things; (1 Cor. xiv, 33;) (ii.) His love towards men
themselves, both towards those who are placed in authority,
above others, and especially towards those who are put in
subjection; (2 Cor. ix, 8; 2 Kings xi, 17;) (iii.) His love
of obedience to his own law; (Judges ii, 16, 17; 2 Chron.
xxxiv, 31 32;) (iv.) His love of that submission which those
who are equals by nature, render to others who are their
superiors, merely through the will or good pleasure of God.
(Psalm ii, 9, 12.) (3.) But Capability, and that of the
highest kind, was likewise necessary for this purpose, both
on account of that ambition of being eminent with which men
are infected, and on account of the power or capability of an
infinite multitude; and it is employed by God through an
internal impression upon the hearts of men, of the necessity
of this order, (1 Sam. x, 26; xi, 7,) and through the
external defense of it. (Josh. i, 5-9.)
V. The end of the institution of magistracy, is the good of
the whole, and of each individual of which it is composed,
both an animal [or natural] good, "that they may lead quiet
and peaceable lives;" (1 Tim. ii, 2;) and a spiritual good,
that they may live in this world, to God, and may in heaven
enjoy that good, to the glory of God who is its author. (Rom.
xiii, 4.) For since man, according to his two-fold life,
(that is, the animal and the spiritual,) stands in need of
each kind of good, (Num. xi, 12, 13,) and is, by nature of
the image of God, capable of both kinds; (Gen. i, 26; Col.
iii, 10;) since two collateral powers cannot stand, (Matt.
vi, 24; 1 Cor. xiv, 33,) and since animal good is directed to
that which is spiritual, (Matt. vi, 33,) and animal life is
subordinate to that which is spiritual, (Gal. ii, 20; 1 Cor.
xv, 32,) it is unlawful to divide those two benefits, and to
separate their joint superintendence, either in reality or by
the administration of the supreme authority; for, if the
animal life and its good become the only objects of
solicitude, such an administration is that of cattle. But if
human society be brought to such a condition that the
spiritual life, only, prevails, then this power [of
magistracy] is no longer necessary. (1 Cor. xv, 24.)
VI. The matter, of which this administration consists, are
the acts necessary to produce that end. These actions, we
comprehend in the three following classes: (1.) The first is
Legislation, under which we also comprise the care of the
moral law, according to both tables, and the enacting of
subordinate laws with respect to places, times and persons,
by which laws, provision may be the better made for the
observance of that immovable law, and the various societies,
being restricted to certain relations, may be the more
correctly governed; that is, ecclesiastical, civil,
scholastic and domestic associations. (Exod. xviii, 18-20; 2
Chron. xix, 6-8; 2 Kings xiii, 4, 5.) (2.) The second
contains the vocation to delegated offices or duties, and the
oversight of all actions and things which are necessary to
the whole society. (Deut. i, 13, 15, 16; Exod. xviii, 21, 22;
1 Pet. ii, 14; 2 Chron. xix, 2, 8-11, Num. xi, 13-17.) (3.)
The third is either the eradication of all evils out of the
society, if they be internal, or the warding of them off, if
they be external, even with war, if that be necessary, and
the safety of society should require it. (Prov. xx, 26, 28;
Psalm ci, 8; 1 Tim. ii, 2.)
VII. The form is the power itself, according to which these
functions themselves are discharged, with an authority that
is subject to God alone, and pre-eminently above whatever is
human; (Rom. xiii, 1; Psalm lxxxii, 1, 6; Lament. iv, 20;)
for this inspires spirit and life, and gives efficacy to
these functions. It is enunciated "power by right of the
sword," by which the good may be defended, and the bad
terrified, restrained and punished, and all men compelled to
perform their prescribed duties. (Rom. xiii, 4, 5.) To this
power, as supreme, belongs the authority of demanding, from
those under subjection, tribute, custom, and other burdens.
These resemble the sinews, by which the authority and power
necessary for these functions, are held together and
established. (Rom. xiii, 6.)
VIII. But though there was no employment for this power
before the introduction of sin into the world, because there
were then only two human beings, both of whom were comprised
in one family; yet we are of opinion, that it would also have
had a place in the primitive integrity of mankind, and that
it had not its origin from the entrance of sin; for we think
this can be proved from the nature of man, who is a social
animal, and was capable of deviating from his duty -- from
the limits of this power -- from the causes which induced God
to institute it -- from the natural and moral law itself, and
from the impression of this power on the hearts of men,
provided any great number of men had been propagated prior to
the commission of the first sin. (Gen. iii, 6; 1 Tim. ii, 1-
iv, ; 1 Kings x, 9; Exod. xx, 12-17.)
IX. But this power is always the same according to the nature
of its function and the prerogative of its authority; and it
suffers no variation, either from the difference in number of
those to whom this power is confided in a monarchy, an
aristocracy, or a democracy, or from the difference of the
manner in which this power is given, whether it be derived
immediately from God, or it be obtained by human right and
custom through succession, inheritance and election. Under
all these circumstances, it remains the same, unless a
limitation, restricted to certain conditions, be added by
God, or by those who possess the right of conferring such a
power. (Josh. xxii, 12; 1 Tim. ii, 2; 1 Pet. ii, 13; Judges
20; 1 Sam. xvi, 12; 2 Sam. 1; 1 Kings xi, 11, 12; xiv, 8-10.)
And this limitation is equally binding on both parties; nor
is it lawful for him who has accepted of this authority, by
rescinding the conditions, to assume a greater power to
himself, under the pretext that those conditions are opposed
to his conscience or to his condition, and that they are even
injurious to the society itself.
X. Since the end of this power is the good of the whole, or
of the entire association of men, who belong to the same
country or state, it follows that the prince of this state is
less than the state itself, and that its benefit is not only
to be preferred to his own, but that it is also to be
purchased with his detriment, nay, at the expense of life
itself. (Ezek. xxxiv, 2-4; 1 Sam. xii, 2, 3; viii, 20.)
Though, in return, every member of the state is bound to
defend, with all his powers, yet in a lawful manner, the
life, safety and dignity of the prince, as the father of his
country. (2 Sam. xvi, 3.)
XI. From the circumstance, also, of this power having been
instituted by God and restricted within certain laws, we
conclude that it is not lawful for him who possesses it, to
lift up himself against God, to enact laws contrary to the
divine laws, and either to compel the people who are
committed to his care to the perpetration of acts which are
forbidden by God, or to prevent them from performing such
acts as he has commanded. If he acts thus, let him assuredly
know, that he must render an account to God, and that the
people are bound to obey the Almighty in preference to him.
(Deut. xvii, 18, 19; 1 Kings xii, 28-30; xiii, 2; 1 Kings
xxii, 5.) Yet, on this point, the people ought to observe two
cautions: (1.) To distinguish actions which are to be
performed, from burdens which are to be borne. (2.) To be
perfectly sure that the orders of the prince are in
opposition to the divine commands. Without a due observance
of these cautions, they will, by a precipitate judgment,
commit an act of disobedience against the prince, to whom, in
that matter, they are able, in an orderly manner, under God,
to be obedient.
XII. The functions which we have described as essential to
this power, are not subject to the arbitrary will of the
prince, whether he may neglect either the whole of them, or
one of the three. If he act thus, he renders himself unworthy
of the name of "prince;" and it would be a better course for
him to resign the dignity of his office, than to be a
trifling loiterer in the discharge of its functions. (Psalm
lxxxii, 1-8; Ezek. xi, 1-13.) But here, also, a two-fold
distinction must be used: (1.) Between a degree of idleness
accruing from the function, and vice coming into it. (2.)
Between loitering, and hindering these duties from being
performed in the commonwealth; for the latter of these faults
(hindrance) would bring speedy destruction to the society,
while the commonwealth can consist with the former,
(laziness,) provided other persons be permitted to perform
those duties.
XIII. We conclude further, from the author of the institution
-- from the end and the use of the office -- from the
functions which pertain to it, and from the pre-eminent power
itself, when they are all compared with the nature of
Christianity, that a Christian man can, with a good
conscience, accept of the office and perform the duties of
magistracy; nay, that no one is more suitable than he for
discharging the duties of this office, and, which is still
more, that no person can legitimately and perfectly fulfill
all its duties except a Christian. Yet, by this affirmation,
we do not mean to deny that a legitimate magistracy exists
among other nations than those which are Christian. (Acts x,
31, 48; Exod. xviii, 20-23.)
XIV. Lastly. Because this power is pre eminent, we assert
that every soul is subject to it by divine right, whether he
be a layman or a clergyman, a deacon, priest, or bishop, an
archbishop, cardinal, or patriarch, or even the Roman pontiff
himself; so that it is the duty of every one to obey the
commands of the magistrate, to acknowledge his tribunal, to
await the sentence, and to submit to the punishment which he
may award. From such obedience and subjection the prince
himself cannot grant any man immunity and exemption; although
in apportioning those burdens which are to be borne, he can
yield his prerogative to some persons. (Rom. xiii, 1; 1 Pet.
ii, 13; v, 1; John xix, 10, 11; Acts xxv, 1, 10; 1 Kings i,
26, 27; Rom. xiii, 5.)
END OF THE PUBLIC DISPUTATIONS.