Institutes of The Christian Religion

By John Calvin

A New Translation, by Henry Beveridge, Esq

Volume First

Edinburgh: Printed for The Calvin Translation Society
M.DCCC.XLV

Table of Contents of this Electronic Version:

The Printers to the Reders.
The Original Translator's Preface.
Prefatory Address
The Epistle to the Reader
Subject of the Present Work
Epistle to the Reader
Method and Arrangement, or Subject of the Whole Work
General Index of Chapters
 Book First
 Book Second
 Book Third
 Book Fourth
Book First: Of the Knowledge of God the Creator
 1. The knowledge of God and of ourselves mutually connected. -
 Nature of the connection.
 2. What it is to know God,--Tendency of this knowledge.
 3. The knowledge of God naturally implanted in the human mind.
 4. The knowledge of god stifled or corrupted, ignorantly or
 maliciously.
 5. The knowledge of God conspicuous in the creation, and continual
 government of the world.
 6. The need of Scripture, as a guide and teacher, in coming to God
 as a Creator.
 7. The testimony of the Spirit necessary to give full authority to
 Scripture. The impiety of pretending that the credibility of
 scripture depends on the judgement of the church.
 8. The credibility of Scripture sufficiently proved in so far as
 natural reason admits.
 9. All the principles of piety subverted by fanatics, who
 substitute revelations for Scripture.
 10. In Scripture, the true God opposed, exclusively, to all the
 gods of the heathen.
 11. Impiety of attributing a visible form to God. - The setting up
 of idols a defection from the true God.
 12. God distinguished from idols, that He may be the exclusive
 object of worship.
 13. The unity of the Divine Essence in three Persons taught, in
 Scripture, from the foundation of the world.
 14. In the creation of the world, and all things in it, the true
 God distinguished by certain marks from fictitious gods.
 15. State in which man was created. The faculties of the soul - The
 image of God - Free will - Original righteousness.
 16. The world, created by God, still cherished and protected by
 Him. Each and all of its parts governed by His providence.
 17, Use to be made of the doctrine of providence.
 18. The instrumentality of the wicked employed by God, while He
 continues free from every taint.

The Institution of The Christian Religion, wrytten in Latine, by
maister Ihon Calvin, and translated into English according to the
authors last edition.

Seen and allowed according to the order appointed in the
Queries maiesties injunctions.

Imprinted at London by Reinolde Wolfe & Richards Harison. Anno.
1561. Cam privilegio ad imprimendum folum.

The Printers to the Reders.

Whereas some men have thought and reported it to be [very great
negligence in us for that we have so long kept back from you [this,]
being so profitable a work for you, namely fithe maister J[ohnne]
Dawes had translated it and delivered it into our handes more than a
tweluemoneth past: you shall understande for our excuse in that
behalfe, that we could not wel imprinte it soner. For we have ben by
diverse necessarie causes constrained with our earnest entreatance
to procure an other frede or oures to translate it whole again. This
translation, we trust, you shall well allow. For it hath not only
ben faithfully done by the translator himself, but also hath ben
wholly perused by such men, whoes ingement and credit al the godly
learned in Englande well knowe I estheme. But since it is now come
forth, we pray you accept it, and see it. If any faultes have passed
us by oversight, we beseche you let us have your patience, as you
have had our diligence.

The Institution of Christian Religion, written in Latine by M. John
Calvine, and translated into English according to the Authors last
edition, with sundry Tables to finde the principall matters
entreated of in this booke, and also the declaration of places of
Scripture therein expounded, by Thomas Norton.
Whereunto there are newly added in the margent of the booke, notes
containing in briefs the substance of the matter handled in each
Section.

Printed at London by Arnold Hatfield, for Bonham Norton. 1599

The Original Translator's Preface.

Prefixed to the fourth edition 1581, and reprinted verbatim in all
the subsequent editions.

T[homas] N[orton], the Translator to the Reader.

Good reader, here is now offered you, the fourth time printed in
English, M. Calvin's book of the Institution of Christian Religion;
a book of great labour to the author, and of great profit to the
Church of God. M. Calvin first wrote it when he was a young man, a
book of small volume, and since that season he has at sundry times
published it with new increases, still protesting at every edition
himself to be one of those qui scribendo proficiunt, et proficiendo
scribunt, which with their writing do grow in profiting, and with
their profiting do proceed in writing. At length having, in many
[of] his other works, travelled about exposition of sundry books of
the Scriptures, and in the same finding occasion to discourse of
sundry common-places and matters of doctrine, which being handled
according to the occasions of the text that were offered him, and
not in any other method, were not so ready for the reader's use, he
therefore entered into this purpose to enlarge this book of
Institutions, and therein to treat of all those titles and
commonplaces largely, with this intent, that whensoever any occasion
fell in his other books to treat of any such cause, he would not
newly amplify his books of commentaries and expositions therewith,
but refer his reader wholly to this storehouse and treasure of that
sort of divine learning. As age and weakness grew upon him, so he
hastened his labour; and, according to his petition to God, he in
manner ended his life with his work, for he lived not long after.
    So great a jewel was meet to be made most beneficial, that is
to say, applied to most common use. Therefore, in the very beginning
of the Queen's Majesty's most blessed reign, I translated it out of
Latin into English for the commodity of the Church of Christ, at the
special request of my dear friends of worthy memory, Reginald Wolfe
and Edward Whitchurch, the one her Majesty's printer for the Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin tongues, the other her Highness' printer of the
books of Common Prayer. I performed my work in the house of my said
friend, Edward Whitchurch, a man well known of upright heart and
dealing, an ancient zealous gospeller, as plain and true a friend as
ever I knew living, and as desirous to do anything to common good,
especially by the advancement of true religion.
    At my said first edition of this book, I considered how the
author thereof had of long time purposely laboured to write the same
most exactly, and to pack great plenty of matter in small room of
words; yea, and those so circumspectly and precisely ordered, to
avoid the cavillations of such as for enmity to the truth therein
contained would gladly seek and abuse all advantages which might be
found by any oversight in penning of it, that the sentences were
thereby become so full as nothing might well be added without idle
superfluity, and again so highly pared, that nothing could be
minished without taking away some necessary substance of matter
therein expressed. This manner of writing, beside the peculiar terms
of arts and figures, and the difficulty of the matters themselves,
being throughout interlaced with the school men's controversies,
made a great hardness in the author's own book, in that tongue
wherein otherwise he is both plentiful and easy, insomuch that it
sufficeth not to read him once, unless you can be content to read in
vain. This consideration encumbered me with great doubtfulness for
the whole order and frame of my translation. If I should follow the
words, I saw that of necessity the hardness in the translation must
needs be greater than was in the tongue wherein it was originally
written. If I should leave the course of words, and grant myself
liberty after the natural manner of my own tongue, to say that in
English which I conceived to be his meaning in Latin, I plainly
perceived how hardly I might escape error, and on the other side, in
this matter of faith and religion, how perilous it was to err. For I
durst not presume to warrant myself to have his meaning without his
words. And they that wet what it is to translate well and
faithfully, especially in matters of religion, do know that not the
only grammatical construction of words sufficeth, but the very
building and order to observe all advantages of vehemence or grace,
by placing or accent of words, maketh much to the true setting forth
of a writer's mind.
    In the end, I rested upon this determination, to follow the
words so near as the phrase of the English tongue would suffer me.
Which purpose I so performed, that if the English book were printed
in such paper and letter as the Latin is, it should not exceed the
Latin in quantity. Whereby, beside all other commodities that a
faithful translation of so good a work may bring, this one benefit
is moreover provided for such as are desirous to attain some
knowledge of the Latin tongue, (which is, at this time, to be wished
in many of those men for whose profession this book most fitly
serveth,) that they shall not find any more English than shall
suffice to construe the Latin withal, except in such few places
where the great difference of the phrases of the languages enforced
me: so that, comparing the one with the other, they shall both
profit in good matter, and furnish themselves with understanding of
that speech, wherein the greatest treasures of knowledge are
disclosed.
    In the doing hereof, I did not only trust mine own wit or
ability, but examined my whole doing from sentence to sentence
throughout the whole book with conference and overlooking of such
learned men, as my translation being allowed by their judgement, I
did both satisfy mine own conscience that I had done truly, and
their approving of it might be a good warrant to the reader that
nothing should herein be delivered him but sound, unmingled, and
uncorrupted doctrine, even in such sort as the author himself had
first framed it. All that I wrote, the grave, learned, and virtuous
man, M. David Whitehead, (whom I name with honourable remembrance,)
did, among others, compare with the Latin, examining every sentence
throughout the whole book. Beside all this, I privately required
many, and generally all men with whom I ever had any talk of this
matter, that if they found anything either not truly translated, or
not plainly Englished, they would inform me thereof, promising
either to satisfy them or to amend it. Since which time, I have not
been advertised by any man of anything which they would require to
be altered. Neither had I myself, by reason of my profession, being
otherwise occupied, any leisure to peruse it. And that is the cause,
why not only at the second and third time, but also at this
impression, you have no change at all in the work, but altogether as
it was before.
    Indeed, I perceived many men well-minded and studious of this
book, to require a table for their ease and furtherance. Their
honest desire I have fulfilled in the second edition, and have added
thereto a plentiful table, which is also here inserted, which I have
translated out of the Latin, wherein the principal matters
discoursed in this book are named by their due titles in order of
alphabet, and under every title is set forth a brief sum of the
whole doctrine taught in this book concerning the matter belonging
to that title or common-place; and therewith is added the book,
chapter, and section or division of the chapter, where the same
doctrine is more largely expressed and proved. And for the readier
finding thereof, I have caused the number of the chapters to be set
upon every leaf in the book, and quoted the sections also by their
due numbers with the usual figures of algorism. And now at this last
publishing, my friends, by whose charge it is now newly imprinted in
a Roman letter and smaller volume, with divers other Tables which,
since my second edition, were gathered by M. Marlorate, to be
translated and here added for your benefit.
    Moreover, whereas in the first edition the evil manner of my
scribbling hand, the interlining of my copy, and some other causes
well known among workmen of that faculty, made very many faults to
pass the printer, I have, in the second impression, caused the book
to be composed by the printed copy, and corrected by the written;
whereby it must needs be that it was much more truly done than the
other was, as I myself do know above three hundred faults amended.
And now at this last printing, the composing after a printed copy
bringeth some ease, and the diligence used about the correction
having been right faithfully looked unto, it cannot be but much more
truly set forth. This also is performed, that the volume being
smaller, with a letter fair and legible, it is of more easy price,
that it may be of more common use, and so to more large
communicating of so great a treasure to those that desire Christian
knowledge for instruction of their faith, and guiding of their
duties. Thus, on the printer's behalf and mine, your ease and
commodity (good readers) provided for. Now resteth your own
diligence, for your own profit, in studying it.
    To spend many words in commending the work itself were
needless; yet thus much I think, I may both not unruly and not
vainly say, that though many great learned men have written books of
common-places of our religion, as Melancthon, Sarcerius, and others,
whose works are very good and profitable to the Church of God, yet
by the consenting judgement of those that understand the same, there
is none to be compared to this work of Calvin, both for his
substantial sufficiency of doctrine, the sound declaration of truth
in articles of our religion, the large and learned confirmation of
the same, and the most deep and strong confutation of all old and
new heresies; so that (the Holy Scriptures excepted) this is one of
the most profitable books for all students of Christian divinity.
Wherein, (good readers,) as I am glad for the glory of God, and for
your benefit, that you may have this profit of my travel, so I
beseech you let me have this use of your gentleness, that my doings
may be construed to such good end as I have meant them; and that if
any thing mislike you by reason of hardness, or any other cause that
may seem to be my default, you will not forthwith condemn the work,
but read it after; in which doing you will find (as many have
confessed to me that they have found by experience) that those
things which at the first reading shall displease you for hardness,
shall be found so easy as so hard matter would suffer, and, for the
most part, more easy than some other phrase which should with
greater looseness and smoother sliding away deceive your
understanding. I confess, indeed, it is not finely and pleasantly
written, nor carrieth with it such delightful grace of speech as
some great wise men have bestowed upon some foolisher things, yet it
containeth sound truth set forth with faithful plainness, without
wrong done to the author's meaning; and so, if you accept and use
it, you shall not fail to have great profit thereby, and I shall
think my labour very well employed.

Thomas Norton.

Institutions Of The Christian Religion

Prefatory Address

To his most Christian Majesty, the most mighty and illustrious
Monarch, Francis, King of the French, his Sovereign;

John Calvin prays Peace and Salvation in Christ.

    Sire, - When I first engaged in this work, nothing was farther
from my thoughts than to write what should afterwards be presented
to your Majesty. My intention was only to furnish a kind of
rudiments, by which those who feel some interest in religion might
be trained to true godliness. And I toiled at the task chiefly for
the sake of my countrymen the French, multitudes of whom I perceived
to be hungering and thirsting after Christ, while very few seemed to
have been duly imbued with even a slender knowledge of him. That
this was the object which I had in view is apparent from the work
itself, which is written in a simple and elementary form adapted for
instruction.
    But when I perceived that the fury of certain bad men had risen
to such a height in your realm, that there was no place in it for
sound doctrine, I thought it might be of service if I were in the
same work both to give instruction to my countrymen, and also lay
before your Majesty a Confession, from which you may learn what the
doctrine is that so inflames the rage of those madmen who are this
day, with fire and sword, troubling your kingdom. For I fear not to
declare, that what I have here given may be regarded as a summary of
the very doctrine which, they vociferate, ought to be punished with
confiscation, exile, imprisonment, and flames, as well as
exterminated by land and sea.
    I am aware, indeed, how, in order to render our cause as
hateful to your Majesty as possible, they have filled your ears and
mind with atrocious insinuations; but you will be pleased, of your
clemency, to reflect, that neither in word nor deed could there be
any innocence, were it sufficient merely to accuse. When any one,
with the view of exciting prejudice, observes that this doctrine, of
which I am endeavouring to give your Majesty an account, has been
condemned by the suffrages of all the estates, and was long ago
stabbed again and again by partial sentences of courts of law, he
undoubtedly says nothing more than that it has sometimes been
violently oppressed by the power and faction of adversaries, and
sometimes fraudulently and insidiously overwhelmed by lies, cavils,
and calumny. While a cause is unheard, it is violence to pass
sanguinary sentences against it; it is fraud to charge it, contrary
to its deserts, with sedition and mischief.
    That no one may suppose we are unjust in thus complaining, you
yourself, most illustrious Sovereign, can bear the witness with what
lying calumnies it is daily traduced in your presence, as aiming at
nothing else than to wrest the sceptres of kings out of their hands,
to overturn all tribunals and seats of justice, to subvert all order
and government, to disturb the peace and quiet of society, to
abolish all laws, destroy the distinctions of rank and property,
and, in short, turn all things upside down. And yet, that which you
hear is but the smallest portion of what is said: for among the
common people are disseminated certain horrible insinuations -
insinuations which, if well founded, would justify the whole world
in condemning the doctrine with its authors to a thousand fires and
gibbets. Who can wonder that the popular hatred is inflamed against
its when credit is given to those most iniquitous accusations? See,
why all ranks unite with one accord in condemning our persons and
our doctrine!
    Carried away by this feeling, those who sit in judgement merely
give utterance to the prejudices which they have imbibed at home,
and think they have duly performed their part if they do not order
punishment to be inflicted on any one until convicted, either on his
own confession, or on legal evidence. But of what crime convicted?
"Of that condemned doctrine," is the answer. But with what justice
condemned? The very essence of the defence was, not to abjure the
doctrine itself, but to maintain its truth. On this subject,
however, not a whisper is allowed!
    Justice, then, most invincible Sovereign, entitles me to demand
that you will undertake a thorough investigation of this cause,
which has hitherto been tossed about in any kind of way, and handled
in the most irregular manner, without any order of law, and with
passionate heat rather than judicial gravity.
    Let it not be imagined that I am here framing my own private
defence, with the view of obtaining a safe return to my native land.
Though I cherish towards it the feelings which become me as a man,
still, as matters now are, I can be absent from it without regret.
The cause which I plead is the common cause of all the godly and
therefore the very cause of Christ - a cause which, throughout your
realm, now lies, as it were, in despair, torn and trampled upon in
all kinds of ways, and that more through the tyranny of certain
Pharisees than any sanction from yourself. But it matters not to
inquire how the thing is done; the fact that it is done cannot be
denied. For so far have the wicked prevailed, that the truth of
Christ, if not utterly routed and dispersed, lurks as if it were
ignobly buried; while the poor Church, either wasted by cruel
slaughter or driven into exile, or intimidated and terror-struck,
scarcely ventures to breathe. Still her enemies press on with their
wonted rage and fury over the ruins which they have made,
strenuously assaulting the wall, which is already giving way.
Meanwhile, no man comes forth to offer his protection against such
furies. Any who would be thought most favourable to the truth,
merely talk of pardoning the error and imprudence of ignorant men.
For so those modest personages' speak; giving the name of error and
imprudence to that which they know to be the infallible truth of
Gods and of ignorant men to those whose intellect they see that
Christ has not despised, seeing he has deigned to entrust them with
the mysteries of his heavenly wisdom. Thus all are ashamed of the
Gospel.
    Your duty, most serene Prince, is, not to shut either your ears
or mind against a cause involving such mighty interests as these:
how the glory of God is to be maintained on the earth inviolate, how
the truth of God is to preserve its dignity, how the kingdom of
Christ is to continue amongst us compact and secure. The cause is
worthy of your ear, worthy of your investigation, worthy of your
throne.
    The characteristic of a true sovereign is, to acknowledge that,
in the administration of his kingdom, he is a minister of God. He
who does not make his reign subservient to the divine glory, acts
the part not of a king, but a robber. He, moreover, deceives himself
who anticipates long prosperity to any kingdom which is not ruled by
the sceptre of God, that is, by his divine word. For the heavenly
oracle is infallible which has declared, that "where there is no
vision the people perish," (Prov. 29: 18.)
    Let not a contemptuous idea of our insignificance dissuade you
from the investigation of this cause. We, indeed, are perfectly
conscious how poor and abject we are: in the presence of God we are
miserable sinners, and in the sight of men most despised - we are
(if you will) the mere dregs and offscourings of the world, or
worse, if worse can be named: so that before God there remains
nothing of which we can glory save only his mercy, by which, without
any merit of our own, we are admitted to the hope of eternal
salvation: and before men not even this much remains, since we can
glory only in our infirmity, a thing which, in the estimation of
men, it is the greatest ignominy even tacitly to confess. But our
doctrine must stand sublime above all the glory of the world, and
invincible by all its power, because it is not ours, but that of the
living God and his Anointed, whom the Father has appointed King,
that he may rule from sea to sea, and from the rivers even to the
ends of the earth; and so rule as to smite the whole earth and its
strength of iron and brass, its splendour of gold and silver, with
the mere rod of his mouth, and break them in pieces like a potter's
vessel; according to the magnificent predictions of the prophets
respecting his kingdom, (Dan. 2: 34; Isaiah 11: 4; Psalm 2: 9.)
    Our adversaries, indeed, clamorously maintain that our appeal
to the word of God is a mere pretext, - that we are, in fact, its
worst corrupters. How far this is not only malicious calumny, but
also shameless effrontery, you will be able to decide, of your own
knowledge, by reading our Confession. Here, however, it may be
necessary to make some observations which may dispose, or at least
assist, you to read and study it with attention.
    When Paul declared that all prophecy ought to be according to
the analogy of faiths (Rom. 12: 6,) he laid down the surest rule for
determining the meaning of Scripture. Let our doctrine be tested by
this rule and our victory is secure. For what accords better and
more aptly with faith than to acknowledge ourselves divested of all
virtue that we may be clothed by God, devoid of all goodness that we
may be filled by Him, the slaves of sin that he may give us freedom,
blind that he may enlighten, lame that he may cure, and feeble that
he may sustain us; to strip ourselves of all ground of glorying that
he alone may shine forth glorious, and we be glorified in Him? When
these things, and others to the same effect, are said by us, they
interpose, and querulously complain, that in this way we overturn
some blind light of nature, fancied preparatives, free will, and
works meritorious of eternal salvation, with their own
supererogations also; because they cannot bear that the entire
praise and glory of all goodness, virtue, justice, and wisdom,
should remain with God. But we read not of any having been blamed
for drinking too much of the fountain of living water; on the
contrary, those are severely reprimanded who "have hewed them out
cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water," (Jer. 2: 13.)
Again, what more agreeable to faith than to feel assured that God is
a propitious Father when Christ is acknowledged as a brother and
propitiator? than confidently to expect all prosperity and gladness
from Him, whose ineffable love towards us was such that He "spared
not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all"? (Rom. 8: 32,)
than to rest in the sure hope of salvation and eternal life whenever
Christ, in whom such treasures are hid, is conceived to have been
given by the Father? Here they attack us, and loudly maintain, that
this sure confidence is not free from arrogance and presumption. But
as nothing is to be presumed of ourselves, so all things are to be
presumed of God; nor are we stript of vain-glory for any other
reason than that we may learn to glory in the Lord. Why go farther?
Take but a cursory view, most valiant King, of all the parts of our
cause, and count us of all wicked men the most iniquitous, if you do
not discover plainly, that "therefore we both labour and suffer
reproach because we trust in the living God," (1 Tim. 4: 10;)
because we believe it to be "life eternal" to know "the only true
God, and Jesus Christ," whom he has sent, (John 17: 3.) For this
hope some of us are in bonds, some beaten with rods, some made a
gazing-stock, some proscribed, some most cruelly tortured, some
obliged to flee; we are all pressed with straits loaded with dire
execrations, lacerated by slanders, and treated with the greatest
indignity.
    Look now to our adversaries, (I mean the priesthood, at whose
beck and pleasure others ply their enmity against us,) and consider
with me for a little by what zeal they are actuated. The true
religion which is delivered in the Scriptures, and which all ought
to hold, they readily permit both themselves and others to be
ignorant of, to neglect and despise; and they deem it of little
moment what each man believes concerning God and Christ, or
disbelieves, provided he submits to the judgement of the Church with
what they calls implicit faith; nor are they greatly concerned
though they should see the glory of God dishonored by open
blasphemies, provided not a finger is raised against the primacy of
the Apostolic See and the authority of holy mother Church. Why,
then, do they war for the mass, purgatory, pilgrimage, and similar
follies, with such fierceness and acerbity, that though they cannot
prove one of them from the word of God, they deny godliness can be
safe without faith in these things - faith drawn out, if I may so
express it, to its utmost stretch? Why? just because their belly is
their God, and their kitchen their religion; and they believe, that
if these were away they would not only not be Christians, but not
even men. For although some wallow in luxury, and others feed on
slender crusts, still they all live by the same pot, which without
that fuel might not only cool, but altogether freeze. He,
accordingly, who is most anxious about his stomach, proves the
fiercest champion of his faith. In short, the object on which all to
a man are bent, is to keep their kingdom safe or their belly filled;
not one gives even the smallest sign of sincere zeal.
    Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to
accuse and defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it
either hated or suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth;
they carp at it as doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what
miracles it has been confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it
against the consent of so many holy Fathers and the most ancient
custom; they urge us to confess either that it is schismatical in
giving battle to the Church, or that the Church must have been
without life during the many centuries in which nothing of the kind
was heard. Lastly, they say there is little need of argument, for
its quality may be known by its fruits, namely, the large number of
sects, the many seditious disturbances, and the great licentiousness
which it has produced. No doubt, it is a very easy matter for them,
in presence of an ignorant and credulous multitude, to insult over
an undefended cause; but were an opportunity of mutual discussion
afforded, that acrimony which they now pour out upon us in frothy
torrents, with as much license as impunity, would assuredly boil
dry.
    1. First, in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to
God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty. To
them, indeed, I very little doubt it is new, as Christ is new, and
the Gospel new; but those who are acquainted with the old saying of
Paul, that Christ Jesus "died for our sins, and rose again for our
justification," (Rom. 4: 25,) will not detect any novelty in us.
That it long lay buried and unknown is the guilty consequence of
man's impiety; but now when, by the kindness of God, it is restored
to us, it ought to resume its antiquity just as the returning
citizen resumes his rights.
    2. It is owing to the same ignorance that they hold it to be
doubtful and uncertain; for this is the very thing of which the Lord
complains by his prophets "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his
master's crib; but Israel does not know, my people does not
consider," (Isaiah 1: 3.) But however they may sport with its
uncertainty, had they to seal their own doctrine with their blood,
and at the expense of life, it would be seen what value they put
upon it. Very different is our confidence - a confidence which is
not appalled by the terrors of death, and therefore not even by the
judgement-seat of God.
    3. In demanding miracles from us, they act dishonestly; for we
have not coined some new gospel, but retain the very one the truth
of which is confirmed by all the miracles which Christ and the
apostles ever wrought. But they have a peculiarity which we have not
- they can confirm their faith by constant miracles down to the
present day! Nay rather, they allege miracles which might produce
wavering in minds otherwise well disposed; they are so frivolous and
ridiculous, so vain and false. But were they even exceedingly
wonderful, they could have no effect against the truth of God, whose
name ought to be hallowed always, and everywhere, whether by
miracles, or by the natural course of events. The deception would
perhaps be more specious if Scripture did not admonish us of the
legitimate end and use of miracles. Mark tells us (Mark 16: 20) that
the signs which followed the preaching of the apostles are wrought
in confirmation of it; so Luke also relates that the Lord "gave
testimony to the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to
be done" by the hands of the apostles, Acts 14: 3.) Very much to the
same effect are those words of the apostle, that salvation by a
preached gospel was confirmed, "the Lord bearing witness with signs
and wonders, and with divers miracles," (Heb. 2: 4.) Those things
which we are told are seals of the gospel, shall we pervert to the
subversion of the gospel? what was destined only to confirm the
truths shall we misapply to the confirmation of lies? The proper
course, therefore, is, in the first instance, to ascertain and
examine the doctrine which is said by the Evangelist to precede;
then after it has been proved, but not till then, it may receive
confirmation from miracles. But the mark of sound doctrine given by
our Saviour himself is its tendency to promote the glory not of men,
but of God, (John 7: 18; 8: 50.) Our Saviour having declared this to
be the test of doctrine, we are in error if we regard as miraculous,
works which are used for any other purpose than to magnify the name
of God. And it becomes us to remember that Satan has his miracles,
which, although they are tricks rather than true wonders, are still
such as to delude the ignorant and unwary. Magicians and enchanters
have always been famous for miracles, and miracles of an astonishing
description have given support to idolatry: these, however, do not
make us converts to the superstitions either of magicians or
idolaters. In old times, too, the Donatists used their power of
working miracles as a battering-ram, with which they shook the
simplicity of the common people. We now give to our opponents the
answer which Augustine then gave to the Donatists, (in Joan. Tract.
23,) "The Lord put us on our guard against those wonder-workers when
he foretold that false prophets would arise, who, by lying signs and
divers wonders would, if it were possible deceive the very elect,"
(Matth. 24: 24.) Paul, too, gave warning that the reign of
antichrist would be "with all power, and signs, and lying wonders,"
(2 Thess. 2: 9.)
    But our opponents tell us that their miracles are wrought not
by idols, not by sorcerers, not by false prophets, but by saints: as
if we did not know it to be one of Satan's wiles to transform
himself "into an angel of light," (2 Cor. 11: 14.) The Egyptians, in
whose neighbourhood Jeremiah was buried, anciently sacrificed and
paid other divine honours to him, (Hieron. in Praef. Jeremy.) Did
they not make an idolatrous abuse of the holy prophet of God? and
yet, in recompense for so venerating his tomb, they thought that
they were cured of the bite of serpents. What, then, shall we say
but that it has been, and always will be, a most just punishment of
God, to send on those who do not receive the truth in the love of
it, "strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"? (2 Thess. 2:
11.) We, then, have no lack of miracles, sure miracles, that cannot
be gainsaid but those to which our opponents lay claim are mere
delusions of Satan, in as much as they draw off the people from the
true worship of God to vanity.
    4. It is a calumny to represent us as opposed to the Fathers,
(I mean the ancient writers of a purer age,) as if the Fathers were
supporters of their impiety. Were the contest to be decided by such
authority (to speak in the most moderate terms,) the better part of
the victory would be ours. While there is much that is admirable and
wise in the writings of those Fathers, and while in some things it
has fared with them as with ordinary men; these pious sons,
forsooth, with the peculiar acuteness of intellect, and judgement,
and soul, which belongs to them, adore only their slips and errors,
while those things which are well said they either overlook, or
disguise, or corrupt, so that it may be truly said their only care
has been to gather dross among gold. Then, with dishonest glamour,
they assail us as enemies and despisers of the Fathers. So far are
we from despising them, that if this were the proper place, it would
give us no trouble to support the greater part of the doctrines
which we now hold by their suffrages. Still, in studying their
writings, we have endeavoured to remember, (1 Cor. 3: 21-23; see
also Augustin. Ep. 28,) that all things are ours, to serve, not lord
it over us, but that we are Christ's only, and must obey him in all
things without exception. He who does not draw this distinction will
not have any fixed principles in religion: for those holy men were
ignorant of many things, are often opposed to each other, and are
sometimes at variance with themselves.
    It is not without cause (remark our opponents) we are thus
warned by Solomon, "Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy
fathers have set," (Prov. 22: 28.) But the same rule applies not to
the measuring of fields and the obedience of faith. The rule
applicable to the latter is, "Forget also thine own people, and thy
father's house," (Ps. 45: 10.) But if they are so fond of allegory
why do they not understand the apostles, rather than any other class
of Fathers, to be meant by those whose landmarks it is unlawful to
remove? This is the interpretation of Jerome, whose words they have
quoted in their canons. But as regards those to whom they apply the
passage, if they wish the landmarks to be fixed, why do they,
whenever it suits their purpose, so freely overleap them?
    Among the Fathers there were two, the one of whom said, "Our
God neither eats nor drinks, and therefore has no need of chalices
and salvers;" and the other, "Sacred rites do not require gold, and
things which are not bought with gold, please not by gold." They
step beyond the boundary, therefore, when in sacred matters they are
so much delighted with gold, silver, ivory, marble, gems, and silks
that unless everything is overlaid with costly show, or rather
insane luxury, they think God is not duly worshipped.
    It was a Father who said, "He ate flesh freely on the day on
which others abstained from it, because he was a Christian." They
overleap the boundaries, therefore, when they doom to perdition
every soul that, during Lent, shall have tasted flesh.
    There were two Fathers, the one of whom said, "A monk not
labouring with his own hands is no better than a violent man and a
robber;" and the other, "Monks, however assiduous they may be in
study, meditation, and prayer, must not live by others." This
boundary, too, they transgressed, when they placed lazy gormandising
monks in dens and stews, to gorge themselves on other men's
substance.
    It was a Father who said, "It is a horrid abomination to see in
Christian temples a painted image either of Christ or of any saint."
nor was this pronounced by the voice of a single individual; but an
Ecclesiastical Council also decreed, "Let nought that is worshipped
be depicted on walls." Very far are they from keeping within these
boundaries when they leave not a corner without images.
    Another Father counselled, "That after performing the office of
humanity to the dead in their burial, we should leave them at rest."
These limits they burst through when they keep up a perpetual
anxiety about the dead.
    It is a Father who testifies, "That the substance of bread and
wine in the Eucharist does not cease but remains, just as the nature
and substance of man remains united to the Godhead in the Lord Jesus
Christ." This boundary they pass in pretending that, as soon as the
words of our Lord are pronounced, the substance of bread and wine
ceases, and is transubstantiated into body and blood.
    They were Fathers, who, as they exhibited only one Eucharist to
the whole Church, and kept back from it the profane and flagitous;
so they, in the severest terms, censured all those who, being
present, did not communicate. How far have they removed these
landmarks, in filling not churches only, but also private houses,
with their masses, admitting all and sundry to be present, each the
more willingly the more largely he pays, however wicked and impure
he may be, - not inviting any one to faith in Christ and faithful
communion in the sacraments, but rather vending their own work for
the grace and merits of Christ!
    There were two Fathers, the one of whom decided that those were
to be excluded altogether from partaking of Christ's sacred supper,
who, contented with communion in one kind, abstained from the other;
while the other Father strongly contends that the blood of the Lord
ought not to be denied to the Christian people, who, in confessing
him, are enjoined to shed their own blood. These landmarks, also,
they removed, when, by an unalterable law, they ordered the very
thing which the former Father punished with excommunication, and the
latter condemned for a valid reason.
    It was a Father who pronounced it rashness, in an obscure
questions to decide in either way without clear and evident
authority from Scripture. They forgot this landmark when they
enacted so many constitutions, so many canons, and so many
dogmatical decisions, without sanction from the word of God.
    It was a Father who reproved Montanus, among other heresies,
for being the first who imposed laws of fasting. They have gone far
beyond this landmark also in enjoining fasting under the strictest
laws.
    It was a Father who denied that the ministers of the Church
should be interdicted from marrying and pronounced married life to
be a state of chastity; and there were other Fathers who assented to
his decision. These boundaries they overstepped in rigidly binding
their priests to celibacy.
    It was a Father who thought that Christ only should be listened
to, from its being said, "hear him;" and that regard is due not to
what others before us have said or done, but only to what Christ,
the head of all, has commanded. This landmark they neither observe
themselves nor allow to be observed by others, while they subject
themselves and others to any master whatever, rather than Christ.
    There is a Father who contends that the Church ought not to
prefer herself to Christ, who always judges truly, whereas
ecclesiastical judges, who are but men, are generally deceived.
Having burst through this barrier also, they hesitate not to suspend
the whole authority of Scripture on the judgement of the Church.
    All the Fathers with one heart execrated, and with one mouth
protested against, contaminating the word of God with the subtleties
of sophists, and involving it in the brawls of dialecticians. Do
they keep within these limits when the sole occupation of their
lives is to entwine and entangle the simplicity of Scripture with
endless disputes, and worse than sophistical jargon? So much so,
that were the Fathers to rise from their graves, and listen to the
brawling art which bears the name of speculative theology, there is
nothing they would suppose it less to be than a discussion of a
religious nature.
    But my discourse would far exceed its just limits were I to
show, in detail, how petulantly those men shake off the yoke of the
Fathers, while they wish to be thought their most obedient sons.
Months, nay, years would fail me; and yet, so deplorable and
desperate is their effrontery, that they presume to chastise us for
overstepping the ancient landmarks!
    5. Then, again, it is to no purpose they call us to the bar of
custom. To make every thing yield to custom would be to do the
greatest injustice. were the judgements of mankind correct, custom
would be regulated by the good. But it is often far otherwise in
point of fact; for, whatever the many are seen to do, forthwith
obtains the force of custom. But human affairs have scarcely ever
been so happily constituted as that the better course pleased the
greater number. Hence the private vices of the multitude have
generally resulted in public error, or rather that common consent in
vice which these worthy men would have to be law. Any one with eyes
may perceive that it is not one flood of evils which has deluded us;
that many fatal plagues have invaded the globe; that all things rush
headlong; so that either the affairs of men must be altogether
despaired of, or we must not only resist, but boldly attack
prevailing evils. The cure is prevented by no other cause than the
length of time during which we have been accustomed to the disease.
But be it so that public error must have a place in human society,
still, in the kingdom of God, we must look and listen only to his
eternal truth, against which no series of years, no custom, no
conspiracy, can plead prescription. Thus Isaiah formerly taught the
people of God, "Say ye not, A confederacy, to all to whom this
people shall says A confederacy;" i. e. do not unite with the people
in an impious consent; "neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.
Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and
let him be your dread," (Is. 8: 12.) Now, therefore, let them, if
they will, object to us both past ages and present examples; if we
sanctify the Lord of hosts we shall not be greatly afraid. Though
many ages should have consented to like ungodliness, He is strong
who taketh vengeance to the third and fourth generation; or the
whole world should league together in the same iniquity, He taught
experimentally what the end is of those who sin with the multitude,
when He destroyed the whole human race with a flood, saving Noah
with his little family who, by putting his faith in Him alone,
"condemned the world," (Heb. 11: 7.) In short, depraved custom is
just a kind of general pestilence in which men perish not the less
that they fall in a crowd. It were well, moreover, to ponder the
observation of Cyprian, that those who sin in ignorance, though they
cannot be entirely exculpated, seem, however, to be, in some sense,
excusable; whereas those who obstinately reject the truth, when
presented to them by the kindness of God, have no defence to offer.
    6. Their dilemma does not push us so violently as to oblige us
to confess, either that the Church was a considerable time without
life, or that we have now a quarrel with the Church. The Church of
Christ assuredly has lived, and will live, as long as Christ shall
reign at the right hand of the Father. By his hand it is sustained,
by his protection defended, by his mighty power preserved in safety.
For what he once undertook he will undoubtedly perform, he will be
with his people always, "even to the end of the world," (Matth. 28:
20.) With the Church we wage no war, since, with one consent, in
common with the whole body of the faithful we worship and adore one
Gods and Christ Jesus the Lord, as all the pious have always adored
him. But they themselves err not a little from the truth in not
recognising any church but that which they behold with the bodily
eye, and in endeavouring to circumscribe it by limits, within which
it cannot be confined.
    The hinges on which the controversy turns are these: first, in
their contending that the form of the Church is always visible and
apparent; and, secondly, in their placing this form in the see of
the Church of Rome and its hierarchy. We, on the contrary, maintain,
both that the Church may exist without any apparent form, and,
moreover, that the form is not ascertained by that external
splendour which they foolishly admire, but by a very different mark,
namely, by the pure preaching of the Word of God, and the due
administration of the sacraments. They make an outcry whenever the
Church cannot be pointed to with the finger. But how oft was it the
fate of the Church among the Jews to be so defaced that no
comeliness appeared? What do we suppose to have been the splendid
form when Elijah complained that he was left alone? (1 Kings 14:
14.) How long after the advent of Christ did it lie hid without
form? How often since has it been so oppressed by wars, seditions,
and heresies, that it was nowhere seen in splendour? Had they lived
at that time, would they have believed there was any Church? But
Elijah learned that there remained seven thousand men who had not
bowed the knee to Baal; nor ought we to doubt that Christ has always
reigned on earth ever since he ascended to heaven. Had the faithful
at that time required some discernible form, must they not have
forthwith given way to despondency? And, indeed, Hilary accounted it
a very great fault in his day, that men were so possessed with a
foolish admiration of Episcopal dignity as not to perceive the
deadly-hydra lurking under that mask. His words are, (Cont.
Auxentium,) "One advice I give: Beware of Antichrist; for, unhappily
a love of walls has seized you; unhappily, the Church of God which
you venerate exists in houses and buildings; unhappily, under these
you find the name of peace. Is it doubtful that in these Antichrist
will have his seat? Safer to me are mountains, and woods, and lakes,
and dungeons, and whirlpools; since in these prophets, dwelling or
immersed, did prophesy."
    And what is it at the present day that the world venerates in
its horned bishops unless that it imagines those who are seen
presiding over celebrated cities to be holy prelates of religion?
Away, then, with this absurd mode of judging! Let us rather
reverently admit, that as God alone knows who are his, so he may
sometimes withdraw the external manifestation of his Church from the
view of men. This, I allow, is a fearful punishment which God sends
on the earth; but if the wickedness of men so deserves, why do we
strive to oppose the just vengeance of God? It was thus that God, in
past ages, punished the ingratitude of men: for after they had
refused to obey his truth, and had extinguished his light, he
allowed them, when blinded by sense, both to be deluded by lying
vanities and plunged in thick darkness, so that no face of a true
Church appeared. Meanwhile, however, though his own people were
dispersed and concealed amidst errors and darkness, he saved them
from destruction. No wonder; for he knew how to preserve them even
in the confusion of Babylon and the flame of the fiery furnace.
    But as to the wish that the form of the Church should be
ascertained by some kind of vain pomp, how perilous it is I will
briefly indicate, rather than explain, that I may not exceed all
bounds. What they say is, that the Pontiff, who holds the apostolic
see, and the priests who are anointed and consecrated by him,
provided they have the insignia of fillets and mitres, represent the
Church, and ought to be considered as in the place of the Church,
and therefore cannot err. Why so? because they are pastors of the
Church, and consecrated to the Lord. And were not Aaron and other
prefects of Israel pastors? But Aaron and his sons, though already
set apart to the priesthood, erred notwithstanding when they made
the calf, (Exod. 32: 4.) Why, according to this view, should not the
four hundred prophets who lied to Ahab represent the Church? (1
Kings 22: 11, &c.) The Church however stood on the side of Micaiah.
He was alone, indeed, and despised, but from his mouth the truth
proceeded. Did not the prophets also exhibit both the name and face
of the Church, when, with one accord, they rose up against Jeremiah,
and with menaces boasted of it as a thing impossible that the law
should perish from the priest, or counsel from the wise, or the word
from the prophet? (Jer. 18: 18.) In opposition to the whole body of
the prophets, Jeremiah is sent alone to declare from the Lord, (Jer.
4: 9,) that a time would come when the law would perish from the
priest, counsel from the wise, and the word from the prophet. Was
not like splendour displayed in that council when the chief priests,
scribes, and Pharisees, assembled to consult how they might put
Jesus to death? Let them go, then, and cling to the external mask,
while they make Christ and all the prophets of God schismatic, and,
on the other hand, make Satan's ministers the organs of the Holy
Spirit!
    But if they are sincere, let them answer me in good faith,  -
in what place, and among whom, do they think the Church resided,
after the Council of Basle degraded and deposed Eugenius from the
popedom, and substituted Amadeus in his place? Do their utmost, they
cannot deny that that Council was legitimate as far as regards
external forms, and was summoned not only by one Pontiff, but by
two. Eugenius, with the whole herd of cardinals and bishops who had
joined him in plotting the dissolution of the Council, was there
condemned of contumacy, rebellion, and schism. Afterwards, however,
aided by the favour of princes, he got back his popedom safe. The
election of Amadeus, duly made by the authority of a general holy
synod, went to smoke; only he himself was appeased with a cardinal's
cap, like a piece of offal thrown to a barking dog. Out of the lap
of these rebellious and contumacious schismatic proceeded all future
popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots, and presbyters. Here they are
caught, and cannot escape. For, on which party will they bestow the
name of Church? Will they deny it to have been a general Council,
though it lacked nothing as regards external majesty, having been
solemnly called by two bulls consecrated by the legate of the Roman
See as its president, constituted regularly in all respects, and
continuing in possession of all its honours to the last? Will they
admit that Eugenius, and his whole train, through whom they have all
been consecrated, were schismatical? Let them, then, either define
the form of the Church differently, or, however numerous they are,
we will hold them all to be schismatic in having knowingly and
willingly received ordination from heretics. But had it never been
discovered before that the Church is not tied to external pomp, we
are furnished with a lengthened proof in their own conduct, in
proudly vending themselves to the world under the specious title of
Church notwithstanding that they are the deadly pests of the Church.
I speak not of their manners and of those tragical atrocities with
which their whole life teems, since it is said that they are
Pharisees who should be heard, not imitated. By devoting some
portion of your leisure to our writings, you will see not obscurely,
that their doctrine - the very doctrine to which they say it is
owing that they are the Church - is a deadly murderer of souls, the
firebrand, ruin, and destruction of the Church
    7. Lastly, they are far from candid when they invidiously
number up the disturbances, tumults, and disputes, which the
preaching of our doctrine has brought in its trains and the fruits
which, in many instances, it now produces for the doctrine itself is
undeservedly charged with evils which ought to be ascribed to the
malice of Satan. It is one of the characteristics of the divine
word, that whenever it appears Satan ceases to slumber and sleep.
This is the surest and most unerring test for distinguishing it from
false doctrines which readily betray themselves, while they are
received by all with willing ears, and welcomed by an applauding
world. Accordingly, for several ages, during which all things were
immersed in profound darkness, almost all mankind were mere jest and
sport to the god of this world, who, like any Sardanapalus, idled
and luxuriated undisturbed. For what else could he do but laugh and
sport while in tranquil and undisputed possession of his kingdom?
But when light beaming from above somewhat dissipated the darkness -
when the strong man arose and aimed a blow at his kingdom - then,
indeed, he began to shake off his wonted torpor, and rush to arms.
And first he stirred up the hands of men, that by them he might
violently suppress the dawning truth; but when this availed him not,
he turned to snares, exciting dissensions and disputes about
doctrine by means of his Catabaptists, and other portentous
miscreants, that he might thus obscure, and, at length, extinguish
the truth. And now he persists in assailing it with both engines,
endeavouring to pluck up the true seed by the violent hand of man,
and striving, as much as in him lies, to choke it with his tares,
that it may not grow and bear fruit. But it will be in vain, if we
listen to the admonition of the Lord, who long ago disclosed his
wiles, that we might not be taken unawares, and armed us with full
protection against all his machinations. But how malignant to throw
upon the word of God itself the blame either of the seditions which
wicked men and rebels, or of the sects which impostors stir up
against it! The example, however, is not new. Elijah was
interrogated whether it were not he that troubled Israel. Christ was
seditious, according to the Jews; and the apostles were charged with
the cringe of popular commotion. What else do those who, in the
present day, impute to us all the disturbances, tumults, and
contentions which break out against us? Elijah, however, has taught
us our answer, (1 Kings 18: 17, 18 ) It is not we who disseminate
errors or stir up tumults, but they who resist the mighty power of
God.
    But while this single answer is sufficient to rebut the rash
charges of these men, it is necessary, on the other hand, to consult
for the weakness of those who take the alarm at such scandals, and
not infrequently waver in perplexity. But that they may not fall
away in this perplexity, and forfeit their good degree, let them
know that the apostles in their day experienced the very things
which now befall us. There were then unlearned and unstable men who,
as Peter tells us, (2 Pet. 3: 16,) wrested the inspired writings of
Paul to their own destruction. There were despisers of God, who,
when they heard that sin abounded in order that grace might more
abound, immediately inferred "We will continue in sin that grace may
abound," (Rom. 6: 1;) -  when they heard that believers were not
under the law, but under grace, forthwith sung out, "We will sin
because we are not under the law, but under grace," (Rom. 6: 15.)
There were some who charged the apostle with being the minister of
sin. Many false prophets entered in privily to pull down the
churches which he had reared. Some preached the gospel through envy
and strife, not sincerely, - (Phil. 1: 15,) - maliciously even, -
thinking to add affliction to his bonds. Elsewhere the gospel made
little progress. All sought their own, not the things which were
Jesus Christ's. Others went back like the dog to his vomit, or the
sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. Great numbers
perverted their spiritual freedom to carnal licentiousness. False
brethren crept in to the imminent danger of the faithful. Among the
brethren themselves various quarrels arose. What, then, were the
apostles to do? Were they either to dissemble for the time, or
rather lay aside and abandon that gospel which they saw to be the
seed-bed of so many strifes, the source of so many perils the
occasion of so many scandals? In straits of this kind, they
remembered that "Christ was a stone of stumbling, and a rock of
offence," "set up for the fall and rising again of many," and "for a
sign to be spoken against," (Luke 2: 34;) and, armed with this
assurance, they proceeded boldly through all perils from tumults and
scandals. It becomes us to be supported by the same consideration,
since Paul declares that it is a never-failing characteristic of the
gospel to be a "savour of death unto death in them that perish" (2
Cor. 2: 16,) although rather destined to us for the purpose of being
a savour of life unto life, and the power of God for the salvation
of believers. This we should certainly experience it to be, did we
not by our ingratitude corrupt this unspeakable gift of God, and
turn to our destruction what ought to be our only saving defence.
    But to return, Sire. Be not moved by the absurd insinuations
with which our adversaries are striving to frighten you into the
belief that nothing else is wished and aimed at by this new gospel,
(for so they term it,) than opportunity for sedition and impunity
for all kinds of vice. Our God' is not the author of division, but
of peace; and the Son of God, who came to destroy the works of the
devil, is not the minister of sin. We, too, are undeservedly charged
with desires of a kind for which we have never given even the
smallest suspicion. We, forsooth, meditate the subversion of
kingdoms; we, whose voice was never heard in faction, and whose
life, while passed under you, is known to have been always quiet and
simple; even now, when exiled from our home, we nevertheless cease
not to pray for all prosperity to your person and your kingdom. We,
forsooth, are aiming after an unchecked indulgence in vice, in whose
manners, though there is much to be blamed, there is nothing which
deserves such an imputation; nor (thank God) have we profited so
little in the Gospel that our life may not be to these slanderers an
example of chastity, kindness, pity, temperance, patience,
moderation, or any other virtue. It is plain, indeed, that we fear
God sincerely, and worship him in truth, since, whether by life or
by death we desire his name to be hallowed; and hatred herself has
been forced to bear testimony to the innocence and civil integrity
of some of our people on whom death was inflicted for the very thing
which deserved the highest praise. But if any, under pretext of the
Gospel, excite tumults, (none such have as yet been detected in your
realm,) if any use the liberty of the grace of God as a cloak for
licentiousness, (I know of numbers who do,) there are laws and legal
punishments by which they may be punished up to the measure of their
deserts, - only, in the meantime, let not the Gospel of God be evil
spoken of because of the iniquities of evil men.
    Sire, That you may not lend too credulous an ear to the
accusations of our enemies, their virulent injustice has been set
before you at sufficient length; I fear even more than sufficient,
since this preface has grown almost to the bulk of a full apology.
My object, however, was not to frame a defence, but only with a view
to the hearing of our cause, to mollify your mind, now indeed turned
away and estranged from us - I add, even inflamed against us - but
whose good will, we are confident, we should regain, would you but
once, with calmness and composure, read this our Confession, which
we desire your Majesty to accept instead of a defence. But if the
whispers of the malevolent so possess your ear, that the accused are
to have no opportunity of pleading their cause; if those vindictive
furies, with your connivance, are always to rage with bonds,
scourgings, tortures, maimings, and burnings, we, indeed, like sheep
doomed to slaughter, shall be reduced to every extremity; yet so
that in our patience, we will possess our souls, and wait for the
strong hand of the Lord, which, doubtless, will appear in its own
time, and show itself armed, both to rescue the poor from
affliction, and also take vengeance on the despisers, who are now
exulting so securely.
    Most illustrious King, may the Lord, the King of kings,
establish your throne in righteousness and your sceptre in equity.
    
    Basle, 1st August 1636.

The Epistle to the Reader

[Prefixed to the second edition, published at Strasburg in 1539.]

    
    In the First Edition of this work, having no expectation of the
success which God has, in his goodness, been pleased to give it, I
had, for the greater part, performed my office perfunctorily, as is
usual in trivial undertakings. But when I perceived that almost all
the godly had received it with a favour which I had never dared to
wish, far less to hope for, being sincerely conscious that I had
received much more than I deserved, I thought I should be very
ungrateful if I did not endeavour, at least according to my humble
ability, to respond to the great kindness which had been expressed
towards me, and which spontaneously urged me to diligence. I
therefore ask no other favour from the studious for my new work than
that which they have already bestowed upon me beyond my merits. I
feel so much obliged, that I shall be satisfied if I am thought not
to have made a bad return for the gratitude I owe. This return I
would have made much earlier, had not the Lord, for almost two whole
years, exercised me in an extraordinary manner. But it is soon
enough if well enough. I shall think it has appeared in good season
when I perceive that it produces some fruit to the Church of God. I
may add, that my object in this work was to prepare and train
students of theology for the study of the Sacred Volume, so that
they might both have an easy introduction to it, and be able to
proceed in it, with unfaltering step, seeing I have endeavoured to
give such a summary of religion in all its parts, and have digested
it into such an order as may make it not difficult for any one, who
is rightly acquainted with it, to ascertain both what he ought
principally to look for in Scripture, and also to what head he ought
to refer whatever is contained in it. Having thus, as it were, paved
the way, I shall not feel it necessary, in any Commentaries on
Scripture which I may afterwards publish, to enter into long
discussions of doctrines or dilate on common places, and will,
therefore, always compress them. In this way the pious reader will
be saved much trouble and weariness, provided he comes furnished
with a knowledge of the present work as an essential prerequisite.
As my Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans will give a specimen
of this plan, I would much rather let it speak for itself than
declare it in words. Farewell, dear reader, and if you derive any
fruit from my labours, give me the benefit of your prayers to the
Lord.
    
    Strasbourg, 1st August 1539.

    

    

Subject of the Present Work

[Prefixed to the French Edition, published at Geneva in 1545.]

    In order that my Readers may be the better able to profit by
the present work, I am desirous briefly to point out the advantage
which they may derive from it. For by so doing I will show them the
end at which they ought to aim, and to which they ought to give
their attention in reading it.
    Although the Holy Scriptures contain a perfect doctrine, to
which nothing can be added - our Lord having been pleased therein to
unfold the infinite treasures of his wisdom - still every person,
not intimately acquainted with them, stands in need of some guidance
and direction, as to what he ought to look for in them, that he may
not wander up and down, but pursue a certain path, and so attain the
end to which the Holy Spirit invites him.
    Hence it is the duty of those who have received from God more
light than others to assist the simple in this matter, and, as it
were, lend them their hand to guide and assist them in finding the
sum of what God has been pleased to teach us in his word. Now, this
cannot be better done in writing than by treating in succession of
the principal matters which are comprised in Christian philosophy.
For he who understands these will be prepared to make more progress
in the school of God in one day than any other person in three
months, inasmuch as he, in a great measure, knows to what he should
refer each sentence, and has a rule by which to test whatever is
presented to him.
    Seeing, then, how necessary it was in this manner to aid those
who desire to be instructed in the doctrine of salvation, I have
endeavoured, according to the ability which God has given me, to
employ myself in so doing, and with this view have composed the
present book. And first I wrote it in Latin, that it might be
serviceable to all studious persons, of what nation soever they
might be; afterwards, desiring to communicate any fruit which might
be in it to my French countrymen, I translated it into our own
tongue. I dare not bear too strong a testimony in its favour, and
declare how profitable the reading of it will be, lest I should seem
to prize my own work too highly. However I may promise this much,
that it will be a kind of key opening up to all the children of God
a right and ready access to the understanding of the sacred volume.
Wherefore, should our Lord give me henceforth means and opportunity
of composing some Commentaries, I will use the greatest possible
brevity, as there will be no occasion to make long digressions,
seeing that I have in a manner deduced at length all the articles
which pertain to Christianity.
    And since we are bound to acknowledge that all truth and sound
doctrine proceed from God, I will venture boldly to declare what I
think of this work, acknowledging it to be God's work rather than
mine. To him, indeed, the praise due to it must be ascribed. My
opinion of the work then is this: I exhort all, who reverence the
word of the Lord, to read it, and diligently imprint it on their
memory, if they would, in the first place, have a summary of
Christian doctrine, and, in the second place, an introduction to the
profitable reading both of the Old and New Testament. When they
shall have done so, they will know by experience that I have not
wished to impose upon them with words. Should any one be unable to
comprehend all that is contained in it, he must not, however, give
it up in despair; but continue always to read on, hoping that one
passage will give him a more familiar exposition of another. Above
all things, I would recommend that recourse be had to Scripture in
considering the proofs which I adduce from it.

    

    

Epistle to the Reader

[Prefixed to the last Edition, revised by the Author.]

    In the First Edition of this work, having not the least
expectation of the success which God, in his boundless goodness, has
been pleased to give it, I had, for the greater part, performed my
task in a perfunctory manner, (as is usual in trivial undertakings;)
but when I understood that it had been received, by almost all the
pious with a favour which I had never dared to ask, far less to hope
for, the more I was sincerely conscious that the reception was
beyond my deserts, the greater I thought my ingratitude would be,
if, to the very kind wishes which had been expressed towards me, and
which seemed of their own accord to invite me to diligence, I did
not endeavour to respond, at least according to my humble ability.
This I attempted not only in the Second Edition, but in every
subsequent one the work has received some improvement. But though I
do not regret the labour previously expended, I never felt satisfied
until the work was arranged in the order in which it now appears.
Now I trust it will approve itself to the judgement of all my
readers. As a clear proof of the diligence with which I have
laboured to perform this service to the Church of God, I may be
permitted to mention, that last winter, when I thought I was dying
of quartan ague, the more the disorder increased, the less I spared
myself, in order that I might leave this book behind me, and thus
make some return to the pious for their kind urgency. I could have
wished to give it sooner, but it is soon enough if good enough. I
shall think it has appeared in good time when I see it more
productive of benefit than formerly to the Church of God. This is my
only wish.
    And truly it would fare ill with me if, not contented with the
approbation of God alone, I were unable to despise the foolish and
perverse censures of ignorant as well as the malicious and unjust
censures of ungodly men. For although, by the blessing of God, my
most ardent desire has been to advance his kingdoms and promote the
public good, - although I feel perfectly conscious, and take God and
his angels to witness, that ever since I began to discharge the
office of teacher in the Church, my only object has been to do good
to the Church, by maintaining the pure doctrine of godliness, yet I
believe there never was a man more assailed, stung, and torn by
calumny [as well by the declared enemies of the truth of God, as by
many worthless persons who have crept into his Church - as well by
monks who have brought forth their frocks from their cloisters to
spread infection wherever they come, as by other miscreants not
better than they.] After this letter to the reader was in the press,
I had undoubted information that, at Augsburg, where the Imperial
Diet was held, a rumour of my defection to the papacy was
circulated, and entertained in the courts of the princes more
readily than might have been expected. This, forsooth, is the return
made me by those who certainly are not unaware of numerous proofs of
my constancy - proofs which, while they rebut the foul charge, ought
to have defended me against it, with all humane and impartial
judges. But the devil, with all his crew, is mistaken if he imagines
that, by assailing me with vile falsehoods, he can either cool my
zeal, or diminish my exertions. I trust that God, in his infinite
goodness, will enable me to persevere with unruffled patience in the
course of his holy vocation. Of this I give the pious reader a new
proof in the present edition.
    I may further observe, that my object in this work has been, so
to prepare and train candidates for the sacred office, for the study
of the sacred volume, that they may both have an easy introduction
to it, and be able to prosecute it with unfaltering step; for, if I
mistake not, I have given a summary of religion in all its parts,
and digested it in an order which will make it easy for any one, who
rightly comprehends it, to ascertain both what he ought chiefly to
look for in Scripture, and also to what head he ought to refer
whatever is contained in it. Having thus, as it were, paved the way,
as it will be unnecessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture which I
may afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrinal
points, and enlarge on commonplaces, I will compress them into
narrow compass. In this way much trouble and fatigue will be spared
to the pious reader, provided he comes prepared with a knowledge of
the present work as an indispensable prerequisite. The system here
followed being set forth as in a mirror in all my Commentaries, I
think it better to let it speak for itself than to give any verbal
explanation of it.
    Farewell, kind reader: if you derive any benefit from my
labours, aid me with your prayers to our heavenly Father.
    
    Geneva, 1st August 1559.
    
         The zeal of those whose cause I undertook,
         Has swelled a short defence into a book.
    
    "I profess to be one of those who, by profiting, write, and by
writing profit."--Augustine, Epist. 7.

Method and Arrangement, or Subject of the Whole Work

[From an Epitome of the Institutions, by Gaspar Olevian.]

    The subject handled by the author of these Christian Institutes
is twofold: the former, the knowledge of God, which leads to a
blessed immortality; and the latter, (which is subordinate to the
former,) the knowledge of ourselves. With this view the author
simply adopts the arrangement of the Apostles' Creed, as that with
which all Christians are most familiar. For as the Creed consists of
four parts, the first relating to God the Father, the second to the
Son, the third to the Holy Spirit, and the fourth to the Church, so
the author, in fulfilment of his task, divides his Institutes into
four parts, corresponding to those of the Creed. Each of these parts
it will now be proper to explain separately.
    I. The first article of the Apostles' Creed is concerning God
the Father, the creation, preservation, and government of the
universe, as implied in his omnipotence. Accordingly, the First Book
of the Institutes treats of the knowledge of God, considered as the
Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the world, and of every thing
contained in it. It shows both wherein the true knowledge of the
Creator consists, and what the end of this knowledge is, chap. 1 and
2; that it is not learned at school, but that every one is
self-taught it from the womb, chap. 3. Such, however, is man's
depravity, that he stifles and corrupts this knowledge, partly by
ignorance, partly by wicked design; and hence does not by means of
it either glorify God as he ought, or attain to happiness, chap. 4.
This inward knowledge is aided from without, namely by the creatures
in which, as in a mirror, the perfections of God may be
contemplated. But man does not properly avail himself of this
assistance, and hence to those to whom God is pleased to make
himself more intimately known for salvation, he communicates his
written word. This leads to a consideration of the Holy Scriptures,
in which God has revealed that not the Father only, but along with
the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, is that Creator of heaven and
earth, whom, in consequence of our innate depravity we were unable,
either from innate natural knowledge, or the beautiful mirror of the
world, to know so as to glorify. Here the author treats of the
manifestation of God in Scripture; and in connection with it, of the
one divine essence in three persons. But, lest man should lay the
blame of his voluntary blindness on God, the author shows in what
state man was created at first, introducing dissertations on the
image of God, free will, and original righteousness. The subject of
Creation being thus disposed of, the preservation and government of
the world is considered in the three last chapters, which contain a
very full discussion of the doctrine of Divine Providence.
    II. As man, by sinning, forfeited the privileges conferred on
him at his creation, recourse must be had to Christ. Accordingly,
the next article in the Creed is, "And in Jesus Christ his only Son,
&c.". In like manner, the Second Book of the Institutes treats of
the knowledge of God considered as a Redeemer in Christ, And showing
man his falls conducts him to Christ the Mediator. Here the subject
of original sin is considered, and it is shown that man has no means
within himself, by which he can escape from guilt, and the impending
curse: that, on the contrary, until he is reconciled and renewed,
every thing that proceeds from him is of the nature of sin. This
subject is considered as far as the 6th chapter. Man being thus
utterly undone in himself, and incapable of working out his own cure
by thinking a good thought, or doing what is acceptable to God, must
seek redemption without himself viz., in Christ. The end for which
the Law was given, was not to secure worshipers for itself, but to
conduct them unto Christ. This leads to an exposition of the Moral
Law. Christ was known to the Jews under the Law as the author of
salvation, but is more fully revealed under the Gospel in which he
was manifested to the world. Hence arises the doctrine concerning
the similarity and difference of the two Testaments, the Old and the
New, the Law and the Gospel. These topics occupy as far as the 12th
chapter. It is next shown that, in order to secure a complete
salvation, it was necessary that the eternal Son of God should
become man, and assume a true human nature. It is also shown in what
way these two natures constitute one person. In order to purchase a
full salvation by his own merits, and effectually apply it, Christ
was appointed to the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. The mode
in which Christ performs these offices is considered, and also
whether in point of fact he did accomplish the work of redemption.
Here an exposition is given of the articles relating to Christ's
death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. In conclusion, it is
proved that Christ is rightly and properly said to have merited
divine grace and salvation for us.
    III. So long as Christ is separated from us we have no benefit
from him. We must be ingrafted in him like branches in the vine.
Hence the Creed, after treating of Christ, proceeds in its third
article, "I believe in the Holy Spirit", - the Holy Spirit being the
bond of union between us and Christ. In like manner, the Third Book
of the Institutes treats of the Holy Spirit which unites us to
Christ, and, in connection with it, of faith, by which we embrace
Christ with a double benefit, viz., that of gratuitous righteousness
which he imputes to us, and regeneration, which he begins in us by
giving us repentance. In order to show the worthlessness of a faith
which is not accompanied with a desire of repentance, the author,
before proceeding to a full discussion of justification, treats at
length from chapter 3-10 of repentance, and the constant study of it
- repentance, which Christ, when apprehended by faith, begets in us
by his Spirit. Chapter 11 treats of the primary and peculiar benefit
of Christ when united to us by the Holy Spirit, viz., justification.
This subject is continued to the 20th chapter, which treats of
prayer, the hand, as it were, to receive the blessings which faith
knows to be treasured up for it with God, according to the word of
promise. But, as the Holy Spirit, who creates and preserves our
faith, does not unite all men to Christ, who is the sole author of
salvation, chapter 21 treats of the eternal election of God, to
which it is owing that we, in whom he foresaw no good which he had
not previously bestowed, are given to Christ, and united to him by
the effectual calling of the Gospel. This subject is continued to
the 25th chapter, which treats of complete regeneration and
felicity, namely, the final resurrection to which we must raise our
eyes, seeing that, in regard to fruition, the happiness of the godly
is only begun in this world.
    IV. Since the Holy Spirit does not ingraft all men into Christ,
or endue them with faith, and those whom he does so endue he does
not ordinarily endue without means, but uses for that purpose the
preaching of the Gospel and the dispensation of the Sacraments,
together with the administration of all kinds of discipline, the
Creed contains the following article, "I believe in the Holy
Catholic Church", namely, that Church which, when lying in eternal
death, the Father, by gratuitous election, freely reconciled to
himself in Christ, and endued with the Holy Spirit, that, being
ingrafted into Christ, it might have communion with him as its
proper head; whence flow perpetual remission of sins, and full
restoration to eternal life. Accordingly the Church is treated of in
the first fourteen chapters of the Fourth Book, which thereafter
treats of the means which the Holy Spirit employs in calling us
effectually from spiritual death, and preserving the Church, in
other words, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These means are, as it
were, the royal sceptre of Christ, by which, through the efficacy of
his Spirit, he commences his spiritual reign in the Church, advances
it from day to day, and after this life, without the use of means,
finally perfects it. This subject is continued to the 20th chapter.
    And because civil governments are, in this life, the hospitable
entertainers (hospitia) of the Church (though civil government is
distinct from the spiritual kingdom of Christ,) the author shows how
great blessings they are, blessings which the Church is bound
gratefully to acknowledge, until we are called away from this
tabernacle to the heavenly inheritance, where God will be all in
all.
    Such is the arrangement of the Institutes which may be thus
summed up: Man being at first created upright, but afterwards being
not partially but totally ruined, finds his entire salvation out of
himself in Christ, to whom being united by the Holy Spirit freely
given without any foresight of future works, he thereby obtains a
double blessing, viz., full imputation of righteousness, which goes
along with us even to the grave, and the commencement of
sanctification, which daily advances till at length it is perfected
in the day of regeneration or resurrection of the body, and this, in
order that the great mercy of God may be celebrated in the heavenly
mansions, throughout eternity.

General Index of Chapters

Book First

Of the knowledge of God the Creator

Eighteen Chapters

1. Connection between the Knowledge of God and the Knowledge of
Ourselves. Nature of the connection.
2. What it is to Know God. Tendency of this Knowledge.
3. The Human Mind naturally imbued with the Knowledge of God.
4. This Knowledge stifled or corrupted, ignorantly or maliciously.
5. The Knowledge of God displayed in the fabric and constant
Government of the Universe.
6. The need of Scripture as a Guide and Teacher in coming to God as
a Creator.
7. The Testimony of the Spirit necessary to give full authority to
Scripture. The impiety of pretending that the Credibility of
Scripture depends on the judgement of the Church.
8. The Credibility of Scripture sufficiently proved, in so far as
Natural Reason admits.
9. All the principles of piety subverted by fanatics who substitute
revelations for Scripture.
X. In Scripture, the true God opposed, exclusively, to all the gods
of the Heathen.
11. Impiety of attributing a visible form to God. The setting up of
Idols a revolt against the True God.
12. God distinguished from Idols, that He may be the exclusive
object of Worship.
13. The Unity of the Divine Essence in Three Persons taught in
Scripture, from the foundation of the World.
14. In the Creation of the World, and all things in it, the True God
distinguished by certain marks from fictitious gods.
15. State in which man was created. The Faculties of the Soul - The
Image of God - Free Will - Original Righteousness.
16. The World, created by God, still cherished and protected by Him.
Each and all of its parts governed by His Providence.
17. Use to be made of this Doctrine.
18. The instrumentality of the wicked employed by God, while He
continues free from every taint.

Book Second

Of the knowledge of God the Redeemer, in Christ, as first manifested
to the fathers under the law, and thereafter to us under the Gospel

Seventeen Chapters

1. Through the Fall and revolt of Adam the whole Human race made
accursed and degenerate. Of Original Sin.
2. Man now deprived of Freedom of Will, and miserably enslaved.
3. Every thing proceeding from the corrupt Nature of Man damnable.
4. How God works in the hearts of men.
5. The Arguments usually alleged in support of Free Will refuted.
6. Redemption for lost man to be sought in Christ.
7. The Law given, not to retain a people for itself, but to keep
alive the Hope of Salvation in Christ until his Advent.
8. Exposition of the Moral Law.
9. Christ, though known to the Jews under the Law, yet only
manifested under the Gospel.
10. The resemblance between the Old Testament and the New.
11. The difference between the two Testaments.
12. Christ, to perform the Office of Mediator, behaved to become
man.
13. Christ clothed with the true substance of Human Nature.
14. How two natures constitute the Person of the Mediator.
15. Three things chiefly to be regarded in Christ; viz., his Offices
of Prophet, King, and Priest.
16. How Christ performed the Office of Redeemer in procuring our
salvation. The Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ.
17. Christ rightly and properly said to have merited Grace and
Salvation for us.

Book Third

The mode of obtaining the grace of Christ. The benefits it confers,
and the effects resulting from it.

Twenty-Five Chapters

1. The Benefits of Christ made available to us by the Secret
Operation of the Spirit.
2. Of Faith. The Definition of it. Its peculiar properties.
3. Regeneration by Faith. Of Repentance.
4. Penitence, as explained in the sophistical jargon of the
Schoolmen, widely different from the purity required by the Gospel.
Of Confession and Satisfactions.
5. Of the modes of Supplementing Satisfactions, viz., Indulgences
and Purgatory.
6. The Life of a Christian Man. Scriptural Arguments exhorting to
it.
7. A Summary of the Christian Life. Of Self-Denial.
8. Of Bearing the Cross - one branch of Self-Denial.
9. Of Meditating on the Future Life.
10. How to use the Present Life, and the comforts of it.
11. Of Justification by Faith. Both the name and the reality
defined.
12. Necessity of contemplating the Judgement-seat of God, in order
to be seriously convinced of the Doctrine of Gratuitous
Justification.
13. Two things to be observed in Gratuitous Justification.
14. The beginning of Justification. In what sense progressive.
15. The boasted merit of Works subversive both of the Glory of God,
in bestowing Righteousness, and of the certainty of Salvation.
16. Refutation of the Calumnies by which it is attempted to throw
odium on this doctrine.
17. The Promises of the Law and the Gospel reconciled.
18. The Righteousness of Works improperly inferred from Rewards.
19. Of Christian Liberty.
20. Of Prayer - a perpetual exercise of Faith. The daily benefits
derived from it.
21. Of the Eternal Election, by which God has predestinated some to
Salvation and others to Destruction.
22. This Doctrine confirmed by Proofs from Scripture.
23. Refutation of the Calumnies by which this Doctrine is always
unjustly assailed.
24. Election confirmed by the Calling of God. The Reprobate bring
upon themselves the righteous destruction to which they are doomed.
25. Of the Last Resurrection.

Book Fourth

Of the external means or helps by which God allures
us into fellowship with Christ, and keeps us in it.

Twenty Chapters

1. Of the True Church. Duty of cultivating Unity with her, as the
mother of all the godly.
2. Comparison between the False Church and the True.
3. Of the Teachers and Ministers of the Church. Their Election and
Office.
4. Of the State of the Primitive Church, and the Mode of Government
in use before the Papacy.
5. The Ancient Form of Government utterly corrupted by the tyranny
of the Papacy.
6. Of the Primacy of the Romish See.
7. Of the Beginning and Rise of the Romish Papacy, till it attained
a height by which the Liberty of the Church was destroyed, and all
true Rule overthrown.
8. Of the Power of the Church in Articles of Faith. The unbridled
license of the Papal Church in destroying Purity of Doctrine.
9. Of Councils and their Authority.
10. Of the Power of making Laws. The cruelty of the Pope and his
adherents, in this respect, in tyrannically oppressing and
destroying Souls.
11. Of the Jurisdiction of the Church and the Abuses of it, as
exemplified in the Papacy.
12. Of the Discipline of the Church, and its principal use in
Censures and Excommunication.
13. Of Vows. The miserable entanglements caused by Vowing rashly.
14. Of the Sacraments.
15. Of Baptism.
16. Paedobaptism. Its accordance with the Institution of Christ, and
the nature of the sign.
17. Of the Lord's Supper, and the benefits conferred by it.
18. Of the Popish Mass. How it not only profanes, but annihilates
the Lord's Supper.
19. Of the Five Sacraments, falsely so called. Their spuriousness
proved, and their true character explained.
20. Of Civil Government.

Institutes

of

the Christian Religion

    

Book First: Of the Knowledge of God the Creator

    
Argument
    
    The First Book treats of the knowledge of God the Creator. But
as it is in the creation of man that the divine perfections are best
displayed, so man also is made the subject of discourse. Thus the
whole book divides itself into two principal heads - the former
relating to the knowledge of God, and the latter to the knowledge of
man. In the first chapter, these are considered jointly; and in each
of the following chapters, separately: occasionally, however,
intermingled with other matters which refer to one or other of the
heads; e.g., the discussions concerning Scripture and images,
falling under the former head, and the other three concerning the
creation of the world, the holy angels and devils, falling under the
latter. The last point discussed, viz., the method of the divine
government, relates to both.
    With regard to the former head, viz., the knowledge of God, it
is shown, in the first place, what the kind of knowledge is which
God requires, Chap. 2. And, in the second place, (Chap. 3-9,) where
this knowledge must be sought, namely, not in man; because, although
naturally implanted in the human mind, it is stifled, partly by
ignorance, partly by evil intent, Chap. 3 and 4; not in the frame of
the world: because, although it shines most clearly there, we are so
stupid that these manifestations, however perspicuous, pass away
without any beneficial result, Chap. 5; but in Scripture, (Chap. 6,)
which is treated of, Chap. 7-9. In the third place, it is shown what
the character of God is, Chap. 10. In the fourth place, how impious
it is to give a visible form to God, (here images, the worship of
them, and its origin, are considered,) Chap. 11. In the fifth place,
it is shown that God is to be solely and wholly worshipped, Chap.
12. Lastly, Chap. 13 treats of the unity of the divine essence, and
the distinction of three persons.
    With regard to the latter head, viz., the knowledge of man,
first, Chap. 14 treats of the creation of the world, and of good and
bad angels (these all having reference to man.) And then Chap. 15,
taking up the subject of man himself, examines his nature and his
powers.
    The better to illustrate the nature both of God and man, the
three remaining Chapters, viz., 16-18, proceed to treat of the
general government of the world, and particularly of human actions,
in opposition to fortune and fate, explaining both the doctrine and
its use. In conclusion, it is shown, that though God employs the
instrumentality of the wicked, he is pure from sin and from taint of
every kind.

Institutes

of

the Christian Religion

Book First

Of the Knowledge of God the Creator

Chapter 1.

1. The knowledge of God and of ourselves mutually connected. -
Nature of the connection.

Sections.

1. The sum of true wisdom, viz., the knowledge of God and of
    ourselves. Effects of the latter.
2. Effects of the knowledge of God, in humbling our pride, unveiling
    our hypocrisy, demonstrating the absolute perfections of God,
    and our own utter helplessness.
3. Effects of the knowledge of God illustrated by the examples, 1.
    of holy patriarchs; 2. of holy angels; 3. of the sun and moon.
    
    1. Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and
solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge
of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many
ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and
gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey
himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in
whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the
endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay,
that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone.
In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us
from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here,
again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more
apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into
which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn
our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may
thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn
humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of
misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked
shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every
man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in
this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus,
our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short,
depravity and corruption, reminds us, (see Calvin on John 4: 10,)
that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom,
solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our
own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we
cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased
with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself?
Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to
himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own
endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every
person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not
only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.
    2. On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a
true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face
of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself.
For (such is our innate pride) we always seem to ourselves just, and
upright, and wise, and holy, until we are convinced, by clear
evidence, of our injustice, vileness, folly, and impurity.
Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves only, and
not to the Lord also - He being the only standard by the application
of which this conviction can be produced. For, since we are all
naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness
is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And
since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted
with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the
confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree
less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to
which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an
object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly
white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger
illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the
powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the
ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we
think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but
when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which
did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and
confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our
acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when
applied to the sun. Thus too, it happens in estimating our spiritual
qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite
pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address
ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than
demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and
reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of
that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard,
we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its
false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest
iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom
will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance
of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable
impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most
perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity.
    3. Hence that dread and amazement with which as Scripture
uniformly relates, holy men were struck and overwhelmed whenever
they beheld the presence of God. When we see those who previously
stood firm and secure so quaking with terror, that the fear of death
takes hold of them, nay, they are, in a manner, swallowed up and
annihilated, the inference to be drawn is that men are never duly
touched and impressed with a conviction of their insignificance,
until they have contrasted themselves with the majesty of God.
Frequent examples of this consternation occur both in the Book of
Judges and the Prophetical Writings; so much so, that it was a
common expression among the people of God, "We shall die, for we
have seen the Lord." Hence the Book of Job, also, in humbling men
under a conviction of their folly, feebleness, and pollution, always
derives its chief argument from descriptions of the Divine wisdom,
virtue, and purity. Nor without cause: for we see Abraham the
readier to acknowledge himself but dust and ashes the nearer he
approaches to behold the glory of the Lord, and Elijah unable to
wait with unveiled face for His approach; so dreadful is the sight.
And what can man do, man who is but rottenness and a worm, when even
the Cherubim themselves must veil their faces in very terror? To
this, undoubtedly, the Prophet Isaiah refers, when he says, (Isaiah
24: 23,) "The moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when
the Lord of Hosts shall reign;" i. e., when he shall exhibit his
refulgence, and give a nearer view of it, the brightest objects
will, in comparison, be covered with darkness.
    But though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves
are bound together by a mutual tie, due arrangement requires that we
treat of the former in the first place, and then descend to the
latter.

    
    
Chapter 2.

2. What it is to know God,--Tendency of this knowledge.

Sections.

1. The knowledge of God the Creator defined. The substance of this
    knowledge, and the use to be made of it.
2. Further illustration of the use, together with a necessary
    reproof of vain curiosity, and refutation of the Epicureans.
    The character of God as it appears to the pious mind,
    contrasted with the absurd views of the Epicureans. Religion
    defined.

    1. By the knowledge of God, I understand that by which we not
only conceive that there is some God, but also apprehend what it is
for our interest, and conducive to his glory, what, in short, it is
befitting to know concerning him. For, properly speaking, we cannot
say that God is known where there is no religion or piety. I am not
now referring to that species of knowledge by which men, in
themselves lost and under curse, apprehend God as a Redeemer in
Christ the Mediator. I speak only of that simple and primitive
knowledge, to which the mere course of nature would have conducted
us, had Adam stood upright. For although no man will now, in the
present ruin of the human race, perceive God to be either a father,
or the author of salvation, or propitious in any respect, until
Christ interpose to make our peace; still it is one thing to
perceive that God our Maker supports us by his power, rules us by
his providence, fosters us by his goodness, and visits us with all
kinds of blessings, and another thing to embrace the grace of
reconciliation offered to us in Christ. Since, then, the Lord first
appears, as well in the creation of the world as in the general
doctrine of Scripture, simply as a Creator, and afterwards as a
Redeemer in Christ, - a twofold knowledge of him hence arises: of
these the former is now to be considered, the latter will afterwards
follow in its order. But although our mind cannot conceive of God,
without rendering some worship to him, it will not, however, be
sufficient simply to hold that he is the only being whom all ought
to worship and adore, unless we are also persuaded that he is the
fountain of all goodness, and that we must seek everything in him,
and in none but him. My meaning is: we must be persuaded not only
that as he once formed the world, so he sustains it by his boundless
power, governs it by his wisdom, preserves it by his goodness, in
particular, rules the human race with justice and judgement, bears
with them in mercy, shields them by his protection; but also that
not a particle of light, or wisdom, or justice, or power, or
rectitude, or genuine truth, will anywhere be found, which does not
flow from him, and of which he is not the cause; in this way we must
learn to expect and ask all things from him, and thankfully ascribe
to him whatever we receive. For this sense of the divine perfections
is the proper master to teach us piety, out of which religion
springs. By piety I mean that union of reverence and love to God
which the knowledge of his benefits inspires. For, until men feel
that they owe everything to God, that they are cherished by his
paternal care, and that he is the author of all their blessings, so
that nought is to be looked for away from him, they will never
submit to him in voluntary obedience; nay, unless they place their
entire happiness in him, they will never yield up their whole selves
to him in truth and sincerity.
    3. Those, therefore, who, in considering this question, propose
to inquire what the essence of God is, only delude us with frigid
speculations, - it being much more our interest to know what kind of
being God is, and what things are agreeable to his nature. For, of
what use is it to join Epicures in acknowledging some God who has
cast off the care of the world, and only delights himself in ease?
What avails it, in short, to know a God with whom we have nothing to
do? The effect of our knowledge rather ought to be, first, to teach
us reverence and fear; and, secondly, to induce us, under its
guidance and teaching, to ask every good thing from him, and, when
it is received, ascribe it to him. For how can the idea of God enter
your mind without instantly giving rise to the thought, that since
you are his workmanship, you are bound, by the very law of creation,
to submit to his authority? - that your life is due to him? - that
whatever you do ought to have reference to him? If so, it
undoubtedly follows that your life is sadly corrupted, if it is not
framed in obedience to him, since his will ought to be the law of
our lives. On the other hand, your idea of his nature is not clear
unless you acknowledge him to be the origin and fountain of all
goodness. Hence would arise both confidence in him, and a desire of
cleaving to him, did not the depravity of the human mind lead it
away from the proper course of investigation.
    For, first of all, the pious mind does not devise for itself
any kind of God, but looks alone to the one true God; nor does it
feign for him any character it pleases, but is contented to have him
in the character in which he manifests himself always guarding, with
the utmost diligences against transgressing his will, and wandering,
with daring presumptions from the right path. He by whom God is thus
known perceiving how he governs all things, confides in him as his
guardian and protector, and casts himself entirely upon his
faithfulness, - perceiving him to be the source of every blessing,
if he is in any strait or feels any want, he instantly recurs to his
protection and trusts to his aid, - persuaded that he is good and
merciful, he reclines upon him with sure confidence, and doubts not
that, in the divine clemency, a remedy will be provided for his
every time of need, - acknowledging him as his Father and his Lords
he considers himself bound to have respect to his authority in all
things, to reverence his majesty aim at the advancement of his
glory, and obey his commands, - regarding him as a just judge, armed
with severity to punish crimes, he keeps the judgement-seat always
in his view. Standing in awe of it, he curbs himself, and fears to
provoke his anger. Nevertheless, he is not so terrified by an
apprehension of judgement as to wish he could withdraw himself, even
if the means of escape lay before him; nays he embraces him not less
as the avenger of wickedness than as the rewarder of the righteous;
because he perceives that it equally appertains to his glory to
store up punishment for the one, and eternal life for the other.
Besides, it is not the mere fear of punishment that restrains him
from sin. Loving and revering God as his father, honouring and
obeying him as his master, although there were no hell, he would
revolt at the very idea of offending him.
    Such is pure and genuine religion, namely, confidence in God
coupled with serious fear - fear, which both includes in it willing
reverence, and brings along with it such legitimate worship as is
prescribed by the law. And it ought to be more carefully considered
that all men promiscuously do homage to God, but very few truly
reverence him. On all hands there is abundance of ostentatious
ceremonies, but sincerity of heart is rare.

Chapter 3.

3. The knowledge of God naturally implanted in the human mind.

Sections

1. The knowledge of God being manifested to all makes the reprobate
    without excuse. Universal belief and acknowledgement of the
    existence of God.
2. Objection - that religion and the belief of a Deity are the
    inventions of crafty politicians. Refutation of the objection.
    This universal belief confirmed by the examples of wicked men
    and Atheists.
3. Confirmed also by the vain endeavours of the wicked to banish all
    fear of God from their minds. Conclusion, that the knowledge of
    God is naturally implanted in the human mind.

    1. That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural
instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since
God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has
endued all men with some idea of his Godhead, the memory of which he
constantly renews and occasionally enlarges, that all to a man being
aware that there is a God, and that he is their Maker, may be
condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship him nor
consecrate their lives to his service. Certainly, if there is any
quarter where it may be supposed that God is unknown, the most
likely for such an instance to exist is among the dullest tribes
farthest removed from civilisation. But, as a heathen tells us,
there is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish, as not to be
imbued with the conviction that there is a God. Even those who, in
other respects, seem to differ least from the lower animals,
constantly retain some sense of religion; so thoroughly has this
common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on the
breasts of all men. Since, then, there never has been, from the very
first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even,
without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense
of Deity is inscribed on every heart. Nay, even idolatry is ample
evidence of this fact. For we know how reluctant man is to lower
himself, in order to set other creatures above him. Therefore, when
he chooses to worship wood and stone rather than be thought to have
no God, it is evident how very strong this impression of a Deity
must be; since it is more difficult to obliterate it from the mind
of man, than to break down the feelings of his nature, - these
certainly being broken down, when, in opposition to his natural
haughtiness, he spontaneously humbles himself before the meanest
object as an act of reverence to God.
    2. It is most absurd, therefore, to maintain, as some do, that
religion was devised by the cunning and craft of a few individuals,
as a means of keeping the body of the people in due subjection,
while there was nothing which those very individuals, while teaching
others to worship God, less believed than the existence of a God. I
readily acknowledge, that designing men have introduced a vast
number of fictions into religion, with the view of inspiring the
populace with reverence or striking them with terror, and thereby
rendering them more obsequious; but they never could have succeeded
in this, had the minds of men not been previously imbued will that
uniform belief in God, from which, as from its seed, the religious
propensity springs. And it is altogether incredible that those who,
in the matter of religion, cunningly imposed on their ruder
neighbours, were altogether devoid of a knowledge of God. For though
in old times there were some, and in the present day not a few are
found, who deny the being of a God, yet, whether they will or not,
they occasionally feel the truth which they are desirous not to
know. We do not read of any man who broke out into more unbridled
and audacious contempt of the Deity than C. Caligula, and yet none
showed greater dread when any indication of divine wrath was
manifested. Thus, however unwilling, he shook with terror before the
God whom he professedly studied to condemn. You may every day see
the same thing happening to his modern imitators. The most audacious
despiser of God is most easily disturbed, trembling at the sound of
a falling leaf. How so, unless in vindication of the divine majesty,
which smites their consciences the more strongly the more they
endeavour to flee from it. They all, indeed, look out for
hiding-places where they may conceal themselves from the presence of
the Lord, and again efface it from their mind; but after all their
efforts they remain caught within the net. Though the conviction may
occasionally seem to vanish for a moment, it immediately returns,
and rushes in with new impetuosity, so that any interval of relief
from the gnawing of conscience is not unlike the slumber of the
intoxicated or the insane, who have no quiet rest in sleep, but are
continually haunted with dire horrific dreams. Even the wicked
themselves, therefore, are an example of the fact that some idea of
God always exists in every human mind.
    3. All men of sound judgement will therefore hold, that a sense
of Deity is indelibly engraven on the human heart. And that this
belief is naturally engendered in all, and thoroughly fixed as it
were in our very bones, is strikingly attested by the contumacy of
the wicked, who, though they struggle furiously, are unable to
extricate themselves from the fear of God. Though Diagoras, and
others of like stamps make themselves merry with whatever has been
believed in all ages concerning religion, and Dionysus scoffs at the
judgement of heaven, it is but a Sardonian grin; for the worm of
conscience, keener than burning steel, is gnawing them within. I do
not say with Cicero, that errors wear out by age, and that religion
increases and grows better day by day. For the world (as will be
shortly seen) labours as much as it can to shake off all knowledge
of God, and corrupts his worship in innumerable ways. I only say,
that, when the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly
court as a means of despising God, becomes enfeebled, the sense of
Deity, which of all things they wished most to be extinguished, is
still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth. Whence we infer,
that this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but
one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one
which nature herself allows no individual to forget, though many,
with all their might, strive to do so. Moreover, if all are born and
live for the express purpose of learning to know God, and if the
knowledge of God, in so far as it fails to produce this effect, is
fleeting and vain, it is clear that all those who do not direct the
whole thoughts and actions of their lives to this end fail to fulfil
the law of their being. This did not escape the observation even of
philosophers. For it is the very thing which Plato meant (in Phoed.
et Theact.) when he taught, as he often does, that the chief good of
the soul consists in resemblance to God; i.e., when, by means of
knowing him, she is wholly transformed into him. Thus Gryllus, also,
in Plutarch, (lib. guod bruta anim. ratione utantur,) reasons most
skilfully, when he affirms that, if once religion is banished from
the lives of men, they not only in no respect excel, but are, in
many respects, much more wretched than the brutes, since, being
exposed to so many forms of evil, they continually drag on a
troubled and restless existence: that the only thing, therefore,
which makes them superior is the worship of God, through which alone
they aspire to immortality.

Chapter 4.

4. The knowledge of god stifled or corrupted, ignorantly or
maliciously.

Sections.

1. The knowledge of God suppressed by ignorance, many falling away
    into superstition. Such persons, however, inexcusable, because
    their error is accompanied with pride and stubbornness.
2. Stubbornness the companion of impiety.
3. No pretext can justify superstition. This proved, first, from
    reason; and, secondly, from Scripture.
4. The wicked never willingly come into the presence of God. Hence
    their hypocrisy. Hence, too, their sense of Deity leads to no
    good result.
    
    1. But though experience testifies that a seed of religion is
divinely sown in all, scarcely one in a hundred is found who
cherishes it in his heart, and not one in whom it grows to maturity
so far is it from yielding fruit in its season. Moreover, while some
lose themselves in superstitious observances, and others, of set
purpose, wickedly revolt from God, the result is, that, in reward to
the true knowledge of him, all are so degenerate, that in no part of
the world can genuine godliness be found. In saying that some fall
away into superstition, I mean not to insinuate that their excessive
absurdity frees them from guilt; for the blindness under which they
labour is almost invariably accompanied with vain pride and
stubbornness. Mingled vanity and pride appear in this, that when
miserable men do seek after God, instead of ascending higher than
themselves as they ought to do, they measure him by their own carnal
stupidity, and neglecting solid inquiry, fly off to indulge their
curiosity in vain speculation. Hence, they do not conceive of him in
the character in which he is manifested, but imagine him to be
whatever their own rashness has devised. This abyss standing open,
they cannot move one footstep without rushing headlong to
destruction. With such an idea of God, nothing which they may
attempt to offer in the way of worship or obedience can have any
value in his sight, because it is not him they worship, but, instead
of him, the dream and figment of their own heart. This corrupt
procedure is admirably described by Paul, when he says, that
"thinking to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 1: 22.) He had
previously said that "they became vain in their imaginations," but
lest any should suppose them blameless, he afterwards adds that they
were deservedly blinded, because, not contented with sober inquiry,
because, arrogating to themselves more than they have any title to
do, they of their own accord court darkness, nay, bewitch themselves
with perverse, empty show. Hence it is that their folly, the result
not only of vain curiosity, but of licentious desire and overweening
confidence in the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, cannot be excused.
    2. The expression of David, (Psalm 14: 1, 53: 1,) "The fool has
said in his heart, There is no God," is primarily applied to those
who, as will shortly farther appear, stifle the light of nature, and
intentionally stupefy themselves. We see many, after they have
become hardened in a daring course of sin, madly banishing all
remembrance of God, though spontaneously suggested to them from
within, by natural sense. To show how detestable this madness is,
the Psalmist introduces them as distinctly denying that there is a
God, because although they do not disown his essence, they rob him
of his justice and providence, and represent him as sitting idly in
heaven. Nothing being less accordant with the nature of God than to
cast off the government of the world, leaving it to chance, and so
to wink at the crimes of men that they may wanton with impunity in
evil courses; it follows, that every man who indulges in security,
after extinguishing all fear of divine judgement, virtually denies
that there is a God. As a just punishment of the wicked, after they
have closed their own eyes, God makes their hearts dull and heavy,
and hence, seeing, they see not. David, indeed, is the best
interpreter of his own meaning, when he says elsewhere, the wicked
has "no fear of God before his eyes," (Psalm 36: 1;) and, again, "He
has said in his heart, God has forgotten; he hideth his face; he
will never see it." Thus although they are forced to acknowledge
that there is some God, they, however, rob him of his glory by
denying his power. For, as Paul declares, "If we believe not, he
abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself," (2 Tim. 2: 13; so those
who feign to themselves a dead and dumb idol, are truly said to deny
God. It is, moreover, to be observed, that though they struggle with
their own convictions, and would fain not only banish God from their
minds, but from heaven also, their stupefaction is never so complete
as to secure them from being occasionally dragged before the divine
tribunal. Still, as no fear restrains them from rushing violently in
the face of God, so long as they are hurried on by that blind
impulse, it cannot be denied that their prevailing state of mind in
regard to him is brutish oblivion.
    3. In this way, the vain pretext which many employ to clothe
their superstition is overthrown. They deem it enough that they have
some kind of zeal for religion, how preposterous soever it may be,
not observing that true religion must be conformable to the will of
God as its unerring standard; that he can never deny himself, and is
no spectra or phantom, to be metamorphosed at each individual's
caprice. It is easy to see how superstition, with its false glosses,
mocks God, while it tries to please him. Usually fastening merely on
things on which he has declared he sets no value, it either
contemptuously overlooks, or even undisguisedly rejects, the things
which he expressly enjoins, or in which we are assured that he takes
pleasure. Those, therefore, who set up a fictitious worship, merely
worship and adore their own delirious fancies; indeed, they would
never dare so to trifle with God, had they not previously fashioned
him after their own childish conceits. Hence that vague and
wandering opinion of Deity is declared by an apostle to be ignorance
of God: "Howbeit, then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto
them which by nature are no gods." And he elsewhere declares, that
the Ephesians were "without God" (Eph. 2: 12) at the time when they
wandered without any correct knowledge of him. It makes little
difference, at least in this respect, whether you hold the existence
of one God, or a plurality of gods, since, in both cases alike, by
departing from the true God, you have nothing left but an execrable
idol. It remains, therefore, to conclude with Lactantius, (Instit.
Div. lib i. 2,, 6,) "No religion is genuine that is not in
accordance with truth."
    4. To this fault they add a second, viz., that when they do
think of God it is against their will; never approaching him without
being dragged into his presence, and when there, instead of the
voluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine majesty, feeling
only that forced and servile fear which divine judgement extorts
judgement which, from the impossibility of escape, they are
compelled to dread, but which, while they dread, they at the same
time also hate. To impiety, and to it alone, the saying of Statius
properly applies: "Fear first brought gods into the world," (Theb.
lib. i.) Those whose inclinations are at variance with the justice
of God, knowing that his tribunal has been erected for the
punishment of transgression, earnestly wish that that tribunal were
overthrown. Under the influence of this feeling they are actually
warring against God, justice being one of his essential attributes.
Perceiving that they are always within reach of his power, that
resistance and evasion are alike impossible, they fear and tremble.
Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of condemning a majesty by
which all are overawed, they have recourse to some species of
religious observance, never ceasing meanwhile to defile themselves
with every kind of vice, and add crime to crime, until they have
broken the holy law of the Lord in every one of its requirements,
and set his whole righteousness at nought; at all events, they are
not so restrained by their semblance of fear as not to luxuriate and
take pleasure in iniquity, choosing rather to indulge their carnal
propensities than to curb them with the bridle of the Holy Spirit.
But since this shadow of religion (it scarcely even deserves to be
called a shadow) is false and vain, it is easy to infer how much
this confused knowledge of God differs from that piety which is
instilled into the breasts of believers, and from which alone true
religion springs. And yet hypocrites would fain, by means of
tortuous windings, make a show of being near to God at the very time
they are fleeing from him. For while the whole life ought to be one
perpetual course of obedience, they rebel without fear in almost all
their actions, and seek to appease him with a few paltry sacrifices;
while they ought to serve him with integrity of heart and holiness
of life, they endeavour to procure his favour by means of frivolous
devices and punctilios of no value. Nay, they take greater license
in their grovelling indulgences, because they imagine that they can
fulfil their duty to him by preposterous expiations; in short, while
their confidence ought to have been fixed upon him, they put him
aside, and rest in themselves or the creatures. At length they
bewilder themselves in such a maze of error, that the darkness of
ignorance obscures, and ultimately extinguishes, those sparks which
were designed to show them the glory of God. Still, however, the
conviction that there is some Deity continues to exist, like a plant
which can never be completely eradicated, though so corrupt, that it
is only capable of producing the worst of fruit. Nay, we have still
stronger evidence of the proposition for which I now contend, viz.,
that a sense of Deity is naturally engraven on the human heart, in
the fact, that the very reprobate are forced to acknowledge it. When
at their ease, they can jest about God, and talk pertly and
loquaciously in disparagement of his power; but should despair, from
any cause, overtake them, it will stimulate them to seek him, and
dictate ejaculatory prayers, proving that they were not entirely
ignorant of God, but had perversely suppressed feelings which ought
to have been earlier manifested.

Chapter 5.

5. The knowledge of God conspicuous in the creation, and continual
government of the world.

This chapter consists of two parts: 1. The former, which occupies
the first ten sections, divides all the works of God into two great
classes, and elucidates the knowledge of God as displayed in each
class. The one class is treated of in the first six, and the other
in the four following sections: 2. The latter part of the chapter
shows, that, in consequence of the extreme stupidity of men, those
manifestations of God, however perspicuous, lead to no useful
result. This latter part, which commences at the eleventh section,
is continued to the end of the chapter.

Sections.

1. The invisible and incomprehensible essence of God, to a certain
    extent, made visible in his works.
2. This declared by the first class of works, viz., the admirable
    motions of the heavens and the earth, the symmetry of the human
    body, and the connection of its parts; in short, the various
    objects which are presented to every eye.
3. This more especially manifested in the structure of the human
    body.
4. The shameful ingratitude of disregarding God, who, in such a
    variety of ways, is manifested within us. The still more
    shameful ingratitude of contemplating the endowments of the
    soul, without ascending to Him who gave them. No objection can
    be founded on any supposed organism in the soul.
5. The powers and actions of the soul, a proof of its separate
    existence from the body. Proofs of the soul's immortality.
    Objection that the whole world is quickened by one soul. Reply
    to the objection. Its impiety.
6. Conclusion from what has been said, viz., that the omnipotence,
    eternity, and goodness of God, may be learned from the first
    class of works, i. e., those which are in accordance with the
    ordinary course of nature.
7. The second class of works, viz., those above the ordinary course
    of nature, afford clear evidence of the perfections of God,
    especially his goodness, justice, and mercy.
8. Also his providence, power, and wisdom.
9. Proofs and illustrations of the divine Majesty. The use of them,
    viz., the acquisition of divine knowledge in combination with
    true piety.
10. The tendency of the knowledge of God to inspire the righteous
    with the hope of future life, and remind the wicked of the
    punishments reserved for them. Its tendency, moreover, to keep
    alive in the hearts of the righteous a sense of the divine
    goodness.
11. The second part of the chapter, which describes the stupidity
    both of learned and unlearned, in ascribing the whole order of
    things, and the admirable arrangements of divine Providence, to
    fortune.
12. Hence Polytheism, with all its abominations, and the endless and
    irreconcilable opinions of the philosophers concerning God.
13. All guilty of revolt from God, corrupting pure religion, either
    by following general custom, or the impious consent of
    antiquity.
14. Though irradiated by the wondrous glories of creation, we cease
    not to follow our own ways.
15. Our conduct altogether inexcusable, the dullness of perception
    being attributable to ourselves, while we are fully reminded of
    the true path, both by the structure and the government of the
    world.

    1. Since the perfection of blessedness consists in the
knowledge of God, he has been pleased, in order that none might be
excluded from the means of obtaining felicity, not only to deposit
in our minds that seed of religion of which we have already spoken,
but so to manifest his perfections in the whole structure of the
universe, and daily place himself in our view, that we cannot open
our eyes without being compelled to behold him. His essence, indeed,
is incomprehensible, utterly transcending all human thought; but on
each of his works his glory is engraven in characters so bright, so
distinct, and so illustrious, that none, however dull and
illiterate, can plead ignorance as their excuse. Hence, with perfect
truth, the Psalmist exclaims, "He covereth himself with light as
with a garment," (Psalm 104: 2;) as if he had said, that God for the
first time was arrayed in visible attire when, in the creation of
the world, he displayed those glorious banners, on which, to
whatever side we turn, we behold his perfections visibly portrayed.
In the same place, the Psalmist aptly compares the expanded heavens
to his royal tent, and says, "He layeth the beams of his chambers in
the waters, maketh the clouds his chariot, and walketh upon the
wings of the wind," sending forth the winds and lightnings as his
swift messengers. And because the glory of his power and wisdom is
more refulgent in the firmament, it is frequently designated as his
palace. And, first, wherever you turn your eyes, there is no portion
of the world, however minute, that does not exhibit at least some
sparks of beauty; while it is impossible to contemplate the vast and
beautiful fabric as it extends around, without being overwhelmed by
the immense weight of glory. Hence, the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews elegantly describes the visible worlds as images of the
invisible, (Heb. 11: 3,) the elegant structure of the world serving
us as a kind of mirror, in which we may behold God, though otherwise
invisible. For the same reason, the Psalmist attributes language to
celestial objects, a language which all nations understand, (Psalm
19: 1,) the manifestation of the Godhead being too clear to escape
the notice of any people, however obtuse. The apostle Paul, stating
this still more clearly, says, "That which may be known of God is
manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead," (Rom. 1: 20.)
    2. In attestation of his wondrous wisdom, both the heavens and
the earth present us with innumerable proofs not only those more
recondite proofs which astronomy, medicine, and all the natural
sciences, are designed to illustrate, but proofs which force
themselves on the notice of the most illiterate peasant, who cannot
open his eyes without beholding them. It is true, indeed, that those
who are more or less intimately acquainted with those liberal
studies are thereby assisted and enabled to obtain a deeper insight
into the secret workings of divine wisdom. No man, however, though
he be ignorant of these, is incapacitated for discerning such proofs
of creative wisdom as may well cause him to break forth in
admiration of the Creator. To investigate the motions of the
heavenly bodies, to determine their positions, measure their
distances, and ascertain their properties, demands skill, and a more
careful examination; and where these are so employed, as the
Providence of God is thereby more fully unfolded, so it is
reasonable to suppose that the mind takes a loftier flight, and
obtains brighter views of his glory. Still, none who have the use of
their eyes can be ignorant of the divine skill manifested so
conspicuously in the endless variety, yet distinct and well ordered
array, of the heavenly host; and, therefore, it is plain that the
Lord has furnished every man with abundant proofs of his wisdom. The
same is true in regard to the structure of the human frame. To
determine the connection of its parts, its symmetry and beauty, with
the skill of a Galen, (Lib. De Usu Partium,) requires singular
acuteness; and yet all men acknowledge that the human body bears on
its face such proofs of ingenious contrivance as are sufficient to
proclaim the admirable wisdom of its Maker.
    3. Hence certain of the philosophers have not improperly called
man a microcosm, (miniature world,) as being a rare specimen of
divine power, wisdom, and goodness, and containing within himself
wonders sufficient to occupy our minds, if we are willing so to
employ them. Paul, accordingly, after reminding the Athenians that
they "might feel after God and find him," immediately adds, that "he
is not far from every one of us," (Acts 17: 27;) every man having
within himself undoubted evidence of the heavenly grace by which he
lives, and moves, and has his being. But if, in order to apprehend
God, it is unnecessary to go farther than ourselves, what excuse can
there be for the sloth of any man who will not take the trouble of
descending into himself that he may find Him? For the same reason,
too, David, after briefly celebrating the wonderful name and glory
of God, as everywhere displayed, immediately exclaims, "What is man,
that thou art mindful of him?" and again, "Out of the mouths of
babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength," (Psalm 8: 2, 4.)
Thus he declares not only that the human race are a bright mirror of
the Creator's works, but that infants hanging on their mothers'
breasts have tongues eloquent enough to proclaim his glory without
the aid of other orators. Accordingly, he hesitates not to bring
them forward as fully instructed to refute the madness of those who,
from devilish pride, would fain extinguish the name of God. Hence,
too, the passage which Paul quotes from Aratus, "We are his
offspring," (Acts 17: 28,) the excellent gifts with which he has
endued us attesting that he is our Father. In the same way also,
from natural instinct, and, as it were, at the dictation of
experience, heathen poets called him the father of men. No one,
indeed, will voluntarily and willingly devote himself to the service
of God unless he has previously tasted his paternal love, and been
thereby allured to love and reverence Him.
    4. But herein appears the shameful ingratitude of men. Though
they have in their own persons a factory where innumerable
operations of God are carried on, and a magazine stored with
treasures of inestimable value - instead of bursting forth in his
praise, as they are bound to do, they, on the contrary, are the more
inflated and swelled with pride. They feel how wonderfully God is
working in them, and their own experience tells them of the vast
variety of gifts which they owe to his liberality. Whether they will
or not, they cannot but know that these are proofs of his Godhead,
and yet they inwardly suppress them. They have no occasion to go
farther than themselves, provided they do not, by appropriating as
their own that which has been given them from heaven, put out the
light intended to exhibit God clearly to their minds. At this day,
however, the earth sustains on her bosom many monster minds - minds
which are not afraid to employ the seed of Deity deposited in human
nature as a means of suppressing the name of God. Can any thing be
more detestable than this madness in man, who, finding God a hundred
times both in his body and his soul, makes his excellence in this
respect a pretext for denying that there is a God? He will not say
that chance has made him differ from the brutes that perish; but,
substituting nature as the architect of the universe, he suppresses
the name of God. The swift motions of the soul, its noble faculties
and rare endowments, bespeak the agency of God in a manner which
would make the suppression of it impossible, did not the Epicureans,
like so many Cyclops, use it as a vantageground, from which to wage
more audacious war with God. Are so many treasures of heavenly
wisdom employed in the guidance of such a worm as man, and shall the
whole universe be denied the same privilege? To hold that there are
organs in the soul corresponding to each of its faculties, is so far
from obscuring the glory of God, that it rather illustrates it. Let
Epicurus tell what concourse of atoms, cooking meat and drink, can
form one portion into refuse and another portion into blood, and
make all the members separately perform their office as carefully as
if they were so many souls acting with common consent in the
superintendence of one body.
    5. But my business at present is not with that stye: I wish
rather to deal with those who, led away by absurd subtleties, are
inclined, by giving an indirect turn to the frigid doctrine of
Aristotle, to employ it for the purpose both of disproving the
immortality of the soul, and robbing God of his rights. Under the
pretext that the faculties of the soul are organised, they chain it
to the body as if it were incapable of a separate existence, while
they endeavour as much as in them lies, by pronouncing eulogiums on
nature, to suppress the name of God. But there is no ground for
maintaining that the powers of the soul are confined to the
performance of bodily functions. What has the body to do with your
measuring the heavens, counting the number of the stars,
ascertaining their magnitudes, their relative distances, the rate at
which they move, and the orbits which they describe? I deny not that
Astronomy has its use; all I mean to show is, that these lofty
investigations are not conducted by organised symmetry, but by the
faculties of the soul itself apart altogether from the body. The
single example I have given will suggest many others to the reader.
The swift and versatile movements of the soul in glancing from
heaven to earth, connecting the future with the past, retaining the
remembrance of former years, nay, forming creations of its own - its
skill, moreover, in making astonishing discoveries, and inventing so
many wonderful arts, are sure indications of the agency of God in
man. What shall we say of its activity when the body is asleep, its
many revolving thoughts, its many useful suggestions, its many solid
arguments, nay, its presentiment of things yet to come? What shall
we say but that man bears about with him a stamp of immortality
which can never be effaced? But how is it possible for man to be
divine, and yet not acknowledge his Creator? Shall we, by means of a
power of judging implanted in our breast, distinguish between
justice and injustice, and yet there be no judge in heaven? Shall
some remains of intelligence continue with us in sleep, and yet no
God keep watch in heaven? Shall we be deemed the inventors of so
many arts and useful properties that God may be defrauded of his
praise, though experience tells us plainly enough, that whatever we
possess is dispensed to us in unequal measures by another hand? The
talk of certain persons concerning a secret inspiration quickening
the whole world, is not only silly, but altogether profane. Such
persons are delighted with the following celebrated passage of
Virgil:--
    Know, first, that heaven, and earth's compacted frame,
    And flowing waters, and the starry flame,
    And both the radiant lights, one common soul
    Inspires and feeds - and animates the whole.
    This active mind, infused through all the space,
    Unites and mingles with the mighty mass:
    Hence, men and beasts the breath of life obtain,
    And birds of air, and monsters of the main.
    Th' ethereal vigour is in all the same,
    And every soul is filled with equal flame.
    
    The meaning of all this is, that the world, which was made to
display the glory of God, is its own creator. For the same poet has,
in another place, adopted a view common to both Greeks and Latins: -
    Hence to the bee some sages have assigned
    A portion of the God, and heavenly mind;
    For God goes forth, and spreads throughout the whole,
    Heaven, earth, and sea, the universal soul;
    Each, at its birth, from him all beings share,
    Both man and brute, the breath of vital air;
    To him return, and, loosed from earthly chain,
    Fly whence they sprung, and rest in God again;
    Spurn at the grave, and, fearless of decay,
    Dwell in high heaven, art star th' ethereal way.
    
    Here we see how far that jejune speculation, of a universal
mind animating and invigorating the world, is fitted to beget and
foster piety in our minds. We have a still clearer proof of this in
the profane verses which the licentious Lucretius has written as a
deduction from the same principle. The plain object is to form an
unsubstantial deity, and thereby banish the true God whom we ought
to fear and worship. I admit, indeed that the expressions "Nature is
God," may be piously used, if dictated by a pious mind; but as it is
inaccurate and harsh, (Nature being more properly the order which
has been established by God,) in matters which are so very
important, and in regard to which special reverence is due, it does
harm to confound the Deity with the inferior operations of his
hands.
    6. Let each of us, therefore, in contemplating his own nature,
remember that there is one God who governs all natures, and, in
governing, wishes us to have respect to himself, to make him the
object of our faith, worship, and adoration. Nothing, indeed, can be
more preposterous than to enjoy those noble endowments which bespeak
the divine presence within us, and to neglect him who, of his own
good pleasure, bestows them upon us. In regard to his power, how
glorious the manifestations by which he urges us to the
contemplation of himself; unless, indeed, we pretend not to know
whose energy it is that by a word sustains the boundless fabric of
the universe - at one time making heaven reverberate with thunder,
sending forth the scorching lightning, and setting the whole
atmosphere in a blaze; at another, causing the raging tempests to
blow, and forthwith, in one moment, when it so pleases him, making a
perfect calm; keeping the sea, which seems constantly threatening
the earth with devastation, suspended as it were in air; at one
time, lashing it into fury by the impetuosity of the winds; at
another, appeasing its rage, and stilling all its waves. Here we
might refer to those glowing descriptions of divine power, as
illustrated by natural events, which occur throughout Scripture; but
more especially in the book of Job, and the prophecies of Isaiah.
These, however, I purposely omit, because a better opportunity of
introducing them will be found when I come to treat of the
Scriptural account of the creation. (Infra, chap. 14 s. 1, 2, 20,
sq.) I only wish to observe here, that this method of investigating
the divine perfections, by tracing the lineaments of his countenance
as shadowed forth in the firmament and on the earth, is common both
to those within and to those without the pale of the Church. From
the power of God we are naturally led to consider his eternity since
that from which all other things derive their origin must
necessarily be selfexistent and eternal. Moreover, if it be asked
what cause induced him to create all things at first, and now
inclines him to preserve them, we shall find that there could be no
other cause than his own goodness. But if this is the only cause,
nothing more should be required to draw forth our love towards him;
every creature, as the Psalmist reminds us, participating in his
mercy. "His tender mercies are over all his works," (Ps. 145: 9.)
    7. In the second class of God's works, namely those which are
above the ordinary course of nature, the evidence of his perfections
are in every respect equally clear. For in conducting the affairs of
men, he so arranges the course of his providence, as daily to
declare, by the clearest manifestations, that though all are in
innumerable ways the partakers of his bounty, the righteous are the
special objects of his favour, the wicked and profane the special
objects of his severity. It is impossible to doubt his punishment of
crimes; while at the same time he, in no unequivocal manner,
declares that he is the protector, and even the avenger of
innocence, by shedding blessings on the good, helping their
necessities, soothing and solacing their griefs, relieving their
sufferings, and in all ways providing for their safety. And though
he often permits the guilty to exult for a time with impunity, and
the innocent to be driven to and fro in adversity, nay, even to be
wickedly and iniquitously oppressed, this ought not to produce any
uncertainty as to the uniform justice of all his procedure. Nay, an
opposite inference should be drawn. When any one crime calls forth
visible manifestations of his anger, it must be because he hates all
crimes; and, on the other hand, his leaving many crimes unpunished,
only proves that there is a judgement in reserve, when the
punishment now delayed shall be inflicted. In like manner, how
richly does he supply us with the means of contemplating his mercy
when, as frequently happens, he continues to visit miserable sinners
with unwearied kindness, until he subdues their depravity, and woos
them back with more than a parent's fondness?
    8. To this purpose the Psalmist, (Ps. 107) mentioning how God,
in a wondrous manner, often brings sudden and unexpected succour to
the miserable when almost on the brink of despair, whether in
protecting them when they stray in deserts, and at length leading
them back into the right path, or supplying them with food when
famishing for want, or delivering them when captive from iron
fetters and foul dungeons, or conducting them safe into harbour
after shipwreck, or bringing them back from the gates of death by
curing their diseases, or, after burning up the fields with heat and
drought, fertilising them with the river of his grace, or exalting
the meanest of the people, and casting down the mighty from their
lofty seats: - the Psalmist, after bringing forward examples of this
description, infers that those things which men call fortuitous
events, are so many proofs of divine providence, and more especially
of paternal clemency, furnishing ground of joy to the righteous, and
at the same time stopping the mouths of the ungodly. But as the
greater part of mankind, enslaved by error, walk blindfold in this
glorious theatre, he exclaims that it is a rare and singular wisdom
to meditate carefully on these works of God, which many, who seem
most sharp-sighted in other respects, behold without profit. It is
indeed true, that the brightest manifestation of divine glory finds
not one genuine spectator among a hundred. Still, neither his power
nor his wisdom is shrouded in darkness. His power is strikingly
displayed when the rage of the wicked, to all appearance
irresistible, is crushed in a single moment; their arrogance
subdued, their strongest bulwarks overthrown, their armour dashed to
pieces, their strength broken, their schemes defeated without an
effort, and audacity which set itself above the heavens is
precipitated to the lowest depths of the earth. On the other hand,
the poor are raised up out of the dust, and the needy lifted out of
the dung hill, (Ps. 113: 7,) the oppressed and afflicted are rescued
in extremity, the despairing animated with hope, the unarmed defeat
the armed, the few the many, the weak the strong. The excellence of
the divine wisdom is manifested in distributing everything in due
season, confounding the wisdom of the world, and taking the wise in
their own craftiness, (1 Cor. 3: 19;) in short, conducting all
things in perfect accordance with reason.
    9. We see there is no need of a long and laborious train of
argument in order to obtain proofs which illustrate and assert the
Divine Majesty. The few which we have merely touched, show them to
be so immediately within our reach in every quarter, that we can
trace them with the eye, or point to them with the finger. And here
we must observe again, (see chap. 2 s. 2,) that the knowledge of God
which we are invited to cultivate is not that which, resting
satisfied with empty speculation, only flutters in the brain, but a
knowledge which will prove substantial and fruitful wherever it is
duly perceived, and rooted in the heart. The Lord is manifested by
his perfections. When we feel their power within us, and are
conscious of their benefits, the knowledge must impress us much more
vividly than if we merely imagined a God whose presence we never
felt. Hence it is obvious, that in seeking God, the most direct path
and the fittest method is, not to attempt with presumptuous
curiosity to pry into his essence, which is rather to be adored than
minutely discussed, but to contemplate him in his works, by which he
draws near, becomes familiar, and in a manner communicates himself
to us. To this the Apostle referred when he said, that we need not
go far in search of him, (Acts 17: 27,) because, by the continual
working of his power, he dwells in every one of us. Accordingly,
David, (Psalm 145,) after acknowledging that his greatness is
unsearchable, proceeds to enumerate his works, declaring that his
greatness will thereby be unfolded. It therefore becomes us also
diligently to prosecute that investigation of God which so
enraptures the soul with admiration as, at the same time, to make an
efficacious impression on it. And, as Augustine expresses it, (in
Psalm 144,) since we are unable to comprehend Him, and are, as it
were, overpowered by his greatness, our proper course is to
contemplate his works, and so refresh ourselves with his goodness.
    10. By the knowledge thus acquired, we ought not only to be
stimulated to worship God, but also aroused and elevated to the hope
of future life. For, observing that the manifestations which the
Lord gives both of his mercy and severity are only begun and
incomplete, we ought to infer that these are doubtless only a
prelude to higher manifestations, of which the full display is
reserved for another state. Conversely, when we see the righteous
brought into affliction by the ungodly, assailed with injuries,
overwhelmed with calumnies, and lacerated by insult and contumely,
while, on the contrary, the wicked flourish, prosper, acquire ease
and honour, and all these with impunity, we ought forthwith to
infer, that there will be a future life in which iniquity shall
receive its punishment, and righteousness its reward. Moreover, when
we observe that the Lord often lays his chastening rod on the
righteous, we may the more surely conclude, that far less will the
righteous ultimately escape the scourges of his anger. There is a
well-known passage in Augustine, (De Civitat. Dei, lib. 1 c. 8,)
"Were all sin now visited with open punishment, it might be thought
that nothing was reserved for the final judgement; and, on the other
hand, were no sin now openly punished, it might be supposed there
was no divine providence." It must be acknowledged, therefore, that
in each of the works of God, and more especially in the whole of
them taken together, the divine perfections are delineated as in a
picture, and the whole human race thereby invited and allured to
acquire the knowledge of God, and, in consequence of this knowledge,
true and complete felicity. Moreover, while his perfections are thus
most vividly displayed, the only means of ascertaining their
practical operation and tendency is to descend into ourselves, and
consider how it is that the Lord there manifests his wisdom, power,
and energy, - how he there displays his justice, goodness, and
mercy. For although David (Psalm 92: 6) justly complains of the
extreme infatuation of the ungodly in not pondering the deep
counsels of God, as exhibited in the government of the human race,
what he elsewhere says (Psalm 40) is most true, that the wonders of
the divine wisdom in this respect are more in number than the hairs
of our head. But I leave this topic at present, as it will be more
fully considered afterwards in its own place, (Book I. c. 16, see.
6-9.)
    11. Bright, however, as is the manifestation which God gives
both of himself and his immortal kingdom in the mirror of his works,
so great is our stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright
manifestations, that we derive no benefit from them. For in regard
to the fabric and admirable arrangement of the universe, how few of
us are there who, in lifting our eyes to the heavens, or looking
abroad on the various regions of the earth, ever think of the
Creator? Do we not rather overlook Him, and sluggishly content
ourselves with a view of his works? And then in regard to
supernatural events, though these are occurring every day, how few
are there who ascribe them to the ruling providence of God - how
many who imagine that they are casual results produced by the blind
evolutions of the wheel of chance? Even when under the guidance and
direction of these events, we are in a manner forced to the
contemplation of God, (a circumstance which all must occasionally
experience,) and are thus led to form some impressions of Deity, we
immediately fly off to carnal dreams and depraved fictions, and so
by our vanity corrupt heavenly truth. This far, indeed, we differ
from each other, in that every one appropriates to himself some
peculiar error; but we are all alike in this, that we substitute
monstrous fictions for the one living and true God - a disease not
confined to obtuse and vulgar minds, but affecting the noblest, and
those who, in other respects, are singularly acute. How lavishly in
this respect have the whole body of philosophers betrayed their
stupidity and want of sense? To say nothing of the others whose
absurdities are of a still grosser description, how completely does
Plato, the soberest and most religious of them all, lose himself in
his round globe? What must be the case with the rest, when the
leaders, who ought to have set them an example, commit such
blunders, and labour under such hallucinations? In like manner,
while the government of the world places the doctrine of providence
beyond dispute, the practical result is the same as if it were
believed that all things were carried hither and thither at the
caprice of chance; so prone are we to vanity and error. I am still
referring to the most distinguished of the philosophers, and not to
the common herd, whose madness in profaning the truth of God exceeds
all bounds.
    12. Hence that immense flood of error with which the whole
world is overflowed. Every individual mind being a kind of
labyrinth, it is not wonderful, not only that each nation has
adopted a variety of fictions, but that almost every man has had his
own god. To the darkness of ignorance have been added presumption
and wantonness, and hence there is scarcely an individual to be
found without some idol or phantom as a substitute for Deity. Like
water gushing forth from a large and copious spring, immense crowds
of gods have issued from the human mind, every man giving himself
full license, and devising some peculiar form of divinity, to meet
his own views. It is unnecessary here to attempt a catalogue of the
superstitions with which the world was overspread. The thing were
endless; and the corruptions themselves, though not a word should be
said, furnish abundant evidence of the blindness of the human mind.
I say nothing of the rude and illiterate vulgar; but among the
philosophers who attempted, by reason and learning, to pierce the
heavens, what shameful disagreement! The higher any one was endued
with genius, and the more he was polished by science and art, the
more specious was the colouring which he gave to his opinions. All
these, however, if examined more closely, will be found to be vain
show. The Stoics plumed themselves on their acuteness, when they
said that the various names of God might be extracted from all the
parts of nature, and yet that his unity was not thereby divided: as
if we were not already too prone to vanity, and had no need of being
presented with an endless multiplicity of gods, to lead us further
and more grossly into error. The mystic theology of the Egyptians
shows how sedulously they laboured to be thought rational on this
subject. And, perhaps, at the first glance, some show of probability
might deceive the simple and unwary; but never did any mortal devise
a scheme by which religion was not foully corrupted. This endless
variety and confusion emboldened the Epicureans, and other gross
despisers of piety, to cut off all sense of God. For when they saw
that the wisest contradicted each others they hesitated not to infer
from their dissensions, and from the frivolous and absurd doctrines
of each, that men foolishly, and to no purpose, brought torment upon
themselves by searching for a God, there being none: and they
thought this inference safe, because it was better at once to deny
God altogether, than to feign uncertain gods, and thereafter engage
in quarrels without end. They, indeed, argue absurdly, or rather
weave a cloak for their impiety out of human ignorance; though
ignorance surely cannot derogate from the prerogatives of God. But
since all confess that there is no topic on which such difference
exists, both among learned and unlearned, the proper inference is,
that the human mind, which thus errs in inquiring after God, is dull
and blind in heavenly mysteries. Some praise the answer of
Simonides, who being asked by King Hero what God was, asked a day to
consider. When the king next day repeated the question, he asked two
days; and after repeatedly doubling the number of days, at length
replied, "The longer I consider, the darker the subject appears."
He, no doubt, wisely suspended his opinion, when he did not see
clearly: still his answer shows, that if men are only naturally
taught, instead of having any distinct, solid, or certain knowledge,
they fasten only on contradictory principles, and, in consequence,
worship an unknown God.
    13. Hence we must hold, that whosoever adulterates pure
religion, (and this must be the case with all who cling to their own
views,) make a departure from the one God. No doubt, they will
allege that they have a different intention; but it is of little
consequence what they intend or persuade themselves to believe,
since the Holy Spirit pronounces all to be apostates, who, in the
blindness of their minds, substitute demons in the place of God. For
this reason Paul declares that the Ephesians were "without God,"
(Eph. 2: 12,) until they had learned from the Gospel what it is to
worship the true God. Nor must this be restricted to one people
only, since, in another place, he declares in general, that all men
"became vain in their imaginations," after the majesty of the
Creator was manifested to them in the structure of the world.
Accordingly, in order to make way for the only true God, he condemns
all the gods celebrated among the Gentiles as lying and false,
leaving no Deity anywhere but in Mount Zion where the special
knowledge of God was professed, (Hab. 2: 18, 20.) Among the Gentiles
in the time of Christ, the Samaritans undoubtedly made the nearest
approach to true piety; yet we hear from his own mouth that they
worshipped they knew not what, (John 4: 22;) whence it follows that
they were deluded by vain errors. In short, though all did not give
way to gross vice, or rush headlong into open idolatry, there was no
pure and authentic religion founded merely on common belief. A few
individuals may not have gone all insane lengths with the vulgar;
still Paul's declaration remains true, that the wisdom of God was
not apprehended by the princes of this world, (1 Cor. 2: 8.) But if
the most distinguished wandered in darkness, what shall we say of
the refuse? No wonder, therefore, that all worship of man's device
is repudiated by the Holy Spirit as degenerate. Any opinion which
man can form in heavenly mysteries, though it may not beget a long
train of errors, is still the parent of error. And though nothing
worse should happen, even this is no light sin - to worship an
unknown God at random. Of this sin, however, we hear from our
Saviour's own mouth, (John 4: 22,) that all are guilty who have not
been taught out of the law who the God is whom they ought to
worship. Nay, even Socrates in Xenophon, (lib. 1 Memorabilia,) lauds
the response of Apollo enjoining every man to worship the gods
according to the rites of his country, and the particular practice
of his own city. But what right have mortals thus to decide of their
own authority in a matter which is far above the world; or who can
so acquiesce in the will of his forefathers, or the decrees of the
people, as unhesitatingly to receive a god at their hands? Every one
will adhere to his own judgement, sooner than submit to the
dictation of others. Since, therefore, in regulating the worship of
God, the custom of a city, or the consent of antiquity, is a too
feeble and fragile bond of piety; it remains that God himself must
bear witness to himself from heaven.
    14. In vain for us, therefore, does Creation exhibit so many
bright lamps lighted up to show forth the glory of its Author.
Though they beam upon us from every quarter, they are altogether
insufficient of themselves to lead us into the right path. Some
sparks, undoubtedly, they do throw out; but these are quenched
before they can give forth a brighter effulgence. Wherefore, the
apostle, in the very place where he says that the worlds are images
of invisible things, adds that it is by faith we understand that
they were framed by the word of God, (Heb. 11: 3;) thereby
intimating that the invisible Godhead is indeed represented by such
displays, but that we have no eyes to perceive it until they are
enlightened through faith by internal revelation from God. When Paul
says that that which may be known of God is manifested by the
creation of the world, he does not mean such a manifestation as may
be comprehended by the wit of man, (Rom. 1: 19;) on the contrary, he
shows that it has no further effect than to render us inexcusable,
(Acts 17: 27.) And though he says, elsewhere, that we have not far
to seek for God, inasmuch as he dwells within us, he shows, in
another passage, to what extent this nearness to God is availing.
God, says he, "in times past, suffered all nations to walk in their
own ways. Nevertheless, he 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 14: 16, 17.) But
though God is not left without a witness, while, with numberless
varied acts of kindness, he woos men to the knowledge of himself,
yet they cease not to follow their own ways, in other words, deadly
errors.
    15. But though we are deficient in natural powers which might
enable us to rise to a pure and clear knowledge of God, still, as
the dullness which prevents us is within, there is no room for
excuse. We cannot plead ignorance, without being at the same time
convicted by our own consciences both of sloth and ingratitude. It
were, indeed, a strange defence for man to pretend that he has no
ears to hear the truth, while dumb creatures have voices loud enough
to declare it; to allege that he is unable to see that which
creatures without eyes demonstrate, to excuse himself on the ground
of weakness of mind, while all creatures without reason are able to
teach. Wherefore, when we wander and go astray, we are justly shut
out from every species of excuse, because all things point to the
right path. But while man must bear the guilt of corrupting the seed
of divine knowledge so wondrously deposited in his mind, and
preventing it from bearing good and genuine fruit, it is still most
true that we are not sufficiently instructed by that bare and
simple, but magnificent testimony which the creatures bear to the
glory of their Creator. For no sooner do we, from a survey of the
world, obtain some slight knowledge of Deity, than we pass by the
true God, and set up in his stead the dream and phantom of our own
brain, drawing away the praise of justice, wisdom, and goodness,
from the fountain-head, and transferring it to some other quarter.
Moreover, by the erroneous estimate we form, we either so obscure or
pervert his daily works, as at once to rob them of their glory and
the author of them of his just praise.

Chapter 6.

6. The need of Scripture, as a guide and teacher, in coming to God
as a Creator.

Sections.

1. God gives his elect a better help to the knowledge of himself,
    viz., the Holy Scriptures. This he did from the very first.
2. First, By oracles and visions, and the ministry of the
    Patriarchs. Secondly, By the promulgation of the Law, and the
    preaching of the Prophets. Why the doctrines of religion are
    committed to writing.
3. This view confirmed, 1. By the depravity of our nature making it
    necessary in every one who would know God to have recourse to
    the word; 2. From those passages of the Psalms in which God is
    introduced as reigning.
4. Another confirmation from certain direct statements in the
    Psalms. Lastly, From the words of our Saviour.

    1. Therefore, though the effulgence which is presented to every
eye, both in the heavens and on the earth, leaves the ingratitude of
man without excuse, since God, in order to bring the whole human
race under the same condemnation, holds forth to all, without
exception, a mirror of his Deity in his works, another and better
help must be given to guide us properly to God as a Creator. Not in
vain, therefore, has he added the light of his Word in order that he
might make himself known unto salvation, and bestowed the privilege
on those whom he was pleased to bring into nearer and more familiar
relation to himself. For, seeing how the minds of men were carried
to and fro, and found no certain resting-place, he chose the Jews
for a peculiar people, and then hedged them in that they might not,
like others, go astray. And not in vain does he, by the same means,
retain us in his knowledge, since but for this, even those who, in
comparison of others, seem to stand strong, would quickly fall away.
For as the aged, or those whose sight is defective, when any books
however fair, is set before them, though they perceive that there is
something written are scarcely able to make out two consecutive
words, but, when aided by glasses, begin to read distinctly, so
Scripture, gathering together the impressions of Deity, which, till
then, lay confused in our minds, dissipates the darkness, and shows
us the true God clearly. God therefore bestows a gift of singular
value, when, for the instruction of the Church, he employs not dumb
teachers merely, but opens his own sacred mouth; when he not only
proclaims that some God must be worshipped, but at the same time
declares that He is the God to whom worship is due; when he not only
teaches his elect to have respect to God, but manifests himself as
the God to whom this respect should be paid.
    The course which God followed towards his Church from the very
first, was to supplement these common proofs by the addition of his
Word, as a surer and more direct means of discovering himself. And
there can be no doubt that it was by this help, Adam, Noah, Abraham,
and the other patriarchs, attained to that familiar knowledge which,
in a manner, distinguished them from unbelievers. I am not now
speaking of the peculiar doctrines of faith by which they were
elevated to the hope of eternal blessedness. It was necessary, in
passing from death unto life, that they should know God, not only as
a Creator, but as a Redeemer also; and both kinds of knowledge they
certainly did obtain from the Word. In point of order, however, the
knowledge first given was that which made them acquainted with the
God by whom the world was made and is governed. To this first
knowledge was afterwards added the more intimate knowledge which
alone quickens dead souls, and by which God is known not only as the
Creator of the worlds and the sole author and disposer of all
events, but also as a Redeemer, in the person of the Mediator. But
as the fall and the corruption of nature have not yet been
considered, I now postpone the consideration of the remedy, (for
which, see Book 2 c. 6 &c.) Let the reader then remember, that I am
not now treating of the covenant by which God adopted the children
of Abraham, or of that branch of doctrine by which, as founded in
Christ, believers have, properly speaking, been in all ages
separated from the profane heathen. I am only showing that it is
necessary to apply to Scripture, in order to learn the sure marks
which distinguish God, as the Creator of the world, from the whole
herd of fictitious gods. We shall afterward, in due course, consider
the work of Redemption. In the meantime, though we shall adduce many
passages from the New Testament, and some also from the Law and the
Prophets, in which express mention is made of Christ, the only
object will be to show that God, the Maker of the world, is
manifested to us in Scripture, and his true character expounded, so
as to save us from wandering up and down, as in a labyrinth, in
search of some doubtful deity.
    2. Whether God revealed himself to the fathers by oracles and
visions, or, by the instrumentality and ministry of men, suggested
what they were to hand down to posterity, there cannot be a doubt
that the certainty of what he taught them was firmly engraven on
their hearts, so that they felt assured and knew that the things
which they learnt came forth from God, who invariably accompanied
his word with a sure testimony, infinitely superior to mere opinion.
At length, in order that, while doctrine was continually enlarged,
its truth might subsist in the world during all ages, it was his
pleasure that the same oracles which he had deposited with the
fathers should be consigned, as it were, to public records. With
this view the law was promulgated, and prophets were afterwards
added to be its interpreters. For though the uses of the law were
manifold, (Book 2 c. 7 and 8,) and the special office assigned to
Moses and all the prophets was to teach the method of reconciliation
between God and man, (whence Paul calls Christ "the end of the law,"
Rom. 10: 4;) still I repeat that, in addition to the proper doctrine
of faith and repentance in which Christ is set forth as a Mediator,
the Scriptures employ certain marks and tokens to distinguish the
only wise and true God, considered as the Creator and Governor of
the world, and thereby guard against his being confounded with the
herd of false deities. Therefore, while it becomes man seriously to
employ his eyes in considering the works of God, since a place has
been assigned him in this most glorious theatre that he may be a
spectator of them, his special duty is to give ear to the Word, that
he may the better profit. Hence it is not strange that those who are
born in darkness become more and more hardened in their stupidity;
because the vast majority instead of confining themselves within due
bounds by listening with docility to the Word, exult in their own
vanity. If true religion is to beam upon us, our principle must be,
that it is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching, and that it is
impossible for any man to obtain even the minutest portion of right
and sound doctrine without being a disciple of Scripture. Hence, the
first step in true knowledge is taken, when we reverently embrace
the testimony which God has been pleased therein to give of himself.
For not only does faith, full and perfect faith, but all correct
knowledge of God, originate in obedience. And surely in this respect
God has with singular Providence provided for mankind in all ages.
    3. For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into
forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error,
how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious
religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to
make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either
perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being
corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. It being thus
manifest that God, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image
imprinted on the fair form of the universe, has given the assistance
of his Word to all whom he has ever been pleased to instruct
effectually, we, too, must pursue this straight path, if we aspire
in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God; - we must go, I say,
to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from his works is
described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated,
not by our depraved judgement, but by the standard of eternal truth.
If, as I lately said, we turn aside from it, how great soever the
speed with which we move, we shall never reach the goal, because we
are off the course. We should consider that the brightness of the
Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be
inaccessible, (1 Tim. 6: 16,) is a kind of labyrinth, - a labyrinth
to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide
our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with
the greatest swiftness out of it. Hence the Psalmist, after
repeatedly declaring (Psalm 93, 96, 97, 99, &c.) that superstition
should be banished from the world in order that pure religion may
flourish, introduces God as reigning; meaning by the term, not the
power which he possesses and which he exerts in the government of
universal nature, but the doctrine by which he maintains his due
supremacy: because error never can be eradicated from the heart of
man until the true knowledge of God has been implanted in it.
    4. Accordingly, the same prophet, after mentioning that the
heavens declare the glory of God, that the firmament sheweth forth
the works of his hands, that the regular succession of day and night
proclaim his Majesty, proceeds to make mention of the Word: - "The
law of the Lord," says he, "is perfect, converting the soul; the
testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes
of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the
Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes," (Psalm 19: 1-9.) For though
the law has other uses besides, (as to which, see Book 2 c. 7, sec.
6, 10, 12,) the general meaning is, that it is the proper school for
training the children of God; the invitation given to all nations,
to behold him in the heavens and earth, proving of no avail. The
same view is taken in the 29th Psalm, where the Psalmist, after
discoursing on the dreadful voice of God, which, in thunder, wind,
rain, whirlwind, and tempest, shakes the earth, makes the mountains
tremble, and breaks the cedars, concludes by saying, "that in his
temple does every one speak of his glory," unbelievers being deaf to
all God's words when they echo in the air. In like manner another
Psalm, after describing the raging billows of the sea, thus
concludes, "Thy testimonies are very sure; holiness becometh thine
house for ever," (Psalm 93: 5.) To the same effect are the words of
our Saviour to the Samaritan woman, when he told her that her nation
and all other nations worshipped they knew not what; and that the
Jews alone gave worship to the true God, (John 4: 22.) Since the
human mind, through its weakness, was altogether unable to come to
God if not aided and upheld by his sacred word, it necessarily
followed that all mankind, the Jews excepted, inasmuch as they
sought God without the Word, were labouring under vanity and error.

Chapter 7.

7. The testimony of the Spirit necessary to give full authority to
Scripture. The impiety of pretending that the credibility of
scripture depends on the judgement of the church.

Section.

1. The authority of Scripture derived not from men, but from the
Spirit of God. Objection, That Scripture depends on the decision of
the Church. Refutation, I. The truth of God would thus be subjected
to the will of man. II. It is insulting to the Holy Spirit. III. It
establishes a tyranny in the Church. IV. It forms a mass of errors.
V. It subverts conscience. VI. It exposes our faith to the scoffs of
the profane.
2. Another reply to the objection drawn from the words of the
Apostle Paul. Solution of the difficulties started by opponents. A
second objection refuted.
3. A third objection founded on a sentiment of Augustine considered.
4. Conclusion, That the authority of Scripture is founded on its
being spoken by God. This confirmed by the conscience of the godly,
and the consent of all men of the least candour. A fourth objection
common in the mouths of the profane. Refutation.
5. Last and necessary conclusion, That the authority of Scripture is
sealed on the hearts of believers by the testimony of the Holy
Spirit. The certainty of this testimony. Confirmation of it from a
passage of Isaiah, and the experience of believers. Also, from
another passage of Isaiah.

    1. Before proceeding farther, it seems proper to make some
observations on the authority of Scripture, in order that our minds
may not only be prepared to receive it with reverence, but be
divested of all doubt.
    When that which professes to be the Word of God is acknowledged
to be so, no person, unless devoid of common sense and the feelings
of a man, will have the desperate hardihood to refuse credit to the
speaker. But since no daily responses are given from heaven, and the
Scriptures are the only records in which God has been pleased to
consign his truth to perpetual remembrance, the full authority which
they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognised, unless
they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly as if God
had been heard giving utterance to them. This subject well deserves
to be treated more at large, and pondered more accurately. But my
readers will pardon me for having more regard to what my plan admits
than to what the extent of this topic requires.
    A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz.,
that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by
the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth
of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the
Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures
proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and
unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be
received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did
not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the
determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the
reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be
admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the
pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in
what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they
extort from the simple this one acknowledgement, viz., that there is
nothing which the Church cannot do. But what is to become of
miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal
life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better support
than man's judgement? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and
tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith
subjected - into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if
believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the good
will of men?
    2. These ravings are admirably refuted by a single expression
of an apostle. Paul testifies that the Church is "built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets," (Eph. 2: 20.) If the
doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the
Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter
began to exist. Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the
Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains
doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and
prophets, until her judgement is interposed. For if the Christian
Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the
preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be
found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the
Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have
existed. Nothings therefore can be more absurd than the fiction,
that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on
her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and
gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that
authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but,
acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows
her reverence by an unhesitating assent. As to the question, How
shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a
decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How
shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black,
sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear
evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet
and bitter of their taste.
    3. I am aware it is usual to quote a sentence of Augustine in
which he says that he would not believe the gospel, were he not
moved by the authority of the Church, (Aug. Cont. Epist. Fundament.
c. 5.) But it is easy to discover from the context, how inaccurate
and unfair it is to give it such a meaning. He was reasoning against
the Manichees, who insisted on being implicitly believed, alleging
that they had the truth, though they did not show they had. But as
they pretended to appeal to the gospel in support of Manes, he asks
what they would do if they fell in with a man who did not even
believe the gospel - what kind of argument they would use to bring
him over to their opinion. He afterwards adds, "But I would not
believe the gospel," &c.; meaning, that were he a stranger to the
faith, the only thing which could induce him to embrace the gospel
would be the authority of the Church. And is it any thing wonderful,
that one who does not know Christ should pay respect to men?
    Augustine, therefore, does not here say that the faith of the
godly is founded on the authority of the Church; nor does he mean
that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it; he merely says
that unbelievers would have no certainty of the gospel, so as
thereby to win Christ, were they not influenced by the consent of
the Church. And he clearly shows this to be his meaning, by thus
expressing himself a little before: "When I have praised my own
creed, and ridiculed yours, who do you suppose is to judge between
us; or what more is to be done than to quit those who, inviting us
to certainty, afterwards command us to believe uncertainty, and
follow those who invite us, in the first instance, to believe what
we are not yet able to comprehend, that waxing stronger through
faith itself, we may become able to understand what eve believe - no
longer men, but God himself internally strengthening and
illuminating our minds?" These unquestionably are the words of
Augustine, (August. Cont. Epist. Fundament. cap. 4;) and the obvious
inference from them is, that this holy man had no intention to
suspend our faith in Scripture on the nod or decision of the Church,
but only to intimate (what we too admit to be true) that those who
are not yet enlightened by the Spirit of God, become teachable by
reverence for the Church, and thus submit to learn the faith of
Christ from the gospel. In this way, though the authority of the
Church leads us on, and prepares us to believe in the gospel, it is
plain that Augustine would have the certainty of the godly to rest
on a very different foundation.
    At the same time, I deny not that he often presses the
Manichees with the consent of the whole Church, while arguing in
support of the Scriptures, which they rejected. Hence he upbraids
Faustus (lib. 32) for not submitting to evangelical truth - truth so
well founded, so firmly established, so gloriously renowned, and
handed down by sure succession from the days of the apostles. But he
nowhere insinuates that the authority which we give to the
Scriptures depends on the definitions or devices of men. He only
brings forward the universal judgement of the Church, as a point
most pertinent to the cause, and one, moreover, in which he had the
advantage of his opponents. Any one who desires to see this more
fully proved may read his short treatises De Utilitate Credendi,
(The Advantages of Believing,) where it will be found that the only
facility of believing which he recommends is that which affords an
introduction, and forms a fit commencement to inquiry; while he
declares that we ought not to be satisfied with opinion, but to
strive after substantial truth.
    4. It is necessary to attend to what I lately said, that our
faith in doctrine is not established until we have a perfect
conviction that God is its author. Hence, the highest proof of
Scripture is uniformly taken from the character of him whose Word it
is. The prophets and apostles boast not their own acuteness or any
qualities which win credit to speakers, nor do they dwell on
reasons; but they appeal to the sacred name of God, in order that
the whole world may be compelled to submission. The next thing to be
considered is, how it appears not probable merely, but certain, that
the name of God is neither rashly nor cunningly pretended. If, then,
we would consult most effectually for our consciences, and save them
from being driven about in a whirl of uncertainty, from wavering,
and even stumbling at the smallest obstacle, our conviction of the
truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human
conjectures, judgements, or reasons; namely, the secret testimony of
the Spirit. It is true, indeed, that if we choose to proceed in the
way of arguments it is easy to establish, by evidence of various
kinds, that if there is a God in heaven, the Law, the Prophecies,
and the Gospel, proceeded from him. Nay, although learned men, and
men of the greatest talent, should take the opposite side, summoning
and ostentatiously displaying all the powers of their genius in the
discussion; if they are not possessed of shameless effrontery, they
will be compelled to confess that the Scripture exhibits clear
evidence of its being spoken by God, and, consequently, of its
containing his heavenly doctrine. We shall see a little farther on,
that the volume of sacred Scripture very far surpasses all other
writings. Nay, if we look at it with clear eyes, and unblessed
judgement, it will forthwith present itself with a divine majesty
which will subdue our presumptuous opposition, and force us to do it
homage.
    Still, however, it is preposterous to attempt, by discussion,
to rear up a full faith in Scripture. True, were I called to contend
with the craftiest despisers of God, I trust, though I am not
possessed of the highest ability or eloquence, I should not find it
difficult to stop their obstreperous mouths; I could, without much
ado, put down the boastings which they mutter in corners, were
anything to be gained by refuting their cavils. But although we may
maintain the sacred Word of God against gainsayers, it does not
follow that we shall forthwith implant the certainty which faith
requires in their hearts. Profane men think that religion rests only
on opinion, and, therefore, that they may not believe foolishly, or
on slight grounds, desire and insist to have it proved by reason
that Moses and the prophets were divinely inspired. But I answer,
that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God
alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words
will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are
sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit,
therefore, who spoke by the mouth of the prophets, must penetrate
our hearts, in order to convince us that they faithfully delivered
the message with which they were divinely entrusted. This connection
is most aptly expressed by Isaiah in these words, "My Spirit that is
upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not
depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out
of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and
for ever," (Isa. 59: 21.) Some worthy persons feel disconcerted,
because, while the wicked murmur with impunity at the Word of God,
they have not a clear proof at hand to silence them, forgetting that
the Spirit is called an earnest and seal to confirm the faith of the
godly, for this very reason, that, until he enlightens their minds,
they are tossed to and fro in a sea of doubts.
    5. Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are
inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in
Scripture; that Scripture carrying its own evidence along with it,
deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full
conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the
Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own
judgement or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but,
in a way superior to human judgement, feel perfectly assured - as
much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it -
that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very
mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to
rest our judgement, but we subject our intellect and judgement to it
as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in
the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object,
which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough
conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like
miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because
we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it - an energy by
which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and
knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by
human will or knowledge. Hence, God most justly exclaims by the
mouth of Isaiah, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my
servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and
understand that I am he," (Isa. 43: 10.)
    Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a
knowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in
which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons;
such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can
produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in
himself, though my words fall far short of the reality. I do not
dwell on this subject at present, because we will return to it
again: only let us now understand that the only true faith is that
which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and
teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise
contained in Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church
"shall be taught of the Lord," (Isaiah 54: 13.) This singular
privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the
rest of mankind. For what is the beginning of true doctrine but
prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? And God, by the mouth of
Moses, thus demands to be heard: "It is not in heavens that thou
shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto
us, that we may hear and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee,
in thy mouth and in thy heart," (Deut. 30: 12, 14.) God having been
pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children, no
wonder that so much ignorance and stupidity is seen in the
generality of mankind. In the generality, I include even those
specially chosen, until they are ingrafted into the body of the
Church. Isaiah, moreover, while reminding us that the prophetical
doctrine would prove incredible not only to strangers, but also to
the Jews, who were desirous to be thought of the household of God,
subjoins the reason, when he asks, "To whom has the arm of the Lord
been revealed?" (Isaiah 53: 1.) If at any time, then we are troubled
at the small number of those who believe, let us, on the other hand,
call to mind, that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those
to whom it is given.

Chapter 8

8. The credibility of Scripture sufficiently proved in so far as
natural reason admits.

    This chapter consists of four parts. The first contains certain
general proofs which may be easily gathered out of the writings both
of the Old and New Testament, viz., the arrangement of the sacred
volume, its dignity, truth, simplicity, efficacy, and majesty, see.
1, 2. The second part contains special proofs taken from the Old
Testament, viz., the antiquity of the books of Moses, their
authority, his miracles and prophecies, see. 3-7; also, the
predictions of the other prophets and their wondrous harmony, see.
8. There is subjoined a refutation of two objections to the books of
Moses and the Prophets, see. 9, 10. The third part exhibits proofs
gathered out of the New Testament, e. g., the harmony of the
Evangelists in their account of heavenly mysteries, the majesty of
the writings of John, Peter, and Paul, the remarkable calling of the
Apostles and conversion of Paul, see. 11. The last part exhibits the
proofs drawn from ecclesiastical history, the perpetual consent of
the Church in receiving and preserving divine truth, the invincible
force of the truth in defending itself, the agreement of the godly,
(though otherwise differing so much from one another,) the pious
profession of the same doctrine by many illustrious men; in fine,
the more than human constancy of the martyrs, see. 12, 13. This is
followed by a conclusion of the particular topic discussed.

Sections.

1. Secondary helps to establish the credibility of Scripture. I. The
    arrangement of the sacred volume. II. Its dignity. III. Its
    truth. IV. Its simplicity. V. Its efficacy.
2. The majesty conspicuous in the writings of the Prophets.
3. Special proofs from the Old Testament. I. The antiquity of the
    Books of Moses.
4. This antiquity contrasted with the dreams of the Egyptians. II.
    The majesty of the Books of Moses.
5. The miracles and prophecies of Moses. A profane objection
    refuted.
6. Another profane objection refuted.
7. The prophecies of Moses as to the sceptre not departing from
    Judah, and the calling of the Gentiles.
8. The predictions of other prophets. The destruction of Jerusalem;
    and the return from the Babylonish captivity. Harmony of the
    Prophets. The celebrated prophecy of Daniel.
9. Objection against Moses and the Prophets. Answer to it.
10. Another objection and answer. Of the wondrous Providence of God
    in the preservation of the sacred books. The Greek Translation.
    The carefulness of the Jews.
11. Special proofs from the New Testament. I. The harmony of the
    Evangelists, and the sublime simplicity of their writings. II.
    The majesty of John, Paul, and Peter. III. The calling of the
    Apostles. IV. The conversion of Paul.
12. Proofs from Church history. I. Perpetual consent of the Church
    in receiving and preserving the truth. II. The invincible power
    of the truth itself. III. Agreement among the godly, not
    withstanding of their many differences in other respects.
13. The constancy of the martyrs. Conclusion. Proofs of this
    description only of use after the certainty of Scripture has
    been established in the heart by the Holy Spirit.

    1. In vain were the authority of Scripture fortified by
argument, or supported by the consent of the Church, or confirmed by
any other helps, if unaccompanied by an assurance higher and
stronger than human judgement can give. Till this better foundation
has been laid, the authority of Scripture remains in suspense. On
the other hand, when recognising its exemption from the common rule,
we receive it reverently, and according to its dignity, those proofs
which were not so strong as to produce and rivet a full conviction
in our minds, become most appropriate helps. For it is wonderful how
much we are confirmed in our belief, when we more attentively
consider how admirably the system of divine wisdom contained in it
is arranged - how perfectly free the doctrine is from every thing
that savours of earth - how beautifully it harmonises in all its
parts - and how rich it is in all the other qualities which give an
air of majesty to composition. Our hearts are still more firmly
assured when we reflect that our admiration is elicited more by the
dignity of the matter than by the graces of style. For it was not
without an admirable arrangement of Providence, that the sublime
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven have for the greater part been
delivered with a contemptible meanness of words. Had they been
adorned with a more splendid eloquence, the wicked might have
cavilled, and alleged that this constituted all their force. But
now, when an unpolished simplicity, almost bordering on rudeness,
makes a deeper impression than the loftiest flights of oratory, what
does it indicate if not that the Holy Scriptures are too mighty in
the power of truth to need the rhetorician's art?
    Hence there was good ground for the Apostle's declaration, that
the faith of the Corinthians was founded not on "the wisdom of men,"
but on "the power of God," (1 Cor. 2: 5,) this speech and preaching
among them having been "not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but
in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," (1 Cor. 2: 5.) For the
truth is vindicated in opposition to every doubt, when, unsupported
by foreign aid, it has its sole sufficiency in itself. How
peculiarly this property belongs to Scripture appears from this,
that no human writings, however skilfully composed, are at all
capable of affecting us in a similar way. Read Demosthenes or
Cicero, read Plato, Aristotle, or any other of that class: you will,
I admit, feel wonderfully allured, pleased, moved, enchanted; but
turn from them to the reading of the Sacred Volume, and whether you
will or not, it will so affect you, so pierce your heart, so work
its way into your very marrow, that, in comparison of the impression
so produced, that of orators and philosophers will almost disappear;
making it manifest that in the Sacred Volume there is a truth
divine, a something which makes it immeasurably superior to all the
gifts and graces attainable by man.
    2. I confess, however, that in elegance and beauty, nay,
splendour, the style of some of the prophets is not surpassed by the
eloquence of heathen writers. By examples of this description, the
Holy Spirit was pleased to show that it was not from want of
eloquence he in other instances used a rude and homely style. But
whether you read David, Isaiah, and others of the same class, whose
discourse flows sweet and pleasant; or Amos the herdsman, Jeremiah,
and Zechariah, whose rougher idiom savours of rusticity; that
majesty of the Spirit to which I adverted appears conspicuous in
all. I am not unaware, that as Satan often apes God, that he may by
a fallacious resemblance the better insinuate himself into the minds
of the simple, so he craftily disseminated the impious errors with
which he deceived miserable men in an uncouth and semi-barbarous
style, and frequently employed obsolete forms of expression in order
to cloak his impostures. None possessed of any moderate share of
sense need be told how vain and vile such affectation is. But in
regard to the Holy Scriptures, however petulant men may attempt to
carp at them, they are replete with sentiments which it is clear
that man never could have conceived. Let each of the prophets be
examined, and not one will be found who does not rise far higher
than human reach. Those who feel their works insipid must be
absolutely devoid of taste.
    3. As this subject has been treated at large by others, it will
be sufficient here merely to touch on its leading points. In
addition to the qualities already mentioned, great weight is due to
the antiquity of Scripture, (Euseb. Prepar. Evang. lib. 2 c. 1.)
Whatever fables Greek writers may retail concerning the Egyptian
Theology, no monument of any religion exists which is not long
posterior to the age of Moses. But Moses does not introduce a new
Deity. He only sets forth that doctrine concerning the eternal God
which the Israelites had received by tradition from their fathers,
by whom it had been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand,
during a long series of ages. For what else does he do than lead
them back to the covenant which had been made with Abraham? Had he
referred to matters of which they had never heard, he never could
have succeeded; but their deliverance from the bondage in which they
were held must have been a fact of familiar and universal notoriety,
the very mention of which must have immediately aroused the
attention of all. It is, moreover, probable, that they were
intimately acquainted with the whole period of four hundred years.
Now, if Moses (who is so much earlier than all other writers) traces
the tradition of his doctrine from so remote a period, it is obvious
how far the Holy Scriptures must in point of antiquity surpass all
other writings.
    4. Some perhaps may choose to credit the Egyptians in carrying
back their antiquity to a period of six thousand years before the
world was created. But their garrulity, which even some profane
authors have held up to derision, it cannot be necessary for me to
refute. Josephus, however, in his work against Appion, produces
important passages from very ancient writers, implying that the
doctrine delivered in the law was celebrated among all nations from
the remotest ages, though it was neither read nor accurately known.
And then, in order that the malignant might have no ground for
suspicion, and the ungodly no handle for cavil, God has provided, in
the most effectual manner, against both dangers. When Moses relates
the words which Jacob, under Divine inspiration, uttered concerning
his posterity almost three hundred years before, how does he ennoble
his own tribe? He stigmatises it with eternal infamy in the person
of Levi. "Simon and Levi," says he, "are brethren; instruments of
cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into
their secret; unto their assembly mine honour be not thou united,"
(Gen. 49: 5, 6.) This stigma he certainly might have passed in
silence, not only that he might spare his own ancestor, but also
save both himself and his whole family from a portion of the
disgrace. How can any suspicion attach to him, who, by voluntarily
proclaiming that the first founder of his family was declared
detestable by a Divine oracle, neither consults for his own private
interest, nor declines to incur obloquy among his tribe, who must
have been offended by his statement of the fact? Again, when he
relates the wicked murmuring of his brother Aaron, and his sister
Miriam, (Numb. 12: 1,) shall we say that he spoke his own natural
feelings, or that he obeyed the command of the Holy Spirit?
Moreover, when invested with supreme authority, why does he not
bestow the office of High Priest on his sons, instead of consigning
them to the lowest place? I only touch on a few points out of many;
but the Law itself contains throughout numerous proofs, which fully
vindicate the credibility of Moses, and place it beyond dispute,
that he was in truth a messenger sent forth from God.
    5. The many striking miracles which Moses relates are so many
sanctions of the law delivered, and the doctrine propounded, by him.
His being carried up into the mount in a cloud; his remaining there
forty days separated from human society; his countenance glistening
during the promulgation of the law, as with meridian effulgence; the
lightnings which flashed on every side; the voices and thunderings
which echoed in the air; the clang of the trumpet blown by no human
mouth; his entrance into the tabernacle, while a cloud hid him from
the view of the people; the miraculous vindication of his authority,
by the fearful destruction of Korah, Nathan, and Abiram, and all
their impious faction; the stream instantly gushing forth from the
rock when struck with his rod; the manna which rained from heaven at
his prayer; - did not God by all these proclaim aloud that he was an
undoubted prophet? If any one object that I am taking debatable
points for granted, the cavil is easily answered. Moses published
all these things in the assembly of the people. How, then, could he
possibly impose on the very eye-witnesses of what was done? Is it
conceivable that he would have come forward, and, while accusing the
people of unbelief, obstinacy, ingratitude, and other crimes, have
boasted that his doctrine had been confirmed in their own presence
by miracles which they never saw?
    6. For it is also worthy of remark, that the miracles which he
relates are combined with disagreeable circumstances, which must
have provoked opposition from the whole body of the people, if there
had been the smallest ground for it. Hence it is obvious that they
were induced to assent, merely because they had been previously
convinced by their own experience. But because the fact was too
clear to leave it free for heathen writers to deny that Moses did
perform miracles, the father of lies suggested a calumny, and
ascribed them to magic, (Exod. 9: 11.) But with what probability is
a charge of magic brought against him, who held it in such
abhorrence, that he ordered every one who should consult soothsayers
and magicians to be stoned? (Lev. 30: 6.) Assuredly, no impostor
deals in tricks, without studying to raise his reputation by amazing
the common people. But what does Moses do? By crying out, that he
and Aaron his brother are nothing, (Exod. 16: 7,) that they merely
execute what God has commanded, he clears himself from every
approach to suspicion. Again, if the facts are considered in
themselves, what kind of incantation could cause manna to rain from
heaven every day, and in sufficient quantity to maintain a people,
while any one, who gathered more than the appointed measure, saw his
incredulity divinely punished by its turning to worms? To this we
may add, that God then suffered his servant to be subjected to so
many serious trials, that the ungodly cannot now gain anything by
their glamour. When (as often happened) the people proudly and
petulantly rose up against him, when individuals conspired, and
attempted to overthrow him, how could any impostures have enabled
him to elude their rage? The event plainly shows that by these means
his doctrine was attested to all succeeding ages.
    7. Moreover, it is impossible to deny that he was guided by a
prophetic spirit in assigning the first place to the tribe of Judah
in the person of Jacob, especially if we take into view the fact
itself, as explained by the event. Suppose that Moses was the
inventor of the prophecy, still, after he committed it to writing,
four hundred years pass away, during which no mention is made of a
sceptre in the tribe of Judah. After Saul is anointed, the kingly
office seems fixed in the tribe of Benjamin, (1 Sam. 11: 15; 16:
13.) When David is anointed by Samuel, what apparent ground is there
for the transference? Who could have looked for a king out of the
plebeian family of a herdsman? And out of seven brothers, who could
have thought that the honour was destined for the youngest? And then
by what means did he afterwards come within reach of the throne? Who
dare say that his anointing was regulated by human art, or skill, or
prudence, and was not rather the fulfilment of a divine prophecy? In
like manner, do not the predictions, though obscure, of the
admission of the Gentiles into the divine covenant, seeing they were
not fulfilled till almost two thousand years after, make it palpable
that Moses spoke under divine inspiration? I omit other predictions
which so plainly betoken divine revelation, that all men of sound
mind must see they were spoken by God. In short, his Song itself
(Deut. 32) is a bright mirror in which God is manifestly seen.
    8. In the case of the other prophets the evidence is even
clearer. I will only select a few examples, for it were too tedious
to enumerate the whole. Isaiah, in his own day, when the kingdom of
Judah was at peace, and had even some ground to confide in the
protection of the Chaldeans, spoke of the destruction of the city
and the captivity of the people, (Isaiah 55: 1.) Supposing it not to
be sufficient evidence of divine inspiration to foretell, many years
before, events which, at the time, seemed fabulous, but which
ultimately turned out to be true, whence shall it be said that the
prophecies which he uttered concerning their return proceeded, if it
was not from God? He names Cyrus, by whom the Chaldeans were to be
subdued and the people restored to freedom. After the prophet thus
spoke, more than a hundred years elapsed before Cyrus was born, that
being nearly the period which elapsed between the death of the one
and the birth of the other. It was impossible at that time to guess
that some Cyrus would arise to make war on the Babylonians, and
after subduing their powerful monarchy, put an end to the captivity
of the children of Israel. Does not this simple, unadorned narrative
plainly demonstrate that what Isaiah spoke was not the conjecture of
man, but the undoubted oracle of God? Again, when Jeremiah, a
considerable time before the people were led away, assigned seventy
years as the period of captivity, and fixed their liberation and
return, must not his tongue have been guided by the Spirit of God?
What effrontery were it to deny that, by these evidences, the
authority of the prophets is established, the very thing being
fulfilled to which they appeal in support of their credibility!
"Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I
declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them," (Isaiah 42:
9.) I say nothing of the agreement between Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
who, living so far apart, and yet prophesying at the same time,
harmonise as completely in all they say as if they had mutually
dictated the words to one another. What shall I say of Daniel? Did
not he deliver prophecies embracing a future period of almost six
hundred years, as if he had been writing of past events generally
known? (Dan. 9, &c.) If the pious will duly meditate on these
things, they will be sufficiently instructed to silence the cavils
of the ungodly. The demonstration is too clear to be gainsaid.
    9. I am aware of what is muttered in corners by certain
miscreants, when they would display their acuteness in assailing
divine truth. They ask, how do we know that Moses and the prophets
wrote the books which now bear their names? Nay, they even dare to
question whether there ever was a Moses. Were any one to question
whether there ever was a Plato, or an Aristotle, or a Cicero, would
not the rod or the whip be deemed the fit chastisement of such
folly? The law of Moses has been wonderfully preserved, more by
divine providence than by human care; and though, owing to the
negligence of the priests, it lay for a short time buried, - from
the time when it was found by good King Josiah, (2 Kings 22: 8; 2
Chron. 34: 15,) - it has continued in the hands of men, and been
transmitted in unbroken succession from generation to generation.
Nor, indeed, when Josiah brought it forth, was it as a book unknown
or new, but one which had always been matter of notoriety, and was
then in full remembrance. The original writing had been deposited in
the temple, and a copy taken from it had been deposited in the royal
archives, (Deut. 17: 18, 19;) the only thing which had occurred was,
that the priests had ceased to publish the law itself in due form,
and the people also had neglected the wonted reading of it. I may
add, that scarcely an age passed during which its authority was not
confirmed and renewed. Were the books of Moses unknown to those who
had the Psalms of David in their hands? To sum up the whole in one
word, it is certain beyond dispute, that these writings passed down,
if I may so express it, from hand to hand, being transmitted in an
unbroken series from the fathers, who either with their own ears
heard them spoken, or learned them from those who had, while the
remembrance of them was fresh.
    10. An objection taken from the history of the Maccabees (1
Maccab. 1: 57, 58) to impugn the credibility of Scripture, is, on
the contrary, fitted the best possible to confirm it. First,
however, let us clear away the gloss which is put upon it: having
done so, we shall turn the engine which they erect against us upon
themselves. As Antiochus ordered all the books of Scripture to be
burnt, it is asked, where did the copies we now have come from? I,
in my turn, ask, In what workshop could they have been so quickly
fabricated? It is certain that they were in existence the moment the
persecution ceased, and that they were acknowledged without dispute
by all the pious who had been educated in their doctrine, and were
familiarly acquainted with them. Nay, while all the wicked so
wantonly insulted the Jews as if they had leagued together for the
purpose, not one ever dared to charge them with having introduced
spurious books. Whatever, in their opinion, the Jewish religion
might be, they acknowledged that Moses was the founder of it. What,
then, do those babblers, but betray their snarling petulance in
falsely alleging the spuriousness of books whose sacred antiquity is
proved by the consent of all history? But not to spend labour in
vain in refuting these vile calumnies, let us rather attend to the
care which the Lord took to preserve his Word, when against all hope
he rescued it from the truculence of a most cruel tyrant as from the
midst of the flames - inspiring pious priests and others with such
constancy that they hesitated not, though it should have been
purchased at the expense of their lives, to transmit this treasure
to posterity, and defeating the keenest search of prefects and their
satellites.
    Who does not recognise it as a signal and miraculous work of
God, that those sacred monuments which the ungodly persuaded
themselves had utterly perished, immediately returned to resume
their former rights, and, indeed, in greater honour? For the Greek
translation appeared to disseminate them over the whole world. Nor
does it seem so wonderful that God rescued the tables of his
covenant from the sanguinary edicts of Antiochus, as that they
remained safe and entire amid the manifold disasters by which the
Jewish nation was occasionally crushed, devastated, and almost
exterminated. The Hebrew language was in no estimation, and almost
unknown; and assuredly, had not God provided for religion, it must
have utterly perished. For it is obvious from the prophetical
writings of that age, how much the Jews, after their return from the
captivity, had lost the genuine use of their native tongue. It is of
importance to attend to this, because the comparison more clearly
establishes the antiquity of the Law and the Prophets. And whom did
God employ to preserve the doctrine of salvation contained in the
Law and the Prophets, that Christ might manifest it in its own time?
The Jews, the bitterest enemies of Christ; and hence Augustine
justly calls them the librarians of the Christian Church, because
they supplied us with books of which they themselves had not the
use.
    11. When we proceed to the New Testament, how solid are the
pillars by which its truth is supported! Three evangelists give a
narrative in a mean and humble style. The proud often eye this
simplicity with disdain, because they attend not to the principal
heads of doctrine; for from these they might easily infer that these
evangelists treat of heavenly mysteries beyond the capacity of man.
Those who have the least particle of candour must be ashamed of
their fastidiousness when they read the first chapter of Luke. Even
our Saviour's discourses, of which a summary is given by these three
evangelists, ought to prevent every one from treating their writings
with contempt. John, again, fulminating in majesty, strikes down
more powerfully than any thunderbolt the petulance of those who
refuse to submit to the obedience of faith. Let all those acute
censors, whose highest pleasure it is to banish a reverential regard
of Scripture from their own and other men's hearts, come forward;
let them read the Gospel of John, and, willing or unwilling, they
will find a thousand sentences which will at least arouse them from
their sloth; nay, which will burn into their consciences as with a
hot iron, and check their derision. The same thing may be said of
Peter and Paul, whose writings, though the greater part read them
blindfold, exhibit a heavenly majesty, which in a manner binds and
rivets every reader. But one circumstance, sufficient of itself to
exalt their doctrine above the world, is, that Matthew, who was
formerly fixed down to his money-table, Peter and John, who were
employed with their little boats, being all rude and illiterate, had
never learned in any human school that which they delivered to
others. Paul, moreover, who had not only been an avowed but a cruel
and bloody foe, being changed into a new man, shows, by the sudden
and unhoped-for change, that a heavenly power had compelled him to
preach the doctrine which once he destroyed. Let those dogs deny
that the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles, or, if not, let
them refuse credit to the history, still the very circumstances
proclaim that the Holy Spirit must have been the teacher of those
who, formerly contemptible among the people, all of a sudden began
to discourse so magnificently of heavenly mysteries.
    12. Add, moreover, that, for the best of reasons, the consent
of the Church is not without its weight. For it is not to be
accounted of no consequence, that, from the first publication of
Scripture, so many ages have uniformly concurred in yielding
obedience to it, and that, notwithstanding of the many extraordinary
attempts which Satan and the whole world have made to oppress and
overthrow it, or completely efface it from the memory of men, it has
flourished like the palm tree and continued invincible. Though in
old times there was scarcely a sophist or orator of any note who did
not exert his powers against it, their efforts proved unavailing.
The powers of the earth armed themselves for its destruction, but
all their attempts vanished into smoke. When thus powerfully
assailed on every side, how could it have resisted if it had trusted
only to human aid? Nay, its divine origin is more completely
established by the fact, that when all human wishes were against it,
it advanced by its own energy. Add that it was not a single city or
a single nation that concurred in receiving and embracing it. Its
authority was recognised as far and as wide as the world extends -
various nations who had nothing else in common entering for this
purpose into a holy league. Moreover, while we ought to attach the
greatest weight to the agreement of minds so diversified, and in all
other things so much at variance with each other - an agreement
which a Divine Providence alone could have produced - it adds no
small weight to the whole when we attend to the piety of those who
thus agree; not of all of them indeed, but of those in whom as
lights God was pleased that his Church should shine.
    13. Again, with what confidence does it become us to subscribe
to a doctrine attested and confirmed by the blood of so many saints?
They, when once they had embraced it, hesitated not boldly and
intrepidly, and even with great alacrity, to meet death in its
defence. Being transmitted to us with such an earnest, who of us
shall not receive it with firm and unshaken conviction? It is
therefore no small proof of the authority of Scripture, that it was
sealed with the blood of so many witnesses, especially when it is
considered that in bearing testimony to the faith, they met death
not with fanatical enthusiasm, (as erring spirits are sometimes wont
to do,) but with a firm and constant, yet sober godly zeal. There
are other reasons, neither few nor feeble, by which the dignity and
majesty of the Scriptures may be not only proved to the pious, but
also completely vindicated against the cavils of slanderers. These,
however, cannot of themselves produce a firm faith in Scripture
until our heavenly Father manifest his presence in it, and thereby
secure implicit reverence for it. Then only, therefore, does
Scripture suffice to give a saving knowledge of God when its
certainty is founded on the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit.
Still the human testimonies which go to confirm it will not be
without effect, if they are used in subordination to that chief and
highest proof, as secondary helps to our weakness. But it is foolish
to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is the Word of
God. This it cannot be known to be, except by faith. Justly,
therefore, does Augustine remind us, that every man who would have
any understanding in such high matters must previously possess piety
and mental peace.

Chapter 9

9. All the principles of piety subverted by fanatics, who substitute
revelations for Scripture.

Sections.

1. The temper and error of the Libertines, who take to themselves
    the name of spiritual, briefly described. Their refutation. 1.
    The Apostles and all true Christians have embraced the written
    Word. This confirmed by a passage in Isaiah; also by the
    example and words of Paul. 2. The Spirit of Christ seals the
    doctrine of the written Word on the minds of the godly.
2. Refutation continued. 3. The impositions of Satan cannot be
    detected without the aid of the written Word. First Objection.
    The Answer to it.
3. Second Objection from the words of Paul as to the letter and
    spirit. The Answer, with an explanation of Paul's meaning. How
    the Spirit and the written Word are indissolubly connected.

    1. Those who, rejecting Scripture, imagine that they have some
peculiar way of penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so much
under the influence of error as madness. For certain giddy men have
lately appeared, who, while they make a great display of the
superiority of the Spirit, reject all reading of the Scriptures
themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who only delight in
what they call the dead and deadly letter. But I wish they would
tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a
sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as
mean and childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ,
their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I
presume, admit that the apostles and other believers in the
primitive Church were not illuminated by any other Spirit. None of
these thereby learned to despise the word of God, but every one was
imbued with greater reverence for it, as their writings most clearly
testify. And, indeed, it had been so foretold by the mouth of
Isaiah. For when he says, "My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words
which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's
seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever," he does not tie
down the ancient Church to external doctrine, as he were a mere
teacher of elements; he rather shows that, under the reign of
Christ, the true and full felicity of the new Church will consist in
their being ruled not less by the Word than by the Spirit of God.
Hence we infer that these miscreants are guilty of fearful sacrilege
in tearing asunder what the prophet joins in indissoluble union. Add
to this, that Paul, though carried up even to the third heaven,
ceased not to profit by the doctrine of the law and the prophets,
while, in like manner, he exhorts Timothy, a teacher of singular
excellence, to give attention to reading, (1 Tim. 4: 13.) And the
eulogium which he pronounces on Scripture well deserves to be
remembered, viz., that "it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man
of God may be perfect," (2 Tim. 3: 16.) What an infatuation of the
devil, therefore, to fancy that Scripture, which conducts the sons
of God to the final goal, is of transient and temporary use? Again,
I should like those people to tell me whether they have imbibed any
other Spirit than that which Christ promised to his disciples.
Though their madness is extreme, it will scarcely carry them the
length of making this their boast. But what kind of Spirit did our
Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself, (John
16: 13,) but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had
delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised
to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a
new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received
doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine
which the gospel recommends.
    2. Hence it is easy to understand that we must give diligent
heed both to the reading and hearing of Scripture, if we would
obtain any benefit from the Spirit of God, (just as Peter praises
those who attentively study the doctrine of the prophets, (2 Pet. 1:
19,) though it might have been thought to be superseded after the
gospel light arose,) and, on the contrary, that any spirit which
passes by the wisdom of God's Word, and suggests any other doctrine,
is deservedly suspected of vanity and falsehood. Since Satan
transforms himself into an angel of light, what authority can the
Spirit have with us if he be not ascertained by an infallible mark?
And assuredly he is pointed out to us by the Lord with sufficient
clearness; but these miserable men err as if bent on their own
destruction, while they seek the Spirit from themselves rather than
from Him. But they say that it is insulting to subject the Spirit,
to whom all things are to be subject, to the Scripture: as if it
were disgraceful to the Holy Spirit to maintain a perfect
resemblance throughout, and be in all respects without variation
consistent with himself. True, if he were subjected to a human, an
angelical, or to any foreign standard, it might be thought that he
was rendered subordinate, or, if you will, brought into bondage, but
so long as he is compared with himself, and considered in himself,
how can it be said that he is thereby injured? I admit that he is
brought to a test, but the very test by which it has pleased him
that his majesty should be confirmed. It ought to be enough for us
when once we hear his voice; but lest Satan should insinuate himself
under his name, he wishes us to recognise him by the image which he
has stamped on the Scriptures. The author of the Scriptures cannot
vary, and change his likeness. Such as he there appeared at first,
such he will perpetually remain. There is nothing contumelious to
him in this, unless we are to think it would be honourable for him
to degenerate, and revolt against himself.
    3. Their cavil about our cleaving to the dead letter carries
with it the punishment which they deserve for despising Scripture.
It is clear that Paul is there arguing against false apostles, (2
Cor. 3: 6,) who, by recommending the law without Christ, deprived
the people of the benefit of the New Covenant, by which the Lord
engages that he will write his law on the hearts of believers, and
engrave it on their inward parts. The letter therefore is dead, and
the law of the Lord kills its readers when it is dissevered from the
grace of Christ, and only sounds in the ear without touching the
heart. But if it is effectually impressed on the heart by the
Spirit; if it exhibits Christ, it is the word of life converting the
soul, and making wise the simple. Nay, in the very same passage, the
apostle calls his own preaching the ministration of the Spirit, (2
Cor. 3: 8,) intimating that the Holy Spirit so cleaves to his own
truth, as he has expressed it in Scripture, that he then only exerts
and puts forth his strength when the word is received with due
honour and respect.
    There is nothing repugnant here to what was lately said, (chap.
7) that we have no great certainty of the word itself, until it be
confirmed by the testimony of the Spirit. For the Lord has so knit
together the certainty of his word and his Spirit, that our minds
are duly imbued with reverence for the word when the Spirit shining
upon it enables us there to behold the face of God; and, on the
other hand, we embrace the Spirit with no danger of delusion when we
recognise him in his image, that is, in his word. Thus, indeed, it
is. God did not produce his word before men for the sake of sudden
display, intending to abolish it the moment the Spirit should
arrive; but he employed the same Spirit, by whose agency he had
administered the word, to complete his work by the efficacious
confirmation of the word. In this way Christ explained to the two
disciples, (Luke 24: 27,) not that they were to reject the
Scriptures and trust to their own wisdom, but that they were to
understand the Scriptures. In like manner, when Paul says to the
Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit," he does not carry them aloft
to empty speculation apart from the word; he immediately adds,
"Despise not prophesying," (1 Thess. 5: 19, 20.) By this, doubtless,
he intimates that the light of the Spirit is quenched the moment
prophesying fall into contempt. How is this answered by those
swelling enthusiasts, in whose idea the only true illumination
consists, in carelessly laying aside, and bidding adieu to the Word
of God, while, with no less confidence than folly, they fasten upon
any dreaming notion which may have casually sprung up in their
minds? Surely a very different sobriety becomes the children of God.
As they feel that without the Spirit of God they are utterly devoid
of the light of truth, so they are not ignorant that the word is the
instrument by which the illumination of the Spirit is dispensed.
They know of no other Spirit than the one who dwelt and spake in the
apostles--the Spirit by whose oracles they are daily invited to the
hearing of the word.

Chapter 10.

10. In Scripture, the true God opposed, exclusively, to all the gods
of the heathen.

Sections.

1. Explanation of the knowledge of God resumed. God as manifested in
    Scripture, the same as delineated in his works.
2. The attributes of God as described by Moses, David, and Jeremiah.
    Explanation of the attributes. Summary. Uses of this knowledge.
3. Scripture, in directing us to the true God, excludes the gods of
    the heathen, who, however, in some sense, held the unity of
    God.
    
    1. We formerly observed that the knowledge of God, which, in
other respects, is not obscurely exhibited in the frame of the
world, and in all the creatures, is more clearly and familiarly
explained by the word. It may now be proper to show, that in
Scripture the Lord represents himself in the same character in which
we have already seen that he is delineated in his works. A full
discussion of this subject would occupy a large space. But it will
here be sufficient to furnish a kind of index, by attending to which
the pious reader may be enabled to understand what knowledge of God
he ought chiefly to search for in Scripture, and be directed as to
the mode of conducting the search. I am not now adverting to the
peculiar covenant by which God distinguished the race of Abraham
from the rest of the nations. For when by gratuitous adoption he
admitted those who were enemies to the rank of sons, he even then
acted in the character of a Redeemer. At present, however, we are
employed in considering that knowledge which stops short at the
creation of the world, without ascending to Christ the Mediator. But
though it will soon be necessary to quote certain passages from the
New Testament, (proofs being there given both of the power of God
the Creator, and of his providence in the preservation of what he
originally created,) I wish the reader to remember what my present
purpose is, that he may not wander from the proper subject. Briefly,
then, it will be sufficient for him at present to understand how
God, the Creator of heaven and earth, governs the world which was
made by him. In every part of Scripture we meet with descriptions of
his paternal kindness and readiness to do good, and we also meet
with examples of severity which show that he is the just punisher of
the wicked, especially when they continue obstinate notwithstanding
of all his forbearance.
    2. There are certain passages which contain more vivid
descriptions of the divine character, setting it before us as if his
genuine countenance were visibly portrayed. Moses, indeed, seems to
have intended briefly to comprehend whatever may be known of God by
man, when he said, "The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious,
long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy
for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and
that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto
the third and to the fourth generation," (Ex. 34: 6, 7.) Here we may
observe, firsts that his eternity and selfexistence are declared by
his magnificent name twice repeated; and, secondly, that in the
enumeration of his perfections, he is described not as he is in
himself, but in relation to us, in order that our acknowledgement of
him may be more a vivid actual impression than empty visionary
speculation. Moreover, the perfections thus enumerated are just
those which we saw shining in the heavens, and on the earth -
compassion, goodness, mercy, justice, judgement, and truth. For
power and energy are comprehended under the name Jehovah. Similar
epithets are employed by the prophets when they would fully declare
his sacred name. Not to collect a great number of passages, it may
suffice at present to refer to one Psalm, (145) in which a summary
of the divine perfections is so carefully given that not one seems
to have been omitted. Still, however, every perfection there set
down may be contemplated in creation; and, hence, such as we feel
him to be when experience is our guide, such he declares himself to
be by his word. In Jeremiah, where God proclaims the character in
which he would have us to acknowledge him, though the description is
not so full, it is substantially the same. "Let him that glorieth,"
says he, "glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that
I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgement, and
righteousness, in the earth," (Jerem. 9: 24.) Assuredly, the
attributes which it is most necessary for us to know are these
three: Loving-kindness, on which alone our entire safety depends:
Judgement, which is daily exercised on the wicked, and awaits them
in a severer form, even for eternal destruction: Righteousness, by
which the faithful are preserved, and most benignly cherished. The
prophet declares, that when you understand these, you are amply
furnished with the means of glorying in God. Nor is there here any
omission of his truth, or power, or holiness, or goodness. For how
could this knowledge of his loving-kindness, judgement, and
righteousness, exist, if it were not founded on his inviolable
truth? How, again, could it be believed that he governs the earth
with judgement and righteousness, without presupposing his mighty
power? Whence, too, his loving-kindness, but from his goodness? In
fine, if all his ways are loving-kindness, judgement, and
righteousness, his holiness also is thereby conspicuous. Moreover,
the knowledge of God, which is set before us in the Scriptures, is
designed for the same purpose as that which shines in creation,
viz., that we may thereby learn to worship him with perfect
integrity of heart and unfeigned obedience, and also to depend
entirely on his goodness.
    3. Here it may be proper to give a summary of the general
doctrine. First, then, let the reader observe that the Scripture, in
order to direct us to the true God, distinctly excludes and rejects
all the gods of the heathen, because religion was universally
adulterated in almost every age. It is true, indeed, that the name
of one God was everywhere known and celebrated. For those who
worshipped a multitude of gods, whenever they spoke the genuine
language of nature, simply used the name god, as if they had thought
one god sufficient. And this is shrewdly noticed by Justin Martyr,
who, to the same effect, wrote a treatise, entitled, On the Monarchy
of God, in which he shows, by a great variety of evidence, that the
unity of God is engraven on the hearts of all. Tertullian also
proves the same thing from the common forms of speech. But as all,
without exception, have in the vanity of their minds rushed or been
dragged into lying fictions, these impressions, as to the unity of
God, whatever they may have naturally been, have had no further
effect than to render men inexcusable. The wisest plainly discover
the vague wanderings of their minds when they express a wish for any
kind of Deity, and thus offer up their prayers to unknown gods. And
then, in imagining a manifold nature in God, though their ideas
concerning Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Minerva, and others, were not so
absurd as those of the rude vulgar, they were by no means free from
the delusions of the devil. We have elsewhere observed, that however
subtle the evasions devised by philosophers, they cannot do away
with the charge of rebellion, in that all of them have corrupted the
truth of God. For this reason, Habakkuk, (2: 20,) after condemning
all idols, orders men to seek God in his temple, that the faithful
may acknowledge none but Him, who has manifested himself in his
word.

Chapter 11.

11. Impiety of attributing a visible form to God. - The setting up
of idols a defection from the true God.

    There are three leading divisions in this chapter. The first
contains a refutation of those who ascribe a visible form to God,
(s. 1 and 2,) with an answer to the objection of those who, because
it is said that God manifested his presence by certain symbols, use
it as a defence of their error, (s. 3 and 4.) Various arguments are
afterwards adduced, disposing of the trite objection from Gregory's
expression, that images are the books of the unlearned, (s. 5-7.)
The second division of the chapter relates to the origin of idols or
images, and the adoration of them, as approved by the Papists, (s.
8-10.) Their evasion refuted, (s. 11.) The third division treats of
the use and abuse of images, (s. 12.) Whether it is expedient to
have them in Christian Churches, (s. 13.) The concluding part
contains a refutation of the second Council of Nice, which very
absurdly contends for images in opposition to divine truth, and even
to the disparagement of the Christian name.

Sections.

1. God is opposed to idols, that all may know he is the only fit
    witness to himself. He expressly forbids any attempt to
    represent him by a bodily shape.
2. Reasons for this prohibition from Moses, Isaiah, and Paul. The
    complaint of a heathen. It should put the worshipers of idols
    to shame.
3. Consideration of an objection taken from various passages in
    Moses. The Cherubim and Seraphim show that images are not fit
    to represent divine mysteries. The Cherubim belonged to the
    tutelage of the Law.
4. The materials of which idols are made, abundantly refute the
    fiction of idolaters. Confirmation from Isaiah and others.
    Absurd precaution of the Greeks.
5. Objection, - That images are the books of the unlearned.
    Objection answered, 1. Scripture declares images to be teachers
    of vanity and lies.
6. Answer continued, 2. Ancient Theologians condemn the formation
    and worship of idols.
7. Answer continued, - 3. The use of images condemned by the luxury
    and meretricious ornaments given to them in Popish Churches. 4.
    The Church must be trained in true piety by another method.
8. The second division of the chapter. Origin of idols or images.
    Its rise shortly after the flood. Its continual progress.
9. Of the worship of images. Its nature. A pretext of idolaters
    refuted. Pretexts of the heathen. Genius of idolaters.
10. Evasion of the Papists. Their agreement with ancient idolaters.
11. Refutation of another evasion or sophism, viz., the distinction
    of dulia and latria.
12. Third division of the chapter, viz., the use and abuse of
    images.
13. Whether it is expedient to have images in Christian temples.
14. Absurd defence of the worship of images by the second so-called
    Council of Nice. Sophisms or perversions of Scripture in
    defence of images in churches.
15. Passages adduced in support of the worship of images.
16. The blasphemous expressions of some ancient idolaters approved
    by not a few of the more modern, both in word and deed.

    1. As Scripture, in accommodation to the rude and gross
intellect of man, usually speaks in popular terms, so whenever its
object is to discriminate between the true God and false deities, it
opposes him in particular to idols; not that it approves of what is
taught more elegantly and subtilely by philosophers, but that it may
the better expose the folly, nay, madness of the world in its
inquiries after God, so long as every one clings to his own
speculations. This exclusive definition, which we uniformly meet
with in Scripture, annihilates every deity which men frame for
themselves of their own accord - God himself being the only fit
witness to himself. Meanwhile, seeing that this brutish stupidity
has overspread the globe, men longing after visible forms of God,
and so forming deities of wood and stone, silver and gold, or of any
other dead and corruptible matter, we must hold it as a first
principle, that as often as any form is assigned to God, his glory
is corrupted by an impious lie. In the Law, accordingly, after God
had claimed the glory of divinity for himself alone, when he comes
to show what kind of worship he approves and rejects, he immediately
adds, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth
beneath, or in the water under the earth," (Exod. 20: 4.) By these
words he curbs any licentious attempt we might make to represent him
by a visible shape, and briefly enumerates all the forms by which
superstition had begun, even long before, to turn his truth into a
lie. For we know that the Sun was worshipped by the Persian. As many
stars as the foolish nations saw in the sky, so many gods they
imagined them to be. Then to the Egyptians, every animal was a
figure of God. The Greeks, again, plumed themselves on their
superior wisdom in worshipping God under the human form, (Maximum
Tyrius Platonic. Serm. 38.) But God makes no comparison between
images, as if one were more, and another less befitting; he rejects,
without exception, all shapes and pictures, and other symbols by
which the superstitious imagine they can bring him near to them.
    2. This may easily be inferred from the reasons which he
annexes to his prohibition. First, it is said in the books of Moses,
(Deut. 4: 15,) "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye
saw no manner of similitude in the day that the Lord spake unto you
in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire, lest ye corrupt yourselves,
and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure," &c. We
see how plainly God declares against all figures, to make us aware
that all longing after such visible shapes is rebellion against him.
Of the prophets, it will be sufficient to mention Isaiah, who is the
most copious on this subjects (Isaiah 40: 18; 41:7,29; 45:9; 46:5,)
in order to show how the majesty of God is defiled by an absurd and
indecorous fiction, when he who is incorporeal is assimilated to
corporeal matter; he who is invisible to a visible image; he who is
a spirit to an inanimate object; and he who fills all space to a bit
of paltry wood, or stone, or gold. Paul, too, reasons in the same
way, "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 man's device," (Acts 17: 29.) Hence it is
manifest, that whatever statues are set up or pictures painted to
represent God, are utterly displeasing to him, as a kind of insults
to his majesty. And is it strange that the Holy Spirit thunders such
responses from heaven, when he compels even blind and miserable
idolaters to make a similar confession on the earth? Seneca's
complaint, as given by Augustine De Civit. Dei, c. 10, is well
known. He says "The sacred immortal, and invisible gods they exhibit
in the meanest and most ignoble materials, and dress them in the
clothing of men and beasts; some confound the sexes, and form a
compound out of different bodies, giving the name of deities to
objects, which, if they were met alive, would be deemed monsters."
Hence, again, it is obvious, that the defenders of images resort to
a paltry quibbling evasion, when they pretend that the Jews were
forbidden to use them on account of their proneness to superstition;
as if a prohibition which the Lord founds on his own eternal
essences and the uniform course of nature, could be restricted to a
single nation. Besides, when Paul refuted the error of giving a
bodily shape to God, he was addressing not Jews, but Athenians.
    3. It is true that the Lord occasionally manifested his
presence by certain signs, so that he was said to be seen face to
face; but all the signs he ever employed were in apt accordance with
the scheme of doctrine, and, at the same time, gave plain intimation
of his incomprehensible essence. For the cloud, and smoke, and
flame, though they were symbols of heavenly glory, (Deut. 4: 11,)
curbed men's minds as with a bridle, that they might not attempt to
penetrate farther. Therefore, even Moses (to whom, of all men, God
manifested himself most familiarly) was not permitted though he
prayed for it, to behold that face, but received for answer, that
the refulgence was too great for man, (Exod. 33: 20.) The Holy
Spirit appeared under the form of a dove, but as it instantly
vanished, who does not see that in this symbol of a moment, the
faithful were admonished to regard the Spirit as invisible, to be
contented with his power and grace, and not call for any external
figure? God sometimes appeared in the form of a man, but this was in
anticipation of the future revelation in Christ, and, therefore, did
not give the Jews the least pretext for setting up a symbol of Deity
under the human form. The mercy-seat, also, (Exod. 25: 17,18,21,)
where, under the Law, God exhibited the presence of his power, was
so framed, as to intimate that God is best seen when the mind rises
in admiration above itself: the Cherubim with outstretched wings
shaded, and the veil covered it, while the remoteness of the place
was in itself a sufficient concealment. It is therefore mere
infatuation to attempt to defend images of God and the saints by the
example of the Cherubim. For what, pray, did these figures mean, if
not that images are unfit to represent the mysteries of God, since
they were so formed as to cover the mercy-seat with their wings,
thereby concealing the view of God, not only from the eye, but from
every human sense, and curbing presumption? To this we may add, that
the prophets depict the Seraphim, who are exhibited to us in vision,
as having their faces veiled; thus intimating, that the refulgence
of the divine glory is so great, that even the angels cannot gaze
upon it directly, while the minute beams which sparkle in the face
of angels are shrouded from our view. Moreover, all men of sound
judgement acknowledge that the Cherubim in question belonged to the
old tutelage of the law. It is absurd, therefore, to bring them
forward as an example for our age. For that period of puerility, if
I may so express it, to which such rudiments were adapted, has
passed away. And surely it is disgraceful, that heathen writers
should be more skilful interpreters of Scripture than the Papists.
Juvenal (Sat. 14) holds up the Jews to derision for worshipping the
thin clouds and firmament. This he does perversely and impiously;
still, in denying that any visible shape of Deity existed among
them, he speaks more accurately than the Papists, who prate about
there having been some visible image. In the fact that the people
every now and then rushed forth with boiling haste in pursuit of
idols, just like water gushing forth with violence from a copious
spring, let us learn how prone our nature is to idolatry, that we
may not, by throwing the whole blame of a common vice upon the Jews,
be led away by vain and sinful enticements to sleep the sleep of
death.
    4. To the same effect are the words of the Psalmist, (Psalms
115: 4, 135: 15,) "Their idols are silver and gold, the works of
men's hands." From the materials of which they are made, he infers
that they are not gods, taking it for granted that every human
device concerning God is a dull fiction. He mentions silver and gold
rather than clay or stone, that neither splendour nor cost may
procure reverence to idols. He then draws a general conclusion, that
nothing is more unlikely than that gods should be formed of any kind
of inanimate matter. Man is forced to confess that he is but the
creature of a day, (see Book 3: c. 9 s. 2,) and yet would have the
metal which he has deified to be regarded as God. Whence had idols
their origin, but from the will of man? There was ground, therefore,
for the sarcasm of the heathen poet, (Hor. Sat. I. 8,) "I was once
the trunk of a fig-tree, a useless log, when the tradesman,
uncertain whether he should make me a stool, &c., chose rather that
I should be a god." In other words, an earth-born creature, who
breathes out his life almost every moment, is able by his own device
to confer the name and honour of deity on a lifeless trunk. But as
that Epicurean poet, in indulging his wit, had no regard for
religion, without attending to his jeers or those of his fellows,
let the rebuke of the prophet sting, nay, cut us to the heart, when
he speaks of the extreme infatuation of those who take a piece of
wood to kindle a fire to warm themselves, bake bread, roast or boil
flesh, and out of the residue make a god, before which they
prostrate themselves as suppliants, (Isaiah 44: 16.) Hence, the same
prophet, in another place, not only charges idolaters as guilty in
the eye of the law, but upbraids them for not learning from the
foundations of the earth, nothing being more incongruous than to
reduce the immense and incomprehensible Deity to the stature of a
few feet. And yet experience shows that this monstrous proceeding,
though palpably repugnant to the order of nature, is natural to man.
It is, moreover, to be observed, that by the mode of expression
which is employed, every form of superstition is denounced. Being
works of men, they have no authority from God, (Isa. 2: 8, 31: 7;
Hos. 14: 3; Mic. 5: 13;) and, therefore, it must be regarded as a
fixed principle, that all modes of worship devised by man are
detestable. The infatuation is placed in a still stronger light by
the Psalmist, (Psalm 115: 8,) when he shows how aid is implored from
dead and senseless objects, by beings who have been endued with
intelligence for the very purpose of enabling them to know that the
whole universe is governed by Divine energy alone. But as the
corruption of nature hurries away all mankind collectively and
individually into this madness, the Spirit at length thunders forth
a dreadful imprecation, "They that make them are like unto them, so
is every one that trusteth in them." And it is to be observed, that
the thing forbidden is likeness, whether sculptured or otherwise.
This disposes of the frivolous precaution taken by the Greek Church.
They think they do admirably, because they have no sculptured shape
of Deity, while none go greater lengths in the licentious use of
pictures. The Lord, however, not only forbids any image of himself
to be erected by a statuary, but to be formed by any artist
whatever, because every such image is sinful and insulting to his
majesty.
    5. I am not ignorant, indeed, of the assertion, which is now
more than threadbare, "that images are the books of the unlearned."
So said Gregory: a but the Holy Spirit goes a very different
decision; and had Gregory got his lesson in this matter in the
Spirit's school, he never would have spoken as he did. For when
Jeremiah declares that "the stock is a doctrine of vanities," (Jer.
10: 8,) and Habakkuk, "that the molten image" is "a teacher of
lies," the general doctrine to be inferred certainly is, that every
thing respecting God which is learned from images is futile and
false. If it is objected that the censure of the prophets is
directed against those who perverted images to purposes of impious
superstition, I admit it to be so; but I add, (what must be obvious
to all,) that the prophets utterly condemn what the Papists hold to
be an undoubted axiom, viz., that images are substitutes for books.
For they contrast images with the true God, as if the two were of an
opposite nature, and never could be made to agree. In the passages
which I lately quoted, the conclusion drawn is, that seeing there is
one true God whom the Jews worshipped, visible shapes made for the
purpose of representing him are false and wicked fictions; and all,
therefore, who have recourse to them for knowledge are miserably
deceived. In short, were it not true that all such knowledge is
fallacious and spurious, the prophets would not condemn it in such
general terms. This at least I maintain, that when we teach that all
human attempts to give a visible shape to God are vanity and lies,
we do nothing more than state verbatim what the prophets taught.
    6. Moreover, let Lactantius and Eusebius be read on this
subject. These writers assume it as an indisputable fact, that all
the beings whose images were erected were originally men. In like
manner, Augustine distinctly declares, that it is unlawful not only
to worship images, but to dedicate them. And in this he says no more
than had been long before decreed by the Libertine Council, the
thirty-sixth Canon of which is, "There must be no pictures used in
churches: Let nothing which is adored or worshipped be painted on
walls." But the most memorable passage of all is that which
Augustine quotes in another place from Varro, and in which he
expressly concurs: - "Those who first introduced images of the gods
both took away fear and brought in error." Were this merely the
saying of Varro, it might perhaps be of little weight, though it
might well make us ashamed, that a heathen, groping as it were in
darkness, should have attained to such a degree of light, as to see
that corporeal images are unworthy of the majesty of God, and that,
because they diminish reverential fear and encourage error. The
sentiment itself bears witness that it was uttered with no less
truth than shrewdness. But Augustine, while he borrows it from
Varro, adduces it as conveying his own opinion. At the outset,
indeed, he declares that the first errors into which men fell
concerning God did not originate with images, but increased with
them, as if new fuel had been added. Afterwards, he explains how the
fear of God was thereby extinguished or impaired, his presence being
brought into contempt by foolish, and childish, and absurd
representations. The truth of this latter remark I wish we did not
so thoroughly experience. Whosoever, therefore, is desirous of being
instructed in the true knowledge of God must apply to some other
teacher than images.
    7. Let Papists, then, if they have any sense of shame,
henceforth desist from the futile plea, that images are the books of
the unlearned - a plea so plainly refuted by innumerable passages of
Scripture. And yet were I to admit the plea, it would not be a valid
defence of their peculiar idols. It is well known what kind of
monsters they obtrude upon us as divine. For what are the pictures
or statues to which they append the names of saints, but exhibitions
of the most shameless luxury or obscenity? Were any one to dress
himself after their model, he would deserve the pillory. Indeed,
brothels exhibit their inmates more chastely and modestly dressed
than churches do images intended to represent virgins. The dress of
the martyrs is in no respect more becoming. Let Papists then have
some little regard to decency in decking their idols, if they would
give the least plausibility to the false allegation, that they are
books of some kind of sanctity. But even then we shall answer, that
this is not the method in which the Christian people should be
taught in sacred places. Very different from these follies is the
doctrine in which God would have them to be there instructed. His
injunction is, that the doctrine common to all should there be set
forth by the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the
sacraments, - a doctrine to which little heed can be given by those
whose eyes are carried too and fro gazing at idols. And who are the
unlearned, whose rudeness admits of being taught by images only?
Just those whom the Lord acknowledges for his disciples; those whom
he honours with a revelation of his celestial philosophy, and
desires to be trained in the saving mysteries of his kingdom. I
confess, indeed, as matters now are, there are not a few in the
present day who cannot want such books. But, I ask, whence this
stupidity, but just because they are defrauded of the only doctrine
which was fit to instruct them? The simple reason why those who had
the charge of churches resigned the office of teaching to idols was,
because they themselves were dumb. Paul declares, that by the true
preaching of the gospel Christ is portrayed and in a manner
crucified before our eyes, (Gal. 3: 1.) Of what use, then, were the
erection in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver
and gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached,
viz., Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that
he might expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in
his blood, and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father? From this
one doctrine the people would learn more than from a thousand
crosses of wood and stone. As for crosses of gold and silver, it may
be true that the avaricious give their eyes and minds to them more
eagerly than to any heavenly instructor.
    8. In regard to the origin of idols, the statement contained in
the Book of Wisdom has been received with almost universal consent,
viz., that they originated with those who bestowed this honour on
the dead, from a superstitious regard to their memory. I admit that
this perverse practice is of very high antiquity, and I deny not
that it was a kind of torch by which the infatuated proneness of
mankind to idolatry was kindled into a greater blaze. I do not,
however, admit that it was the first origin of the practice. That
idols were in use before the prevalence of that ambitious
consecration of the images of the dead, frequently adverted to by
profane writers, is evident from the words of Moses, (Gen. 31: 19.)
When he relates that Rachel stole her father's images, he speaks of
the use of idols as a common vice. Hence we may infer, that the
human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols. There was a
kind of renewal of the world at the deluge, but before many years
elapse, men are forging gods at will. There is reason to believe,
that in the holy Patriarch's lifetime his grandchildren were given
to idolatry: so that he must with his own eyes, not without the
deepest grief, have seen the earth polluted with idols - that earth
whose iniquities God had lately purged with so fearful a judgement.
For Joshua testifies, (Josh. 24: 2,) that Torah and Nachor, even
before the birth of Abraham, were the worshipers of false gods. The
progeny of Shem having so speedily revolted, what are we to think of
the posterity of Ham, who had been cursed long before in their
father? Thus, indeed, it is. The human mind, stuffed as it is with
presumptuous rashness, dares to imagine a god suited to its own
capacity; as it labours under dullness, nay, is sunk in the grossest
ignorance, it substitutes vanity and an empty phantom in the place
of God. To these evils another is added. The god whom man has thus
conceived inwardly he attempts to embody outwardly. The mind, in
this way, conceives the idol, and the hand gives it birth. That
idolatry has its origin in the idea which men have, that God is not
present with them unless his presence is carnally exhibited, appears
from the example of the Israelites: "Up," said they, "make us gods,
which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that
brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wet not what is become of
him," (Exod. 22: 1.) They knew, indeed, that there was a God whose
mighty power they had experienced in so many miracles, but they had
no confidence of his being near to them, if they did not with their
eyes behold a corporeal symbol of his presence, as an attestation to
his actual government. They desired, therefore, to be assured by the
image which went before them, that they were journeying under Divine
guidance. And daily experience shows, that the flesh is always
restless until it has obtained some figment like itself, with which
it may vainly solace itself as a representation of God. In
consequence of this blind passion men have, almost in all ages since
the world began, set up signs on which they imagined that God was
visibly depicted to their eyes.
    9. After such a figment is formed, adoration forthwith ensues:
for when once men imagined that they beheld God in images, they also
worshipped him as being there. At length their eyes and minds
becoming wholly engrossed by them, they began to grow more and more
brutish, gazing and wondering as if some divinity were actually
before them. It hence appears that men do not fall away to the
worship of images until they have imbibed some idea of a grosser
description: not that they actually believe them to be gods, but
that the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them.
Therefore, whether it be God or a creature that is imaged, the
moment you fall prostrate before it in veneration, you are so far
fascinated by superstition. For this reason, the Lord not only
forbade the erection of statues to himself, but also the
consecration of titles and stones which might be set up for
adoration. For the same reason, also, the second commandment has an
additional part concerning adoration. For as soon as a visible form
is given to God, his power also is supposed to be annexed to it. So
stupid are men, that wherever they figure God, there they fix him,
and by necessary consequence proceed to adore him. It makes no
difference whether they worship the idol simply, or God in the idol;
it is always idolatry when divine honours are paid to an idol, be
the colour what it may. And because God wills not to be worshipped
superstitiously whatever is bestowed upon idols is so much robbed
from him.
    Let those attend to this who set about hunting for miserable
pretexts in defence of the execrable idolatry in which for many past
ages true religion has been buried and sunk. It is said that the
images are not accounted gods. Nor were the Jews so utterly
thoughtless as not to remember that there was a God whose hand led
them out of Egypt before they made the calf. Indeed, Aaron saying,
that these were the gods which had brought them out of Egypt, they
intimated, in no ambiguous terms, that they wished to retain God,
their deliverer, provided they saw him going before them in the
calf. Nor are the heathen to be deemed to have been so stupid as not
to understand that God was something else than wood and stone. For
they changed the images at pleasure, but always retained the same
gods in their minds; besides, they daily consecrated new images
without thinking they were making new gods. Read the excuses which
Augustine tells us were employed by the idolaters of his time,
(August. in Ps. 113). The vulgar, when accused, replied that they
did not worship the visible object, but the Deity which dwelt in it
invisibly. Those, again, who had what he calls a more refined
religion, said, that they neither worshipped the image, nor any
inhabiting Deity, but by means of the corporeal image beheld a
symbol of that which it was their duty to worship. What then? All
idolaters whether Jewish or Gentile, were actuated in the very way
which has been described. Not contented with spiritual
understanding, they thought that images would give them a surer and
nearer impression. When once this preposterous representation of God
was adopted, there was no limit until, deluded every now and then by
new impostures, they came to think that God exerted his power in
images. Still the Jews were persuaded, that under such images they
worshipped the eternal God, the one true Lord of heaven and earth;
and the Gentiles, also, in worshipping their own false gods,
supposed them to dwell in heaven.
    10. It is an impudent falsehood to deny that the thing which
was thus anciently done is also done in our day. For why do men
prostrate themselves before images? Why, when in the act of praying,
do they turn towards them as to the ears of God? It is indeed true,
as Augustine says, (in Ps. 113,) that no person thus prays or
worships, looking at an image, without being impressed with the idea
that he is heard by it, or without hoping that what he wishes will
be performed by it. Why are such distinctions made between different
images of the same God, that while one is passed by, or receives
only common honour, another is worshipped with the highest
solemnities? Why do they fatigue themselves with votive pilgrimages
to images while they have many similar ones at home? Why at the
present time do they fight for them to blood and slaughter, as for
their altars and hearths, showing more willingness to part with the
one God than with their idols? And yet I am not now detailing the
gross errors of the vulgar - errors almost infinite in number, and
in possession of almost all hearts. I am only referring to what
those profess who are most desirous to clear themselves of idolatry.
They say, we do not call them our gods. Nor did either the Jews or
Gentiles of old so call them; and yet the prophets never ceased to
charge them with their adulteries with wood and stone for the very
acts which are daily done by those who would be deemed Christians,
namely, for worshipping God carnally in wood and stone.
    11. I am not ignorant, however, and I have no wish to disguise
the fact, that they endeavour to evade the charge by means of a more
subtle distinction, which shall afterwards be fully considered, (see
infra, s. 16, and chap. 12 s. 2.) The worship which they pay to
their images they cloak with the name of "idolodulia", and deny to
be "idolatria". So they speaks holding that the worship which they
call "dulia" may, without insult to God, be paid to statues and
pictures. Hence, they think themselves blameless if they are only
the servants, and not the worshipers, of idols; as if it were not a
lighter matter to worship than to serve. And yet, while they take
refuge in a Greek term, they very childishly contradict themselves.
For the Greek word "latreuein" having no other meaning than to
worship, what they say is just the same as if they were to confess
that they worship their images without worshipping them. They cannot
object that I am quibbling upon words. The fact is, that they only
betray their ignorance while they attempt to throw dust in the eyes
of the simple. But how eloquent soever they may be, they will never
prove by their eloquence that one and the same thing makes two. Let
them show how the things differ if they would be thought different
from ancient idolaters. For as a murderer or an adulterer will not
escape conviction by giving some adventitious name to his crime, so
it is absurd for them to expect that the subtle device of a name
will exculpate them, if they, in fact, differ in nothing from
idolaters whom they themselves are forced to condemn. But so far are
they from proving that their case is different, that the source of
the whole evil consists in a preposterous rivalship with them, while
they with their minds devise, and with their hands execute,
symbolical shapes of God.
    12. I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all
visible representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture
and painting are gifts of God, what I insist for is, that both shall
be used purely and lawfully, - that gifts which the Lord has
bestowed upon us, for his glory and our good, shall not be
preposterously abused, nay, shall not be perverted to our
destruction. We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God,
because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done
without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory. And lest any should
think that we are singular in this opinion, those acquainted with
the productions of sound divines will find that they have always
disapproved of it. If it be unlawful to make any corporeal
representation of God, still more unlawful must it be to worship
such a representation instead of God, or to worship God in it. The
only things, therefore, which ought to be painted or sculptured, are
things which can be presented to the eye; the majesty of God, which
is far beyond the reach of any eye, must not be dishonored by
unbecoming representations. Visible representations are of two
classes, viz., historical, which give a representation of events,
and pictorial, which merely exhibit bodily shapes and figures. The
former are of some use for instruction or admonition. The latter, so
far as I can see, are only fitted for amusement. And yet it is
certain, that the latter are almost the only kind which have
hitherto been exhibited in churches. Hence we may infer, that the
exhibition was not the result of judicious selection, but of a
foolish and inconsiderate longing. I say nothing as to the improper
and unbecoming form in which they are presented, or the wanton
license in which sculptors and painters have here indulged, (a point
to which I alluded a little ago, supra, s. 7.) I only say, that
though they were otherwise faultless, they could not be of any
utility in teaching.
    13. But, without reference to the above distinction, let us
here consider, whether it is expedient that churches should contain
representations of any kind, whether of events or human forms.
First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient
Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which
religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine
flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible
representations, (see Preface, and Book 4, c. 9 s. 9.) Hence their
first admission as an ornament to churches took place after the
purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute
as to the rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction
of them proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find
that the latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times
when images were unknown. What then? Are we to suppose that those
holy fathers, if they had judged the thing to be useful and
salutary, would have allowed the Church to be so long without it?
Undoubtedly, because they saw very little or no advantage, and the
greatest danger in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on
rational grounds, than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness.
This is clearly attested by Augustine in these words, (Ep. 49. See
also De Civit. Dei, lib 4 c. 31) "When images are thus placed aloft
in seats of honour, to be beheld by those who are praying or
sacrificing, though they have neither sense nor life, yet from
appearing as if they had both, they affect weak minds just as if
they lived and breathed," &c. And again, in another passage, (in Ps.
112) he says, "The effect produced, and in a manner extorted, by the
bodily shape, is, that the mind, being itself in a body, imagines
that a body which is so like its oven must be similarly affected,"
&c. A little farther on he says, "Images are more capable of giving
a wrong bent to an unhappy soul, from having mouth, eyes, ears, and
feet, than of correcting it, as they neither speak, nor see, nor
hear, nor walk." This undoubtedly is the reason why John (1 John 5:
21) enjoins us to beware, not only of the worship of idols, but also
of idols themselves. And from the fearful infatuation under which
the world has hitherto laboured, almost to the entire destruction of
piety, we know too well from experience that the moment images
appear in churches, idolatry has as it were raised its banner;
because the folly of manhood cannot moderate itself, but forthwith
falls away to superstitious worship. Even were the danger less
imminent, still, when I consider the proper end for which churches
are erected, it appears to me more unbecoming their sacredness than
I well can tell, to admit any other images than those living symbols
which the Lord has consecrated by his own word: I mean Baptism and
the Lord's Supper, with the other ceremonies. By these our eyes
ought to be more steadily fixed, and more vividly impressed, than to
require the aid of any images which the wit of man may devise. Such,
then, is the incomparable blessing of images - a blessing, the want
of which, if we believe the Papists, cannot possibly be compensated!
    14. Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject,
were I not in a manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the
celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, but one
which was held eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the
auspices of the Empress Irene. This Council decreed not only that
images were to be used in churches, but also that they were to be
worshipped. Every thing, therefore, that I have said, is in danger
of suffering great prejudice from the authority of this Synod. To
confess the truth, however, I am not so much moved by this
consideration, as by a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths
to which the infatuation has been  carried by those who had a
greater fondness for images than became Christians. But let us first
dispose of this matter. Those who defend the use of images appeal to
that Synod for support. But there is a refutation extant which bears
the name of Charlemagne, and which is proved by its style to be a
production of that period. It gives the opinions delivered by the
bishops who were present, and the arguments by which they supported
them. John, deputy of the Eastern Churches, said, "God created man
in his own image," and thence inferred that images ought to be used.
He also thought there was a recommendation of images in the
following passage, "Show me thy face, for it is beautiful." Another,
in order to prove that images ought to be placed on altars, quoted
the passage, "No man, when he has lighted a candle, putteth it under
a bushel." Another, to show the utility of looking at images, quoted
a verse of the Psalms "The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has
shone upon us." Another laid hold of this similitude: As the
Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so ought Christians
to use the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles.
They also twisted to the same effect the words, "Lord, I have loved
the beauty of thy house." But the most ingenious interpretation was
the following, "As we have heard, so also have we seen;" therefore,
God is known not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the
seeing of images. Bishop Theodore was equally acute: "God," says he,
"is to be admired in his saints;" and it is elsewhere said, "To the
saints who are on earth;" therefore this must refer to images. In
short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to
quote them.
    15. When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the
worship of Pharaoh, the staff of Joseph, and the inscription which
Jacob set up. In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of
Scripture, but quote what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages,
"Worship at his footstool" - "Worship in his holy mountain" - "The
rulers of the people will worship before thy face," seem to them
very solid and apposite proofs. Were one, with the view of turning
the defenders of images into ridicule, to put words into their
mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser absurdities?
But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images, Theodosius
Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping them by the
dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as much gravity as
if he were in possession of a response from heaven. Let the patrons
of images now go and urge us with the decree of this Synod, as if
the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter discredit
by handling Scripture so childishly, or wresting it so shamefully
and profanely.
    16. I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they
ventured to utter, and twice strange that all men did not protest
against with the utmost detestation. It is right to expose this
frantic and flagitious extravagance, and thereby deprive the worship
of images of that gloss of antiquity in which Papists seek to deck
it. Theodosius Bishop of Amora fires oft an anathema at all who
object to the worship of images. Another attributes all the
calamities of Greece and the East to the crime of not having
worshipped them. Of what punishment then are the Prophets, Apostles,
and Martyrs worthy, in whose day no images existed? They afterwards
add, that if the statue of the Emperor is met with odours and
incense, much more are the images of saints entitled to the honour.
Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, professes to embrace
images with reverence, and declares that he will pay them the
respect which is due to the ever blessed Trinity: every person
refusing to do the same thing he anathematises and classes with
Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think this the private
opinion of an individual, they all assent. Nay, John the Eastern
legate, carried still farther by his zeal, declares it would be
better to allow a city to be filled with brothels than be denied the
worship of images. At last it is resolved with one consent that the
Samaritans are the worst of all heretics, and that the enemies of
images are worse than the Samaritans. But that the play may not pass
off without the accustomed Plaudite, the whole thus concludes,
"Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the image of Christ, offer
sacrifice to it." Where is now the distinction of latria and dulia
with which they would throw dust in all eyes, human and divine? The
Council unreservedly relies as much on images as on the living God.

Chapter 12

12. God distinguished from idols, that He may be the exclusive
object of worship.

Sections.

1. Scripture, in teaching that there is but one God, does not make a
    dispute about words, but attributes all honour and religious
    worship to him alone. This proved, 1st, By the etymology of the
    term. 2d, By the testimony of God himself, when he declares
    that he is a jealous God, and will not allow himself to be
    confounded with any fictitious Deity.
2. The Papists in opposing this pure doctrine, gain nothing by their
    distinction of julia and latria.
3. Passages of Scripture subversive of the Papistical distinction,
    and proving that religious worship is due to God alone.
    Perversions of Divine worship.

    1. We said at the commencement of our work, (chap. 2,) that the
knowledge of God consists not in frigid speculation, but carries
worship along with it; and we touched by the way (chap. 5 s. 6, 9,
10) on what will be more copiously treated in other places, (Book 2,
chap. 8,) viz., how God is duly worshipped. Now I only briefly
repeat, that whenever Scripture asserts the unity of God, it does
not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that nothing which
belongs to Divinity be applied to any other; thus making it obvious
in what respect pure religion differs from superstition. The Greek
word "eusebeia" means "right worship;" for the Greeks, though
groping in darkness, were always aware that a certain rule was to be
observed, in order that God might not be worshipped absurdly. Cicero
truly and shrewdly derives the name "religion" from "relego", and
yet the reason which he assigns is forced and farfetched, viz., that
honest worshipers read and read again, and ponder what is true. I
rather think the name is used in opposition to vagrant license - the
greater part of mankind rashly taking up whatever first comes in
their way, whereas piety, that it may stand with a firm step,
confines itself within due bounds. In the same way superstition
seems to take its name from its not being contented with the measure
which reason prescribes, but accumulating a superfluous mass of
vanities. But to say nothing more of words, it has been universally
admitted in all ages, that religion is vitiated and perverted
whenever false opinions are introduced into it, and hence it is
inferred, that whatever is allowed to be done from inconsiderate
zeal, cannot be defended by any pretext with which the superstitious
may choose to cloak it. But although this confession is in every
man's mouth, a shameful stupidity is forthwith manifested, inasmuch
as men neither cleave to the one God, nor use any selection in their
worship, as we have already observed.
    But God, in vindicating his own right, first proclaims that he
is a jealous God, and will be a stern avenger if he is confounded
with any false god; and thereafter defines what due worship is, in
order that the human race may be kept in obedience. Both of these he
embraces in his Law when he first binds the faithful in allegiance
to him as their only Lawgiver, and then prescribes a rule for
worshipping him in accordance with his will. The Law, with its
manifold uses and objects, I will consider in its own place; at
present I only advert to this one, that it is designed as a bridle
to curb men, and prevent them from turning aside to spurious
worship. But it is necessary to attend to the observation with which
I set out, viz., that unless everything peculiar to divinity is
confined to God alone, he is robbed of his honour, and his worship
is violated.
    It may be proper here more particularly to attend to the
subtleties which superstition employs. In revolting to strange gods,
it avoids the appearance of abandoning the Supreme God, or reducing
him to the same rank with others. It gives him the highest place,
but at the same time surrounds him with a tribe of minor deities,
among whom it portions out his peculiar offices. In this way, though
in a dissembling and crafty manner, the glory of the Godhead is
dissected, and not allowed to remain entire. In the same way the
people of old, both Jews and Gentiles, placed an immense crowd in
subordination to the father and ruler of the gods, and gave them,
according to their rank, to share with the supreme God in the
government of heaven and earth. In the same way, too, for some ages
past, departed saints have been exalted to partnership with God, to
be worshipped, invoked, and lauded in his stead. And yet we do not
even think that the majesty of God is obscured by this abomination,
whereas it is in a great measure suppressed and extinguished - all
that we retain being a frigid opinion of his supreme power. At the
same time, being deluded by these entanglements, we go astray after
divers gods.
    2. The distinction of what is called dulia and latria was
invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be
paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. For it is plain
that the worship which Papists pay to saints differs in no respect
from the worship of God: for this worship is paid without
distinction; only when they are pressed they have recourse to the
evasion, that what belongs to God is kept unimpaired, because they
leave him latria. But since the question relates not to the word,
but the thing, how can they be allowed to sport at will with a
matter of the highest moment? But not to insist on this, the utmost
they will obtain by their distinction is, that they give worship to
God, and service to the others. For "latreia" in Greek has the same
meaning as worship in Latin; whereas "douleia" properly means
service, though the words are sometimes used in Scripture
indiscriminately. But granting that the distinction is invariably
preserved, the thing to be inquired into is the meaning of each.
"Douleia" unquestionably means service, and "latreia" worship. But
no man doubts that to serve is something higher than to worship. For
it were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to
reverence. It is, therefore, an unjust division to assign the
greater to the saints and leave the less to God. But several of the
ancient fathers observed this distinction. What if they did, when
all men see that it is not only improper, but utterly frivolous?
    3. Laying aside subtleties, let us examine the thing. When Paul
reminds the Galatians of what they were before they came to the
knowledge of Gods he says that they "did service unto them which by
nature are no gods," (Gal. 4: 8.) Because he does not say latria,
was their superstition excusable? This superstition, to which he
gives the name of dulia, he condemns as much as if he had given it
the name of latria. When Christ repels Satan's insulting proposal
with the words, "It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only shalt thou serve," (Matth. 4: 10,) there was no
question of latria. For all that Satan asked was "proskunesis",
(obeisance.) In like manners when John is rebuked by the angel for
falling on his knees before him (Rev. 19: 10; 22: 8, 9,) we ought
not to suppose that John had so far forgotten himself as to have
intended to transfer the honour due to God alone to an angel. But
because it was impossible that a worship connected with religion
should not savour somewhat of divine worship, he could not
"proskunein" (do obeisance to) the angel without derogating from the
glory of God. True, we often read that men were worshipped; but that
was, if I may so speak, civil honour. The case is different with
religious honour, which, the moment it is conjoined with worship,
carries profanation of the divine honour along with it. The same
thing may be seen in the case of Cornelius, (Acts 10: 25.) He had
not made so little progress in piety as not to confine supreme
worship to God alone. Therefore, when he prostrates himself before
Peter, he certainly does it not with the intention of adoring him
instead of God. Yet Peter sternly forbids him. And why, but just
because men never distinguish so accurately between the worship of
God and the creatures as not to transfer promiscuously to the
creature that which belongs only to God. Therefore, if we would have
one God, let us remember that we can never appropriate the minutest
portion of his glory without retaining what is his due. Accordingly,
when Zechariah discourses concerning the repairing of the Church, he
distinctly says not only that there would be one God, but also that
he would have only one name - the reason being, that he might have
nothing in common with idols. The nature of the worship which God
requires will be seen in its own place, (Book 2, c. 7: and 8.) He
has been pleased to prescribe in his Law what is lawful and right,
and thus restrict men to a certain rule, lest any should allow
themselves to devise a worship of their own. But as it is
inexpedient to burden the reader by mixing up a variety of topics, I
do not now dwell on this one. Let it suffice to remember, that
whatever offices of piety are bestowed anywhere else than on God
alone, are of the nature of sacrilege. First, superstition attached
divine honours to the sun and stars, or to idols: afterwards
ambition followed - ambition which, decking man in the spoils of
God, dared to profane all that was sacred. And though the principle
of worshipping a supreme Deity continued to be held, still the
practice was to sacrifice promiscuously to genii and minor gods, or
departed heroes: so prone is the descent to this vice of
communicating to a crowd that which God strictly claims as his own
peculiar right!

Chapter 13

13. The unity of the Divine Essence in three Persons taught, in
Scripture, from the foundation of the world.

This chapter consists of two parts. The former delivers the orthodox
doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity. This occupies from sec. 1-21,
and may be divided into four heads; the first, treating of the
meaning of Person, including both the term and the thing meant by
it, sec. 2-6; the second, proving the deity of the Son, sec. 7-13;
the third, the deity of the Holy Spirit, sec. 14 and 15; and the
fourth, explaining what is to be held concerning the Holy Trinity.
The second part of the chapter refutes certain heresies which have
arisen, particularly in our age, in opposition to this orthodox
doctrine. This occupies from sec. 21 to the end.

Sections.

1. Scripture, in teaching that the essence of God is immense and
    spiritual, refutes not only idolaters and the foolish wisdom of
    the world, but also the Manichees and Anthropomorphites. These
    latter briefly refuted.
2. In this one essence are three persons, yet so that neither is
    there a triple God, nor is the simple essence of God divided.
    Meaning of the word Person in this discussion. Three hypostases
    in God, or the essence of God.
3. Objection of those who, in this discussion, reject the use of the
    word Person. Answer 1. That it is not a foreign term, but is
    employed for the explanation of sacred mysteries.
4. Answer continued, 2. The orthodox compelled to use the terms,
    Trinity, Subsistence, and Person. Examples from the case of the
    Asians and Sabellians.
5. Answer continued, 3. The ancient Church, though differing
    somewhat in the explanation of these terms, agree in substance.
    Proofs from Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, in their use of the
    words Essence, Substance, Hypostasis. 4. Provided the orthodox
    meaning is retained, there should be no dispute about mere
    terms. But those who object to the terms usually favour the
    Arian and Sabellian heresy.
6. After the definition of the term follows a definition and
    explanation of the thing meant by it. The distinction of
    Persons.
7. Proofs of the eternal Deity of the Son. The Son the "logos" of
    the Eternal Father, and, therefore, the Son Eternal God.
    Objection. Reply.
8. Objection, that the Logos began to be when the creating God
    spoke. Answer confirmed by Scripture and argument.
9. The Son called God and Jehovah. Other names of the Eternal Father
    applied to him in the Old Testament. He is, therefore, the
    Eternal God. Another objection refuted. Case of the Jews
    explained.
10. The angel who appeared to the fathers under the Law asserts that
    he is Jehovah. That angel was the Logos of the Eternal Father.
    The Son being that Logos is Eternal God. Impiety of Servetus
    refuted. Why the Son appeared in the form of an angel.
11. Passages from the New Testament in which the Son is acknowledged
    to be the Lord of Hosts, the Judge of the world, the God of
    glory, the Creator of the world, the Lord of angels, the King
    of the Church, the eternal Logos, God blessed for ever, God
    manifest in the flesh, the equal of God, the true God and
    eternal life, the Lord and God of all believers. Therefore, the
    Eternal God.
12. Christ the Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Searcher of hearts.
    Therefore, the Eternal God.
13. Christ, by his own inherent power, wrought miracles, and
    bestowed the power of working them on others. Out of the
    Eternal God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life.
    All these are in Christ. Christ, consequently, is the Eternal
    God. He in whom we believe and hope, to whom we pray, whom the
    Church acknowledges as the Saviour of the faithful, whom to
    know is life eternal, in whom the pious glory, and through whom
    eternal blessings are communicated, is the Eternal God. All
    these Christ is, and, therefore, he is God.
14. The Divinity of the Spirit proved. I. He is the Creator and
    Preserver of the world. II. He sent the Prophets. III. He
    quickeneth all things. IV. He is everywhere present. V. He
    renews the saints, and fits them for eternal life. VI. All the
    offices of Deity belong to him.
15. The Divinity of the Spirit continued. VII. He is called God.
    VIII. Blasphemy against him is not forgiven.
16. What view to be taken of the Trinity. The form of Christian
    baptism proves that there are three persons in one essence. The
    Arian and Macedonian heresies.
17. Of the distinction of Persons. They are distinct, but not
    divided. This proved.
18. Analogies taken from human affairs to be cautiously used. Due
    regard to be paid to those mentioned by Scripture.
19. How the Three Persons not only do not destroy, but constitute
    the most perfect unity
20. Conclusion of this part of the chapter, and summary of the true
    doctrine concerning the unity of Essence and the Three Persons.
21. Refutation of Arian, Macedonian, and Anti Trinitarian heresies.
    Caution to be observed.
22. The more modern Anti Trinitarians, and especially Servetus,
    refuted.
23. Other Anti Trinitarians refuted. No good objection that Christ
    is called the Son of God, since he is also called God. Impious
    absurdities of some heretics.
24. The name of God sometimes given to the Son absolutely as to the
    Father. Same as to other attributes. Objections refuted.
25. Objections further refuted. Caution to be used.
26. Previous refutations further explained.
27. Reply to certain passages produced from Irenaeus. The meaning of
    Irenaeus.
28. Reply to certain passages produced from Tertullian. The meaning
    of Tertullian.
29. Anti Trinitarians refuted by ancient Christian writers; e. g.,
    Justin, Hilary. Objections drawn from writings improperly
    attributed to Ignatius. Conclusion of the whole discussion
    concerning the Trinity.

    1. The doctrine of Scripture concerning the immensity and the
spirituality of the essence of God, should have the effect not only
of dissipating the wild dreams of the vulgar, but also of refuting
the subtleties of a profane philosophy. One of the ancients thought
he spake shrewdly when he said that everything we see and everything
we do not see is God, (Senec. Praef. lib. 1 Quaest. Nat.) In this
way he fancied that the Divinity was transfused into every separate
portion of the world. But although God, in order to keep us within
the bounds of soberness, treats sparingly of his essence, still, by
the two attributes which I have mentioned, he at once suppresses all
gross imaginations, and checks the audacity of the human mind. His
immensity surely ought to deter us from measuring him by our sense,
while his spiritual nature forbids us to indulge in carnal or
earthly speculation concerning him. With the same view he frequently
represents heaven as his dwelling-place. It is true, indeed, that as
he is incomprehensible, he fills the earth also, but knowing that
our minds are heavy and grovel on the earth, he raises us above the
worlds that he may shake off our sluggishness and inactivity. And
here we have a refutation of the error of the Manichees, who, by
adopting two first principles, made the devil almost the equal of
God. This, assuredly, was both to destroy his unity and restrict his
immensity. Their attempt to pervert certain passages of Scripture
proved their shameful ignorance, as the very nature of the error did
their monstrous infatuation. The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed
of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are
often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is
so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so
speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little
children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much
express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of
him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far
below his proper height.
    2. But there is another special mark by which he designates
himself, for the purpose of giving a more intimate knowledge of his
nature. While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before
us as existing in three persons. These we must hold, unless the bare
and empty name of Deity merely is to flutter in our brain without
any genuine knowledge. Moreover, lest any one should dream of a
threefold God, or think that the simple essence is divided by the
three Persons, we must here seek a brief and easy definition which
may effectually guard us from error. But as some strongly inveigh
against the term Person as being merely of human inventions let us
first consider how far they have any ground for doing so.
    When the Apostle calls the Son of God "the express image of his
person," (Heb. 1: 3,) he undoubtedly does assign to the Father some
subsistence in which he differs from the Son. For to hold with some
interpreters that the term is equivalent to essence, (as if Christ
represented the substance of the Father like the impression of a
seal upon wax,) were not only harsh but absurd. For the essence of
God being simple and undivided, and contained in himself entire, in
full perfection, without partition or diminution, it is improper,
nay, ridiculous, to call it his express image, (charaktes.) But
because the Father, though distinguished by his own peculiar
properties, has expressed himself wholly in the Son, he is said with
perfect reason to have rendered his person (hypostasis) manifest in
him. And this aptly accords with what is immediately added, viz.,
that he is "the brightness of his glory." The fair inference from
the Apostle's words is, that there is a proper subsistence
(hypostasis) of the Father, which shines refulgent in the Son. From
this, again it is easy to infer that there is a subsistence
(hypostasis) of the Son which distinguishes him from the Father. The
same holds in the case of the Holy Spirit; for we will immediately
prove both that he is God, and that he has a separate subsistence
from the Father. This, moreover, is not a distinction of essence,
which it were impious to multiply. If credit, then, is given to the
Apostle's testimony, it follows that there are three persons
(hypostases) in God. The Latins having used the word Persona to
express the same thing as the Greek "hupostatis", it betrays
excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the
term. The most literal translation would be subsistence. Many have
used substance in the same sense. Nor, indeed, was the use of the
term Person confined to the Latin Church. For the Greek Church in
like manner, perhaps, for the purpose of testifying their consent,
have taught that there are three "prosopa" (aspects) in God. All
these, however, whether Greeks or Latins, though differing as to the
word, are perfectly agreed in substance.
    3. Now, then, though heretics may snarl and the excessively
fastidious carp at the word Person as inadmissible, in consequence
of its human origin, since they cannot displace us from our position
that three are named, each of whom is perfect God, and yet that
there is no plurality of gods, it is most uncandid to attack the
terms which do nothing more than explain what the Scriptures declare
and sanction. "It were better," they say, "to confine not only our
meanings but our words within the bounds of Scripture, and not
scatter about foreign terms to become the future seed-beds of brawls
and dissensions. In this way, men grow tired of quarrels about
words; the truth is lost in altercation, and charity melts away amid
hateful strife." If they call it a foreign term, because it cannot
be pointed out in Scripture in so many syllables, they certainly
impose an unjust law - a law which would condemn every
interpretation of Scripture that is not composed of other words of
Scripture. But if by foreign they mean that which, after being idly
devised, is superstitiously defended, - which tends more to strife
than edification, - which is used either out of place, or with no
benefit which offends pious ears by its harshness, and leads them
away from the simplicity of God's Word, I embrace their soberness
with all my heart. For I think we are bound to speak of God as
reverently as we are bound to think of him. As our own thoughts
respecting him are foolish, so our own language respecting him is
absurd. Still, however, some medium must be observed. The unerring
standard both of thinking and speaking must be derived from the
Scriptures: by it all the thoughts of ours minds, and the words of
our mouths, should he tested. But in regard to those parts of
Scripture which, to our capacities, are dark and intricate, what
forbids us to explain them in clearer terms - terms, however, kept
in reverent and faithful subordination to Scripture truth, used
sparingly and modestly, and not without occasion? Of this we are not
without many examples. When it has been proved that the Church was
impelled, by the strongest necessity, to use the words Trinity and
Person, will not he who still inveighs against novelty of terms be
deservedly suspected of taking offence at the light of truth, and of
having no other ground for his invective, than that the truth is
made plain and transparent?
    4. Such novelty (if novelty it should be called) becomes most
requisite, when the truth is to be maintained against calumniators
who evade it by quibbling. Of this, we of the present day have too
much experience in being constantly called upon to attack the
enemies of pure and sound doctrine. These slippery snakes escape by
their swift and tortuous windings, if not strenuously pursued, and
when caught, firmly held. Thus the early Christians, when harassed
with the disputes which heresies produced, were forced to declare
their sentiments in terms most scrupulously exact in order that no
indirect subterfuges might remain to ungodly men, to whom ambiguity
of expression was a kind of hiding-place. Arius confessed that
Christ was God, and the Son of God; because the passages of
Scripture to this effect were too clear to be resisted, and then, as
if he had done well, pretended to concur with others. But,
meanwhile, he ceased not to give out that Christ was created, and
had a beginning like other creatures. To drag this man of wiles out
of his lurking-places, the ancient Church took a further step, and
declared that Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, and
consubstantial with the Father. The impiety was fully disclosed when
the Arians began to declare their hatred and utter detestation of
the term "homo-ousios". Had their first confession, viz., that
Christ was God, been sincere and from the heart, they would not have
denied that he was consubstantial with the Father. Who dare charge
those ancient writers as men of strife and contention, for having
debated so warmly, and disturbed the quiet of the Church for a
single word? That little word distinguished between Christians of
pure faith and the blasphemous Arians. Next Sabellius arose, who
counted the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as almost
nonentities; maintaining that they were not used to mark out some
distinction, but that they were different attributes of God, like
many others of a similar kind. When the matter was debated, he
acknowledged his belief that the Father was God, the Son God, the
Spirit God; but then he had the evasion ready, that he had said
nothing more than if he had called God powerful, and just, and wise.
Accordingly, he sung another note, viz., that the Father was the
Son, and the Holy Spirit the Father, without order or distinction.
The worthy doctors who then had the interests of piety at heart, in
order to defeat it is man's dishonesty, proclaimed that three
subsistence were to be truly acknowledged in the one God. That they
might protect themselves against tortuous craftiness by the simple
open truth, they affirmed that a Trinity of Persons subsisted in the
one God, or (which is the same thing) in the unity of God.
    5. Where names have not been invented rashly, we must beware
lest we become chargeable with arrogance and rashness in rejecting
them. I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all
would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one
God, and yet that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son,
but that each has his peculiar subsistence. I am not so minutely
precise as to fight furiously for mere words. For I observe, that
the writers of the ancient Church, while they uniformly spoke with
great reverence on these matters, neither agreed with each other,
nor were always consistent with themselves. How strange the formula
used by Councils, and defended by Hilary! How extravagant the view
which Augustine sometimes takes! How unlike the Greeks are to the
Latins! But let one example of variance suffice. The Latins, in
translating "homo-ousios" used "consubstantialis" (consubstantial,)
intimating that there was one substance of the Father and the Son,
and thus using the word Substance for Essence. Hence Jerome, in his
Letter to Damasus, says it is profane to affirm that there are three
substances in God. But in Hilary you will find it said more than a
hundred times that there are three substances in God. Then how
greatly is Jerome perplexed with the word Hypostasis! He suspects
some lurking poison, when it is said that there are three Hypostases
in God. And he does not disguise his belief that the expression,
though used in a pious sense, is improper; if, indeed, he was
sincere in saying this, and did not rather designedly endeavour, by
an unfounded calumny, to throw odium on the Eastern bishops whom he
hated. He certainly shows little candour in asserting, that in all
heathen schools "ousia" is equivalent to Hypostasis - an assertion
completely refuted by trite and common use.
    More courtesy and moderation is shown by Augustine, (De
Trinity. lib. 5 c. 8 and 9,) who, although he says that Hypostasis
in this sense is new to Latin ears, is still so far from objecting
to the ordinary use of the term by the Greeks, that he is even
tolerant of the Latins, who had imitated the Greek phraseology. The
purport of what Socrates says of the term, in the Sixth Book of the
Tripartite History, is, that it had been improperly applied to this
purpose by the unskilful. Hilary (De Trinitat. lib. 2) charges it
upon the heretics as a great crime, that their misconduct had
rendered it necessary to subject to the peril of human utterance
things which ought to have been reverently confined within the mind,
not disguising his opinion that those who do so, do what is
unlawful, speak what is ineffable, and pry into what is forbidden.
Shortly after, he apologises at great length for presuming to
introduce new terms. For, after putting down the natural names of
Father, Son, and Spirit, he adds, that all further inquiry
transcends the significance of words, the discernment of sense, and
the apprehension of intellect. And in another place, (De Conciliis,)
he congratulates the Bishops of France in not having framed any
other confession, but received, without alteration, the ancient and
most simple confession received by all Churches from the days of the
Apostles. Not unlike this is the apology of Augustine, that the term
had been wrung from him by necessity from the poverty of human
language in so high a matter: not that the reality could be thereby
expressed, but that he might not pass on in silence without
attempting to show how the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three.
    The modesty of these holy men should be an admonition to us not
instantly to dip our pen in gall, and sternly denounce those who may
be unwilling to swear to the terms which we have devised, provided
they do not in this betray pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat,
but are willing to ponder the necessity which compels us so to
speak, and may thus become gradually accustomed to a useful form of
expression. Let men also studiously beware, that in opposing the
Asians on the one hand, and the Sabellians on the other, and eagerly
endeavouring to deprive both of any handle for cavil, they do not
bring themselves under some suspicion of being the disciples of
either Arius or Sabellius. Arius says that Christ is  God, and then
mutters that he was made and had a beginning. He says, that he is
one with the Father; but secretly whispers in the ears of his party,
made one, like other believers, though with special privilege. Say,
he is consubstantial, and you immediately pluck the mask from this
chameleon, though you add nothing to Scripture. Sabellius says that
the Father, Son, and Spirit, indicate some distinction in God. Say,
they are three, and he will bawl out that you are making three Gods.
Say, that there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence, you
will only express in one word what the Scriptures say, and stop his
empty prattle. Should any be so superstitiously precise as not to
tolerate these terms, still do their worst, they will not be able to
deny that when one is spoken of, a unity of substance must be
understood, and when three in one essence, the persons in this
Trinity are denoted. When this is confessed without equivocations we
dwell not on words. But I was long ago made aware, and, indeed, on
more than one occasion, that those who contend pertinaciously about
words are tainted with some hidden poison; and, therefore, that it
is more expedient to provoke them purposely, than to court their
favour by speaking obscurely.
    6. But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the
thing signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine
essence, - a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is
distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence
we wish something else to be understood than essence. For if the
Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself,
John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God.
When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us
back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God
without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence,
which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie,
being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is
distinguished from it. Now, I say that each of the three
subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own
properties. Here relation is distinctly expressed, because, when God
is mentioned simply and indefinitely the name belongs not less to
the Son and Spirit than to the Father. But whenever the Father is
compared with the Son, the peculiar property of each distinguishes
the one from the other. Again, whatever is proper to each I affirm
to be incommunicable, because nothing can apply or be transferred to
the Son which is attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction.
I have no objections to adopt the definition of Tertullian, provided
it is properly understood, "that there is in God a certain
arrangement or economy, which makes no change on the unity of
essence." - Tertull. Lib. contra Praxeam.
    7. Before proceeding farther, it will be necessary to prove the
divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thereafter, we shall see
how they differ from each other. When the Word of God is set before
us in the Scriptures, it were certainly most absurd to imagine that
it is only a fleeting and evanescent voice, which is sent out into
the air, and comes forth beyond God himself, as was the case with
the communications made to the patriarchs, and all the prophecies.
The reference is rather to the wisdom ever dwelling with God, and by
which all oracles and prophecies were inspired. For, as Peter
testifies, (1 Pet. 1: 11,) the ancient prophets spake by the Spirit
of Christ just as did the apostles, and all who after them were
ministers of the heavenly doctrine. But as Christ was not yet
manifested, we necessarily understand that the Word was begotten of
the Father before all ages. But if that Spirit, whose organs the
prophets were, belonged to the Word, the inference is irresistible,
that the Word was truly God. And this is clearly enough shown by
Moses in his account of the creation, where he places the Word as
intermediate. For why does he distinctly narrate that God, in
creating each of his works, said, Let there be this - let there be
that, unless that the unsearchable glory of God might shine forth in
his image? I know prattlers would easily evade this, by saying that
Word is used for order or command; but the apostles are better
expositors, when they tell us that the worlds were created by the
Son, and that he sustains all things by his mighty word, (Heb. 1:
2.) For we here see that "word" is used for the nod or command of
the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the
Father. And no man of sane mind can have any doubt as to Solomon's
meaning, when he introduces Wisdom as begotten by God, and presiding
at the creation of the world, and all other divine operations,
(Prov. 8: 22.) For it were trifling and foolish to imagine any
temporary command at a time when God was pleased to execute his
fixed and eternal counsel, and something more still mysterious. To
this our Saviour's words refer, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I
work," (John 5: 17.) In thus affirming, that from the foundation of
the world he constantly worked with the Father, he gives a clearer
explanation of what Moses simply touched. The meaning therefore is,
that God spoke in such a manner as left the Word his peculiar part
in the work, and thus made the operation common to both. But the
clearest explanation is given by John, when he states that the Word
- which was from the beginning, God and with God, was, together with
God the Father, the maker of all things. For he both attributes a
substantial and permanent essence to the Word, assigning to it a
certain peculiarity, and distinctly showing how God spoke the world
into being. Therefore, as all revelations from heaven are duly
designated by the title of the Word of God, so the highest place
must be assigned to that substantial Word, the source of all
inspiration, which, as being liable to no variation, remains for
ever one and the same with God, and is God.
    8. Here an outcry is made by certain men, who, while they dare
not openly deny his divinity, secretly rob him of his eternity. For
they contend that the Word only began to be when God opened his
sacred mouth in the creation of the world. Thus, with excessive
temerity, they imagine some change in the essence of God. For as the
names of God, which have respect to external work, began to be
ascribed to him from the existence of the work, (as when he is
called the Creator of heaven and earth,) so piety does not recognise
or admit any name which might indicate that a change had taken place
in God himself. For if any thing adventitious took place, the saying
of James would cease to be true, that "every good gift, and every
perfect gift, is from above, and cometh down from the Father of
lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,"
(James 1: 17.) Nothing, therefore, is more intolerable than to fancy
a beginning to that Word which was always God, and afterwards was
the Creator of the world. But they think they argue acutely, in
maintaining that Moses, when he says that God then spoke for the
first time, must be held to intimate that till then no Word existed
in him. This is the merest trifling. It does not surely follow, that
because a thing begins to be manifested at a certain time, it never
existed previously. I draw a very different conclusion. Since at the
very moment when God said, "Let there be light," the energy of the
Word-was immediately exerted, it must have existed long before. If
any inquire how long, he will find it was without beginning. No
certain period of time is defined, when he himself says, "Now O
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I
had with thee before the world was," (John 17: 5.) Nor is this
omitted by John: for before he descends to the creation of the
world, he says, that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God." We, therefore, again conclude, that the Word was
eternally begotten by God, and dwelt with him from everlasting. In
this way, his true essence, his eternity, and divinity, are
established.
    9. But though I am not now treating of the office of the
Mediator, having deferred it till the subject of redemption is
considered, yet because it ought to be clear and incontrovertible to
all, that Christ is that Word become incarnate, this seems the most
appropriate place to introduce those passages which assert the
Divinity of Christ. When it is said in the forty-fifth Psalm, "Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever," the Jews quibble that the name
Elohim is applied to angels and sovereign powers. But no passage is
to be found in Scripture, where an eternal throne is set up for a
creature. For he is not called God simply, but also the eternal
Ruler. Besides, the title is not conferred on any man, without some
addition, as when it is said that Moses would be a God to Pharaoh,
(Exod. 7: 1.) Some read as if it were in the genitive case, but this
is too insipid. I admit, that anything possessed of singular
excellence is often called divine, but it is clear from the context,
that this meaning here were harsh and forced, and totally
inapplicable. But if their perverseness still refuses to yield,
surely there is no obscurity in Isaiah, where Christ is introduced
both us God, and as possessed of supreme powers one of the peculiar
attributes of God, "His name shall be called the Mighty God, the
Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace," (Isa. 9: 6.) Here, too,
the Jews object, and invert the passage thus, This is the name by
which the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, will call him; so that
all which they leave to the Son is, " Prince of Peace." But why
should so many epithets be here accumulated on God the Father,
seeing the prophet's design is to present the Messiah with certain
distinguished properties which may induce us to put our faith in
him? There can be no doubt, therefore, that he who a little before
was called Emmanuel, is here called the Mighty God. Moreover, there
can be nothing clearer than the words of Jeremiah, "This is the name
whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS," (Jer. 23:
6.) For as the Jews themselves teach that the other names of God are
mere epithets, whereas this, which they call the ineffable name, is
substantive, and expresses his essence, we infer, that the only
begotten Son is the eternal God, who elsewhere declares, "My glory
will I not give to another," (Isa. 42: 8.) An attempt is made to
evade this from the fact, that this name is given by Moses to the
altar which he built, and by Ezekiel to the New Jerusalem. But who
sees not that the altar was erected as a memorial to show that God
was the exalter of Moses, and that the name of God was applied to
Jerusalem, merely to testify the Divine presence? For thus the
prophet speaks, "The name of the city from that day shall be, The
Lord is there," (Ezek. 48: 35.) In the same way, "Moses built an
altar, and called the name of it JEHOVAH-nissi," (Jehovah my
exaltation.) But it would seem the point is still more keenly
disputed as to another passage in Jeremiah, where the same title is
applied to Jerusalem in these words, "In those days shall Judah be
saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name
wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness." But so
far is this passage from being adverse to the truth which we defend,
that it rather supports it. The prophet having formerly declared
that Christ is the true Jehovah from whom righteousness flows, now
declares that the Church would be made so sensible of this as to be
able to glory in assuming his very name. In the former passage,
therefore, the fountain and cause of righteousness is set down, in
the latter, the effect is described.
    10. But if this does not satisfy the Jews, I know not what
cavils will enable them to evade the numerous passages in which
Jehovah is said to have appeared in the form of an Angel, (Judges 6:
7: 13: 16-23, &c.) This Angel claims for himself the name of the
Eternal God. Should it be alleged that this is done in respect of
the office which he bears, the difficulty is by no means solved. No
servant would rob God of his honour, by allowing sacrifice to be
offered to himself. But the Angel, by refusing to eat bread, orders
the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to him. Thus the fact
itself proves that he was truly Jehovah. Accordingly, Manoah and his
wife infer from the sign, that they had seen not only an angel, but
God. Hence Manoah's exclamation, "We shall die; for we have seen the
Lord." When the woman replies, "If Jehovah had wished to slay us, he
would not have received the sacrifice at our hand," she acknowledges
that he who is previously called an angel was certainly God. We may
add, that the angel's own reply removes all doubt, "Why do ye ask my
name, which is wonderful?" Hence the impiety of Servetus was the
more detestable, when he maintained that God was never manifested to
Abraham and the Patriarchs, but that an angel was worshipped in his
stead. The orthodox doctors of the Church have correctly and wisely
expounded, that the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then
began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of
Mediator. For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he
descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more
familiar access to the faithful. This closer intercourse procured
for him the name of the Angel; still, however, he retained the
character which justly belonged to him - that of the God of
ineffable glory. The same thing is intimated by Hosea, who, after
mentioning the wrestling of Jacob with the angel, says, "Even the
Lord God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial," (Hosea 12: 5.)
Servetus again insinuates that God personated an angel; as if the
prophet did not confirm what had been said by Moses, "Wherefore is
it that thou dost ask after my name?" (Gen. 32: 29, 30.) And the
confession of the holy Patriarch sufficiently declares that he was
not a created angel, but one in whom the fulness of the Godhead
dwelt, when he says, "I have seen God face to face." Hence also
Paul's statement, that Christ led the people in the wilderness, (1
Cor. 10: 4. See also Calvin on Acts 7: 30, and infra, chap. 14 s.
9.) Although the time of humiliation had not yet arrived, the
eternal Word exhibited a type of the office which he was to fulfil.
Again, if the first chapter of Zechariah (ver. 9, &c.) and the
second (ver. 3, &c.) be candidly considered, it will be seen that
the angel who sends the other angel is immediately after declared to
be the Lord of hosts, and that supreme power is ascribed to him. I
omit numberless passages in which our faith rests secure, though
they may not have much weight with the Jews. For when it is said in
Isaiah, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will
save us; this is the Lord: we have waited for him, we will be glad
and rejoice in his salvation," (Isa. 25: 9,) even the blind may see
that the God referred to is he who again rises up for the
deliverance of his people. And the emphatic description, twice
repeated, precludes the idea that reference is made to any other
than to Christ. Still clearer and stronger is the passage of
Malachi, in which a promise is made that the messenger who was then
expected would come to his own temple, (Mal. 3: 1.) The temple
certainly was dedicated to Almighty God only, and yet the prophet
claims it for Christ. Hence it follows, that he is the God who was
always worshipped by the Jews.
    11. The New Testament teems with innumerable passages, and our
object must therefore be, the selection of a few, rather than an
accumulation of the whole. But though the Apostles spoke of him
after his appearance in the flesh as Mediator, every passage which I
adduce will be sufficient to prove his eternal Godhead. And the
first thing deserving of special observation is that predictions
concerning the eternal God are applied to Christ, as either already
fulfilled in him, or to be fulfilled at some future period. Isaiah
prophesies, that "the Lord of Hosts" shall be "for a stone of
stumbling, and for a rock of offence," (Isa. 8: 14.) Paul asserts
that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, (Rom. 9: 33,) and,
therefore, declares that Christ is that Lord of Hosts. In like
manner, he says in another passage, "We shall all stand before the
judgement-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the
Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to
God." Since in Isaiah God predicts this of himself, (Isa. 45: 23,)
and Christ exhibits the reality fulfilled in himself, it follows
that he is the very God, whose glory cannot be given to another. It
is clear also, that the passage from the Psalms (Ps. 68: 19) which
he quotes in the Epistle to the Ephesians, is applicable only to
God, "When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive," (Eph.
4: 8.) Understanding that such an ascension was shadowed forth when
the Lord exerted his power, and gained a glorious victory over
heathen nations, he intimates that what was thus shadowed was more
fully manifested in Christ. So John testifies that it was the glory
of the Son which was revealed to Isaiah in a vision, (John 12: 41;
Isa. 6: 4,) though Isaiah himself expressly says that what he saw
was the Majesty of God. Again, there can be no doubt that those
qualities which, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are applied to the
Son, are the brightest attributes of God, "Thou, Lord, in the
beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth," &c., and, "Let all
the angels of God worship him," (Heb. 1: 10, 6.) And yet he does not
pervert the passages in thus applying them to Christ, since Christ
alone performed the things which these passages celebrate. It was he
who arose and pitied Zion - he who claimed for himself dominion over
all nations and islands. And why should John have hesitated to
ascribe the Majesty of God to Christ, after saying in his preface
that the Word was God? (John 1: 14.) Why should Paul have feared to
place Christ on the judgement-seat of God, (2 Cor. 5: 10,) after he
had so openly proclaimed his divinity, when he said that he was God
over all, blessed for ever? And to show how consistent he is in this
respect, he elsewhere says that "God was manifest in the flesh," (1
Tim. 3: 16.) If he is God blessed for ever, he therefore it is to
whom alone, as Paul affirms in another place, all glory and honour
is due. Paul does not disguise this, but openly exclaims, that
"being in the form of God, (he) thought it not robbery to be equal
with God, but made himself of no reputation," (Phil. 2: 6.) And lest
the wicked should glamour and say that he was a kind of spurious
God, John goes farther, and affirms, "This is the true God, and
eternal life." Though it ought to be enough for us that he is called
God, especially by a witness who distinctly testifies that we have
no more gods than one, Paul says, "Though there be that are called
gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and
lords many,) but to us there is but one God," (1 Cor. 8: 5, 6.) When
we hear from the same lips that God was manifest in the flesh, that
God purchased the Church with his own blood, why do we dream of any
second God, to whom he makes not the least allusion? And there is no
room to doubt that all the godly entertained the same view. Thomas,
by addressing him as his Lord and God, certainly professes that he
was the only God whom he had ever adored, (John 20: 28.)
    12. The divinity of Christ, if judged by the works which are
ascribed to him in Scripture, becomes still more evident. When he
said of himself, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," the Jews,
though most dull in regard to his other sayings, perceived that he
was laying claim to divine power. And, therefore, as John relates,
(John 5: 17,) they sought the more to kill him, because he not only
broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his Father, making
himself equal with God. What, then, will be our stupidity if we do
not perceive from the same passage that his divinity is plainly
instructed? To govern the world by his power and providence, and
regulate all things by an energy inherent in himself, (this an
Apostle ascribes to him, Heb. 1: 3,) surely belongs to none but the
Creator. Nor does he merely share the government of the world with
the Father, but also each of the other offices, which cannot be
communicated to creatures. The Lord proclaims by his prophets "I,
even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own
sake," (Is. 43: 25.) When, in accordance with this declaration, the
Jews thought that injustice was done to God when Christ forgave
sins, he not only asserted, in distinct terms, that this power
belonged to him, but also proved it by a miracle, (Matth. 9: 6.) We
thus see that he possessed in himself not the ministry of forgiving
sins, but the inherent power which the Lord declares he will not
give to another. What! Is it not the province of God alone to
penetrate and interrogate the secret thoughts of the heart? But
Christ also had this power, and therefore we infer that Christ is
God.
    13. How clearly and transparently does this appear in his
miracles? I admit that similar and equal miracles were performed by
the prophets and apostles; but there is this very essential
difference, that they dispensed the gifts of God as his ministers,
whereas he exerted his own inherent might. Sometimes, indeed, he
used prayer, that he might ascribe glory to the Father, but we see
that for the most part his own proper power is displayed. And how
should not he be the true author of miracles, who, of his own
authority, commissions others to perform them? For the Evangelist
relates that he gave power to the apostles to cast out devils, cure
the lepers, raise the dead, &c. And they, by the mode in which they
performed this ministry, showed plainly that their whole power was
derived from Christ. "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth," says
Peter, (Acts 3: 6,) "rise up and walk." It is not surprising, then,
that Christ appealed to his miracles in order to subdue the unbelief
of the Jews, inasmuch as these were performed by his own energy, and
therefore bore the most ample testimony to his divinity.
    Again, if out of God there is no salvation, no righteousness,
no life, Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God. Let
no one object that life or salvation is transfused into him by God.
For it is said not that he received, but that he himself is
salvation. And if there is none good but God, how could a mere man
be pure, how could he be, I say not good and just, but goodness and
justice? Then what shall we say to the testimony of the Evangelist,
that from the very beginning of the creation "in him was life, and
this life was the light of men?" Trusting to such proofs, we can
boldly put our hope and faith in him, though we know it is
blasphemous impiety to confide in any creature. "Ye believe in God,"
says he, "believe also in me," (John 14: 1.) And so Paul (Rom. 10:
11, and 15: 12) interprets two passages of Isaiah "Whose believeth
in him shall not be confounded," (Isa. 28: 16;) and, "In that day
there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of
the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek," (Isa. 11: 10.) But why
adduce more passages of Scripture on this head, when we so often
meet with the expression, "He that believeth in me has eternal
life?"
    Again, the prayer of faith is addressed to him - prayer, which
specially belongs to the divine majesty, if anything so belongs. For
the Prophet Joel says, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever
shall call on the name of the Lord (Jehovah) shall be delivered"
(Joel 2: 32.) And another says, "The name of the Lord (Jehovah) is a
strong tower; the righteous runneth into it and is safe," (Prov. 18:
10.) But the name of Christ is invoked for salvation, and therefore
it follows that he is Jehovah. Moreover, we have an example of
invocation in Stephen, when he said, "Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit;" and thereafter in the whole Church, when Ananias says in
the same book, "Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much
evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he has
authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name,"
(Acts 9: 13, 14.) And to make it more clearly understood that in
Christ dwelt the whole fulness of the Godhead bodily, the Apostle
declares that the only doctrine which he professed to the
Corinthians, the only doctrine which he taught, was the knowledge of
Christ, (1 Cor. 2: 2.) Consider what kind of thing it is, and how
great, that the name of the Son alone is preached to us, though God
command us to glory only in the knowledge of himself, (Jer. 9: 24.)
Who will dare to maintain that he, whom to know forms our only
ground of glorying, is a mere creature? To this we may add, that the
salutations prefixed to the Epistles of Paul pray for the same
blessings from the Son as from the Father. By this we are taught,
not only that the blessings which our heavenly Father bestows come
to us through his intercession, but that by a partnership in power,
the Son himself is their author. This practical knowledge is
doubtless surer and more solid than any idle speculation. For the
pious soul has the best view of God, and may almost be said to
handle him, when it feels that it is quickened, enlightened, saved,
justified, and sanctified by him.
    14. In asserting the divinity of the Spirit, the proof must be
derived from the same sources. And it is by no means an obscure
testimony which Moses bears in the history of the creation, when he
says that the Spirit of God was expanded over the abyss or shapeless
matter; for it shows not only that the beauty which the world
displays is maintained by the invigorating power of the Spirit, but
that even before this beauty existed the Spirit was at work
cherishing the confused mass. Again, no cavils can explain away the
force of what Isaiah says, "And now the Lord God, and his Spirit,
has sent me," (Isa. 48: 16,) thus ascribing a share in the sovereign
power of sending the prophets to the Holy Spirit. (Calvin in Acts
20: 28.) In this his divine majesty is clear.
    But, as I observed, the best proof to us is our familiar
experience. For nothing can be more alien from a creature, than the
office which the Scriptures ascribe to him, and which the pious
actually feel him discharging, - his being diffused over all space,
sustaining, invigorating, and quickening all things, both in heaven
and on the earth. The mere fact of his not being circumscribed by
any limits raises him above the rank of creatures, while his
transfusing vigour into all things, breathing into them being, life,
and motion, is plainly divine. Again, if regeneration to
incorruptible life is higher, and much more excellent than any
present quickening, what must be thought of him by whose energy it
is produced? Now, many passages of Scripture show that he is the
author of regeneration, not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic
energy; and not only so, but that he is also the author of future
immortality. In short, all the peculiar attributes of the Godhead
are ascribed to him in the same way as to the Son. He searches the
deep things of Gods and has no counsellor among the creatures; he
bestows wisdom and the faculty of speech, though God declares to
Moses (Exod. 4: 11) that this is his own peculiar province. In like
manner, by means of him we become partakers of the divine nature, so
as in a manner to feel his quickening energy within us. Our
justification is his work; from him is power, sanctification, truth,
grace, and every good thought, since it is from the Spirit alone
that all good gifts proceed. Particular attention is due to Paul's
expression, that though there are diversities of gifts, "all these
worketh that one and the self-same Spirit," (1 Cor. 12: 11,) he
being not only the beginning or origin, but also the author; as is
even more clearly expressed immediately after in these words
"dividing to every man severally as he will." For were he not
something subsisting in God, will and arbitrary disposal would never
be ascribed to him. Most clearly, therefore does Paul ascribe divine
power to the Spirit, and demonstrate that he dwells hypostatically
in God.
    10. Nor does the Scripture, in speaking of him, withhold the
name of God. Paul infers that we are the temple of God, from the
fact that "the Spirit of God dwelleth in us," (1 Cor. 3: 16; 6: 19;
and 2 Cor. 6: 16.) Now it ought not to be slightly overlooked, that
all the promises which God makes of choosing us to himself as a
temple, receive their only fulfilment by his Spirit dwelling in us.
Surely, as it is admirably expressed by Augustine, (Ad Maximinum,
Ep. 66,) "were we ordered to make a temple of wood and stone to the
Spirit, inasmuch as such worship is due to God alone, it would be a
clear proof of the Spirit's divinity; how much clearer a proof in
that we are not to make a temple to him, but to be ourselves that
temple." And the Apostle says at one time that we are the temple of
God, and at another time, in the same sense, that we are the temple
of the Holy Spirit. Peter, when he rebuked Ananias for having lied
to the Holy Spirit, said, that he had not lied unto men, but unto
God. And when Isaiah had introduced the Lord of Hosts as speaking,
Paul says, it was the Holy Spirit that spoke, (Acts 28: 25, 26.)
Nay, words uniformly said by the prophets to have been spoken by the
Lord of Hosts, are by Christ and his apostles ascribed to the Holy
Spirit. Hence it follows that the Spirit is the true Jehovah who
dictated the prophecies. Again, when God complains that he was
provoked to anger by the stubbornness of the people, in place of
Him, Isaiah says that his Holy Spirit was grieved, (Isa. 63: 10.)
Lastly, while blasphemy against the Spirit is not forgiven, either
in the present life or that which is to come, whereas he who has
blasphemed against the Son may obtain pardon, that majesty must
certainly be divine which it is an inexpiable crime to offend or
impair. I designedly omit several passages which the ancient fathers
adduced. They thought it plausible to quote from David, "By the word
of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the
breath (Spirit) of his mouth," (Ps. 33: 6,) in order to prove that
the world was not less the work of the Holy Spirit than of the Son.
But seeing it is usual in the Psalms to repeat the same thing twice,
and in Isaiah the "spirit" (breath) of the mouth is equivalent to
"word", that proof was weak; and, accordingly, my wish has been to
advert briefly to those proofs on which pious minds may securely
rest.
    16. But as God has manifested himself more clearly by the
advent of Christ, so he has made himself more familiarly known in
three persons. Of many proofs let this one suffice. Paul connects
together these three, God, Faith, and Baptism, and reasons from the
one to the other, viz., because there is one faith he infers that
there is one God; and because there is one baptism he infers that
there is one faith. Therefore, if by baptism we are initiated into
the faith and worship of one God, we must of necessity believe that
he into whose name we are baptised is the true God. And there cannot
be a doubt that our Saviour wished to testify, by a solemn
rehearsal, that the perfect light of faith is now exhibited, when he
said, "Go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," (Matth. 28: 19,)
since this is the same thing as to be baptised into the name of the
one God, who has been fully manifested in the Father, the Son, and
the Spirit. Hence it plainly appears, that the three persons, in
whom alone God is known, subsist in the Divine essence. And since
faith certainly ought not to look hither and thither, or run up and
down after various objects, but to look, refer, and cleave to God
alone, it is obvious that were there various kinds of faith, there
behaved also to be various gods. Then, as the baptism of faith is a
sacrament, its unity assures us of the unity of God. Hence also it
is proved that it is lawful only to be baptised into one God,
because we make a profession of faith in him in whose name we are
baptised. What, then, is our Saviour's meaning in commanding baptism
to be administered in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, if it be not that we are to believe with one faith in
the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit? But is
this any thing else than to declare that the Father, Son, and
Spirit, are one God? Wherefore, since it must be held certain that
there is one God, not more than one, we conclude that the Word and
Spirit are of the very essence of God. Nothing could be more stupid
than the trifling of the Arians, who, while acknowledging the
divinity of the Son, denied his divine essence. Equally extravagant
were the ravings of the Macedonians, who insisted that by the Spirit
were only meant the gifts of grace poured out upon men. For as
wisdom understanding, prudence, fortitude, and the fear of the Lord,
proceed from the Spirit, so he is the one Spirit of wisdom,
prudence, fortitude, and piety. He is not divided according to the
distribution of his gifts, but, as the Apostle assures us, (1 Cor.
12: 11,) however they be divided, he remains one and the same.
    17. On the other hand, the Scriptures demonstrate that there is
some distinction between the Father and the Word, the Word and the
Spirit; but the magnitude of the mystery reminds us of the great
reverence and soberness which ought to he employed in discussing it.
It seems to me, that nothing can be more admirable than the words of
Gregory Nanzianzen: "Ou ftano to ei noesai, kai tois trisi
perilampomai; ou ftavo ta tria dielein kai eis to hen anaferomai",
(Greg. Nanzian. in Serm. de Sacro Baptis.) "I cannot think of the
unity without being irradiated by the Trinity: I cannot distinguish
between the Trinity without being carried up to the unity."
Therefore, let us beware of imagining such a Trinity of persons as
will distract our thoughts, instead of bringing them instantly back
to the unity. The words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, certainly
indicate a real distinction, not allowing us to suppose that they
are merely epithets by which God is variously designated from his
works. Still they indicate distinction only, not division. The
passages we have already quoted show that the Son has a distinct
subsistence from the Father, because the Word could not have been
with God unless he were distinct from the Father; nor but for this
could he have had his glory with the Father. In like manner, Christ
distinguishes the Father from himself when he says that there is
another who bears witness of him, (John 5: 32; 8: 16.) To the same
effect is it elsewhere said, that the Father made all things by the
Word. This could not be, if he were not in some respect distinct
from him. Besides, it was not the Father that descended to the
earth, but he who came forth from the Father; nor was it the Father
that died and rose again, but he whom the Father had sent. This
distinction did not take its beginning at the incarnation: for it is
clear that the only begotten Son previously existed in the bosom of
the Father, (John 1: 18.) For who will dare to affirm that the Son
entered his Father's bosom for the first time, when he came down
from heaven to assume human nature? Therefore, he was previously in
the bosom of the Father, and had his glory with the Father. Christ
intimates the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father,
when he says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and between
the Holy Spirit and himself, when he speaks of him as another as he
does when he declares that he will send another Comforter; and in
many other passages besides, (John 14: 6; 15: 26; 14: 16.)
    18. I am not sure whether it is expedient to borrow analogies
from human affairs to express the nature of this distinction. The
ancient fathers sometimes do so, but they at the same time admits
that what they bring forward as analogous is very widely different.
And hence it is that I have a great dread of any thing like
presumption here, lest some rash saying may furnish an occasion of
calumny to the malicious, or of delusion to the unlearned. It were
unbecoming, however, to say nothing of a distinction which we
observe that the Scriptures have pointed out. This distinction is,
that to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the
fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and
arrangement in action, while the energy and efficacy of action is
assigned to the Spirit. Moreover, though the eternity of the Father
is also the eternity of the Son and Spirit, since God never could be
without his own wisdom and energy; and though in eternity there can
be no room for first or last, still the distinction of order is not
unmeaning or superfluous, the Father being considered first, next
the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both. For the mind of
every man naturally inclines to consider, first, God, secondly, the
wisdom emerging from him, and, lastly, the energy by which he
executes the purposes of his counsel. For this reason, the Son is
said to be of the Father only; the Spirit of both the Father and the
Son. This is done in many passages, but in none more clearly than in
the eighth chapter to the Romans, where the same Spirit is called
indiscriminately the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of him who
raised up Christ from the dead. And not improperly. For Peter also
testifies (1 Pet. 1: 21,) that it was the Spirit of Christ which
inspired the prophets, though the Scriptures so often say that it
was the Spirit of God the Father.
    19. Moreover, this distinction is so far from interfering with
the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to
be one God with the Father, inasmuch as he constitutes one Spirit
with him, and that the Spirit is not different from the Father and
the Son, inasmuch as he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. In
each hypostasis the whole nature is understood the only difference
being that each has his own peculiar subsistence. The whole Father
is in the Son, and the whole Son in the Father, as the Son himself
also declares, (John 14: 10,) "I am in the Father, and the Father in
me;" nor do ecclesiastical writers admit that the one is separated
from the other by any difference of essence. "By those names which
denote distinctions" says Augustine "is meant the relation which
they mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which
they are one." In this way, the sentiments of the Fathers, which
might sometimes appear to be at variance with each other, are to be
reconciled. At one time they teach that the Father is the beginning
of the Son, at another they assert that the Son has both divinity
and essence from himself, and therefore is one beginning with the
Father. The cause of this discrepancy is well and clearly explained
by Augustine, when he says, "Christ, as to himself, is called God,
as to the Father he is called Son." And again, "The Father, as to
himself, is called God, as to the Son he is called Father. He who,
as to the Son, is called Father, is not Son; and he who, as to
himself, is called Father, and he who, as to himself, is called Son,
is the same God." Therefore, when we speak of the Son simply,
without reference to the Father, we truly and properly affirm that
he is of himself, and, accordingly, call him the only beginning; but
when we denote the relation which he bears to the Father, we
correctly make the Father the beginning of the Son. Augustine's
fifth book on the Trinity is wholly devoted to the explanation of
this subject. But it is far safer to rest contented with the
relation as taught by him, than get bewildered in vain speculation
by subtle prying into a sublime mystery.
    20. Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with
the measure of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known. It
is as follows: - When we profess to believe in one God, by the name
God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three
persons or hypostases; and, accordingly, whenever the name of God is
used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is
meant. But when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes
into view, and so we distinguish between the Persons. But as the
Personal subsistence carry an order with them, the principle and
origin being in the Father, whenever mention is made of the Father
and Son, or of the Father and Spirit together, the name of God is
specially given to the Father. In this way the unity of essence is
retained, and respect is had to the order, which, however derogates
in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit. And surely
since we have already seen how the apostles declare the Son of God
to have been He whom Moses and the prophets declared to be Jehovah,
we must always arrive at a unity of essence. We, therefore, hold it
detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God from the
Father, because the simple name God admits not of relation, nor can
God, considered in himself, be said to be this or that. Then, that
the name Jehovah, taken indefinitely, may be applied to Christ, is
clear from the words of Paul, "For this thing I besought the Lord
thrice." After giving the answer, "My grace is sufficient for thee,"
he subjoins, "that the power of Christ may rest upon me," (2 Cor.
12: 8, 9.) For it is certain that the name of Lord (Kuriou) is there
put for Jehovah, and, therefore, to restrict it to the person of the
Mediator were puerile and frivolous, the words being used
absolutely, and not with the view of comparing the Father and the
Son. And we know that, in accordance with the received usage of the
Greeks, the apostles uniformly substitute the word Kurios for
Jehovah. Not to go far for an example, Paul besought the Lord in the
same sense in which Peter quotes the passage of Joel, "Whosoever
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," (Acts 2: 21;
Joel 2: 28.) Where this name is specially applied to the Son, there
is a different ground for it, as will be seen in its own place; at
present it is sufficient to remember, that Paul, after praying to
God absolutely, immediately subjoins the name of Christ. Thus, too,
the Spirit is called God absolutely by Christ himself. For nothing
prevents us from holding that he is the entire spiritual essence of
God, in which are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit. This is
plain from Scripture. For as God is there called a Spirit, so the
Holy Spirit also, in so far as he is a hypostasis of the whole
essence, is said to be both of God and from God.
    21. But since Satan, in order to pluck up our faith by the
roots, has always provoked fierce disputes, partly concerning the
divine essence of the Son and Spirit, and partly concerning the
distinction of persons; since in almost every age he has stirred up
impious spirits to vex the orthodox doctors on this head, and is
attempting in the present day to kindle a new flame out of the old
embers, it will be proper here to dispose of some of these perverse
dreams. Hitherto our chief object has been to stretch out our hand
for the guidance of such as are disposed to learn, not to war with
the stubborn and contentious; but now the truth which was calmly
demonstrated must be vindicated from the calumnies of the ungodly.
Still, however it will be our principal study to provide a sure
footing for those whose ears are open to the word of God. Here, if
any where, in considering the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we
should speculate soberly and with great moderation, cautiously
guarding against allowing either our mind or our tongue to go a step
beyond the confines of God's word. For how can the human minds which
has not yet been able to ascertain of what the body of the sun
consists, though it is daily presented to the eye, bring down the
boundless essence of God to its little measure? Nay, how can it,
under its own guidance, penetrate to a knowledge of the substance of
God while unable to understand its own? Wherefore, let us willingly
leave to God the knowledge of himself. In the words of Hilary, (De
Trinity. lib. 1,) "He alone is a fit witness to himself who is known
only by himself." This knowledge, then, if we would leave to God, we
must conceive of him as he has made himself known, and in our
inquiries make application to no other quarter than his word. On
this subject we have five homilies of Chrysostom against the
Anomoei, (De Incomprehensit. Dei Natura,) in which he endeavoured,
but in vain, to check the presumption of the sophists, and curb
their garrulity. They showed no more modesty here than they are wont
to do in everything else. The very unhappy results of their temerity
should be a warning to us to bring more docility than acumen to the
discussion of this question, never to attempt to search after God
anywhere but in his sacred word, and never to speak or think of him
farther than we have it for our guide. But if the distinction of
Father, Son, and Spirit, subsisting in the one Godhead, (certainly a
subject of great difficulty,) gives more trouble and annoyance to
some intellects than is meet, let us remember that the human mind
enters a labyrinth whenever it indulges its curiosity, and thus
submit to be guided by the divine oracles, how much soever the
mystery may be beyond our reach.
    22. It were tedious, and to no purpose toilsome, to form a
catalogue of the errors by which, in regard to this branch of
doctrine, the purity of the faith has been assailed. The greater
part of heretics have with their gross deliriums made a general
attack on the glory of God, deeming it enough if they could disturb
and shake the unwary. From a few individuals numerous sects have
sprung up, some of them rending the divine essence, and others
confounding the distinction of Persons. But if we hold, what has
already been demonstrated from Scripture, that the essence of the
one God, pertaining to the Father, Son, and Spirit, is simple and
indivisible, and again, that the Father differs in some special
property from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit, the door will be
shut against Arius and Sabellius, as well as the other ancient
authors of error. But as in our day have arisen certain frantic men,
such as Servetus and others, who, by new devices, have thrown every
thing into confusion, it may be worthwhile briefly to discuss their
fallacies.
    The name of Trinity was so much disliked, nay detested, by
Servetus, that he charged all whom he called Trinitarians with being
Atheists. I say nothing of the insulting terms in which he thought
proper to make his charges. The sum of his speculations was, that a
threefold Deity is introduced wherever three Persons are said to
exist in his essence, and that this Triad was imaginary, inasmuch as
it was inconsistent with the unity of God. At the same time, he
would have it that the Persons are certain external ideas which do
not truly subsist in the Divine essence, but only figure God to us
under this or that form: that at first, indeed, there was no
distinction in God, because originally the Word was the same as the
Spirit, but ever since Christ came forth God of God, another Spirit,
also a God, had proceeded from him. But although he sometimes cloaks
his absurdities in allegory, as when he says that the eternal Word
of God was the Spirit of Christ with God, and the reflection of the
idea, likewise that the Spirit was a shadow of Deity, he at last
reduces the divinity of both to nothing; maintaining that, according
to the mode of distribution, there is a part of God as well in the
Son as in the Spirit, just as the same Spirit substantially is a
portion of God in us, and also in wood and stone. His absurd
babbling concerning the person of the mediator will be seen in its
own place.
    The monstrous fiction that a Person is nothing else than a
visible appearance of the glory of God, needs not a long refutation.
For when John declares that before the world was created the Logos
was God, (John 1: 1,) he shows that he was something very different
from an idea. But if even then, and from the remotest eternity, that
Logos, who was God, was with the Father, and had his own distinct
and peculiar glory with the Father, (John 17: 5,) he certainly could
not be an external or figurative splendour, but must necessarily
have been a hypostasis which dwelt inherently in God himself. But
although there is no mention made of the Spirit antecedent to the
account of the creation, he is not there introduced as a shadow, but
as the essential power of God, where Moses relates that the
shapeless mass was unborn by him (Gen. 1: 2.) It is obvious that the
eternal Spirit always existed in God, seeing he cherished and
sustained the confused materials of heaven and earth before they
possessed order or beauty. Assuredly he could not then be an image
or representation of God, as Servetus dreams. But he is elsewhere
forced to make a more open disclosure of his impiety when he says,
that God by his eternal reason decreeing a Son to himself, in this
way assumed a visible appearance. For if this be true, no other
Divinity is left to Christ than is implied in his having been
ordained a Son by God's eternal decree. Moreover, those phantoms
which Servetus substitutes for the hypostases he so transforms as to
make new changes in God. But the most execrable heresy of all is his
confounding both the Son and Spirit promiscuously with all the
creatures. For he distinctly asserts, that there are parts and
partitions in the essence of God, and that every such portion is
God. This he does especially when he says, that the spirits of the
faithful are co-eternal and consubstantial with God, although he
elsewhere assigns a substantial divinity, not only to the soul of
man, but to all created things.
    23. This pool has bred another monster not unlike the former.
For certain restless spirits, unwilling to share the disgrace and
obloquy of the impiety of Servetus, have confessed that there were
indeed three Persons, but added, as a reason, that the Father, who
alone is truly and properly God, transfused his Divinity into the
Son and Spirit when he formed them. Nor do they refrain from
expressing themselves in such shocking terms as these: that the
Father is essentially distinguished from the Son and Spirit by this;
that he is the only essentiator. Their first pretext for this is,
that Christ is uniformly called the Son of God. From this they
infer, that there is no proper God but the Father. But they forget,
that although the name of God is common also to the Son, yet it is
sometimes, by way of excellence, ascribed to the Father, as being
the source and principle of Divinity; and this is done in order to
mark the simple unity of essence. They object, that if the Son is
truly God, he must be deemed the Son of a person: which is absurd. I
answer, that both are true; namely, that he is the Son of God,
because he is the Word, begotten of the Father before all ages; (for
we are not now speaking of the Person of the Mediator,) and yet,
that for the purpose of explanation, regard must be had to the
Person, so that the name God may not be understood in its absolute
sense, but as equivalent to Father. For if we hold that there is no
other God than the Fathers this rank is clearly denied to the Son.
    In every case where the Godhead is mentioned, we are by no
means to admit that there is an antithesis between the Father and
the Son, as if to the former only the name of God could competently
be applied. For assuredly, the God who appeared to Isaiah was the
one true God, and yet John declares that he was Christ, (Isa. 6;
John 12: 41.) He who declared, by the mouth of Isaiah, that he was
to be "for a stone of stumbling" to the Jews, was the one God; and
yet Paul declares that he was Christ, (Isa. 8: 14; Rom. 9: 33.) He
who proclaims by Isaiah, "Unto me every knee shall bow," is the one
God; yet Paul again explains that he is Christ, (Isa. 45: 23; Rom.
14: 11.) To this we may add the passages quoted by an Apostle,
"Thou, Lord, hast laid the foundations of the earth;" "Let all the
angels of God worship him," (Heb. 1: 10; 10: 6; Ps. 102: 26; 97: 7.)
All these apply to the one God; and yet the Apostle contends that
they are the proper attributes of Christ. There is nothing in the
cavil, that what proper]y applies to God is transferred to Christ,
because he is the brightness of his glory. Since the name of Jehovah
is everywhere applied to Christ, it follows that, in regard to
Deity, he is of himself. For if he is Jehovah, it is impossible to
deny that he is the same God who elsewhere proclaims by Isaiah, "I
am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God,"
(Is. 44: 6.) We would also do well to ponder the words of Jeremiah,
"The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they
shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens," (Jer. 10:
11;) whence it follows conversely, that He whose divinity Isaiah
repeatedly proves from the creation of the world, is none other than
the Son of God. And how is it possible that the Creator, who gives
to all should not be of himself, but should borrow his essence from
another? Whosoever says that the Son was essentiated by the Father,
denies his selfexistence. Against this, however, the Holy Spirit
protests, when he calls him Jehovah. On the supposition, then, that
the whole essence is in the Father only, the essence becomes
divisible, or is denied to the Son, who, being thus robbed of his
essences will be only a titular God. If we are to believe these
triflers, divine essence belongs to the Father only, on the ground
that he is sole God, and essentiator of the Son. In this way, the
divinity of the Son will be something abstracted from the essence of
God, or the derivation of a part from the whole. On the same
principle it must also be conceded, that the Spirit belongs to the
Father only. For if the derivation is from the primary essence which
is proper to none but the Father, the Spirit cannot justly be deemed
the Spirit of the Son. This view, however, is refuted by the
testimony of Paul, when he makes the Spirit common both to Christ
and the Father. Moreover, if the Person of the Father is expunged
from the Trinity, in what will he differ from the Son and Spirit,
except in being the only God? They confess that Christ is God, and
that he differs from the Father. If he differs, there must be some
mark of distinction between them. Those who place it in the essence,
manifestly reduce the true divinity of Christ to nothing, since
divinity cannot exist without essence, and indeed without entire
essence. The Father certainly cannot differ from the Son, unless he
have something peculiar to himself, and not common to him with the
Son. What, then, do these men show as the mark of distinction? If it
is in the essence, let them tell whether or not he communicated
essence to the Son. This he could not do in part merely, for it were
impious to think of a divided God. And besides, on this supposition,
there would be a rending of the Divine essence. The whole entire
essence must therefore be common to the Father and the Son; and if
so, in respect of essence there is no distinction between them. If
they reply that the Father, while essentiating, still remains the
only God, being the possessor of the essence, then Christ will be a
figurative God, one in name or semblance only, and not in reality,
because no property can be more peculiar to God than essence,
according to the words, "I AM has sent me unto you," (Ex. 3: 4.)
    24. The assumption, that whenever God is mentioned absolutely,
the Father only is meant, may be proved erroneous by many passages.
Even in those which they quote in support of their views they betray
a lamentable inconsistency because the name of Son occurs there by
way of contrast, showing that the other name God is used relatively,
and in that way confined to the person of the Father. Their
objection may be disposed of in a single word. Were not the Father
alone the true God, he would, say they, be his own Father. But there
is nothing absurd in the name of God being specially applied, in
respect of order and degree, to him who not only of himself begat
his own wisdom, but is the God of the Mediator, as I will more fully
show in its own place. For ever since Christ was manifested in the
flesh he is called the Son of God, not only because begotten of the
Father before all worlds he was the Eternal Word, but because he
undertook the person and office of the Mediator that he might unite
us to God. Seeing they are so bold in excluding the Son from the
honour of God, I would fain know whether, when he declares that
there is "none good but one, that is, God," he deprives himself of
goodness. I speak not of his human nature, lest perhaps they should
object, that whatever goodness was in it was derived by gratuitous
gift: I ask whether the Eternal Word of God is good, yes or no? If
they say no, their impiety is manifest; if yes, they refute
themselves. Christ's seeming at the first glance to disclaim the
name of good, (Matth. 19: 17,) rather confirms our view. Goodness.
being the special property of God alone, and yet being at the time
applied to him in the ordinary way of salutation, his rejection of
false honour intimates that the goodness in which he excels is
Divine. Again, I ask whether, when Paul affirms. that God alone is
"immortal," "wise, and true," (1 Tim. 1: 17,) he reduces Christ to
the rank of beings mortal, foolish, and false. Is not he immortal,
who, from the beginning, had life so as to bestow immortality on
angels? Is not he wise who is the eternal wisdom of God? Is not he
true who is truth itself?
    I ask, moreover, whether they think Christ should be
worshipped. If he claims justly, that every knee shall bow to him,
it follows that he is the God who, in the law, forbade worship to be
offered to any but himself. If they insist on applying to the Father
only the words of Isaiah, "I am, and besides me there is none else,"
(Is. 44: 6,) I turn the passage against themselves, since we see
that every property of God is attributed to Christ. There is no room
for the cavil that Christ was exalted in the flesh in which he
humbled himself, and in respect of which all power is given to him
in heaven and on earth. For although the majesty of King and Judge
extends to the whole person of the Mediator, yet had he not been God
manifested in the flesh, he could not have been exalted to such a
height without coming into collision with God. And the dispute is
admirably settled by Paul, when he declares that he was equal with
God before he humbled himself, and assumed the form of a servants
(Phil. 2: 6, 7.) Moreover, how could such equality exist, if he were
not that God whose name is Jah and Jehovah, who rides upon the
cherubim, is King of all the earth, and King of ages? Let them
glamour as they may, Christ cannot be robbed of the honour described
by Isaiah, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him," (Is. 25:
9;) for these words describe the advent of God the Redeemer, who was
not only to bring back the people from Babylonish captivity, but
restore the Church, and make her completely perfect.
    Nor does another cavil avail them, that Christ was God in his
Father. For though we admit that, in respect of order and gradation,
the beginning of divinity is in the Father, we hold it a detestable
fiction to maintain that essence is proper to the Father alone, as
if he were the deifier of the Son. On this view either the essence
is manifold, or Christ is God only in name and imagination. If they
grant that the Son is God, but only in subordination to the Father,
the essence which in the Father is unformed and unbegotten will in
him be formed and begotten. I know that many who would be thought
wise deride us for extracting the distinction of persons from the
words of Moses when he introduces God as saying, "Let us make man in
our own image," (Gen. 1: 26.) Pious readers, however, see how
frigidly and absurdly the colloquy were introduced by Moses, if
there were not several persons in the Godhead. It is certain that
those whom the Father addresses must have been untreated. But
nothing is untreated except the one God. Now then, unless they
concede that the power of creating was common to the Father, Son,
and Spirit, and the power of commanding common, it will follow that
God did not speak thus inwardly with himself, but addressed other
extraneous architects. In fine, there is a single passage which will
at once dispose of these two objections. The declaration of Christ
that "God is a Spirit," (John 4: 24,) cannot be confined to the
Father only, as if the Word were not of a spiritual nature. But if
the name Spirit applies equally to the Son as to the Father, I infer
that under the indefinite name of God the Son is included. He adds
immediately after, that the only worshipers approved by the Father
are those who worship him in spirit and in truth; and hence I also
infer, that because Christ performs the office of teacher under a
head, he applies the name God to the Father, not for the purpose of
destroying his own Divinity, but for the purpose of raising us up to
it as it were step by step.
    25. The hallucination consists in dreaming of individuals, each
of whom possesses a part of the essence. The Scriptures teach that
there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence
both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten; but inasmuch as the Father
is first in order, and of himself begat his own Wisdom, he, as we
lately observed, is justly regarded as the principle and fountain of
all the Godhead. Thus God, taken indefinitely, is unbegotten, and
the Father, in respect of his person, is unbegotten. For it is
absurd to imagine that our doctrine gives any ground for alleging
that we establish a quaternion of gods. They falsely and
calumniously ascribe to us the figment of their own brain, as if we
virtually held that three persons emanate from one essence, whereas
it is plain, from our writings, that we do not disjoin the persons
from the essence, but interpose a distinction between the persons
residing in it. If the persons were separated from the essence,
there might be some plausibility in their argument; as in this way
there would be a trinity of Gods, not of persons comprehended in one
God. This affords an answer to their futile question - whether or
not the essence concurs in forming the Trinity; as if we imagined
that three Gods were derived from it. Their objection, that there
would thus be a Trinity without a God, originates in the same
absurdity. Although the essence does not contribute to the
distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not
without it, or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God,
could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he
were God. We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself.
And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without
reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that,
regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without
beginning, while his person has its beginning in God. And, indeed,
the orthodox writers who in former times spoke of the Trinity, used
this term only with reference to the Persons. To have included the
essence in the distinction, would not only have been an absurd
error, but gross impiety. For those who class the three thus -
Essence, Son, and Spirit - plainly do away with the essence of the
Son and Spirit; otherwise the parts being intermingled would merge
into each other - a circumstance which would vitiate any
distinction. In short, if God and Father were synonymous terms, the
Father would be deifier in a sense which would leave the Son nothing
but a shadow; and the Trinity would be nothing more than the union
of one God with two creatures.
    26. To the objection, that if Christ be properly God, he is
improperly called the Son of God, it has been already answered, that
when one person is compared with another, the name God is not used
indefinitely, but is restricted to the Father, regarded as the
beginning of the Godhead, not by essentiating, as fanatics absurdly
express it, but in respect of order. In this sense are to be
understood the words which Christ addressed to the Father, "This is
life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom thou hast sent," (John 17: 3.) For speaking in the
person of the Mediator, he holds a middle place between God and man;
yet so that his majesty is not diminished thereby. For though he
humbled (emptied) himself, he did not lose the glory which he had
with the Father, though it was concealed from the world. So in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1: 10; 2: 9,) though the apostle
confesses that Christ was made a little lower than the angels, he at
the same time hesitates not to assert that he is the eternal God who
founded the earth. We must hold, therefore, that as often as Christ,
in the character of Mediator, addresses the Father, he, under the
term God, includes his own divinity also. Thus, when he says to the
apostles, "It is expedient for you that I go away," "My Father is
greater than I," he does not attribute to himself a secondary
divinity merely, as if in regard to eternal essence he were inferior
to the Father; but having obtained celestial glory, he gathers
together the faithful to share it with him. He places the Father in
the higher degree, inasmuch as the full perfection of brightness
conspicuous in heaven, differs from that measure of glory which he
himself displayed when clothed in flesh. For the same reason Paul
says, that Christ will restore "the kingdom to God, even the
Father," "that God may be all in all," (1 Cor. 15: 24, 28.) Nothing
can be more absurd than to deny the perpetuity of Christ's divinity.
But if he will never cease to be the Son of God, but will ever
remain the same that he was from the beginning, it follows that
under the name of Father the one divine essence common to both is
comprehended. And assuredly Christ descended to us for the very
purpose of raising us to the Father, and thereby, at the same time,
raising us to himself, inasmuch as he is one with the Father. It is
therefore erroneous and impious to confine the name of God to the
Father, so as to deny it to the Son. Accordingly, John, declaring
that he is the true God, has no idea of placing him beneath the
Father in a subordinate rank of divinity. I wonder what these
fabricators of new gods mean, when they confess that Christ is truly
God, and yet exclude him from the godhead of the Father, as if there
could be any true God but the one God, or as if transfused divinity
were not a mere modern fiction.
    27. In the many passages which they collect from Irenaeus, in
which he maintains that the Father of Christ is the only eternal God
of Israel, they betray shameful ignorance, or very great dishonesty.
For they ought to have observed, that that holy man was contending
against certain frantic persons, who, denying that the Father of
Christ was that God who had in old times spoken by Moses and the
prophets, held that he was some phantom or other produced from the
pollution of the world. His whole object, therefore, is to make it
plain, that in the Scriptures no other God is announced but the
Father of Christ; that it is wicked to imagine any other.
Accordingly, there is nothing strange in his so often concluding
that the God of Israel was no other than he who is celebrated by
Christ and the apostles. Now, when a different heresy is to be
resisted, we also say with truth, that the God who in old times
appeared to the fathers, was no other than Christ. Moreover, if it
is objected that he was the Father, we have the answer ready, that
while we contend for the divinity of the Son, we by no means exclude
the Father. When the reader attends to the purpose of Irenaeus, the
dispute is at an end. Indeed, we have only to look to lib. 3 c. 6,
where the pious writer insists on this one point, "that he who in
Scripture is called God absolutely and indefinitely, is truly the
only God; and that Christ is called God absolutely." Let us remember
(as appears from the whole work, and especially from lib. 2 c. 46,)
that the point under discussion was, that the name of Father is not
applied enigmatically and parabolically to one who was not truly
God. We may adds that in lib. 3 c. 9, he contends that the Son as
well as the Father united was the God proclaimed by the prophets and
apostles. He afterwards explains (lib. 3 c. 12) how Christ, who is
Lord of all, and King and Judge, received power from him who is God
of all, namely, in respect of the humiliation by which he humbled
himself, even to the death of the cross. At the same time he shortly
after affirms, (lib. 3 c. 16,) that the Son is the maker of heaven
and earth, who delivered the law by the hand of Moses, and appeared
to the fathers. Should any babbler now insist that, according to
Irenaeus, the Father alone is the God of Israel, I will refer him to
a passage in which Irenaeus distinctly says, (lib. 3 c. 18, 23,)
that Christ is ever one and the same, and also applies to Christ the
words of the prophecy of Habakkuk, "God cometh from the south." To
the same effect he says, (lib. 4 c. 9,) "Therefore, Christ himself,
with the Father, is the God of the living." And in the 12th chapter
of the same book he explains that Abraham believed God, because
Christ is the maker of heaven and earth, and very God.
    28. With no more truth do they claim Tertullian as a patron.
Though his style is sometimes rugged and obscure, he delivers the
doctrine which we maintain in no ambiguous manner, namely, that
while there is one God, his Word, however, is with dispensation or
economy; that there is only one God in unity of substance; but that,
nevertheless, by the mystery of dispensation, the unity is arranged
into Trinity; that there are three, not in state, but in degree -
not in substance, but in form - not in power, but in order. He says
indeed that he holds the Son to be second to the Father; but he
means that the only difference is by distinction. In one place he
says the Son is visible; but after he has discoursed on both views,
he declares that he is invisible regarded as the Word. In fine, by
affirming that the Father is characterised by his own Person, he
shows that he is very far from countenancing the fiction which we
refute. And although he does not acknowledge any other God than the
Father, yet, explaining himself in the immediate context, he shows
that he does not speak exclusively in respect of the Son, because he
denies that he is a different God from the Father; and, accordingly,
that the one supremacy is not violated by the distinction of Person.
And it is easy to collect his meaning from the whole tenor of his
discourse. For he contends against Praxeas, that although God has
three distinct Persons, yet there are not several gods, nor is unity
divided. According to the fiction of Praxeas, Christ could not be
God without being the Father also; and this is the reason why
Tertullian dwells so much on the distinction. When he calls the Word
and Spirit a portion of the whole, the expression, though harsh, may
be allowed, since it does not refer to the substance, but only (as
Tertullian himself testifies) denotes arrangement and economy which
applies to the persons only. Accordingly, he asks, "How many
persons, Praxeas, do you think there are, but just as many as there
are names for?" In the same way, he shortly after says, "That they
may believe the Father and the Son, each in his own name and
person." These things, I think, sufficiently refute the effrontery
of those who endeavour to blind the simple by pretending the
authority of Tertullian.
    29. Assuredly, whosoever will compare the writings of the
ancient fathers with each other, will not find any thing in Irenaeus
different from what is taught by those who come after him. Justin is
one of the most ancient, and he agrees with us out and out. Let them
object that, by him and others, the Father of Christ is called the
one God. The same thing is taught by Hilary, who uses the still
harsher expression, that Eternity is in the Father. Is it that he
may withhold divine essence from the Son? His whole work is a
defence of the doctrine which we maintain; and yet these men are not
ashamed to produce some kind of mutilated excerpts for the purpose
of persuading us that Hilary is a patron of their heresy. With
regard to what they pretend as to Ignatius, if they would have it to
be of the least importance, let them prove that the apostles enacted
laws concerning Lent, and other corruptions. Nothing can be more
nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the
name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide
themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to
toleration.
    Moreover, the consent of the ancient fathers clearly appears
from this, that in the Council of Nice, no attempt was made by Arius
to cloak his heresy by the authority of any approved author; and no
Greek or Latin writer apologises as dissenting from his
predecessors. It cannot be necessary to observe how carefully
Augustine, to whom all these miscreants are most violently opposed,
examined all ancient writings, and how reverently he embraced the
doctrine taught by them, (August. lib. de Trinit. &c.) He is most
scrupulous in stating the grounds on which he is forced to differ
from them, even in the minutest point. On this subject, too, if he
finds any thing ambiguous or obscure in other writers, he does not
disguise it. And he assumes it as an acknowledged fact, that the
doctrine opposed by the Arians was received without dispute from the
earliest antiquity. At the same time, he was not ignorant of what
some others had previously taught. This is obvious from a single
expression. When he says (De Doct. Christ. lib. 1.) that "unity is
in the Father," will they pretend that he then forgot himself? In
another passage, he clears away every such charge, when he calls the
Father the beginning of the Godhead, as being from none - thus
wisely inferring that the name of God is specially ascribed to the
Father, because, unless the beginning were from him, the simple
unity of essence could not be maintained. I hope the pious reader
will admit that I have now disposed of all the calumnies by which
Satan has hitherto attempted to pervert or obscure the pure doctrine
of faith. The whole substance of the doctrine has, I trust, been
faithfully expounded, if my readers will set bounds to their
curiosity, and not long more eagerly than they ought for perplexing
disputation. I did not undertake to satisfy those who delight in
speculate views, but I have not designedly omitted any thing which I
thought adverse to me. At the same time, studying the edification of
the Church, I have thought it better not to touch on various topics,
which could have yielded little profit, while they must have
needlessly burdened and fatigued the reader. For instance, what
avails it to discuss, as Lombard does at length, (lib. 1 dist. 9,)
Whether or not the Father always generates? This idea of continual
generation becomes an absurd fiction from the moment it is seen,
that from eternity there were three persons in one God.

Chapter 14

14. In the creation of the world, and all things in it, the true God
distinguished by certain marks from fictitious gods.

In this chapter commences the second part of Book First, viz., the
knowledge of man. Certain things premised. I. The creation of the
world generally, (s. 1 and 2.) II. The subject of angels considered,
(s. 3-13.) III. Of bad angels or devils, (s. 13-20;) and, IV. The
practical use to be made of the history of the creation, (s. 20-22.)

Sections.

1. The mere fact of creation should lead us to acknowledge God, but
    to prevent our falling away to Gentile fictions, God has been
    pleased to furnish a history of the creation. An impious
    objection, Why the world was not created sooner? Answer to it.
    Shrewd saying of an old man.
2. For the same reason, the world was created, not in an instant,
    but in six days. The order of creation described, showing that
    Adam was not created until God had, with infinite goodness made
    ample provision for him.
3. The doctrine concerning angels expounded. 1. That we may learn
    from them also to acknowledge God. 2. That we may be put on our
    guard against the errors of the worshippers of angels and the
    Manichees. Manicheeism refuted. Rule of piety.
4. The angels created by God. At what time and in what order it is
    inexpedient to inquire. The garrulity of the Pseudo-Dionysius.
5. The nature, offices, and various names of angels.
6. Angels the dispensers of the divine beneficence to us.
7. A kind of prefects over kingdoms and provinces, but specially the
    guardians of the elect. Not certain that every believer is
    under the charge of a single angel. Enough, that all angels
    watch over the safety of the Church.
8. The number and orders of angels not defined. Why angels said to
    be winged.
9. Angels are ministering spirits and spiritual essences.
10. The heathen error of placing angels on the throne of God
    refuted. 1. By passages of Scripture.
11. Refutation continued. 2. By inferences from other passages. Why
    God employs the ministry of angels.
12. Use of the doctrine of Scripture concerning the holy angels.
13. The doctrine concerning bad angels or devils reduced to four
    heads. 1. That we may guard against their wiles and assaults.
14. That we may be stimulated to exercises of piety. Why one angel
    in the singular number often spoken of.
15. The devil being described as the enemy of man, we should
    perpetually war against him.
16. The wickedness of the devil not by creation but by corruption.
    Vain and useless to inquire into the mode, time, and character
    of the fall of angels.
17. Though the devil is always opposed in will and endeavour to the
    will of God, he can do nothing without his permission and
    consent.
18. God so overrules wicked spirits as to permit them to try the
    faithful, and rule over the wicked.
19. The nature of bad angels. They are spiritual essences endued
    with sense and intelligence.
20. The latter part of the chapter briefly embracing the history of
    creation, and showing what it is of importance for us to know
    concerning God.
21. The special object of this knowledge is to prevent us, through
    ingratitude or thoughtlessness, from overlooking the
    perfections of God. Example of this primary knowledge.
22. Another object of this knowledge, viz., that perceiving how
    these things were created for our use, we may be excited to
    trust in God, pray to him, and love him.

    1. Although Isaiah justly charges the worshipers of false gods
with stupidity, in not learning from the foundations of the earth,
and the circle of the heavens, who the true God is (Isa. 40: 21;)
yet so sluggish and grovelling is our intellect, that it was
necessary he should be more clearly depicted, in order that the
faithful might not fall away to Gentile fictions. the idea that God
is the soul of the world, though the most tolerable that
philosophers have suggested, is absurd; and, therefore, it was of
importance to furnish us with a more intimate knowledge in order
that we might not wander to and fro in uncertainty. Hence God was
pleased that a history of the creation should exist - a history on
which the faith of the Church might lean without seeking any other
God than Him whom Moses sets forth as the Creator and Architect of
the world. First, in that history, the period of time is marked so
as to enable the faithful to ascend by an unbroken succession of
years to the first origin of their race and of all things. This
knowledge is of the highest use not only as an antidote to the
monstrous fables which anciently prevailed both in Egypt and the
other regions of the world, but also as a means of giving a clearer
manifestation of the eternity of God as contrasted with the birth of
creation, and thereby inspiring us with higher admiration. We must
not be moved by the profane jeer, that it is strange how it did not
sooner occur to the Deity to create the heavens and the earth,
instead of idly allowing an infinite period to pass away, during
which thousands of generations might have existed, while the present
world is drawing to a close before it has completed its six
thousandth year. Why God delayed so long it is neither fit nor
lawful to inquire. Should the human mind presume to do it, it could
only fail in the attempt, nor would it be useful for us to know what
God, as a trial of the modesty of our faith, has been pleased
purposely to conceal. It was a shrewd saying of a good old man, who
when some one pertly asked in derision what God did before the world
was created, answered he made a hell for the inquisitive, (August.
Confess., lib. 11 c. 12.) This reproof, not less weighty than
severe, should repress the tickling wantonness which urges many to
indulge in vicious and hurtful speculation.
    In fine, let us remember that that invisible God, whose wisdom,
power, and justice, are incomprehensible, is set before us in the
history of Moses as in a mirror, in which his living image is
reflected. For as an eye, either dimmed by age or weakened by any
other cause, sees nothing distinctly without the aid of glasses, so
(such is our imbecility) if Scripture does not direct us in our
inquiries after God, we immediately turn vain in our imaginations.
Those who now indulge their petulance, and refuse to take warning,
will learn, when too late, how much better it had been reverently to
regard the secret counsels of God, than to belch forth blasphemies
which pollute the face of heaven. Justly does Augustine complain
that God is insulted whenever any higher reason than his will is
demanded. (Lib. de Gent.) He also in another place wisely reminds us
that it is just as improper to raise questions about infinite
periods of time as about infinite space. (De Civit. Dei.) However
wide the circuit of the heavens may be, it is of some definite
extent. But should any one expostulate with God that vacant space
remains exceeding creation by a hundred-fold, must not every pious
mind detest the presumption? Similar is the madness of those who
charge God with idleness in not having pleased them by creating the
world countless ages sooner than he did create it. In their cupidity
they affect to go beyond the world, as if the ample circumference of
heaven and earth did not contain objects numerous and resplendent
enough to absorb all our senses; as if, in the period of six
thousand years, God had not furnished facts enough to exercise our
minds in ceaseless meditation. Therefore, let us willingly remain
hedged in by those boundaries within which God has been pleased to
confine our persons, and, as it were, enclose our minds, so as to
prevent them from losing themselves by wandering unrestrained.
    2. With the same view Moses relates that the work of creation
was accomplished not in one moment, but in six days. By this
statement we are drawn away from fiction to the one God who thus
divided his work into six days, that we may have no reluctance to
devote our whole lives to the contemplation of it. For though our
eyes, in what direction soever they turn, are forced to behold the
works of God, we see how fleeting our attention is, and holy quickly
pious thoughts, if any arise, vanish away. Here, too, objection is
taken to these progressive steps as inconsistent with the power of
God, until human reason is subdued to the obedience of faith, and
learns to welcome the calm quiescence to which the sanctification of
the seventh day invited us. In the very order of events, we ought
diligently to ponder on the paternal goodness of God toward the
human race, in not creating Adam until he had liberally enriched the
earth with all good things. Had he placed him on an earth barren and
unfurnished; had he given life before light, he might have seemed to
pay little regard to his interest. But now that he has arranged the
motions of the sun and stars for man's use, has replenished the air,
earth, and water, with living creatures, and produced all kinds of
fruit in abundance for the supply of food, by performing the office
of a provident and industrious head of a family, he has shown his
wondrous goodness toward us. These subjects, which I only briefly
touch, if more attentively pondered, will make it manifest that
Moses was a sure witness and herald of the one only Creator. I do
not repeat what I have already explained, viz., that mention is here
made not of the bare essence of God, but that his eternal Wisdom and
Spirit are also set before us, in order that we may not dream of any
other God than Him who desires to be recognised in that express
image.
    3. But before I begin to treat more fully of the nature of man,
(chap. 15 and B. 2 c. 1,) it will be proper to say something of
angels. For although Moses, in accommodation to the ignorance of the
generality of men, does not in the history of the creation make
mention of any other works of God than those which meet our eye,
yet, seeing he afterwards introduces angels as the ministers of God,
we easily infer that he for whom they do service is their Creator.
Hence, though Moses, speaking in popular language, did not at the
very commencement enumerate the angels among the creatures of God,
nothing prevents us from treating distinctly and explicitly of what
is delivered by Scripture concerning them in other places. For if we
desire to know God by his works, we surely cannot overlook this
noble and illustrious specimen. We may add that this branch of
doctrine is very necessary for the refutation of numerous errors.
The minds of many are so struck with the excellence of angelic
natures, that they would think them insulted in being subjected to
the authority of God, and so made subordinate. Hence a fancied
divinity has been assigned them. Manes, too, has arisen with his
sect, fabricating to himself two principles - God and the devil,
attributing the origin of good things to God, but assigning all bad
natures to the devil as their author. Were this delirium to take
possession of our minds, God would be denied his glory in the
creation of the world. For, seeing there is nothing more peculiar to
God than eternity and "autousia", i. e. self-existence, or existence
of himself, if I may so speak, do not those who attribute it to the
devil in some degree invest him with the honour of divinity? And
where is the omnipotence of God, if the devil has the power of
executing whatever he pleases against the will, and notwithstanding
of the opposition of God? But the only good ground which the
Manichees have, viz., that it were impious to ascribe the creation
of any thing bad to a good God, militates in no degree against the
orthodox faith, since it is not admitted that there is any thing
naturally bad throughout the universe; the depravity and wickedness
whether of man or of the devil, and the sins thence resulting, being
not from nature, but from the corruption of nature; nor, at first,
did anything whatever exist that did not exhibit some manifestation
of the divine wisdom and justice. To obviate such perverse
imaginations, we must raise our minds higher than our eyes can
penetrate. It was probably with this view that the Nicene Creed, in
calling God the creator of all things, makes express mention of
things invisible. My care, however, must be to keep within the
bounds which piety prescribes, lest by indulging in speculations
beyond my reach, I bewilder the reader, and lead him away from the
simplicity of the faith. And since the Holy Spirit always instructs
us in what is useful, but altogether omits, or only touches
cursorily on matters which tend little to edification, of all such
matters, it certainly is our duty to remain in willing ignorance.
    4. Angels being the ministers appointed to execute the commands
of God, must, of course, be admitted to be his creatures, but to
stir up questions concerning the time or order in which they were
created, (see Lombard, lib. 2 dist. 2, sqq.,) bespeaks more
perverseness than industry. Moses relates that the heavens and the
earth were finished, with all their host; what avails it anxiously
to inquire at what time other more hidden celestial hosts than the
stars and planets also began to be? Not to dwell on this, let us
here remember that on the whole subject of religion one rule of
modesty and soberness is to be observed, and it is this, in obscure
matters not to speak or think, or even long to know, more than the
Word of God has delivered. A second rule is, that in reading the
Scriptures we should constantly direct our inquiries and meditations
to those things which tend to edification, not indulge in curiosity,
or in studying things of no use. And since the Lord has been pleased
to instruct us, not in frivolous questions, but in solid piety, in
the fear of his name, in true faith, and the duties of holiness, let
us rest satisfied with such knowledge. Wherefore, if we would be
duly wise, we must renounce those vain babblings of idle men,
concerning the nature, ranks, and number of angels, without any
authority from the Word of God. I know that many fasten on these
topics more eagerly, and take greater pleasure in them than in those
relating to daily practice. But if we decline not to be the
disciples of Christ, let us not decline to follow the method which
he has prescribed. In this way, being contented with him for our
master, we will not only refrain from, but even feel averse to,
superfluous speculations which he discourages. None can deny that
Dionysus (whoever he may have been) has many shrewd and subtle
disquisitions in his Celestial Hierarchy, but on looking at them
more closely, every one must see that they are merely idle talk. The
duty of a Theologian, however, is not to tickle the ear, but confirm
the conscience, by teaching what is true, certain, and useful. When
you read the work of Dionysus, you would think that the man had come
down from heaven, and was relating, not what he had learned, but
what he had actually seen. Paul, however, though he was carried to
the third heaven, so far from delivering any thing of the kind,
positively declares, that it was not lawful for man to speak the
secrets which he had seen. Bidding adieu, therefore, to that
nugatory wisdom, let us endeavour to ascertain from the simple
doctrine of Scripture what it is the Lord's pleasure that we should
know concerning angels.
    5. In Scripture, then, we uniformly read that angels are
heavenly spirits, whose obedience and ministry God employs to
execute all the purposes which he has decreed, and hence their name
as being a kind of intermediate messengers to manifest his will to
men. The names by which several of them are distinguished have
reference to the same office. They are called hosts, because they
surround their Prince as his court, - adorn and display his majesty,
- like soldiers, have their eyes always turned to their leader's
standard, and are so ready and prompt to execute his orders, that
the moment he gives the nod, they prepare for, or rather are
actually at work. In declaring the magnificence of the divine
throne, similar representations are given by the prophets, and
especially by Daniel, when he says, that when God stood up to
judgement, "thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand
times ten thousand stood before him," (Dan. 7: 10.) As by these
means the Lord wonderfully exerts and declares the power and might
of his hand, they are called virtues. Again, as his government of
the world is exercised and administered by them, they are called at
one time Principalities, at another Powers, at another Dominions,
(Col. 1: 16; Eph. 1: 21.) Lastly, as the glory of God in some
measure dwells in them, they are also termed Thrones; though as to
this last designation I am unwilling to speak positively, as a
different interpretation is equally, if not more congruous. To say
nothing, therefore, of the name of Thrones, the former names are
often employed by the Holy Spirit in commendation of the dignity of
angelic service. Nor is it right to pass by unhonoured those
instruments by whom God specially manifests the presence of his
power. Nay, they are more than once called Gods, because the Deity
is in some measure represented to us in their service, as in a
mirror. I am rather inclined, however, to agree with ancient
writers, that in those passages wherein it is stated that the angel
of the Lord appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, Christ was that
angel. Still it is true, that when mention is made of all the
angels, they are frequently so designated. Nor ought this to seem
strange. For if princes and rulers have this honour given them,
because in their office they are vicegerents of God, the supreme
King and Judge, with far greater reason may it be given to angels,
in whom the brightness of the divine glory is much more
conspicuously displayed.
    6. But the point on which the Scriptures specially insist is
that which tends most to our comfort, and to the confirmation of our
faith, namely, that angels are the ministers and dispensers of the
divine bounty towards us. Accordingly, we are told how they watch
for our safety, how they undertake our defence, direct our path, and
take heed that no evil befall us. There are whole passages which
relate, in the first instance, to Christ, the Head of the Church,
and after him to all believers. "He shall give his angels charge
over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in
their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone." Again, "The
angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and
delivereth them." By these passages the Lord shows that the
protection of those whom he has undertaken to defend he has
delegated to his angels. Accordingly, an angel of the Lord consoles
Hagar in her flight, and bids her be reconciled to her mistress.
Abraham promises to his servant that an angel will be the guide of
his journey. Jacob, in blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, prays "The
angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads." So an angel
was appointed to guard the camp of the Israelites; and as often as
God was pleased to deliver Israel from the hands of his enemies, he
stirred up avengers by the ministry of angels. Thus, in fine, (not
to mention more,) angels ministered to Christ, and were present with
him in all straits. To the women they announced his resurrection; to
the disciples they foretold his glorious advent. In discharging the
office of our protectors, they war against the devil and all our
enemies, and execute vengeance upon those who afflict us. Thus we
read that an angel of the Lord, to deliver Jerusalem from siege,
slew one hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the camp of the
king of Assyria in a single night.
    7. Whether or not each believer has a single angel assigned to
him for his defence, I dare not positively affirm. When Daniel
introduces the angel of the Persian and the angel of the Greeks, he
undoubtedly intimates that certain angels are appointed as a kind of
presidents over kingdoms and provinces. Again, when Christ says that
the angels of children always behold the face of his Father, he
insinuates that there are certain angels to whom their safety has
been entrusted. But I know not if it can be inferred from this, that
each believer has his own angel. This, indeed, I hold for certain,
that each of us is cared for, not by one angel merely, but that all
with one consent watch for our safety. For it is said of all the
angels collectively, that they rejoice "over one sinner that
repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no
repentance." It is also said, that the angels (meaning more than
one) carried the soul of Lazarus into Abraham's bosom. Nor was it to
no purpose that Elisha showed his servant the many chariots of fire
which were specially allotted him.
    There is one passage which seems to intimate somewhat more
clearly that each individual has a separate angel. When Peter, after
his deliverance from prison, knocked at the door of the house where
the brethren were assembled, being unable to think it could be
himself, they said that it was his angel. This idea seems to have
been suggested to them by a common belief that every believer has a
single angel assigned to him. Here, however, it may be alleged, that
there is nothing to prevent us from understanding it of any one of
the angels to whom the Lord might have given the charge of Peter at
that particular time, without implying that he was to be his,
perpetual guardian, according to the vulgar imagination, (see Calvin
on Mark 5: 9,) that two angels a good and a bad, as a kind of genii,
are assigned to each individual. After all, it is not worthwhile
anxiously to investigate a point which does not greatly concern us.
If any one does not think it enough to know that all the orders of
the heavenly host are perpetually watching for his safety, I do not
see what he could gain by knowing that he has one angel as a special
guardian. Those, again, who limit the care which God takes of each
of us to a single angel, do great injury to themselves and to all
the members of the Church, as if there were no value in those
promises of auxiliary troops, who on every side encircling and
defending us, embolden us to fight more manfully.
    8. Those who presume to dogmatize on the ranks and numbers of
angels, would do well to consider on what foundation they rest. As
to their rank, I admit that Michael is described by David as a
mighty Prince, and by Jude as an Archangel. Paul also tells us, that
an archangel will blow the trumpet which is to summon the world to
judgement. But how is it possible from such passages to ascertain
the gradations of honour among the angels to determine the insignia,
and assign the place and station of each? Even the two names,
Michael and Gabriel, mentioned in Scripture, or a third, if you
choose to add it from the history of Tobit, seem to intimate by
their meaning that they are given to angels in accommodation to the
weakness of our capacity, though I rather choose not to speak
positively on the point. As to the number of angels, we learn from
the mouth of our Saviour that there are many legions, and from
Daniel that there are many myriads. Elisha's servant saw a multitude
of chariots, and their vast number is declared by the fact, that
they encamp round about those that fear the Lord. It is certain that
spirits have no bodily shape, and yet Scripture, in accommodation to
us, describes them under the form of winged Cherubim and Seraphim;
not without cause, to assure us that when occasion requires, they
will hasten to our aid with incredible swiftness, winging their way
to us with the speed of lightning. Farther than this, in regard both
to the ranks and numbers of angels, let us class them among those
mysterious subjects, the full revelation of which is deferred to the
last day, and accordingly refrain from inquiring too curiously, or
talking presumptuously.
    9. There is one point, however, which though called into doubt
by certain restless individuals, we ought to hold for certain viz.,
that angels are ministering spirits (Heb. 1: 14;) whose service God
employs for the protection of his people, and by whose means he
distributes his favours among men, and also executes other works.
The Sadducees of old maintained, that by angels nothing more was
meant than the movements which God impresses on men, or
manifestations which he gives of his own power, (Acts 23: 8.) But
this dream is contradicted by so many passages of Scriptures that it
seems strange how such gross ignorance could have had any
countenance among the Jews. To say nothing of the passages I have
already quoted, passages which refer to thousands and legions of
angels, speak of them as rejoicing, as bearing up the faithful in
their hands, carrying their souls to rest, beholding the face of
their Father, and so forth: there are other passages which most
clearly prove that they are real beings possessed of spiritual
essence. Stephen and Paul say that the Law was enacted in the hands
of angels. Our Saviour, moreover says that at the resurrection the
elect will be like angels; that the day of judgement is known not
even to the angels; that at that time he himself will come with the
holy angels. However much such passages may be twisted, their
meaning is plain. In like manner, when Paul beseeches Timothy to
keep his precepts as before Christ and his elect angels, it is not
qualities or inspirations without substance that he speaks of, but
true spirits. And when it is said, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
that Christ was made more excellent than the angels, that the world
was not made subject to them, that Christ assumed not their nature,
but that of man, it is impossible to give a meaning to the passages
without understanding that angels are blessed spirits, as to whom
such comparisons may competently be made. The author of that Epistle
declares the same thing when he places the souls of believers and
the holy angels together in the kingdom of heaven. Moreover, in the
passages we have already quoted, the angels of children are said to
behold the face of God, to defend us by their protection, to rejoice
in our salvation, to admire the manifold grace of God in the Church,
to be under Christ their head. To the same effect is their frequent
appearance to the holy patriarchs in human form, their speaking, and
consenting to be hospitably entertained. Christ, too, in consequence
of the supremacy which he obtains as Mediator, is called the Angel,
(Mal. 3: 1.) It was thought proper to touch on this subject in
passing, with the view of putting the simple upon their guard
against the foolish and absurd imaginations which, suggested by
Satan many centuries ago, are ever and anon starting up anew
    10. It remains to give warning against the superstition which
usually begins to creep in, when it is said that all blessings are
ministered and dispensed to us by angels. For the human mind is apt
immediately to think that there is no honour which they ought not to
receive, and hence the peculiar offices of Christ and God are
bestowed upon them. In this ways the glory of Christ was for several
former ages greatly obscured, extravagant eulogiums being pronounced
on angels without any authority from Scripture. Among the
corruptions which we now oppose, there is scarcely any one of
greater antiquity. Even Paul appears to have had a severe contest
with some who so exalted angels as to make them almost the superiors
of Christ. Hence he so anxiously urges in his Epistle to the
Colossians, (Col. 1: 16, 20,) that Christ is not only superior to
all angels, but that all the endowments which they possess are
derived from him; thus warning us against forsaking him, by turning
to those who are not sufficient for themselves, but must draw with
us at a common fountain. As the refulgence of the Divine glory is
manifested in them, there is nothing to which we are more prone than
to prostrate ourselves before them in stupid adoration, and then
ascribe to them the blessings which we owe to God alone. Even John
confesses in the Apocalypse, (Rev. 19: 10; 22: 8, 9,) that this was
his own case, but he immediately adds the answer which was given to
him, "See thou do it not; I am thy fellow servant: worship God."
    11. This danger we will happily avoid, if we consider why it is
that Gods instead of acting directly without their agency, is wont
to employ it in manifesting his power, providing for the safety of
his people, and imparting the gifts of his beneficence. This he
certainly does not from necessity, as if he were unable to dispense
with them. Whenever he pleases, he passes them by, and performs his
own work by a single nod: so far are they from relieving him of any
difficulty. Therefore, when he employs them it is as a help to our
weakness, that nothing may be wanting to elevate our hopes or
strengthen our confidence. It ought, indeed, to be sufficient for us
that the Lord declares himself to be our protector. But when we see
ourselves beset by so many perils, so many injuries, so many kinds
of enemies, such is our frailty and effeminacy, that we might at
times be filled with alarm, or driven to despair, did not the Lord
proclaim his gracious presence by some means in accordance with our
feeble capacities. For this reason, he not only promises to take
care of us, but assures us that he has numberless attendants, to
whom he has committed the charge of our safety, that whatever
dangers may impend, so long as we are encircled by their protection
and guardianship, we are placed beyond all hazard of evil. I admit
that after we have a simple assurance of the divine protection, it
is improper in us still to look round for help. But since for this
our weakness the Lord is pleased, in his infinite goodness and
indulgence, to provide, it would ill become us to overlook the
favour. Of this we have an example in the servant of Elisha, (2
Kings 6: 17,) who, seeing the mountain encompassed by the army of
the Assyrians, and no means of escape, was completely overcome with
terror, and thought it all over with himself and his master. Then
Elisha prayed to God to open the eyes of the servant, who forthwith
beheld the mountain filled with horses and chariots of fire; in
other words, with a multitude of angels, to whom he and the prophet
had been given in charge. Confirmed by the vision he received
courage, and could boldly defy the enemy, whose appearance
previously filled him with dismay.
    12. Whatever, therefore, is said as to the ministry of angels,
let us employ for the purpose of removing all distrust, and
strengthening our confidence in God. Since the Lord has provided us
with such protection, let us not be terrified at the multitude of
our enemies as if they could prevail notwithstanding of his aid, but
let us adopt the sentiment of Elisha, that more are for us than
against us. How preposterous, therefore, is it to allow ourselves to
be led away from God by angels who have been appointed for the very
purpose of assuring us of his more immediate presence to help us?
But we are so led away, if angels do not conduct us directly to him
- making us look to him, invoke and celebrate him as our only
defender - if they are not regarded merely as hands moving to our
assistance just as he directs - if they do not direct us to Christ
as the only Mediator on whom we must wholly depend and recline,
looking towards him, and resting in him. Our minds ought to give
thorough heed to what Jacob saw in his vision, (Gen. 28: 12,) -
angels descending to the earth to men, and again mounting up from
men to heaven, by means of a ladder, at the head of which the Lord
of Hosts was seated, intimating that it is solely by the
intercession of Christ that the ministry of angels extends to us, as
he himself declares, "Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the
angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man," (John
1: 51.) Accordingly, the servant of Abraham, though he had been
commended to the guardianship of an angel, (Gen. 24: 7,) does not
therefore invoke that angel to be present with him, but trusting to
the commendation, pours out his prayers before the Lord, and
entreats him to show mercy to Abraham. As God does not make angels
the ministers of his power and goodness, that he may share his glory
with them, so he does not promise his assistance by their
instrumentality, that we may divide our confidence between him and
them. Away, then, with that Platonic philosophy of seeking access to
God by means of angels and courting them with the view of making God
more propitious, (Plat. in Epinomide et Cratylo,) - a philosophy
which presumptuous and superstitious men attempted at first to
introduce into our religion, and which they persist in even to this
day.
    13. The tendency of all that Scripture teaches concerning
devils is to put us on our guard against their wiles and
machinations, that we may provide ourselves with weapons strong
enough to drive away the most formidable foes. For when Satan is
called the god and ruler of this world, the strong man armed, the
prince of the power of the air, the roaring lion, the object of all
these descriptions is to make us more cautious and vigilant, and
more prepared for the contest. This is sometimes stated in distinct
terms. For Peter, after describing the devil as a roaring lion going
about seeking whom he may devour, immediately adds the exhortation,
"whom resist steadfast in the faith," (1 Pet. 5: 9.) And Paul, after
reminding us that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but
against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places,
immediately enjoins us to put on armour equal to so great and
perilous a contest, (Ephes. 6: 12.) Wherefore, let this be the use
to which we turn all these statements. Being forewarned of the
constant presence of an enemy the most daring, the most powerful,
the most crafty, the most indefatigable, the most completely
equipped with all the engines and the most expert in the science of
war, let us not allow ourselves to be overtaken by sloth or
cowardice, but, on the contrary, with minds aroused and ever on the
alert, let us stand ready to resist; and, knowing that this warfare
is terminated only by death, let us study to persevere. Above all,
fully conscious of our weakness and want of skill, let us invoke the
help of God, and attempt nothing without trusting in him, since it
is his alone to supply counsel, and strength, and courage, and arms.
    14. That we may feel the more strongly urged to do so, the
Scripture declares that the enemies who war against us are not one
or two, or few in number, but a great host. Mary Magdalene is said
to have been delivered from seven devils by which she was possessed;
and our Saviour assures us that it is an ordinary circumstance, when
a devil has been expelled, if access is again given to it, to take
seven other spirits, more wicked than itself, and resume the vacant
possession. Nay, one man is said to have been possessed by a whole
legion. By this, then, we are taught that the number of enemies with
whom we have to war is almost infinite, that we may not, from a
contemptuous idea of the fewness of their numbers, be more remiss in
the contest, or from imagining that an occasional truce is given us,
indulge in sloth. In one Satan or devil being often mentioned in the
singular number, the thing denoted is that domination of iniquity
which is opposed to the reign of righteousness. For, as the Church
and the communion of saints has Christ for its head, so the faction
of the wicked and wickedness itself, is portrayed with its prince
exercising supremacy. Hence the expression, "Depart, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," (Matth.
25: 41.)
    15. One thing which ought to animate us to perpetual contest
with the devil is, that he is everywhere called both our adversary
and the adversary of God. For, if the glory of God is dear to us, as
it ought to be, we ought to struggle with all our might against him
who aims at the extinction of that glory. If we are animated with
proper zeal to maintain the Kingdom of Christ, v. e must wage
irreconcilable war with him who conspires its ruin. Again, if we
have any anxiety about our own salvation, we ought to make no peace
nor truce with him who is continually laying schemes for its
destruction. But such is the character given to Satan in the third
chapter of Genesis, where he is seen seducing man from his
allegiance to God, that he may both deprive God of his due honour,
and plunge man headlong in destruction. Such, too, is the
description given of him in the Gospels, (Matth. 13: 28,) where he
is called the enemy, and is said to sow tares in order to corrupt
the seed of eternal life. In one word, in all his actions we
experience the truth of our Saviour's description, that he was "a
murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth," (John 8:
44.) Truth he assails with lies, light he obscures with darkness.
The minds of men he involves in error; he stirs up hatred, inflames
strife and war, and all in order that he may overthrow the kingdom
of God, and drown men in eternal perdition with himself. Hence it is
evident that his whole nature is depraved, mischievous, and
malignant. There must be extreme depravity in a mind bent on
assailing the glory of God and the salvation of man. This is
intimated by John in his Epistle, when he says that he "sinneth from
the beginning," (1 John 3: 8,) implying that he is the author,
leader, and contriver of all malice and wickedness.
    16. But as the devil was created by God, we must remember that
this malice which we attribute to his nature is not from creation,
but from depravation. Every thing damnable in him he brought upon
himself, by his revolt and fall. Of this Scripture reminds us, lest,
by believing that he was so created at first, we should ascribe to
God what is most foreign to his nature. For this reason, Christ
declares, (John 8: 44,) that Satan, when he lies, "speaketh of his
own," and states the reason, "because he abode not in the truth." By
saying that he abode not in the truth, he certainly intimates that
he once was in the truth, and by calling him the father of lies, he
puts it out of his power to charge God with the depravity of which
he was himself the cause. But although the expressions are brief and
not very explicit, they are amply sufficient to vindicate the
majesty of God from every calumny. And what more does it concern us
to know of devils? Some murmur because the Scripture does not in
various passages give a distinct and regular exposition of Satan's
fall, its cause, mode, date, and nature. But as these things are of
no consequence to us, it was better, if not entirely to pass them in
silence, at least only to touch lightly upon them. The Holy Spirit
could not deign to feed curiosity with idle, unprofitable histories.
We see it was the Lord's purpose to deliver nothing in his sacred
oracles which we might not learn for edification. Therefore, instead
of dwelling on superfluous matters, let it be sufficient for us
briefly to hold, with regard to the nature of devils, that at their
first creation they were the angels of God, but by revolting they
both ruined themselves, and became the instruments of perdition to
others. As it was useful to know this much, it is clearly taught by
Peter and Jude; "God," they say, "spared not the angels that sinned,
but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of
darkness to be reserved unto judgement," (2 Pet. 2: 4; Jude ver. 6.)
And Paul, by speaking of the elect angels, obviously draws a tacit
contrast between them and reprobate angels.
    17. With regard to the strife and war which Satan is said to
wage with God, it must be understood with this qualification, that
Satan cannot possibly do anything against the will and consent of
God. For we read in the history of Job, that Satan appears in the
presence of God to receive his commands, and dares not proceed to
execute any enterprise until he is authorised. In the same way, when
Ahab was to be deceived, he undertook to be a lying spirit in the
mouth of all the prophets; and on being commissioned by the Lord,
proceeds to do so. For this reason, also, the spirit which tormented
Saul is said to be an evil spirit from the Lord, because he was, as
it were, the scourge by which the misdeeds of the wicked king were
punished. In another place it is said that the plagues of Egypt were
inflicted by God through the instrumentality of wicked angels. In
conformity with these particular examples, Paul declares generally
that unbelievers are blinded by God, though he had previously
described it as the doing of Satan. It is evident, therefore, that
Satan is under the power of God, and is so ruled by his authority,
that he must yield obedience to it. Moreover, though we say that
Satan resists God, and does works at variance with His works, we at
the same time maintain that this contrariety and opposition depend
on the permission of God. I now speak not of Satan's will and
endeavour, but only of the result. For the disposition of the devil
being wicked, he has no inclination whatever to obey the divine
will, but, on the contrary, is wholly bent on contumacy and
rebellion. This much, therefore, he has of himself, and his own
iniquity, that he eagerly, and of set purpose, opposes God, aiming
at those things which he deems most contrary to the will of God. But
as God holds him bound and fettered by the curb of his power, he
executes those things only for which permission has been given him,
and thus, however unwilling, obeys his Creator, being forced,
whenever he is required, to do Him service.
    18. God thus turning the unclean spirits hither and thither at
his pleasure, employs them in exercising believers by warring
against them, assailing them with wiles, urging them with
solicitations, pressing close upon them, disturbing, alarming, and
occasionally wounding, but never conquering or oppressing them;
whereas they hold the wicked in thraldom, exercise dominion over
their minds and bodies, and employ them as bond-slaves in all kinds
of iniquity. Because believers are disturbed by such enemies, they
are addressed in such exhortations as these: "Neither give place to
the devil;" "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh
about seeking whom he may devour; whom resist steadfast in the
faith," (Eph. 4: 27; 1 Pet. 5: 8.) Paul acknowledges that he was not
exempt from this species of contest when he says, that for the
purpose of subduing his pride, a messenger of Satan was sent to
buffet him, (2 Cor. 12: 7.) This trial, therefore, is common to all
the children of God. But as the promise of bruising Satan's head
(Gen. 3: 15) applies alike to Christ and to all his members, I deny
that believers can ever be oppressed or vanquished by him. They are
often, indeed, thrown into alarm, but never so thoroughly as not to
recover themselves. They fall by the violence of the blows, but they
get up again; they are wounded, but not mortally. In fine, they
labour on through the whole course of their lives, so as ultimately
to gain the victory, though they meet with occasional defeats. We
know how David, through the just anger of God, was left for a time
to Satan, and by his instigation numbered the people, (2 Sam. 24:
1;) nor without cause does Paul hold out a hope of pardon in case
any should have become ensnared by the wiles of the devil, (2 Tim.
2: 26.) Accordingly, he elsewhere shows that the promise above
quoted commences in this life where the struggle is carried on, and
that it is completed after the struggle is ended. His words are,
"The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly," (Rom.
16: 20.) In our Head, indeed, this victory was always perfect,
because the prince of the world "had nothing" in him, (John 14: 30;)
but in us, who are his members, it is now partially obtained, and
will be perfected when we shall have put off our mortal flesh,
through which we are liable to infirmity, and shall have been filled
with the energy of the Holy Spirit. In this way, when the kingdom of
Christ is raised up and established, that of Satan falls, as our
Lord himself expresses it, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from
heaven," (Luke 10: 18.) By these words, he confirmed the report
which the apostles gave of the efficacy of their preaching. In like
manner he says, "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his
goods are in peace. But when a stronger than he shall come upon him,
and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he
trusted, and divideth his spoils," (Luke 11: 21, 22.) And to this
end, Christ, by dying, overcame Satan, who had the power of death,
(Heb. 2: 14,) and triumphed over all his hosts that they might not
injure the Church, which otherwise would suffer from them every
moment. For, (such being our weakness, and such his raging fury,)
how could we withstand his manifold and unintermitted assaults for
any period, however short, if we did not trust to the victory of our
leader? God, therefore, does not allow Satan to have dominion over
the souls of believers, but only gives over to his sway the impious
and unbelieving, whom he deigns not to number among his flock. For
the devil is said to have undisputed possession of this world until
he is dispossessed by Christ. In like manner, he is said to blind
all who do not believe the Gospel, and to do his own work in the
children of disobedience. And justly; for all the wicked are vessels
of wrath, and, accordingly, to whom should they be subjected but to
the minister of the divine vengeance? In fine, they are said to be
of their father the devil. For as believers are recognised to be the
sons of God by bearing his image, so the wicked are properly
regarded as the children of Satan, from having degenerated into his
image.
    19. Having above refuted that nugatory philosophy concerning
the holy angels, which teaches that they are nothing but good
motions or inspirations which God excites in the minds of men, we
must here likewise refute those who foolishly allege that devils are
nothing but bad affections or perturbations suggested by our carnal
nature. The brief refutation is to be found in passages of Scripture
on this subject, passages neither few nor obscure. First, when they
are called unclean spirits and apostate angels, (Matth. 12: 43;
Jude, verse 6,) who have degenerated from their original, the very
terms sufficiently declare that they are not motions or affections
of the mind, but truly, as they are called, minds or spirits endued
with sense and intellect. In like manner, when the children of God
are contrasted by John, and also by our Saviour, with the children
of the devil, would not the contrast be absurd if the term devil
meant nothing more than evil inspirations? And John adds still more
emphatically, that the devil sinneth from the beginning, (1 John 3:
8.) In like manner, when Jude introduces the archangel Michael
contending with the devil, (Jude, verse 9,) he certainly contrasts a
wicked and rebellious with a good angel. To this corresponds the
account given in the Book of Job, that Satan appeared in the
presence of God with the holy angels. But the clearest passages of
all are those which make mention of the punishment which, from the
judgement of God, they already begin to feel, and are to feel more
especially at the resurrection, "What have we to do with thee,
Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before
the time?" (Matth. 8: 29;) and again, "Depart, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," (Matth.
25: 41.) Again, "If God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast
them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness to be
reserved unto judgement," &c., (2 Pet. 2: 4.) How absurd the
expressions, that devils are doomed to eternal punishment, that fire
is prepared for them, that they are even now excruciated and
tormented by the glory of Christ, if there were truly no devils at
all? But as all discussion on this subject is superfluous for those
who give credit to the Word of God, while little is gained by
quoting Scripture to those empty speculators whom nothing but
novelty can please, I believe I have already done enough for my
purpose, which was to put the pious on their guard against the
delirious dreams with which restless men harass themselves and the
simple. The subject, however, deserved to be touched upon, lest any,
by embracing that errors should imagine they have no enemy and
thereby be more remiss or less cautious in resisting.
    20. Meanwhile, being placed in this most beautiful theatre, let
us not decline to take a pious delight in the clear and manifest
works of God. For, as we have elsewhere observed, though not the
chief, it is, in point of order, the first evidence of faiths to
remember to which side soever we turn, that all which meets the eye
is the work of God, and at the same time to meditate with pious care
on the end which God had in view in creating it. Wherefore, in order
that we may apprehend with true faith what it is necessary to know
concerning God, it is of importance to attend to the history of the
creation, as briefly recorded by Moses and afterwards more copiously
illustrated by pious writers, more especially by Basil and Ambrose.
From this history we learn that God, by the power of his Word and
his Spirit, created the heavens and the earth out of nothing; that
thereafter he produced things inanimate and animate of every kind,
arranging an innumerable variety of objects in admirable order,
giving each kind its proper nature, office, place, and station; at
the same time, as all things were liable to corruption, providing
for the perpetuation of each single species, cherishing some by
secret methods, and, as it were, from time to time instilling new
vigour into them, and bestowing on others a power of continuing
their race, so preventing it from perishing at their own death.
Heaven and earth being thus most richly adorned, and copiously
supplied with all things, like a large and splendid mansion
gorgeously constructed and exquisitely furnished, at length man was
made - man, by the beauty of his person and his many noble
endowments, the most glorious specimen of the works of God. But, as
I have no intention to give the history of creation in detail, it is
sufficient to have again thus briefly touched on it in passing. I
have already reminded my reader, that the best course for him is to
derive his knowledge of the subject from Moses and others who have
carefully and faithfully transmitted an account of the creation.
    21. It is unnecessary to dwell at length on the end that should
be aimed at in considering the works of God. The subject has been in
a great measure explained elsewhere, and in so far as required by
our present work, may now be disposed of in a few words. Undoubtedly
were one to attempt to speak in due terms of the inestimable wisdom,
power, justice, and goodness of God, in the formation of the world,
no grace or splendour of diction could equal the greatness of the
subject. Still there can be no doubt that the Lord would have us
constantly occupied with such holy meditation, in order that, while
we contemplate the immense treasures of wisdom and goodness
exhibited in the creatures as in so many mirrors, we may not only
run our eye over them with a hasty, and, as it were, evanescent
glance, but dwell long upon them, seriously and faithfully turn them
in our minds, and every now and then bring them to recollection. But
as the present work is of a didactic nature, we cannot fittingly
enter on topics which require lengthened discourse. Therefore, in
order to be compendious, let the reader understand that he has a
genuine apprehension of the character of God as the Creator of the
world; first, if he attends to the general rule, never thoughtlessly
or obliviously to overlook the glorious perfections which God
displays in his creatures; and, secondly, if he makes a self
application of what he sees, so as to fix it deeply on his heart.
The former is exemplified when we consider how great the Architect
must be who framed and ordered the multitude of the starry host so
admirably, that it is impossible to imagine a more glorious sight,
so stationing some, and fixing them to particular spots that they
cannot move; giving a freer course to others yet setting limits to
their wanderings; so tempering the movement of the whole as to
measure out day and night, months, years, and seasons, and at the
same time so regulating the inequality of days as to prevent every
thing like confusion. The former course is, moreover, exemplified
when we attend to his power in sustaining the vast mass, and guiding
the swift revolutions of the heavenly bodies, &c. These few examples
sufficiently explain what is meant by recognising the divine
perfections in the creation of the world. Were we to attempt to go
over the whole subject we should never come to a conclusion, there
being as many miracles of divine power, as many striking evidences
of wisdom and goodness, as there are classes of objects, nay, as
there are individual objects, great or small, throughout the
universe.
    22. The other course which has a closer relation to faith
remains to be considered, viz., that while we observe how God has
destined all things for our good and salvation, we at the same time
feel his power and grace, both in ourselves and in the great
blessings which he has bestowed upon us; thence stirring up
ourselves to confidence in him, to invocation, praise, and love.
Moreover, as I lately observed, the Lord himself, by the very order
of creation, has demonstrated that he created all things for the
sake of man. Nor is it unimportant to observe, that he divided the
formation of the world into six days, though it had been in no
respect more difficult to complete the whole work, in all its parts,
in one moment than by a gradual progression. But he was pleased to
display his providence and paternal care towards us in this, that
before he formed man, he provided whatever he foresaw would be
useful and salutary to him. How ungrateful, then, were it to doubt
whether we are cared for by this most excellent Parent, who we see
cared for us even before we were born! How impious were it to
tremble in distrust, lest we should one day be abandoned in our
necessity by that kindness which, antecedent to our existence,
displayed itself in a complete supply of all good things! Moreover,
Moses tells us that everything which the world contains is liberally
placed at our disposal. This God certainly did not that he might
delude us with an empty form of donation. Nothing, therefore, which
concerns our safety will ever be wanting. To conclude, in one word;
as often as we call God the Creator of heaven and earth, let us
remember that the distribution of all the things which he created
are in his hand and power, but that we are his sons, whom he has
undertaken to nourish and bring up in allegiance to him, that we may
expect the substance of all good from him alone, and have full hope
that he will never suffer us to be in want of things necessary to
salvation, so as to leave us dependent on some other source; that in
everything we desire we may address our prayers to him, and, in
every benefit we receive, acknowledge his hand, and give him thanks;
that thus allured by his great goodness and beneficence, we may
study with our whole heart to love and serve him.

Chapter 15

15. State in which man was created. The faculties of the soul - The
image of God - Free will - Original righteousness.

This chapter is thus divided: - I. The necessary rules to be
observed in considering the state of man before the fall being laid
down, the point first considered is the creation of the body, and
the lesson taught by its being formed out of the earth, and made
alive, sec. 1. II. The immortality of the human soul is proved by
various solid arguments, sec. 2. III. The image of God (the
strongest proof of the soul's immortality) is considered, and
various absurd fancies are refuted, sec. 3. IV. Several errors which
obscure the light of truth being dissipated, follows a philosophical
and theological consideration of the faculties of the soul before
the fall.

Sections.

1. A twofold knowledge of God, viz., before the fall and after it.
    The former here considered. Particular rules or precautions to
    be observed in this discussion. What we are taught by a body
    formed ant of the dust, and tenanted by a spirit.
2. The immortality of the soul proved from, 1. The testimony of
    conscience. 2. The knowledge of God. 3. The noble faculties
    with which it is endued. 4. Its activity and wondrous fancies
    in sleep. 5. Innumerable passages of Scripture.
3. The image of God one of the strongest proofs of the immortality
    of the soul. What meant by this image. The dreams of Osiander
    concerning the image of God refuted. Whether any difference
    between "image" and "likeness." Another objection of Osiander
    refuted. The image of God conspicuous in the whole Adam.
4. The image of God is in the soul. Its nature may be learnt from
    its renewal by Christ. What comprehended under this renewal.
    What the image of God in man before the fall. In what things it
    now appears. When and where it will be seen in perfection.
5. The dreams of the Manichees and of Servetus, as to the origin of
    the soul, refuted. Also of Osiander, who denies that there is
    any image of God in man without essential righteousness.
6. The doctrine of philosophers as to the faculties of the soul
    generally discordant, doubtful, and obscure. The excellence of
    the soul described. Only one soul in each man. A brief review
    of the opinion of philosophers as to the faculties of the soul.
    What to be thought of this opinion.
7. The division of the faculties of the soul into intellect and
    will, more agreeable to Christian doctrine.
8. The power and office of the intellect and will in man before the
    fall. Man's free will. This freedom lost by the fall - a fact
    unknown to philosophers. The delusion of Pelagians and Papists.
    Objection as to the fall of man when free, refuted.

    1. We have now to speak of the creation of man, not only
because of all the works of God it is the noblest, and most
admirable specimen of his justice, wisdom, and goodness, but, as we
observed at the outset, we cannot clearly and properly know God
unless the knowledge of ourselves be added. This knowledge is
twofold, - relating, first, to the condition in which we were at
first created; and, secondly to our condition such as it began to be
immediately after Adam's fall. For it would little avail us to know
how we were created if we remained ignorant of the corruption and
degradation of our nature in consequence of the fall. At present,
however, we confine ourselves to a consideration of our nature in
its original integrity. And, certainly, before we descend to the
miserable condition into which man has fallen, it is of importance
to consider what he was at first. For there is need of caution, lest
we attend only to the natural ills of man, and thereby seem to
ascribe them to the Author of nature; impiety deeming it a
sufficient defence if it can pretend that everything vicious in it
proceeded in some sense from God, and not hesitating, when accused,
to plead against God, and throw the blame of its guilt upon Him.
Those who would be thought to speak more reverently of the Deity
catch at an excuse for their depravity from nature, not considering
that they also, though more obscurely, bring a charge against God,
on whom the dishonour would fall if anything vicious were proved to
exist in nature. Seeing, therefore, that the flesh is continually on
the alert for subterfuges, by which it imagines it can remove the
blame of its own wickedness from itself to some other quarter, we
must diligently guard against this depraved procedure, and
accordingly treat of the calamity of the human race in such a way as
may cut off every evasion, and vindicate the justice of God against
all who would impugn it. We shall afterwards see, in its own place,
(Book 2 chap. 1: sec. 3,) how far mankind now are from the purity
originally conferred on Adam. And, first, it is to be observed, that
when he was formed out of the dust of the ground a curb was laid on
his pride - nothing being more absurd than that those should glory
in their excellence who not only dwell in tabernacles of clay, but
are themselves in part dust and ashes. But God having not only
deigned to animate a vessel of clay, but to make it the habitation
of an immortal spirit, Adam might well glory in the great liberality
of his Maker.
    2. Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a
body and a soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created
essence, which is his nobler part. Sometimes he is called a spirit.
But though the two terms, while they are used together differ in
their meaning, still, when spirit is used by itself it is equivalent
to soul, as when Solomon speaking of death says, that the spirit
returns to God who gave it, (Eccles. 12: 7.) And Christ, in
commending his spirit to the Father, and Stephen his to Christ,
simply mean, that when the soul is freed from the prison-house of
the body, God becomes its perpetual keeper. Those who imagine that
the soul is called a spirit because it is a breath or energy
divinely infused into bodies, but devoid of essence, err too
grossly, as is shown both by the nature of the thing, and the whole
tenor of Scripture. It is true, indeed, that men cleaving too much
to the earth are dull of apprehension, nay, being alienated from the
Father of Lights, are so immersed in darkness as to imagine that
they will not survive the grave; still the light is not so
completely quenched in darkness that all sense of immortality is
lost. Conscience, which, distinguishing, between good and evil,
responds to the judgement of God, is an undoubted sign of an
immortal spirit. How could motion devoid of essence penetrate to the
judgement-seat of God, and under a sense of guilt strike itself with
terror? The body cannot be affected by any fear of spiritual
punishment. This is competent only to the soul, which must therefore
be endued with essence. Then the mere knowledge of a God
sufficiently proves that souls which rise higher than the world must
be immortal, it being impossible that any evanescent vigour could
reach the very fountain of life. In fine, while the many noble
faculties with which the human mind is endued proclaim that
something divine is engraven on it, they are so many evidences of an
immortal essence. For such sense as the lower animals possess goes
not beyond the body, or at least not beyond the objects actually
presented to it. But the swiftness with which the human mind glances
from heaven to earth, scans the secrets of nature, and, after it has
embraced all ages, with intellect and memory digests each in its
proper order, and reads the future in the past, clearly demonstrates
that there lurks in man a something separated from the body. We have
intellect by which we are able to conceive of the invisible God and
angels - a thing of which body is altogether incapable. We have
ideas of rectitude, justice, and honesty - ideas which the bodily
senses cannot reach. The seat of these ideas must therefore be a
spirit. Nay, sleep itself, which stupefying the man, seems even to
deprive him of life, is no obscure evidence of immortality; not only
suggesting thoughts of things which never existed, but foreboding
future events. I briefly touch on topics which even profane writers
describe with a more splendid eloquence. For pious readers, a simple
reference is sufficient. Were not the soul some kind of essence
separated from the body, Scripture would not teach that we dwell in
houses of clay, and at death remove from a tabernacle of flesh; that
we put off that which is corruptible, in order that, at the last
day, we may finally receive according to the deeds done in the body.
These, and similar passages which everywhere occur, not only clearly
distinguish the soul from the body, but by giving it the name of
man, intimate that it is his principal part. Again, when Paul
exhorts believers to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the
flesh and the spirit, he shows that there are two parts in which the
taint of sin resides. Peter, also, in calling Christ the Shepherd
and Bishop of souls, would have spoken absurdly if there were no
souls towards which he might discharge such an office. Nor would
there be any ground for what he says concerning the eternal
salvation of souls, or for his injunction to purify our souls, or
for his assertion that fleshly lusts war against the soul; neither
could the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews say, that pastors
watch as those who must give an account for our souls, if souls were
devoid of essence. To the same effect Paul calls God to witness upon
his soul, which could not be brought to trial before God if
incapable of suffering punishment. This is still more clearly
expressed by our Saviour, when he bids us fear him who, after he has
killed the body, is able also to cast into hell fire. Again when the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews distinguishes the fathers of
our flesh from God, who alone is the Father of our spirits, he could
not have asserted the essence of the soul in clearer terms.
Moreover, did not the soul, when freed from the fetters of the body,
continue to exist, our Saviour would not have represented the soul
of Lazarus as enjoying blessedness in Abraham s bosom, while, on the
contrary, that of Dives was suffering dreadful torments. Paul
assures us of the same thing when he says, that so long as we are
present in the body, we are absent from the Lord. Not to dwell on a
matter as to which there is little obscurity, I will only add, that
Luke mentions among the errors of the Sadducees that they believed
neither angel nor spirit.
    3. A strong proof of this point may be gathered from its being
said, that man was created in the image of God. For though the
divine glory is displayed in man's outward appearance, it cannot be
doubted that the proper seat of the image is in the soul. I deny
not, indeed, that external shape, in so far as it distinguishes and
separates us from the lower animals, brings us nearer to God; nor
will I vehemently oppose any who may choose to include under the
image of God that
    
         While the mute creation downward bend
         Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,
         Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes,
         Beholds his own hereditary skies.
    
Only let it be understood, that the image of God which is beheld or
made conspicuous by these external marks, is spiritual. For
Osiander, (whose writings exhibit a perverse ingenuity in futile
devices,) extending the image of God indiscriminately as well to the
body as to the soul, confounds heaven with earth. He says, that the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, placed their image in man,
because, even though Adam had stood entire, Christ would still have
become man. Thus, according to him, the body which was destined for
Christ was a model and type of that corporeal figure which was then
formed. But where does he find that Christ is an image of the
Spirit? I admit, indeed, that in the person of the Mediator, the
glory of the whole Godhead is displayed: but how can the eternal
Word, who in order precedes the Spirit, be called his image? In
short, the distinction between the Son and the Spirit is destroyed
when the former is represented as the image of the latter. Moreover,
I should like to know in what respect Christ in the flesh in which
he was clothed resembles the Ho]y Spirit, and by what marks, or
lineaments, the likeness is expressed. And since the expression,
"Let us make man in our own image," is used in the person of the Son
also, it follows that he is the image of himself - a thing utterly
absurd. Add that, according to the figment of Osiander, Adam was
formed after the model or type of the man Christ. Hence Christ, in
as much as he was to be clothed with flesh, was the idea according
to which Adam was formed, whereas the Scriptures teach very
differently, viz., that he was formed in the image of God. There is
more plausibility in the imagination of those who interpret that
Adam was created in the image of God, because it was conformable to
Christ, who is the only image of God; but not even for this is there
any solid foundation. The "image" and "likeness" has given rise to
no small discussion; interpreters searching without cause for a
difference between the two terms, since "likeness" is merely added
by way of exposition. First, we know that repetitions are common in
Hebrew, which often gives two words for one thing; And, secondly,
there is no ambiguity in the thing itself, man being called the
image of God because of his likeness to God. Hence there is an
obvious absurdity in those who indulge in philosophical speculation
as to these names, placing the "Zelem", that is the image, in the
substance of the soul, and the "Demuth", that is the likeness, in
its qualities, and so forth. God having determined to create man in
his own image, to remove the obscurity which was in this terms adds,
by way of explanation, in his likeness, as if he had said, that he
would make man, in whom he would, as it were, image himself by means
of the marks of resemblance impressed upon him. Accordingly, Moses,
shortly after repeating the account, puts down the image of God
twice, and makes no mention of the likeness. Osiander frivolously
objects that it is not a part of the man, or the soul with its
faculties, which is called the image of God, but the whole Adam, who
received his name from the dust out of which he was taken. I call
the objection frivolous, as all sound readers will judge. For though
the whole man is called mortal, the soul is not therefore liable to
death, nor when he is called a rational animal is reason or
intelligence thereby attributed to the body. Hence, although the
soul is not the man, there is no absurdity in holding that he is
called the image of God in respect of the soul; though I retain the
principle which I lately laid down, that the image of God extends to
everything in which the nature of man surpasses that of all other
species of animals. Accordingly, by this term is denoted the
integrity with which Adam was endued when his intellect was clear,
his affections subordinated to reason, all his senses duly
regulated, and when he truly ascribed all his excellence to the
admirable gifts of his Maker. And though the primary seat of the
divine image was in the mind and the heart, or in the soul and its
powers, there was no part even of the body in which some rays of
glory did not shine. It is certain that in every part of the world
some lineaments of divine glory are beheld and hence we may infer,
that when his image is placed in man, there is a kind of tacit
antithesis, as it were, setting man apart from the crowd, and
exalting him above all the other creatures. But it cannot be denied
that the angels also were created in the likeness of God, since, as
Christ declares, (Matth. 22: 30,) our highest perfection will
consist in being like them. But it is not without good cause that
Moses commends the favour of God towards us by giving us this
peculiar title, the more especially that he was only comparing man
with the visible creation.
    4. But our definition of the image seems not to be complete
until it appears more clearly what the faculties are in which man
excels, and in which he is to be regarded as a mirror of the divine
glory. This, however, cannot be better known than from the remedy
provided for the corruption of nature. It cannot be doubted that
when Adam lost his first estate he became alienated from God.
Wherefore, although we grant that the image of God was not utterly
effaced and destroyed in him, it was, however, so corrupted, that
any thing which remains is fearful deformity; and, therefore, our
deliverance begins with that renovation which we obtain from Christ,
who is, therefore, called the second Adam, because he restores us to
true and substantial integrity. For although Paul, contrasting the
quickening Spirit which believers receive from Christ, with the
living soul which Adam was created, (1 Cor. 15: 45,) commends the
richer measure of grace bestowed in regeneration, he does not,
however, contradict the statement, that the end of regeneration is
to form us anew in the image of God. Accordingly, he elsewhere shows
that the new man is renewed after the image of him that created him
(Col. 3: 19.) To this corresponds another passage, "Put ye on the
new man, who after God is created," (Eph. 4: 24.) We must now see
what particulars Paul comprehends under this renovation. In the
first place, he mentions knowledge, and in the second, true
righteousness and holiness. Hence we infer, that at the beginning
the image of God was manifested by light of intellect, rectitude of
heart, and the soundness of every part. For though I admit that the
forms of expression are elliptical, this principle cannot be
overthrown, viz., that the leading feature in the renovation of the
divine image must also have held the highest place in its creation.
To the same effect Paul elsewhere says, that beholding the glory of
Christ with unveiled face, we are transformed into the same image.
We now see how Christ is the most perfect image of God, into which
we are so renewed as to bear the image of God in knowledge, purity,
righteousness, and true holiness. This being established, the
imagination of Osiander, as to bodily form, vanishes of its own
accord. As to that passage of St Paul, (1 Cor. 11: 7,) in which the
man alone to the express exclusion of the woman, is called the image
and glory of God, it is evident from the context, that it merely
refers to civil order. I presume it has already been sufficiently
proved, that the image comprehends everything which has any relation
to the spiritual and eternal life. The same thing, in different
terms, is declared by St John when he says, that the light which was
from the beginning, in the eternal Word of God, was the light of
man, (John 1: 4.) His object being to extol the singular grace of
God in making man excel the other animals, he at the same time shows
how he was formed in the image of God, that he may separate him from
the common herd, as possessing not ordinary animal existence, but
one which combines with it the light of intelligence. Therefore, as
the image of God constitutes the entire excellence of human nature,
as it shone in Adam before his fall, but was afterwards vitiated and
almost destroyed, nothing remaining but a ruin, confused, mutilated,
and tainted with impurity, so it is now partly seen in the elect, in
so far as they are regenerated by the Spirit. Its full lustre,
however, will be displayed in heaven. But in order to know the
particular properties in which it consists, it will be proper to
treat of the faculties of the soul. For there is no solidity in
Augustine's speculation, that the soul is a mirror of the Trinity,
inasmuch as it comprehends within itself, intellect, will, and
memory. Nor is there probability in the opinion of those who place
likeness to God in the dominion bestowed upon man, as if he only
resembled God in this, that he is appointed lord and master of all
things. The likeness must be within, in himself. It must be
something which is not external to him but is properly the internal
good of the soul.
    5. But before I proceed further, it is necessary to advert to
the dream of the Manichees, which Servetus has attempted in our day
to revive. Because it is said that God breathed into man's nostrils
the breath of life, (Gen. 2: 7,) they thought that the soul was a
transmission of the substance of God; as if some portion of the
boundless divinity had passed into man. It cannot take long time to
show how many gross and foul absurdities this devilish error carries
in its train. For if the soul of man is a portion transmitted from
the essence of God, the divine nature must not only be liable to
passion and change, but also to ignorance, evil desires, infirmity,
and all kinds of vice. There is nothing more inconstant than man,
contrary movements agitating and distracting his soul. He is ever
and anon deluded by want of skill, and overcome by the slightest
temptations; while every one feels that the soul itself is a
receptacle for all kinds of pollution. All these things must be
attributed to the divine nature, if we hold that the soul is of the
essence of God, or a secret influx of divinity. Who does not shudder
at a thing so monstrous? Paul, indeed, quoting from Aratus, tells us
we are his offspring, (Acts 17: 28;) not in substance, however, but
in quality, in as much as he has adorned us with divine endowments.
Meanwhile, to lacerate the essence of the Creator, in order to
assign a portion to each individual, is the height of madness. It
must, therefore, be held as certain, that souls, notwithstanding of
their having the divine image engraven on them, are created just as
angels are. Creation, however, is not a transfusion of essence, but
a commencement of it out of nothing. Nor, though the spirit is given
by God, and when it quits the flesh again returns to him, does it
follow that it is a portion withdrawn from his essence. Here, too,
Osiander, carried away by his illusions entangled himself in an
impious error, by denying that the image of God could be in man
without his essential righteousness; as if God were unable, by the
mighty power of his Spirit, to render us conformable to himself,
unless Christ were substantially transfused into us. Under whatever
colour some attempt to gloss these delusions, they can never so
blind the eyes of intelligent readers as to prevent them from
discerning in them a revival of Manicheism. But from the words of
Paul, when treating of the renewal of the image, (2 Cor. 3: 18,) the
inference is obvious, that man was conformable to God, not by an
influx of substance, but by the grace and virtue of the Spirit. He
says, that by beholding the glory of Christ, we are transformed into
the same image as by the Spirit of the Lord; and certainly the
Spirit does not work in us so as to make us of the same substance
with God.
    6. It were vain to seek a definition of the soul from
philosophers, not one of whom, with the exception of Plato,
distinctly maintained its immortality. Others of the school of
Socrates, indeed, lean the same way, but still without teaching
distinctly a doctrine of which they were not fully persuaded. Plato,
however, advanced still further, and regarded the soul as an image
of God. Others so attach its powers and faculties to the present
life, that they leave nothing external to the body. Moreover, having
already shown from Scripture that the substance of the soul is
incorporeal, we must now add, that though it is not properly
enclosed by space, it however occupies the body as a kind of
habitation, not only animating all its parts, and rendering the
organs fit and useful for their actions, but also holding the first
place in regulating the conduct. This it does not merely in regard
to the offices of a terrestrial life, but also in regard to the
service of God. This, though not clearly seen in our corrupt state,
yet the impress of its remains is seen in our very vices. For whence
have men such a thirst for glory but from a sense of shame? And
whence this sense of shame but from a respect for what is
honourable? Of this, the first principle and source is a
consciousness that they were born to cultivate righteousness, - a
consciousness akin to religion. But as man was undoubtedly created
to meditate on the heavenly life, so it is certain that the
knowledge of it was engraven on the soul. And, indeed, man would
want the principal use of his understanding if he were unable to
discern his felicity, the perfection of which consists in being
united to God. Hence, the principal action of the soul is to aspire
thither, and, accordingly, the more a man studies to approach to
God, the more he proves himself to be endued with reason.
    Though there is some plausibility in the opinion of those who
maintain that man has more than one soul, namely, a sentient and a
rational, yet as there is no soundness in their arguments, we must
reject it, unless we would torment ourselves with things frivolous
and useless. They tell us, (see chap. 5 sec. 4,) there is a great
repugnance between organic movements and the rational part of the
soul. As if reason also were not at variance with herself, and her
counsels sometimes conflicting with each other like hostile armies.
But since this disorder results from the depravation of nature, it
is erroneous to infer that there are two souls, because the
faculties do not accord so harmoniously as they ought. But I leave
it to philosophers to discourse more subtilely of these faculties.
For the edification of the pious, a simple definition will be
sufficient. I admit, indeed, that what they ingeniously teach on the
subject is true, and not only pleasant, but also useful to be known;
nor do I forbid any who are inclined to prosecute the study. First,
I admit that there are five senses, which Plato (in Theaeteto)
prefers calling organs, by which all objects are brought into a
common sensorium, as into a kind of receptacle: Next comes the
imagination, (phantasia,) which distinguishes between the objects
brought into the sensorium: Next, reason, to which the general power
of judgement belongs: And, lastly, intellect, which contemplates
with fixed and quiet look whatever reason discursively revolves. In
like manner, to intellect, fancy, and reason, the three cognitive
faculties of the soul, correspond three appetite faculties viz.,
will, whose office is to choose whatever reason and intellect
propound; irascibility, which seizes on what is set before it by
reason and fancy; and concupiscence, which lays hold of the objects
presented by sense and fancy.
    Though these things are true, or at least plausible, still, as
I fear they are more fitted to entangle, by their obscurity, than to
assist us, I think it best to omit them. If any one chooses to
distribute the powers of the mind in a different manner, calling one
appetive, which, though devoid of reason, yet obeys reason, if
directed from a different quarter, and another intellectual, as
being by itself participant of reason, I have no great objection.
Nor am I disposed to quarrel with the view, that there are three
principles of action, viz., sense, intellect, and appetite. But let
us rather adopt a division adapted to all capacities - a thing which
certainly is not to be obtained from philosophers. For they, when
they would speak most plainly, divide the soul into appetite and
intellect, but make both double. To the latter they sometimes give
the name of contemplative, as being contented with mere knowledge
and having no active powers (which circumstance makes Cicero
designate it by the name of intellect, ingenii,) (De Fin. lib. 5.)
At other times they give it the name of practical, because it
variously moves the will by the apprehension of good or evil. Under
this class is included the art of living well and justly. The former
viz., appetite, they divide into will and concupiscence, calling it
"boulesis", so whenever the appetite, which they call "horme", obeys
the reason. But when appetite, casting off the yoke of reason, runs
to intemperance, they call it "pathos". Thus they always presuppose
in man a reason by which he is able to guide himself aright.
    7. From this method of teaching we are forced somewhat to
dissent. For philosophers, being unacquainted with the corruption of
nature, which is the punishment of revolt, erroneously confound two
states of man which are very different from each other. Let us
therefore hold, for the purpose of the present work, that the soul
consists of two parts, the intellect and the will, (Book 2 chap. 2
sec. 2, 12,) -  the office of the intellect being to distinguish
between objects, according as they seem deserving of being approved
or disapproved; and the office of the will, to choose and follow
what the intellect declares to be good, to reject and shun what it
declares to be bad, (Plato, in Phaedro.) We dwell not on the
subtlety of Aristotle, that the mind has no motion of itself; but
that the moving power is choice, which he also terms the appetite
intellect. Not to lose ourselves in superfluous questions, let it be
enough to know that the intellect is to us, as it were, the guide
and ruler of the soul; that the will always follows its beck, and
waits for its decision, in matters of desire. For which reason
Aristotle truly taught, that in the appetite there is a pursuit and
rejection corresponding in some degree to affirmation and negation
in the intellect, (Aristot. Ethic. lib. 6 sec. 2.) Moreover, it will
be seen in another place, (Book 2 c. 2 see. 12-26,) how surely the
intellect governs the will. Here we only wish to observe, that the
soul does not possess any faculty which may not be duly referred to
one or other of these members. And in this way we comprehend sense
under intellect. Others distinguish thus: They say that sense
inclines to pleasure in the same way as the intellect to good; that
hence the appetite of sense becomes concupiscence and lust, while
the affection of the intellect becomes will. For the term appetite,
which they prefer, I use that of will, as being more common.
    8. Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect,
by which he might discern good from evil, just from unjust, and
might know what to follow or to shun, reason going before with her
lamp; whence philosophers, in reference to her directing power, have
called her "to hegemonikon". To this he has joined will, to which
choice belongs. Man excelled in these noble endowments in his
primitive condition, when reason, intelligence, prudence, and
judgement, not only sufficed for the government of his earthly life,
but also enabled him to rise up to God and eternal happiness.
Thereafter choice was added to direct the appetites, and temper all
the organic motions; the will being thus perfectly submissive to the
authority of reason. In this upright state, man possessed freedom of
will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It
were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the
secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what
might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was.
Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by
his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable
in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere,
that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil;
and not only so, but in the mind and will there was the highest
rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience,
until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself.
Hence the great darkness of philosophers who have looked for a
complete building in a ruin, and fit arrangement in disorder. The
principle they set out with was, that man could not be a rational
animal unless he had a free choice of good and evil. They also
imagined that the distinction between virtue and vice was destroyed,
if man did not of his own counsel arrange his life. So far well, had
there been no change in man. This being unknown to them, it is not
surprising that they throw every thing into confusion. But those
who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek
for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned
in spiritual destruction, labour under manifold delusion, making a
heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical
opinions, and so erring as to both. But it will be better to leave
these things to their own place, (see Book 2 chap. 2) At present it
is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was
very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin
from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At
first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was
soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one
objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position,
because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was
sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not
be tied down to this condition, - to make man such, that he either
could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more
excellent; but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to
confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full
right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did
not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his
counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness. Man had
received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will
which would have given the power; for this will would have been
followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much,
there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon
himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that
intermediate and even transient will, that out of man's fall he
might extract materials for his own glory.

Chapter 16

16. The world, created by God, still cherished and protected by Him.
Each and all of its parts governed by His providence.

The divisions of this chapter are, I. The doctrine of the special
providence of God over all the creatures, singly and collectively,
as opposed to the dreams of the Epicureans about fortune and
fortuitous causes. II. The fiction of the Sophists concerning the
omnipotence of God, and the error of philosophers, as to a confused
and equivocal government of the world, see. 1-5. All animals, but
especially mankind, from the peculiar superintendence exercised over
them, are proofs, evidences, and examples of the providence of God,
sec. 6, 7. III. A consideration of fate, fortune, chance,
contingence, and uncertain events, (on which the matter here under
discussion turns.)

Sections.

1. Even the wicked, under the guidance of carnal sense, acknowledge
    that God is the Creator. The godly acknowledge not this only,
    but that he is a most wise and powerful governor and preserver
    of all created objects. In so doing, they lean on the Word of
    God, some passages from which are produced.
2. Refutation of the Epicureans, who oppose fortune and fortuitous
    causes to Divine Providence, as taught in Scripture. The sun, a
    bright manifestation of Divine Providence.
3. Figment of the Sophists as to an indolent Providence refuted.
    Consideration of the Omnipotence as combined with the
    Providence of God. Double benefit resulting from a proper
    acknowledgement of the Divine Omnipotence. Cavils of
    Infidelity.
4. A definition of Providence refuting the erroneous dogmas of
    Philosophers. Dreams of the Epicureans and Peripatetics.
5. Special Providence of God asserted and proved by arguments
    founded on a consideration of the Divine Justice and Mercy.
    Proved also by passages of Scripture, relating to the sky, the
    earth, and animals.
6. Special Providence proved by passages relating to the human race,
    and the more especially that for its sake the world was
    created.
7. Special Providence proved, lastly, from examples taken from the
    history of the Israelites, of Jonah, Jacob, and from daily
    experience.
8. Erroneous views as to Providence refuted: - I. The sect of the
    Stoics. II. The fortune and chance of the Heathen.
9. How things are said to be fortuitous to us, though done by the
    determinate counsel of God. Example. Error of separating
    contingency and event from the secret, but just, and most wise
    counsel of God. Two examples.

    1. It were cold and lifeless to represent God as a momentary
Creator, who completed his work once for all, and then left it.
Here, especially, we must dissent from the profane, and maintain
that the presence of the divine power is conspicuous, not less in
the perpetual condition of the world then in its first creation.
For, although even wicked men are forced, by the mere view of the
earth and sky, to rise to the Creator, yet faith has a method of its
own in assigning the whole praise of creation to God. To this effect
is the passage of the Apostle already quoted that by faith we
understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, (Heb. 11:
3;) because, without proceeding to his Providence, we cannot
understand the full force of what is meant by God being the Creator,
how much soever we may seem to comprehend it with our mind, and
confess it with our tongue. The carnal mind, when once it has
perceived the power of God in the creation, stops there, and, at the
farthest, thinks and ponders on nothing else than the wisdom, power,
and goodness displayed by the Author of such a work, (matters which
rise spontaneously, and force themselves on the notice even of the
unwilling,) or on some general agency on which the power of motion
depends, exercised in preserving and governing it. In short, it
imagines that all things are sufficiently sustained by the energy
divinely infused into them at first. But faith must penetrate
deeper. After learning that there is a Creator, it must forthwith
infer that he is also a Governor and Preserver, and that, not by
producing a kind of general motion in the machine of the globe as
well as in each of its parts, but by a special providence
sustaining, cherishing, superintending, all the things which he has
made, to the very minutest, even to a sparrow. Thus David, after
briefly premising that the world was created by God, immediately
descends to the continual course of Providence, "By the word of the
Lord were the heavens framed, and all the host of them by the breath
of his mouth;" immediately adding, "The Lord looketh from heaven, he
beholdeth the children of men," (Ps. 33: 6, 13, &c.) He subjoins
other things to the same effect. For although all do not reason so
accurately, yet because it would not be credible that human affairs
were superintended by God, unless he were the maker of the world,
and no one could seriously believe that he is its Creator without
feeling convinced that he takes care of his works; David with good
reason, and in admirable order, leads us from the one to the other.
In general, indeed, philosophers teach, and the human mind
conceives, that all the parts of the world are invigorated by the
secret inspiration of God. They do not, however reach the height to
which David rises taking all the pious along with him, when he says,
"These wait all upon thee, that thou mayest give them their meat in
due season. That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine
hand, they are filled with good. Thou hidest thy face, they are
troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to
their dust. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created, and
thou renewest the face of the earth," (Ps. 104: 27-30.) Nay, though
they subscribe to the sentiment of Paul, that in God "we live, and
move, and have our being," (Acts 17: 28,) yet they are far from
having a serious apprehension of the grace which he commends,
because they have not the least relish for that special care in
which alone the paternal favour of God is discerned.
    2. That this distinction may be the more manifest, we must
consider that the Providence of God, as taught in Scripture, is
opposed to fortune and fortuitous causes. By an erroneous opinion
prevailing in all ages, an opinion almost universally prevailing in
our own day, viz., that all things happen fortuitously, the true
doctrine of Providence has not only been obscured, but almost
buried. If one falls among robbers, or ravenous beasts; if a sudden
gust of wind at sea causes shipwreck; if one is struck down by the
fall of a house or a tree; if another, when wandering through desert
paths, meets with deliverance; or, after being tossed by the waves,
arrives in port, and makes some wondrous hair-breadth escape from
death - all these occurrences, prosperous as well as adverse, carnal
sense will attribute to fortune. But whose has learned from the
mouth of Christ that all the hairs of his head are numbered, (Matth.
10: 30,) will look farther for the cause, and hold that all events
whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God. With regard to
inanimate objects again we must hold that though each is possessed
of its peculiar properties, yet all of them exert their force only
in so far as directed by the immediate hand of God. Hence they are
merely instruments, into which God constantly infuses what energy he
sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. No
created object makes a more wonderful or glorious display than the
sun. For, besides illuminating the whole world with its brightness,
how admirably does it foster and invigorate all animals by its heat,
and fertilise the earth by its rays, warming the seeds of grain in
its lap, and thereby calling forth the verdant blade! This it
supports, increases, and strengthens with additional nurture, till
it rises into the stalk; and still feeds it with perpetual moisture,
till it comes into flower; and from flower to fruit, which it
continues to ripen till it attains maturity. In like manner, by its
warmth trees and vines bud, and put forth first their leaves, then
their blossom, then their fruit. And the Lord, that he might claim
the entire glory of these things as his own, was pleased that light
should exist, and that the earth should be replenished with all
kinds of herbs and fruits before he made the sun. No pious man,
therefore, will make the sun either the necessary or principal cause
of those things which existed before the creation of the sun, but
only the instrument which God employs, because he so pleases; though
he can lay it aside, and act equally well by himself: Again, when we
read, that at the prayer of Joshua the sun was stayed in its course,
(Josh. 10: 13;) that as a favour to Hezekiah, its shadow receded ten
degrees, (2 Kings 20: 11;) by these miracles God declared that the
sun does not daily rise and set by a blind instinct of nature, but
is governed by Him in its course, that he may renew the remembrance
of his paternal favour toward us. Nothing is more natural than for
spring, in its turns to succeed winter, summer spring, and autumn
summer; but in this series the variations are so great and so
unequal as to make it very apparent that every single year, month,
and day, is regulated by a new and special providence of God.
    3. And truly God claims omnipotence to himself, and would have
us to acknowledge it, - not the vain, indolent, slumbering
omnipotence which sophists feign, but vigilant, efficacious,
energetic, and ever active, - not an omnipotence which may only act
as a general principle of confused motion, as in ordering a stream
to keep within the channel once prescribed to it, but one which is
intent on individual and special movements. God is deemed
omnipotent, not because he can act though he may cease or be idle,
or because by a general instinct he continues the order of nature
previously appointed; but because, governing heaven and earth by his
providence, he so overrules all things that nothing happens without
his counsel. For when it is said in the Psalms, "He has done
whatsoever he has pleased," (Ps. 115: 3,) the thing meant is his
sure and deliberate purpose. It were insipid to interpret the
Psalmist's words in philosophic fashion, to mean that God is the
primary agent, because the beginning and cause of all motion. This
rather is the solace of the faithful, in their adversity, that every
thing which they endure is by the ordination and command of God,
that they are under his hand. But if the government of God thus
extends to all his works, it is a childish cavil to confine it to
natural influx. Those moreover who confine the providence of God
within narrow limits, as if he allowed all things to be borne along
freely according to a perpetual law of nature, do not more defraud
God of his glory than themselves of a most useful doctrine; for
nothing were more wretched than man if he were exposed to all
possible movements of the sky, the air, the earth, and the water. We
may add, that by this view the singular goodness of God towards each
individual is unbecomingly impaired. David exclaims, (Ps. 8: 3,)
that infants hanging at their mothers breasts are eloquent enough to
celebrate the glory of God, because, from the very moment of their
births they find an aliment prepared for them by heavenly care.
Indeed, if we do not shut our eyes and senses to the fact, we must
see that some mothers have full provision for their infants, and
others almost none, according as it is the pleasure of God to
nourish one child more liberally, and another more sparingly. Those
who attribute due praise to the omnipotence of God thereby derive a
double benefit. He to whom heaven and earth belong, and whose nod
all creatures must obey, is fully able to reward the homage which
they pay to him, and they can rest secure in the protection of Him
to whose control everything that could do them harm is subject, by
whose authority, Satan, with all his furies and engines, is curbed
as with a bridle, and on whose will everything adverse to our safety
depends. In this way, and in no other, can the immoderate and
superstitious fears, excited by the dangers to which we are exposed,
be calmed or subdued. I say superstitious fears. For such they are,
as often as the dangers threatened by any created objects inspire us
with such terror, that we tremble as if they had in themselves a
power to hurt us, or could hurt at random or by chance; or as if we
had not in God a sufficient protection against them. For example,
Jeremiah forbids the children of God " to be dismayed at the signs
of heaven, as the heathen are dismayed at them," (Jer. 10: 2.) He
does not, indeed, condemn every kind of fear. But as unbelievers
transfer the government of the world from God to the stars,
imagining that happiness or misery depends on their decrees or
presages, and not on the Divine will, the consequence is, that their
fear, which ought to have reference to him only, is diverted to
stars and comets. Let him, therefore, who would beware of such
unbelief, always bear in mind, that there is no random power, or
agency, or motion in the creatures, who are so governed by the
secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has
knowingly and willingly decreed.
    4. First, then, let the reader remember that the providence we
mean is not one by which the Deity, sitting idly in heaven, looks on
at what is taking place in the world, but one by which he, as it
were, holds the helms and overrules all events. Hence his providence
extends not less to the hand than to the eye. When Abraham said to
his son, God will provide, (Gen. 22: 8,) he meant not merely to
assert that the future event was foreknown to Gods but to resign the
management of an unknown business to the will of Him whose province
it is to bring perplexed and dubious matters to a happy result.
Hence it appears that providence consists in action. What many talk
of bare prescience is the merest trifling. Those do not err quite so
grossly who attribute government to God, but still, as I have
observed, a confused and promiscuous government which consists in
giving an impulse and general movement to the machine of the globe
and each of its parts, but does not specially direct the action of
every creature. It is impossible, however, to tolerate this error.
For, according to its abettors, there is nothing in this providence,
which they call universal, to prevent all the creatures from being
moved contingently, or to prevent man from turning himself in this
direction or in that, according to the mere freedom of his own will.
In this ways they make man a partner with God, - God, by his energy,
impressing man with the movement by which he can act, agreeably to
the nature conferred upon him while man voluntarily regulates his
own actions. In short, their doctrine is, that the world, the
affairs of men, and men themselves, are governed by the power, but
not by the decree of God. I say nothing of the Epicureans, (a pest
with which the world has always been plagued,) who dream of an inert
and idle God, and others, not a whit sounder, who of old feigned
that God rules the upper regions of the air, but leaves the inferior
to Fortune. Against such evident madness even dumb creatures lift
their voice.
    My intention now is, to refute an opinion which has very
generally obtained - an opinion which, while it concedes to God some
blind and equivocal movement, withholds what is of principal moment,
viz., the disposing and directing of every thing to its proper end
by incomprehensible wisdom. By withholding government, it makes God
the ruler of the world in name only, not in reality. For what, I
ask, is meant by government, if it be not to preside so as to
regulate the destiny of that over which you preside? I do not,
however, totally repudiate what is said of an universal providence,
provided, on the other hand, it is conceded to me that the world is
governed by God, not only because he maintains the order of nature
appointed by him, but because he takes a special charge of every one
of his works. It is true, indeed, that each species of created
objects is moved by a secret instinct of nature, as if they obeyed
the eternal command of God, and spontaneously followed the course
which God at first appointed. And to this we may refer our Saviour's
words, that he and his Father have always been at work from the
beginning, (John 5: 17;) also the words of Paul, that "in him we
live, and move, and have our being," (Acts 17: 28;) also the words
of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who, when wishing to
prove the divinity of Christ, says, that he upholdeth "all things by
the word of his power," (Heb. 1: 3.) But some, under pretext of the
general, hide and obscure the special providence, which is so surely
and clearly taught in Scripture, that it is strange how any one can
bring himself to doubt of it. And, indeed, those who interpose that
disguise are themselves forced to modify their doctrine, by adding
that many things are done by the special care of God. This, however,
they erroneously confine to particular acts. The thing to be proved,
therefore, is, that single events are so regulated by God, and all
events so proceed from his determinate counsel, that nothing happens
fortuitously.
    5. Assuming that the beginning of motion belongs to God, but
that all things move spontaneously or casually, according to the
impulse which nature gives, the vicissitudes of day and nights
summer and winter, will be the work of God; inasmuch as he, in
assigning the office of each, appointed a certain law, namely, that
they should always with uniform tenor observe the same course, day
succeeding night, month succeeding month, and year succeeding year.
But, as at one time, excessive heat, combined with drought, burns up
the fields; at another time excessive rains rot the crops, while
sudden devastation is produced by tempests and storms of hail, these
will not be the works of God, unless in so far as rainy or fair
weather, heat or cold, are produced by the concourse of the stars,
and other natural causes. According to this view, there is no place
left either for the paternal favour, or the judgements of God. If it
is said that God fully manifests his beneficence to the human race,
by furnishing heaven and earth with the ordinary power of producing
food, the explanation is meagre and heathenish: as if the fertility
of one year were not a special blessing, the penury and dearth of
another a special punishment and curse from God. But as it would
occupy too much time to enumerate all the arguments, let the
authority of God himself suffice. In the Law and the Prophets he
repeatedly declares, that as often as he waters the earth with dew
and rain, he manifests his favour, that by his command the heaven
becomes hard as iron, the crops are destroyed by mildew and other
evils, that storms and hail, in devastating the fields, are signs of
sure and special vengeance. This being admitted, it is certain that
not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God. David,
indeed, (Ps. 146: 9,) extols the general providence of God in
supplying food to the young ravens that cry to him but when God
himself threatens living creatures with famine, does he not plainly
declare that they are all nourished by him, at one time with scanty,
at another with more ample measure? It is childish, as I have
already said, to confine this to particular acts, when Christ says,
without reservation, that not a sparrow falls to the ground without
the will of his Father, (Matth. 10: 29.) Surely, if the flight of
birds is regulated by the counsel of God, we must acknowledge with
the prophet, that while he "dwelleth on high," he "humbleth himself
to behold the things that are in heaven and in the earth," (Ps. 113:
5, 6.)
    6. But as we know that it was chiefly for the sake of mankind
that the world was made, we must look to this as the end which God
has in view in the government of it. The prophet Jeremiah exclaims,
"O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in
man that walketh to direct his steps," (Jer. 10: 23.) Solomon again
says, "Man's goings are of the Lord: how can a man then understand
his own way?" (Prov. 20: 24.) Will it now be said that man is moved
by God according to the bent of his nature, but that man himself
gives the movement any direction he pleases? Were it truly so, man
would have the full disposal of his own ways. To this it will
perhaps be answered, that man can do nothing without the power of
God. But the answer will not avail, since both Jeremiah and Solomon
attribute to God not power only, but also election and decree. And
Solomon, in another place, elegantly rebukes the rashness of men in
fixing their plans without reference to God, as if they were not led
by his hand. "The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer
of the tongue, is from the Lord," (Prov. 16: 1.) It is a strange
infatuation, surely for miserable men, who cannot even give
utterance except in so far as God pleases, to begin to act without
him! Scriptures moreover, the better to show that every thing done
in the world is according to his decree, declares that the things
which seem most fortuitous are subject to him. For what seems more
attributable to chance than the branch which falls from a tree, and
kills the passing traveller? But the Lord sees very differently, and
declares that He delivered him into the hand of the slayer, (Exod.
21: 13.) In like manners who does not attribute the lot to the
blindness of Fortune? Not so the Lord, who claims the decision for
himself, (Prov. 16: 33.) He says not, that by his power the lot is
thrown into the lap, and taken out, but declares that the only thing
which could be attributed to chance is from him. To the same effect
are the words of Solomon, "The poor and the deceitful man meet
together; the Lord lighteneth both their eyes," (Prov. 29: 13.) For
although rich and poor are mingled together in the world, in saying
that the condition of each is divinely appointed, he reminds us that
God, Who enlightens all, has his own eye always open, and thus
exhorts the poor to patient endurance, seeing that those who are
discontented with their lot endeavour to shake off a burden which
God has imposed upon them. Thus, too, another prophet upbraids the
profane, who ascribe it to human industry, or to fortune, that some
grovel in the mire while others rise to honour. "Promotion cometh
neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But
God is the judge: he putteth down ones and setteth up another," (Ps.
75: 6, 7.) Because God cannot divest himself of the office of judge,
he infers that to his secret counsel it is owing that some are
elevated, while others remain without honour.
    7. Nay, I affirm in general, that particular events are
evidences of the special providence of God. In the wilderness God
caused a south wind to blow, and brought the people a plentiful
supply of birds, (Exod. 19: 13.) When he desired that Jonah should
be thrown into the sea, he sent forth a whirlwind. Those who deny
that God holds the reins of government will say that this was
contrary to ordinary practice, whereas I infer from it that no wind
ever rises or rages without his special command. In no way could it
be true that "he maketh the winds his messengers, and the flames of
fire his ministers;" that "he maketh the clouds his chariot, and
walketh upon the wings of the wind," (Ps. 104: 3, 4,) did he not at
pleasure drive the clouds and winds and therein manifest the special
presence of his power. In like manner, we are elsewhere taught, that
whenever the sea is raised into a storm, its billows attest the
special presence of God. "He commandeth and raiseth the stormy wind,
which lifteth up the waves." "He maketh the storm a calm, so that
the waves thereof are still," (Ps. 107: 25, 29 ) He also elsewhere
declares, that he had smitten the people with blasting and mildew,
(Amos 4: 9.) Again while man naturally possesses the power of
continuing his species, God describes it as a mark of his special
favour, that while some continue childless, others are blessed with
offspring: for the fruit of the womb is his gift. Hence the words of
Jacob to Rachel, "Am I in God's stead, who has withheld from thee
the fruit of the womb?" (Gen. 30: 2.) To conclude in one word.
Nothing in nature is more ordinary than that we should be nourished
with bread. But the Spirit declares not only that the produce of the
earth is God's special gift, but "that man does not live by bread
only," (Deut. 8: 3,) because it is not mere fulness that nourishes
him but the secret blessing of God. And hence, on the other hand, he
threatens to take away "the stay and the staff, the whole stay of
bread, and the whole stay of water," (Is. 3: 1.) Indeed, there could
be no serious meaning in our prayer for daily bread, if God did not
with paternal hand supply us with food. Accordingly, to convince the
faithful that God, in feeding them, fulfils the office of the best
of parents, the prophet reminds them that he "giveth food to all
flesh," (Ps. 136: 25.) In fine, when we hear on the one hand, that
"the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open
unto their cry," and, on the other hand, that "the face of the Lord
is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them
from the earth," (Ps. 34: 15, 16,) let us be assured that all
creatures above and below are ready at his service, that he may
employ them in whatever way he pleases. Hence we infer, not only
that the general providence of God, continuing the order of nature,
extends over the creatures, but that by his wonderful counsel they
are adapted to a certain and special purpose.
    8. Those who would cast obloquy on this doctrine, calumniate it
as the dogma of the Stoics concerning fate. The same charge was
formerly brought against Augustine, (lib. ad Bonifac. II, c. 6 et
alibi.) We are unwilling to dispute about words; but we do not admit
the term Fate, both because it is of the class which Paul teaches us
to shun, as profane novelties, (1 Tim. 6: 20,) and also because it
is attempted, by means of an odious term, to fix a stigma on the
truth of God. But the dogma itself is falsely and maliciously
imputed to us. For we do not with the Stoics imagine a necessity
consisting of a perpetual chain of causes, and a kind of involved
series contained in nature, but we hold that God is the disposer and
ruler of all things, - that from the remotest eternity, according to
his own wisdom, he decreed what he was to do, and now by his power
executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by his providence,
not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the
counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the
course which he has destined. What, then, you will say, does nothing
happen fortuitously, nothing contingently? I answer, it was a true
saying of Basil the Great, that Fortune and Chance are heathen
terms; the meaning of which ought not to occupy pious minds. For if
all success is blessing from God, and calamity and adversity are his
curse, there is no place left in human affairs for fortune and
chance. We ought also to be moved by the words of Augustine,
(Retract. lib. 1 cap. 1,) "In my writings against the Academics,"
says he, "I regret having so often used the term Fortune; although I
intended to denote by it not some goddess, but the fortuitous issue
of events in external matters, whether good or evil. Hence, too,
those words, Perhaps, Perchance, Fortuitously, which no religion
forbids us to use, though everything must be referred to Divine
Providence. Nor did I omit to observe this when I said, Although,
perhaps, that which is vulgarly called Fortune, is also regulated by
a hidden order, and what we call Chance is nothing else than that
the reason and cause of which is secret. It is true, I so spoke, but
I repent of having mentioned Fortune there as I did, when I see the
very bad custom which men have of saying, not as they ought to do,
'So God pleased,' but, 'So Fortune pleased.'" In short, Augustine
everywhere teaches, that if anything is left to fortune, the world
moves at random. And although he elsewhere declares, (Quaestionum,
lib. 83.) that all things are carried on, partly by the free will of
man, and partly by the Providence of God, he shortly after shows
clearly enough that his meaning was, that men also are ruled by
Providence, when he assumes it as a principle, that there cannot be
a greater absurdity than to hold that anything is done without the
ordination of God; because it would happen at random. For which
reason, he also excludes the contingency which depends on human
will, maintaining a little further on, in clearer terms, that no
cause must be sought for but the will of God. When he uses the term
permission, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear
from a single passage, (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4,) where he proves
that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of all things,
because nothing happens without his order or permission. He
certainly does not figure God sitting idly in a watch-tower, when he
chooses to permit anything. The will which he represents as
interposing is, if I may so express it, active, (actualis,) and but
for this could not be regarded as a cause.
    9. But since our sluggish minds rest far beneath the height of
Divine Providence, we must have recourse to a distinction which may
assist them in rising. I say then, that though all things are
ordered by the counsel and certain arrangement of God, to us,
however, they are fortuitous, - not because we imagine that Fortune
rules the world and mankind, and turns all things upside down at
random, (far be such a heartless thought from every Christian
breast;) but as the order, method, end, and necessity of events,
are, for the most part, hidden in the counsel of God, though it is
certain that they are produced by the will of God, they have the
appearance of being fortuitous, such being the form under which they
present themselves to us, whether considered in their own nature, or
estimated according to our knowledge and judgement. Let us suppose,
for example, that a merchant, after entering a forest in company
with trust-worthy individuals, imprudently strays from his
companions and wanders bewildered till he falls into a den of
robbers and is murdered. His death was not only foreseen by the eye
of God, but had been fixed by his decree. For it is said, not that
he foresaw how far the life of each individual should extend, but
that he determined and fixed the bounds which could not be passed,
(Job 14: 5.) Still, in relation to our capacity of discernment, all
these things appear fortuitous. How will the Christian feel? Though
he will consider that every circumstance which occurred in that
person's death was indeed in its nature fortuitous, he will have no
doubt that the Providence of God overruled it and guided fortune to
his own end. The same thing holds in the case of future
contingencies. All future events being uncertain to us, seem in
suspense as if ready to take either direction. Still, however, the
impression remains seated in our hearts, that nothing will happen
which the Lord has not provided. In this sense the term event is
repeatedly used in Ecclesiastes, because, at the first glance, men
do not penetrate to the primary cause which lies concealed. And yet,
what is taught in Scripture of the secret providence of God was
never so completely effaced from the human heart, as that some
sparks did not always shine in the darkness. Thus the soothsayers of
the Philistine, though they waver in uncertainty, attribute the
adverse event partly to God and partly to chance. If the ark, say
they, "Goes up by the way of his own coast to Bethshemish, then he
has done us this great evil; but if not, then we shall know that it
is not his hand that smote us, it was a chance that happened to us."
(1 Sam. 6: 9.) Foolishly, indeed, when divination fails them they
flee to fortune. Still we see them constrained, so as not to venture
to regard their disaster as fortuitous. But the mode in which God,
by the curb of his Providence, turns events in whatever direction he
pleases, will appear from a remarkable example. At the very same
moment when David was discovered in the wilderness of Maon, the
Philistines make an inroad into the country, and Saul is forced to
depart, (1 Sam. 23: 26, 27.) If God, in order to provide for the
safety of his servant, threw this obstacle in the way of Saul, we
surely cannot say, that though the Philistine took up arms contrary
to human expectation, they did it by chance. What seems to us
contingence, faith will recognise as the secret impulse of God. The
reason is not always equally apparent, but we ought undoubtedly to
hold that all the changes which take place in the world are produced
by the secret agency of the hand of God. At the same time, that
which God has determined, though it must come to pass, is not,
however, precisely, or in its own nature, necessary. We have a
familiar example in the case of our Saviour's bones. As he assumed a
body similar to ours, no sane man will deny that his bones were
capable of being broken and yet it was impossible that they should
be broken, (John 19: 33, 36.) Hence, again, we see that there was
good ground for the distinction which the Schoolmen made between
necessity, secundum quid, and necessity absolute, also between the
necessity of consequent and of consequence. God made the bones of
his Son frangible, though he exempted them from actual fracture; and
thus, in reference to the necessity of his counsel, made that
impossible which might have naturally taken place.

Chapter 17

17, Use to be made of the doctrine of providence.

This chapter may be conveniently divided into two parts: - I. A
general explanation is given of the doctrine of Divine Providence,
in so far as conducive to the solid instruction and consolation of
the godly, sect. 1, and specially sect. 2-12. First, however, those
are refuted who deny that the world is governed by the secret and
incomprehensible counsel of God; those also who throw the blame of
all wickedness upon God, and absurdly pretend that exercises of
piety are useless, sect. 2-5. Thereafter is added a holy meditation
on Divine Providence, which, in the case of prosperity, is painted
to the life, sect. 6-11.
    II. A solution of two objections from passages of Scripture,
which attribute repentance to God, and speak of something like an
abrogation of his decrees.

Sections.

1. Summary of the doctrine of Divine Providence. 1. It embraces the
    future and the past. 2. It works by means, without means, and
    against means. 3. Mankind, and particularly the Church, the
    object of special care. 4. The mode of administration usually
    secret, but always just. This last point more fully considered.
2. The profane denial that the world is governed by the secret
    counsel of God, refuted by passages of Scripture. Salutary
    counsel.
3. This doctrine, as to the secret counsel of God in the government
    of the world, gives no countenance either to the impiety of
    those who throw the blame of their wickedness upon God, the
    petulance of those who reject means, or the error of those who
    neglect the duties of religion.
4. As regards future events, the doctrine of Divine Providence not
    inconsistent with deliberation on the part of man.
5. In regard to past events, it is absurd to argue that crimes ought
    not to be punished, because they are in accordance with the
    divine decrees. 1. The wicked resist the declared will of God.
    2. They are condemned by conscience. 3. The essence and guilt
    of the crime is in themselves, though God uses them as
    instruments.
6. A holy meditation on Divine Providence. 1. All events happen by
    the ordination of God. 2. All things contribute to the
    advantage of the godly. 3. The hearts of men and all their
    endeavours are in the hand of God. 4. Providence watches for
    the safety of the righteous. 5. God has a special care of his
    elect.
7. Meditation on Providence continued. 6. God in various ways curbs
    and defeats the enemies of the Church. 7. He overrules all
    creatures, even Satan himself, for the good of his people.
8. Meditation on Providence continued. 8. He trains the godly to
    patience and moderation. Examples. Joseph, Job, and David. 9.
    He shakes off their lethargy, and urges them to repentance.
9. Meditation continued. 10. The right use of inferior causes
    explained. 11. When the godly become negligent or imprudent in
    the discharge of duty, Providence reminds them of their fault.
    12. It condemns the iniquities of the wicked. 13. It produces a
    right consideration of the future, rendering the servants of
    God prudent, diligent, and active. 14. It causes them to resign
    themselves to the wisdom and omnipotence of God, and, at the
    same time, makes them diligent in their calling.
10. Meditation continued. 15. Though human life is beset with
    innumerable evils, the righteous, trusting to Divine
    Providence, feel perfectly secure.
11. The use of the foregoing meditation.
12. The second part of the chapter, disposing of two objections. 1.
    That Scripture represents God as changing his purpose, or
    repenting, and that, therefore, his Providence is not fixed.
    Answer to this first objection. Proof from Scripture that God
    cannot repent.
13. Why repentance attributed to God.
14. Second objection, that Scripture speaks of an annulment of the
    divine decrees. Objection answered. Answer confirmed by an
    example.

    1. Moreover, such is the proneness of the human mind to indulge
in vain subtleties, that it becomes almost impossible for those who
do not see the sound and proper use of this doctrine, to avoid
entangling themselves in perplexing difficulties. It will,
therefore, be proper here to advert to the end which Scripture has
in view in teaching that all things are divinely ordained. And it is
to be observed, first, that the Providence of God is to be
considered with reference both to the past and the future; and,
secondly, that in overruling all things, it works at one time with
means, at another without means, and at another against means.
Lastly, the design of God is to show that He takes care of the whole
human race, but is especially vigilant in governing the Church,
which he favours with a closer inspection. Moreover, we must add,
that although the paternal favour and beneficence, as well as the
judicial severity of God, is often conspicuous in the whole course
of his Providence, yet occasionally as the causes of events are
concealed, the thought is apt to rise, that human affairs are
whirled about by the blind impulse of Fortune, or our carnal nature
inclines us to speak as if God were amusing himself by tossing men
up and down like balls. It is true, indeed, that if with sedate and
quiet minds we were disposed to learn, the issue would at length
make it manifest, that the counsel of God was in accordance with the
highest reason, that his purpose was either to train his people to
patience, correct their depraved affections, tame their wantonness,
inure them to self-denial, and arouse them from torpor; or, on the
other hand, to cast down the proud, defeat the craftiness of the
ungodly, and frustrate all their schemes. How much soever causes may
escape our notice, we must feel assured that they are deposited with
him, and accordingly exclaim with David, "Many, O Lord my God, are
thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are
to us-ward: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than
can be numbered," (Ps. 40: 5.) For while our adversities ought
always to remind us of our sins, that the punishment may incline us
to repentance, we see, moreover, how Christ declares there is
something more in the secret counsel of his Father than to chastise
every one as he deserves. For he says of the man who was born blind,
"Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of
God should be made manifest in him," (John 9: 3.) Here, where
calamity takes precedence even of birth, our carnal sense murmurs as
if God were unmerciful in thus afflicting those who have not
offended. But Christ declares that, provided we had eyes clear
enough, we should perceive that in this spectacle the glory of his
Father is brightly displayed. We must use modesty, not as it were
compelling God to render an account, but so revering his hidden
judgements as to account his will the best of all reasons. When the
sky is overcast with dense clouds, and a violent tempest arises, the
darkness which is presented to our eye, and the thunder which
strikes our ears, and stupefies all our senses with terror, make us
imagine that every thing is thrown into confusion, though in the
firmament itself all continues quiet and serene. In the same way,
when the tumultuous aspect of human affairs unfits us for judging,
we should still hold, that God, in the pure light of his justice and
wisdom, keeps all these commotions in due subordination, and
conducts them to their proper end. And certainly in this matter many
display monstrous infatuation, presuming to subject the works of God
to their calculation, and discuss his secret counsels, as well as to
pass a precipitate judgement on things unknown, and that with
greater license than on the doings of mortal men. What can be more
preposterous than to show modesty toward our equals, and choose
rather to suspend our judgement than incur the blame of rashness,
while we petulantly insult the hidden judgements of God, judgements
which it becomes us to look up to and revere.
    2. No man, therefore, will duly and usefully ponder on the
providence of God save he who recollects that he has to do with his
own Maker, and the Maker of the world, and in the exercise of the
humility which becomes him, manifests both fear and reverence. Hence
it is, that in the present day so many dogs tear this doctrine with
envenomed teeth, or, at least, assail it with their bark, refusing
to give more license to God than their own reason dictates to
themselves. With what petulance, too, are we assailed for not being
contented with the precepts of the Law, in which the will of God is
comprehended, and for maintaining that the world is governed by his
secret counsels? As if our doctrine were the figment of our own
brain, and were not distinctly declared by the Spirit, and repeated
in innumerable forms of expression! Since some feeling of shame
restrains them from daring to belch forth their blasphemies against
heaven, that they may give the freer vent to their rage, they
pretend to pick a quarrel with us. But if they refuse to admit that
every event which happens in the world is governed by the
incomprehensible counsel of God, let them explain to what effect
Scripture declares, that "his judgements are a great deep," (Ps. 36:
7.) For when Moses exclaims that the will of God "is not in heaven
that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring
it unto us? Neither is it beyond the sea that thou shouldest say,
Who shall go over the sea and bring it unto us?" (Deut. 30: 12, 13,)
because it was familiarly expounded in the law, it follows that
there must be another hidden will which is compared to " a great
deep." It is of this will Paul exclaims, "O! the depths of the
riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his
judgements, and his ways past finding out! For who has known the
mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?" (Rom. 11: 33,
34.) It is true, indeed, that in the law and the gospel are
comprehended mysteries which far transcend the measure of our sense;
but since God, to enable his people to understand those mysteries
which he has deigned to reveal in his word, enlightens their minds
with a spirit of understanding, they are now no longer a deep, but a
path in which they can walk safely - a lamp to guide their feet - a
light of life - a school of clear and certain truth. But the
admirable method of governing the world is justly called a deep,
because, while it lies hid from us, it is to be reverently adored.
Both views Moses has beautifully expressed in a few words. "Secret
things," saith he, "belong unto the Lord our God, but those things
which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever,"
(Deut. 29: 29.) We see how he enjoins us not only studiously to
meditate on the law, but to look up with reverence to the secret
Providence of God. The Book of Job also, in order to keep our minds
humble, contains a description of this lofty theme. The author of
the Book, after taking an ample survey of the universe, and
discoursing magnificently on the works of God, at length adds, "Lo,
these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of
him?" (Job 26: 14.) For which reason he, in another passage,
distinguishes between the wisdom which dwells in God, and the
measure of wisdom which he has assigned to man, (Job 28: 21, 28.)
After discoursing of the secrets of nature, he says that wisdom "is
hid from the eyes of all living;" that "God understandeth the way
thereof." Shortly after he adds, that it has been divulged that it
might be investigated; for "unto man he said, Behold the fear of the
Lord, that is wisdom." To this the words of Augustine refer, "As we
do not know all the things which God does respecting us in the best
order, we ought, with good intention, to act according to the Law,
and in some things be acted upon according to the Law, his
Providence being a Law immutable," (August. Quest. lib. 83 c. 27.)
Therefore, since God claims to himself the right of governing the
world, a right unknown to us, let it be our law of modesty and
soberness to acquiesce in his supreme authority regarding his will
as our only rule of justice, and the most perfect cause of all
things, - not that absolute will, indeed, of which sophists prate,
when by a profane and impious divorce, they separate his justice
from his power, but that universal overruling Providence from which
nothing flows that is not right, though the reasons thereof may be
concealed.
    3. Those who have learned this modesty will neither murmur
against God for adversity in time past, nor charge him with the
blame of their own wickedness, as Homer's Agamemnon does. - "Ego d'
ouk haitios eimi, alla Zeus kai moira." "Blame not me, but Jupiter
and fate." On the other hand, they will note like the youth in
Plautus, destroy themselves in despairs as if hurried away by the
Fates. "Unstable is the condition of affairs; instead of doing as
they list, men only fulfil their fate: I will hie me to a rock, and
there end my fortune with my life." Nor will they, after the example
of another, use the name of God as a cloak for their crimes. For in
another comedy Lyconides thus expresses himself: - "God was the
impeller: I believe the gods wished it. Did they not wish it, it
would not be done, I know." They will rather inquire and learn from
Scripture what is pleasing to God, and then, under the guidance of
the Spirit, endeavour to attain it. Prepared to follow whithersoever
God may call, they will show by their example that nothing is more
useful than the knowledge of this doctrine, which perverse men
undeservedly assail, because it is sometimes wickedly abused. The
profane make such a bluster with their foolish puerilities, that
they almost, according to the expression, confound heaven and earth.
If the Lord has marked the moment of our death, it cannot be
escaped, - it is vain to toil and use precaution. Therefore, when
one ventures not to travel on a road which he hears is infested by
robbers; when another calls in the physician, and annoys himself
with drugs, for the sake of his health; a third abstains from
coarser food, that he may not injure a sickly constitution; and a
fourth fears to dwell in a ruinous house; when all, in short,
devise, and, with great eagerness of mind, strike out paths by which
they may attain the objects of their desire; either these are all
vain remedies, laid hold of to correct the will of God, or his
certain decree does not fix the limits of life and death, health and
sickness, peace and war, and other matters which men, according as
they desire and hate, study by their own industry to secure or
avoid. Nay, these trifles even infer, that the prayers of the
faithful must be perverse, not to say superfluous, since they
entreat the Lord to make a provision for things which he has decreed
from eternity. And then, imputing whatever happens to the providence
of God, they connive at the man who is known to have expressly
designed it. Has an assassin slain an honest citizen? He has, say
they, executed the counsel of God. Has some one committed theft or
adultery? The deed having been provided and ordained by the Lord, he
is the minister of his providence. Has a son waited with
indifference for the death of his parent, without trying any remedy?
He could not oppose God, who had so predetermined from eternity.
Thus all crimes receive the name of virtues, as being in accordance
with divine ordination.
    4. As regards future events, Solomon easily reconciles human
deliberation with divine providence. For while he derides the
stupidity of those who presume to undertake anything without God, as
if they were not ruled by his hand, he elsewhere thus expresses
himself: "A man's heart deviseth his ways but the Lord directeth his
steps," (Prov. 16: 9;) intimating, that the eternal decrees of God
by no means prevent us from proceeding, under his will, to provide
for ourselves, and arrange all our affairs. And the reason for this
is clear. For he who has fixed the boundaries of our life, has at
the same time entrusted us with the care of it, provided us with the
means of preserving it, forewarned us of the dangers to which we are
exposed, and supplied cautions and remedies, that we may not be
overwhelmed unawares. Now, our duty is clear, namely, since the Lord
has committed to us the defence of our life, - to defend it; since
he offers assistance, - to use it; since he forewarns us of danger,
- not to rush on heedless; since he supplies remedies, - not to
neglect them. But it is said, a danger that is not fatal will not
hurt us, and one that is fatal cannot be resisted by any precaution.
But what if dangers are not fatal, merely because the Lord has
furnished you with the means of warding them off, and surmounting
them? See how far your reasoning accords with the order of divine
procedure: You infer that danger is not to be guarded against,
because, if it is not fatal, you shall escape without precaution;
whereas the Lord enjoins you to guard against its just because he
wills it not to be fatal. These insane cavillers overlook what is
plainly before their eyes, viz., that the Lord has furnished men
with the artful of deliberation and caution, that they may employ
them in subservience to his providence, in the preservation of their
life; while, on the contrary, by neglect and sloth, they bring upon
themselves the evils which he has annexed to them. How comes it that
a provident man, while he consults for his safety, disentangles
himself from impending evils; while a foolish man, through unadvised
temerity, perishes, unless it be that prudence and folly are, in
either case, instruments of divine dispensation? God has been
pleased to conceal from us all future events that we may prepare for
them as doubtful, and cease not to apply the provided remedies until
they have either been overcome, or have proved too much for all our
care. Hence, I formerly observed, that the Providence of God does
not interpose simply; but, by employing means, assumes, as it were,
a visible form.
    5. By the same class of persons, past events are referred
improperly and inconsiderately to simple providence. As all
contingencies whatsoever depend on it, therefore, neither thefts nor
adulteries, nor murders, are perpetrated without an interposition of
the divine will. Why, then, they ask, should the thief be punished
for robbing him whom the Lord chose to chastise with poverty? Why
should the murderer be punished for slaying him whose life the Lord
had terminated? If all such persons serve the will of God, why
should they be punished? I deny that they serve the will of God. For
we cannot say that he who is carried away by a wicked mind performs
service on the order of God, when he is only following his own
malignant desires. He obeys God, who, being instructed in his will,
hastens in the direction in which God calls him. But how are we so
instructed unless by his word? The will declared by his word is,
therefore, that which we must keep in view in acting, God requires
of us nothing but what he enjoins. If we design anything contrary to
his precept, it is not obedience, but contumacy and transgression.
But if he did not will it, we could not do it. I admit this. But do
we act wickedly for the purpose of yielding obedience to him? This,
assuredly, he does not command. Nay, rather we rush on, not thinking
of what he wishes, but so inflamed by our own passionate lust, that,
with destined purpose, we strive against him. And in this way, while
acting wickedly, we serve his righteous ordination, since in his
boundless wisdom he well knows how to use bad instruments for good
purposes. And see how absurd this mode of arguing is. They will have
it that crimes ought not to be punished in their authors, because
they are not committed without the dispensation of God. I concede
more - that thieves and murderers, and other evil-doers, are
instruments of Divine Providence, being employed by the Lord himself
to execute the judgements which he has resolved to inflict. But I
deny that this forms any excuse for their misdeeds. For how? Will
they implicate God in the same iniquity with themselves, or will
they cloak their depravity by his righteousness? They cannot
exculpate themselves, for their own conscience condemns them: they
cannot charge God, since they perceive the whole wickedness in
themselves, and nothing in Him save the legitimate use of their
wickedness. But it is said he works by their means. And whence, I
pray, the fetid odour of a dead body, which has been unconfined and
putrefied by the sun's heat? All see that it is excited by the rays
of the sun, but no man therefore says that the fetid odour is in
them. In the same way, while the matter and guilt of wickedness
belongs to the wicked man, why should it be thought that God
contracts any impurity in using it at pleasure as his instrument?
Have done, then, with that dog-like petulance which may, indeed, bay
from a distance at the justice of God, but cannot reach it!
    6. These calumnies, or rather frenzied dreams, will easily be
dispelled by a pure and holy meditation on Divine Providence,
meditation such as piety enjoins, that we may thence derive the best
and sweetest fruit. The Christian, then, being most fully persuaded,
that all things come to pass by the dispensation of God, and that
nothing happens fortuitously, will always direct his eye to him as
the principal cause of events, at the same time paying due regard to
inferior causes in their own place. Next, he will have no doubt that
a special providence is awake for his preservation, and will not
suffer anything to happen that will not turn to his good and safety.
But as its business is first with men and then with the other
creatures, he will feel assured that the providence of God reigns
over both. In regard to men, good as well as bad, he will
acknowledge that their counsels, wishes, aims and faculties are so
under his hand, that he has full power to turn them in whatever
direction, and constrain them as often as he pleases. The fact that
a special providence watches over the safety of believers, is
attested by a vast number of the clearest promises. "Cast thy burden
upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee: he shall never suffer the
righteous to be moved." "Casting all your care upon him: for he
careth for you." "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most
High, shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty." "He that
toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye." "We have a strong
city: salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks." "Can a
woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion
on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget
thee." Nay, the chief aim of the historical books of Scripture is to
show that the ways of his saints are so carefully guarded by the
Lord, as to prevent them even from dashing their foot against a
stone. Therefore, as we a little ago justly exploded the opinion of
those who feign a universal providence, which does not condescend to
take special care of every creature, so it is of the highest moment
that we should specially recognise this care towards ourselves.
Hence, our Saviour, after declaring that even a sparrow falls not to
the ground without the will of his Father, immediately makes the
application, that being more valuable than many sparrows, we ought
to consider that God provides more carefully for us. He even extends
this so far, as to assure us that the hairs of our head are all
numbered. What more can we wish, if not even a hair of our head can
fall, save in accordance with his will? I speak not merely of the
human race in general. God having chosen the Church for his abode,
there cannot be a doubt, that in governing it, he gives singular
manifestations of his paternal care.
    7. The servant of God being confirmed by these promises and
examples, will add the passages which teach that all men are under
his power, whether to conciliate their minds, or to curb their
wickedness, and prevent it from doing harm. For it is the Lord who
gives us favour, not only with those who wish us well, but also in
the eyes of the Egyptians, (Exod. 3: 21,) in various ways defeating
the malice of our enemies. Sometimes he deprives them of all
presence of mind, so that they cannot undertake anything soundly or
soberly. In this ways he sends Satan to be a lie in the mouths of
all the prophets in order to deceive Ahab, (1 Kings 22: 22,) by the
counsel of the young men he so infatuates Rehoboam, that his folly
deprives him of his kingdom, (1 Kings 12: 10, 15.) Sometimes when he
leaves them in possession of intellect, he so fills them with terror
and dismays that they can neither will nor plan the execution of
what they had designed. Sometimes, too, after permitting them to
attempt what lust and rage suggested, he opportunely interrupts them
in their career, and allows them not to conclude what they had
begun. Thus the counsel of Ahithophel, which would have been fatal
to David, was defeated before its time, (2 Sam. 17: 7, 14.) Thus,
for the good and safety of his people, he overrules all the
creatures, even the devil himself who, we see, durst not attempt any
thing against Job without his permission and command. This knowledge
is necessarily followed by gratitude in prosperity, patience in
adversity, and incredible security for the time to come. Every
thing, therefore, which turns out prosperous and according to his
wish, the Christian will ascribe entirely to God, whether he has
experienced his beneficence through the instrumentality of men, or
been aided by inanimate creatures. For he will thus consider with
himself: Certainly it was the Lord that disposed the minds of these
people in my favour, attaching them to me so as to make them the
instruments of his kindness. In an abundant harvest he will think
that it is the Lord who listens to the heaven, that the heaven may
listen to the earth, and the earth herself to her own offspring; in
other cases, he will have no doubt that he owes all his prosperity
to the divine blessing, and, admonished by so many circumstances,
will feel it impossible to be ungrateful.
    8. If any thing adverse befalls him, he will forthwith raise
his mind to God, whose hand is most effectual in impressing us with
patience and placid moderation of mind. Had Joseph kept his thoughts
fixed on the treachery of his brethren, he never could have resumed
fraternal affection for them. But turning toward the Lord, he forgot
the injury, and was so inclined to mildness and mercy, that he even
voluntarily comforts his brethren, telling them, "Be not grieved nor
angry with yourselves that ye sold me hither; for God did send me
before you to preserve life." "As for you, ye thought evil against
me; but God meant it unto good," (Gen. 45: 5; 50: 20.) Had Job
turned to the Chaldees, by whom he was plundered, he should
instantly have been fired with revenge, but recognising the work of
the Lord, he solaces himself with this most beautiful sentiment:
"The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of
the Lord," (Job 1: 21.) So when David was assailed by Shimei with
stones and curses, had he immediately fixed his eyes on the man, he
would have urged his people to retaliate the injury; but perceiving
that he acts not without an impulse from the Lord, he rather calms
them. "So let him curse," says he, "because the Lord has said unto
him, Curse David." With the same bridle he elsewhere curbs the
excess of his grief, "I was dumb, I opened not my mouth, because
thou didst it," (Ps. 39: 9.) If there is no more effectual remedy
for anger and impatience, he assuredly has not made little progress
who has learned so to meditate on Divine Providence, as to be able
always to bring his mind to this, The Lord willed it, it must
therefore be borne; not only because it is unlawful to strive with
him, but because he wills nothing that is not just and befitting.
The whole comes to this. When unjustly assailed by men, overlooking
their malice, (which could only aggravate our grief, and whet our
minds for vengeance,) let us remember to ascend to God, and learn to
hold it for certain, that whatever an enemy wickedly committed
against us was permitted, and sent by his righteous dispensation.
Paul, in order to suppress our desire to retaliate injuries, wisely
reminds us that we wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with our
spiritual enemy the devil, that we may prepare for the contest,
(Eph. 6: 12.) But to calm all the impulses of passion, the most
useful consideration is, that God arms the devil, as well as all the
wicked, for conflict, and sits as umpire, that he may exercise our
patience. But if the disasters and miseries which press us happen
without the agency of men, let us call to mind the doctrine of the
Law, (Deut. 28: 1,) that all prosperity has its source in the
blessing of God, that all adversity is his curse. And let us tremble
at the dreadful denunciation, "And if ye will not be reformed by
these things, but will walk contrary unto me; then will I also walk
contrary unto you," (Lev. 26: 23, 24.) These words condemn our
torpor, when, according to our carnal sense, deeming that whatever
happens in any way is fortuitous, we are neither animated by the
kindness of God to worship him, nor by his scourge stimulated to
repentance. And it is for this reason that Jeremiah, (Lament. 3:
38,) and Amos, (Amos 3: 6,) expostulated bitterly with the Jews, for
not believing that good as well as evil was produced by the command
of God. To the same effect are the words in Isaiah, "I form the
light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil. I the Lord
do all these things," (Is: 45: 7.)
    9. At the same time, the Christian will not overlook inferior
causes. For, while he regards those by whom he is benefited as
ministers of the divine goodness, he will not, therefore, pass them
by, as if their kindness deserved no gratitude, but feeling
sincerely obliged to them, will willingly confess the obligation,
and endeavour, according to his ability, to return it. In fine, in
the blessings which he receives, he will revere and extol God as the
principal author, but will also honour men as his ministers, and
perceive, as is the truth, that by the will of God he is under
obligation to those, by whose hand God has been pleased to show him
kindness. If he sustains any loss through negligence or imprudence,
he will, indeed, believe that it was the Lord's will it should so
be, but, at the same time, he will impute it to himself. If one for
whom it was his duty to care, but whom he has treated with neglect,
is carried off by disease, although aware that the person had
reached a limit beyond which it was impossible to pass, he will not,
therefore, extenuate his fault, but, as he had neglected to do his
duty faithfully towards him, will feel as if he had perished by his
guilty negligence. Far less where, in the case of theft or murder,
fraud and preconceived malice have existed, will he palliate it
under the pretext of Divine Providence, but in the same crime will
distinctly recognise the justice of God, and the iniquity of man, as
each is separately manifested. But in future events, especially,
will he take account of such inferior causes. If he is not left
destitute of human aid, which he can employ for his safety, he will
set it down as a divine blessing; but he will not, therefore, be
remiss in taking measures, or slow in employing the help of those
whom he sees possessed of the means of assisting him. Regarding all
the aids which the creatures can lend him, as hands offered him by
the Lord, he will avail himself of them as the legitimate
instruments of Divine Providence. And as he is uncertain what the
result of any business in which he engages is to be, (save that he
knows, that in all things the Lord will provide for his good,) he
will zealously aim at what he deems for the best, so far as his
abilities enable him. In adopting his measures, he will not be
carried away by his own impressions, but will commit and resign
himself to the wisdom of God, that under his guidance he may be led
into the right path. However, his confidence in external aid will
not be such that the presence of it will make him feel secure, the
absence of it fill him with dismay, as if he were destitute. His
mind will always be fixed on the Providence of God alone, and no
consideration of present circumstances will be allowed to withdraw
him from the steady contemplation of it. Thus Joab, while he
acknowledges that the issue of the battle is entirely in the hand of
God, does not therefore become inactive, but strenuously proceeds
with what belongs to his proper calling, "Be of good courage," says
he, "and let us play the men for our people, and for the cities of
our God; and the Lord do that which seemeth him good," (2 Sam. 10:
12.) The same conviction keeping us free from rashness and false
confidence, will stimulate us to constant prayer, while at the same
time filling our minds with good hope, it will enable us to feel
secure, and bid defiance to all the dangers by which we are
surrounded.
    10. Here we are forcibly reminded of the inestimable felicity
of a pious mind. Innumerable are the ills which beset human life,
and present death in as many different forms. Not to go beyond
ourselves, since the body is a receptacle, nay the nurse, of a
thousand diseases, a man cannot move without carrying along with him
many forms of destruction. His life is in a manner interwoven with
death. For what else can be said where heat and cold bring equal
danger? Then, in what direction soever you turn, all surrounding
objects not only may do harm, but almost openly threaten and seem to
present immediate death. Go on board a ship, you are but a plank's
breadth from death. Mount a horse, the stumbling of a foot endangers
your life. Walk along the streets, every tile upon the roofs is a
source of danger. If a sharp instrument is in your own hand, or that
of a friend, the possible harm is manifest. All the savage beasts
you see are so many beings armed for your destruction. Even within a
high walled garden, where everything ministers to delight, a serpent
will sometimes lurk. Your house, constantly exposed to fire,
threatens you with poverty by day, with destruction by night. Your
fields, subject to hail, mildew, drought, and other injuries,
denounce barrenness, and thereby famine. I say nothing of poison,
treachery, robbery, some of which beset us at home, others follow us
abroad. Amid these perils, must not man be very miserable, as one
who, more dead than alive, with difficulty draws an anxious and
feeble breath, just as if a drawn sword were constantly suspended
over his neck? It may be said that these things happen seldom, at
least not always, or to all, certainly never all at once. I admit
it; but since we are reminded by the example of others, that they
may also happen to us, and that our life is not an exception any
more than theirs, it is impossible not to fear and dread as if they
were to befall us. What can you imagine more grievous than such
trepidation? Add that there is something like an insult to God when
it is said, that man, the noblest of the creatures, stands exposed
to every blind and random stroke of fortune. Here, however, we were
only referring to the misery which man should feel, were he placed
under the dominion of chance.
    11. But when once the light of Divine Providence has illumined
the believer's soul, he is relieved and set free, not only from the
extreme fear and anxiety which formerly oppressed him, but from all
care. For as he justly shudders at the idea of chance, so he can
confidently commit himself to God. This, I say, is his comfort, that
his heavenly Father so embraces all things under his power - so
governs them at will by his nod - so regulates them by his wisdom,
that nothing takes place save according to his appointment; that
received into his favour, and entrusted to the care of his angels
neither fire, nor water, nor sword, can do him harm, except in so
far as God their master is pleased to permit. For thus sings the
Psalm, "Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler,
and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his
feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust; his truth shall be
thy shield and buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by
night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; nor for the pestilence
that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at
noonday" &c. (Ps. 91: 2-6.) Hence the exulting confidence of the
saints, "The Lord is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do
unto me? The Lord taketh my part with them that help me." "Though an
host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear." "Yea,
though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear
no evil." (Ps. 118: 6; 27: 3; 23: 4.)
    How comes it, I ask, that their confidence never fails, but
just that while the world apparently revolves at random, they know
that God is every where at work, and feel assured that his work will
be their safety? When assailed by the devil and wicked men, were
they not confirmed by remembering and meditating on Providence, they
should, of necessity, forthwith despond. But when they call to mind
that the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all
directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that
they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have
conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single
finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay, unless in
so far as he commands; that they are not only bound by his fetters,
but are even forced to do him service, - when the godly think of all
these things they have ample sources of consolation. For, as it
belongs to the lord to arm the fury of such foes and turn and
destine it at pleasure, so it is his also to determine the measure
and the end, so as to prevent them from breaking loose and wantoning
as they list. Supported by this conviction, Paul, who had said in
one place that his journey was hindered by Satan, (1 Thess. 2: 18,)
in another resolves, with the permission of God, to undertake it, (1
Cor. 16: 7.) If he had only said that Satan was the obstacle, he
might have seemed to give him too much power, as if he were able
even to overturn the counsels of God; but now, when he makes God the
disposer, on whose permission all journies depend, he shows, that
however Satan may contrive, he can accomplish nothing except in so
far as He pleases to give the word. For the same reason, David,
considering the various turns which human life undergoes as it
rolls, and in a manner whirls around, retakes himself to this
asylum, "My times are in thy hand," (Ps. 31: 15.) He might have said
the course of life or time in the singular number, but by times he
meant to express, that how unstable soever the condition of man may
be, the vicissitudes which are ever and anon taking place are under
divine regulation. Hence Rezin and the king of Israel, after they
had joined their forces for the destruction of Israel, and seemed
torches which had been kindled to destroy and consume the land, are
termed by the prophet "smoking fire brands." They could only emit a
little smoke, (Is. 7: 4.) So Pharaoh, when he was an object of dread
to all by his wealth and strength, and the multitude of his troops,
is compared to the largest of beasts, while his troops are compared
to fishes; and God declares that he will take both leader and army
with his hooks, and drag them whither he pleases, (Ezek. 29: 4.) In
one word, not to dwell longer on this, give heed, and you will at
once perceive that ignorance of Providence is the greatest of all
miseries, and the knowledge of it the highest happiness.
    12. On the Providence of God, in so far as conducive to the
solid instruction and consolation of believers, (for, as to
satisfying the curiosity of foolish men, it is a thing which cannot
be done, and ought not to be attempted,) enough would have been
said, did not a few passages remain which seem to insinuate,
contrary to the view which we have expounded, that the counsel of
God is not firm and stable, but varies with the changes of sublunary
affairs. First, in reference to the Providence of God, it is said
that he repented of having made man, (Gen. 6: 6,) and of having
raised Saul to the kingdom, (1 Sam. 15: 11,) and that he will repent
of the evil which he had resolved to inflict on his people as soon
as he shall have perceived some amendment in them, (Jer. 18: 8.)
Secondly, his decrees are sometimes said to be annulled. He had by
Jonah proclaimed to the Ninevites, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall
be overthrown," but, immediately on their repentance, he inclined to
a more merciful sentence, (Jonah 3: 4-10.) After he had, by the
mouth of Isaiah, given Hezekiah intimation of his death, he was
moved by his tears and prayers to defer it, (Is. 38: 15; 2 Kings 20:
15.) Hence many argue that God has not fixed human affairs by an
eternal decree, but according to the merits of each individual, and
as he deems right and just, disposes of each single year, and day,
and hour. As to repentance, we must hold that it can no more exist
in God than ignorance, or error, or impotence. If no man knowingly
or willingly reduces himself to the necessity of repentance, we
cannot attribute repentance to God without saying either that he
knows not what is to happen, or that he cannot evade it, or that he
rushes precipitately and inconsiderately into a resolution, and then
forthwith regrets it. But so far is this from the meaning of the
Holy Spirit, that in the very mention of repentance he declares that
God is not influenced by any feeling of regret, that he is not a man
that he should repent. And it is to be observed, that, in the same
chapter, both things are so conjoined, that a comparison of the
passages admirably removes the appearance of contradiction. When it
is said that God repented of having made Saul king, the term change
is used figuratively. Shortly after, it is added, "The Strength of
Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man, that he should
repent," (1 Sam. 15: 29.) In these words, his immutability is
plainly asserted without figure. Wherefore it is certain that, in
administering human affairs, the ordination of God is perpetual and
superior to every thing like repentance. That there might be no
doubt of his constancy, even his enemies are forced to bear
testimony to it. For, Balaam, even against his will, behaved to
break forth into this exclamation, "God is not a man, that he should
lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: has he said, and
shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it
good?" (Num. 23: 19.)
    13. What then is meant by the term repentance? The very same
that is meant by the other forms of expression, by which God is
described to us humanly. Because our weakness cannot reach his
height, any description which we receive of him must be lowered to
our capacity in order to be intelligible. And the mode of lowering
is to represent him not as he really is, but as we conceive of him.
Though he is incapable of every feeling of perturbation, he declares
that he is angry with the wicked. Wherefore, as when we hear that
God is angry, we ought not to imagine that there is any emotion in
him, but ought rather to consider the mode of speech accommodated to
our sense, God appearing to us like one inflamed and irritated
whenever he exercises judgement, so we ought not to imagine any
thing more under the term repentance than a change of action, men
being wont to testify their dissatisfaction by such a change. Hence,
because every change whatever among men is intended as a correction
of what displeases, and the correction proceeds from repentance, the
same term applied to God simply means that his procedure is changed.
In the meantime, there is no inversion of his counsel or will, no
change of his affection. What from eternity he had foreseen,
approved, decreed, he prosecutes with unvarying uniformity, how
sudden soever to the eye of man the variation may seem to be.
    14. Nor does the Sacred History, while it relates that the
destruction which had been proclaimed to the Ninevites was remitted,
and the life of Hezekiah, after an intimation of death, prolonged,
imply that the decrees of God were annulled. Those who think so
labour under delusion as to the meaning of threatening, which,
though they affirm simply, nevertheless contain in them a tacit
condition dependent on the result. Why did the Lord send Jonah to
the Ninevites to predict the overthrow of their city? Why did he by
Isaiah give Hezekiah intimation of his death? He might have
destroyed both them and him without a message to announce the
disaster. He had something else in view than to give them a warning
of death, which might let them see it at a distance before it came.
It was because he did not wish them destroyed but reformed, and
thereby saved from destruction. When Jonah prophesies that in forty
days Nineveh will be overthrown, he does it in order to prevent the
overthrow. When Hezekiah is forbidden to hope for longer life, it is
that he may obtain longer life. Who does not now see that, by
threatening of this kind, God wished to arouse those to repentance
whom he terrified, that they might escape the judgement which their
sins deserved? If this is so, the very nature of the case obliges us
to supply a tacit condition in a simple denunciation. This is even
confirmed by analogous cases. The Lord rebuking King Abimelech for
having carried off the wife of Abraham, uses these words: "Behold,
thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for
she is a man's wife." But, after Abimelech's excuse, he thus speaks:
"Restore the man his wife, for he is a prophet, and he shall pray
for thee, and thou shalt live; and if thou restore her not, know
thou that thou shalt surely die, thou and all that art thine," (Gen.
20. 3, 7.) You see that, by the first announcement, he makes a deep
impression on his mind, that he may render him eager to give
satisfaction, and that by the second he clearly explains his will.
Since the other passages may be similarly explained, you must not
infer from them that the Lord derogated in any respect from his
former counsel, because he recalled what he had promulgated. When,
by denouncing punishment, he admonishes to repentance those whom he
wishes to spare, he paves the way for his eternal decree, instead of
varying it one whit either in will or in language. The only
difference is, that he does not express, in so many syllables, what
is easily understood. The words of Isaiah must remain true, "The
Lord of hosts has purposed, and who shall disannul it? And his hand
is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" (Isaiah 14: 27.)

Chapter 18.

18. The instrumentality of the wicked employed by God, while He
continues free from every taint.

This last chapter of the First Book consists of three parts: I. It
having been said above that God bends all the reprobate, and even
Satan himself, at his will, three objections are started. First,
that this happens by the permission, not by the will of God. To this
objection there is a twofold reply, the one, that angels and men,
good and bad, do nothing but what is appointed by God; the second,
that all movements are secretly directed to their end by the hidden
inspiration of God, sec. 1, 2. II. A second objection is, that there
are two contrary wills in God, if by a secret counsel he decrees
what he openly prohibits by his law. This objection refuted, sec. 3.
III. The third objection is, that God is made the author of all
wickedness, when he is said not only to use the agency of the
wicked, but also to govern their counsels and affections, and that
therefore the wicked are unjustly punished. This objection refuted
in the last section.

Sections.

1. The carnal mind the source of the objections which are raised
    against the Providence of God. A primary objection, making a
    distinction between the permission and the will of God,
    refuted. Angels and men, good and bad, do nought but what has
    been decreed by God. This proved by examples.
2. All hidden movements directed to their end by the unseen but
    righteous instigation of God. Examples, with answers to
    objections.
3. These objections originate in a spirit of pride and blasphemy.
    Objection, that there must be two contrary wills in God,
    refuted. Why the one simple will of God seems to us as if it
    were manifold.
4. Objection, that God is the author of sin, refuted by examples.
    Augustine's answer and admonition.
    
    1. From other passages, in which God is said to draw or bend
Satan himself, and all the reprobate, to his will, a more difficult
question arises. For the carnal mind can scarcely comprehend how,
when acting by their means, he contracts no taint from their
impurity, nay, how, in a common operation, he is exempt from all
guilt, and can justly condemn his own ministers. Hence a distinction
has been invented between doing and permitting because to many it
seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so
under the hand and authority of God, that he directs their malice to
whatever end he pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute his
judgements. The modesty of those who are thus alarmed at the
appearance of absurdity might perhaps be excused, did they not
endeavour to vindicate the justice of God from every semblance of
stigma by defending an untruth. It seems absurd that man should be
blinded by the will and command of God, and yet be forthwith
punished for his blindness. Hence, recourse is had to the evasion
that this is done only by the permission, and not also by the will
of God. He himself, however, openly declaring that he does this,
repudiates the evasion. That men do nothing save at the secret
instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on any thing
but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass
by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of
Scripture. What we formerly quoted from the Psalms, to the effect
that he does whatever pleases him, certainly extends to all the
actions of men. If God is the arbiter of peace and war, as is there
said, and that without any exception, who will venture to say that
men are borne along at random with a blind impulse, while He is
unconscious or quiescent? But the matter will be made clearer by
special examples. From the first chapter of Job we learn that Satan
appears in the presence of God to receive his orders, just as do the
angels who obey spontaneously. The manner and the end are different,
but still the fact is, that he cannot attempt anything without the
will of God. But though afterwards his power to afflict the saint
seems to be only a bare permission, yet as the sentiment is true,
"The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the Lord,
so it has been done," we infer that God was the author of that trial
of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments.
Satan's aim is to drive the saint to madness by despair. The Sabeans
cruelly and wickedly make a sudden incursion to rob another of his
goods. Job acknowledges that he was deprived of all his property,
and brought to poverty, because such was the pleasure of God.
Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself devise, God holds the helm,
and makes all their efforts contribute to the execution of his
judgements. God wills that the perfidious Ahab should be deceived;
the devil offers his agency for that purpose, and is sent with a
definite command to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the
prophets, (2 Kings 22: 20.) If the blinding and infatuation of Ahab
is a judgement from God, the fiction of bare permission is at an
end; for it would be ridiculous for a judge only to permit, and not
also to decree, what he wishes to be done at the very time that he
commits the execution of it to his ministers. The Jews purposed to
destroy Christ. Pilate and the soldiers indulged them in their fury;
yet the disciples confess in solemn prayer that all the wicked did
nothing but what the hand and counsel of God had decreed, (Acts 4:
28,) just as Peter had previously said in his discourse, that Christ
was delivered to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God, (Acts 2: 23;) in other words, that God, to whom all things
are known from the beginning, had determined what the Jews had
executed. He repeats the same thing elsewhere, "Those things, which
God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ
should suffer, he has so fulfilled," (Acts 4: 18.) Absalom
incestuously defiling his father's bed, perpetrates a detestable
crime. God, however, declares that it was his work; for the words
are, "Thou midst it secretly, but I will do this thing before all
Israel, and before the sun." The cruelties of the Chaldeans in Judea
are declared by Jeremiah to be the work of God. For which reason,
Nebuchadnezzar is called the servant of God. God frequently
exclaims, that by his hiss, by the clang of his trumpet, by his
authority and command, the wicked are excited to war. He calls the
Assyrian the rod of his anger, and the axe which he wields in his
hand. The overthrow of the city and downfall of the temple, he calls
his own work. David, not murmuring against God, but acknowledging
him to be a just judge, confesses that the curses of Shimei are
uttered by his orders. "The Lord," says he, "has bidden him curse."
Often in sacred history whatever happens is said to proceed from the
Lord, as the revolt of the ten tribes, the death of Eli's sons, and
very many others of a similar description. Those who have a
tolerable acquaintance with the Scriptures see that, with a view to
brevity, I am only producing a few out of many passages, from which
it is perfectly clear that it is the merest trifling to substitute a
bare permission for the providence of God, as if he sat in a
watch-tower waiting for fortuitous events, his judgements meanwhile
depending on the will of man.
    2. With regard to secret movements, what Solomon says of the
heart of a king, that it is turned hither and thither, as God sees
meet, certainly applies to the whole human race, and has the same
force as if he had said, that whatever we conceive in our minds is
directed to its end by the secret inspiration of God. And certainly,
did he not work internally in the minds of men, it could not have
been properly said, that he takes away the lip from the true, and
prudence from the aged - takes away the heart from the princes of
the earth, that they wander through devious paths. To the same
effect, we often read that men are intimidated when He fills their
hearts with terror. Thus David left the camp of Saul while none knew
of its because a sleep from God had fallen upon all. But nothing can
be clearer than the many passages which declare, that he blinds the
minds of men, and smites them with giddiness, intoxicates them with
a spirit of stupor, renders them infatuated, and hardens their
hearts. Even these expressions many would confine to permissions as
if, by deserting the reprobate, he allowed them to be blinded by
Satan. But since the Holy Spirit distinctly says, that the blindness
and infatuation are inflicted by the just judgement of God, the
solution is altogether inadmissible. He is said to have hardened the
heart of Pharaoh, to have hardened it yet more, and confirmed it.
Some evade these forms of expression by a silly cavil, because
Pharaoh is elsewhere said to have hardened his own heart, thus
making his will the cause of hardening it; as if the two things did
not perfectly agree with each other, though in different senses
viz., that man, though acted upon by God, at the same time also
acts. But I retort the objection on those who make it. If to harden
means only bare permission, the contumacy will not properly belong
to Pharaoh. Now, could any thing be more feeble and insipid than to
interpret as if Pharaoh had only allowed himself to be hardened? We
may add, that Scripture cuts off all handle for such cavils: "I,"
saith the Lord, "will harden his heart," (Exod. 4: 21.) So also,
Moses says of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, that they went
forth to battle because the Lord had hardened their hearts, (Josh.
11: 20.) The same thing is repeated by another prophet, "He turned
their hearts to hate his people," (Psalm 105: 25.) In like manner,
in Isaiah, he says of the Assyrian, "I will send him against a
hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give
him a charge to take the spoil, and to take the prey," (Isaiah 10:
6;) not that he intends to teach wicked and obstinate man to obey
spontaneously, but because he bends them to execute his judgements,
just as if they carried their orders engraven on their minds. And
hence it appears that they are impelled by the sure appointment of
God. I admit, indeed, that God often acts in the reprobate by
interposing the agency of Satan; but in such a manner, that Satan
himself performs his part, just as he is impelled, and succeeds only
in so far as he is permitted. The evil spirit that troubled Saul is
said to be from the Lord, (1 Sam. 16: 14,) to intimate that Saul's
madness was a just punishment from God. Satan is also said to blind
the minds of those who believe not, (2 Cor. 4: 4.) But how so,
unless that a spirit of error is sent from God himself, making those
who refuse to obey the truth to believe a lie? According to the
former view, it is said, "If the prophet be deceived when he has
spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet," (Ezek. 14:
9.) According to the latter view, he is said to have given men over
to a reprobate mind, (Rom. 1: 28,) because he is the special author
of his own just vengeance; whereas Satan is only his minister, (see
Calv. in Ps. 141: 4.) But as in the Second Book, (Chap. 4: sec. 3,
4,) in discussing the question of man's freedom, this subject will
again be considered, the little that has now been said seems to be
all that the occasion requires. The sum of the whole is this, -
since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the
counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his
providence; so that he not only exerts his power in the elect, who
are guided by the Holy Spirit, but also forces the reprobate to do
him service.
    3. As I have hitherto stated only what is plainly and
unambiguously taught in Scripture, those who hesitate not to
stigmatise what is thus taught by the sacred oracles, had better
beware what kind of censure they employ. If, under a pretence of
ignorance, they seek the praise of modesty, what greater arrogance
can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the
authority of God - to say, for instance, "I think otherwise," - "I
would not have this subject touched?" But if they openly blaspheme,
what will they gain by assaulting heaven? Such petulance, indeed, is
not new. In all ages there have been wicked and profane men, who
rabidly assailed this branch of doctrine. But what the Spirit
declared of old by the mouth of David, (Ps. 51: 6,) they will feel
by experience to be true - God will overcome when he is judged.
David indirectly rebukes the infatuation of those whose license is
so unbridled, that from their grovelling spot of earth they not only
plead against God, but arrogate to themselves the right of censuring
him. At the same time, he briefly intimates that the blasphemies
which they belch forth against heaven, instead of reaching God, only
illustrate his justice, when the mists of their calumnies are
dispersed. Even our faith, because founded on the sacred word of
God, is superior to the whole world, and is able from its height to
look down upon such mists.
    Their first objection - that if nothing happens without the
will of God, he must have two contrary wills, decreeing by a secret
counsel what he has openly forbidden in his law - is easily disposed
of. But before I reply to it, I would again remind my readers, that
this cavil is directed not against me, but against the Holy Spirit,
who certainly dictated this confession to that holy man Job, "The
Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away," when, after being plundered
by robbers, he acknowledges that their injustice and mischief was a
just chastisement from God. And what says the Scripture elsewhere?
The sons of Eli "hearkened not unto the voice of their father,
because the Lord would slay them," (1 Sam. 2: 25.) Another prophet
also exclaims, "Our God is in the heavens: he has done whatsoever he
has pleased," (Ps. 115: 3.) I have already shown clearly enough that
God is the author of all those things which, according to these
objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that
he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil, (Is. 45: 7;)
that no evil happens which he has not done, (Amos 3: 6.) Let them
tell me whether God exercises his judgements willingly or
unwillingly. As Moses teaches that he who is accidentally killed by
the blow of an axe, is delivered by God into the hand of him who
smites him, (Deut. 19: 5,) so the Gospel, by the mouth of Luke,
declares, that Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired "to do whatsoever
thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done," (Acts 4:
28.) And, in truth, if Christ was not crucified by the will of God,
where is our redemption? Still, however, the will of God is not at
variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence
of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one
and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the
feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after
a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing. Paul
terms the calling of the Gentiles a hidden mystery, and shortly
after adds, that therein was manifested the manifold wisdom of God,
(Eph. 3: 10.) Since, on account of the dullness of our sense, the
wisdom of God seems manifold, (or, as an old interpreter rendered
it, multiform,) are we, therefore, to dream of some variation in
God, as if he either changed his counsel, or disagreed with himself?
Nay, when we cannot comprehend how God can will that to be done
which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility, and
remember that the light in which he dwells is not without cause
termed inaccessible, (1 Tim. 6: 16,) because shrouded in darkness.
Hence, all pious and modest men will readily acquiesce in the
sentiment of Augustine: "Man sometimes with a good will wishes
something which God does not will, as when a good son wishes his
father to live, while God wills him to die. Again, it may happen
that man with a bad will wishes what God wills righteously, as when
a bad son wishes his father to die, and God also wills it. The
former wishes what God wills not, the latter wishes what God also
wills. And yet the filial affection of the former is more consonant
to the good will of God, though willing differently, than the
unnatural affection of the latter, though willing the same thing; so
much does approbation or condemnation depend on what it is befitting
in man, and what in God to will, and to what end the will of each
has respect. For the things which God rightly wills, he accomplishes
by the evil wills of bad men," - (August. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap.
101.) He had said a little before, (cap. 100,) that the apostate
angels, by their revolt, and all the reprobate, as far as they
themselves were concerned, did what God willed not; but, in regard
to his omnipotence, it was impossible for them to do so: for, while
they act against the will of God, his will is accomplished in them.
Hence he exclaims, "Great is the work of God, exquisite in all he
wills! so that, in a manner wondrous and ineffable, that is not done
without his will which is done contrary to it, because it could not
be done if he did not permit; nor does he permit it unwillingly, but
willingly; nor would He who is good permit evil to be done, were he
not omnipotent to bring good out of evil," (Augustin. in Ps. 111:
2.)
    4. In the same way is solved, or rather spontaneously vanishes,
another objection, viz., If God not only uses the agency of the
wicked, but also governs their counsels and affections, he is the
author of all their sins; and, therefore, men, in executing what God
has decreed, are unjustly condemned, because they are obeying his
will. Here "will" is improperly confounded with precept, though it
is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest
difference between them. When Absalom defiled his father's bed,
though God was pleased thus to avenge the adultery of David, he did
not therefore enjoin an abandoned son to commit incest, unless,
perhaps, in respect of David, as David himself says of Shimei's
curses. For, while he confesses that Shimei acts by the order of
God, he by no means commends the obedience, as if that petulant dog
had been yielding obedience to a divine command; but, recognising in
his tongue the scourge of God, he submits patiently to be chastised.
Thus we must hold, that while by means of the wicked God performs
what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were
obeying his precept, which of set purpose they violate according to
their lust.
    How these things, which men do perversely, are of God, and are
ruled by his secret providence, is strikingly shown in the election
of King Jeroboam, (1 Kings 12: 20,) in which the rashness and
infatuation of the people are severely condemned for perverting the
order sanctioned by God, and perfidiously revolting from the family
of David. And yet we know it was God's will that Jeroboam should be
anointed. Hence the apparent contradiction in the words of Hosea,
(Hosea 8: 4; 13: 11,) because, while God complained that that
kingdom was erected without his knowledge, and against his will, he
elsewhere declares, that he had given King Jeroboam in his anger.
How shall we reconcile the two things, - that Jeroboam's reign was
not of God, and yet God appointed him king? In this way: The people
could not revolt from the family of David without shaking off a yoke
divinely imposed on them, and yet God himself was not deprived of
the power of thus punishing the ingratitude of Solomon. We,
therefore, see how God, while not willing treachery, with another
view justly wills the revolt; and hence Jeroboam, by unexpectedly
receiving the sacred unction, is urged to aspire to the kingdom. For
this reason, the sacred history says, that God stirred up an enemy
to deprive the son of Solomon of part of the kingdom, (1 Kings 11:
23.) Let the reader diligently ponder both points: how, as it was
the will of God that the people should be ruled by the hand of one
king, their being rent into two parties was contrary to his will;
and yet how this same will originated the revolt. For certainly,
when Jeroboam, who had no such thought, is urged by the prophet
verbally, and by the oil of unction, to hope for the kingdom, the
thing was not done without the knowledge or against the will of God,
who had expressly commanded it; and yet the rebellion of the people
is justly condemned, because it was against the will of God that
they revolted from the posterity of David. For this reason, it is
afterwards added, that when Rehoboam haughtily spurned the prayers
of the people, "the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform
his saying, which the Lord spake by Ahijah," (I Kings 12: 15.) See
how sacred unity was violated against the will of God, while, at the
same time, with his will the ten tribes were alienated from the son
of Solomon. To this might be added another similar example, viz.,
the murder of the sons of Ahab, and the extermination of his whole
progeny by the consent, or rather the active agency, of the people.
Jehu says truly "There shall fall unto the earth nothing of the word
of the Lord, which the Lord spake concerning the house of Ahab: for
the Lord has done that which he spake by his servant Elijah," (2
Kings 10: 10.) And yet, with good reason, he upbraids the citizens
of Samaria for having lent their assistance. "Ye be righteous:
behold, I conspired against my master, and slew him, but who slew
all these?"
    If I mistake not, I have already shown clearly how the same act
at once betrays the guilt of man, and manifests the righteousness of
God. Modest minds will always be satisfied with Augustine's answer,
"Since the Father delivered up the Son, Christ his own body, and
Judas his Master, how in such a case is God just, and man guilty,
but just because in the one act which they did, the reasons for
which they did it are different?" (August. Ep. 48, ad Vincentium.)
If any are not perfectly satisfied with this explanation, viz., that
there is no concurrence between God and man, when by His righteous
impulse man does what he ought not to do, let them give heed to what
Augustine elsewhere observes: "Who can refrain from trembling at
those judgements when God does according to his pleasure even in the
hearts of the wicked, at the same time rendering to them according
to their deeds?" (De Grat. et lib. Orbit. ad Valent. c. 20.) And
certainly, in regard to the treachery of Judas, there is just as
little ground to throw the blame of the crime upon God, because He
was both pleased that his Son should be delivered up to death, and
did deliver him, as to ascribe to Judas the praise of our
redemption. Hence Augustine, in another place, truly observes, that
when God makes his scrutiny, he looks not to what men could do, or
to what they did, but to what they wished to do, thus taking account
of their will and purpose. Those to whom this seems harsh had better
consider how far their captiousness is entitled to any toleration,
while, on the ground of its exceeding their capacity, they reject a
matter which is clearly taught by Scripture, and complain of the
enunciation of truths, which, if they were not useful to be known,
God never would have ordered his prophets and apostles to teach. Our
true wisdom is to embrace with meek docility, and without
reservation, whatever the Holy Scriptures, have delivered. Those who
indulge their petulance, a petulance manifestly directed against
God, are undeserving of a longer refutation.

End.