The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined
About the next expression, of the world of the Elect, I shall not contend That by the name of the world (which term is used in the Scriptures, in great variety of significations) the Elect; as being in and of this visible world, and by nature no better then the rest of the inhabitants thereof, are sometimes peculiarly intended, is proved elsewhere, beyond whatever M. B. is able to oppose thereunto.
Of the irresistible working of the Spirit, in bringing men to believe, the condition is otherwise; about the term irresistible, I know none that care much to strive. That Faith is the gift of God, not of ourselves, that is wrought in us, by the exceeding greatness of the power of God: that in bestowing it upon us by his Spirit, (that is, in our conversion) God effectually creates a new heart in us, makes us new creatures, quickens us, raises us from the dead, working in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure, as he commanded light to shine out of darkness, so shining into our hearts, to give us the knowledge of his glory, begetting us a new of his own will, so irresistibly causing us to believe, because he effectually works faith in us; is the sum of what M. Biddle here rejecteth, that he might be sure (as before) to leave nothing of weight in Christian Religion uncondemned. But these trifles and falsityes being renounced, he complains of the abuse of his darling, that it is called carnal reason; which being the only interpreter of Scripture, which he allows of, he cannot but take it amiss, that it should be so grossly slandered, as to be called carnal. The Scripture indeed tells us of a Natural man, that cannot discern the things which are of God, and that they are foolishness to him: of a carnal mind that is enmity to God, and not like to have any Reasons, or reasonings, but what are carnal: of a Wisdom that is carnal, sensual, and devilish: of a wisdom that God will destroy and confound, and that such is the best of the wisdom and Reason of all unregenerate persons: but why the Reason of a man in such a state, with such a mind, about the things of God, should be called carnal, M. B. can see no Reason: and some men perhaps will be apt to think, that it is because all his Reason is still carn • ll. When a man is renewed after the image of him that creates him, he is made Spiritual, light in the Lord, every thought and imagination that sets up it self in his heart, in opposition to God, being lead captive to the Obedience of the Gospel: we acknowledge a san • tified Reason in such an one, of that use in the dijudicatiō of the things of God, as shall afterwards be declared. Spiritual desertions are nextly decried. Some poor souls would thank him to make good this discovery. They find mention in the Scripture of God's hiding his face, withdrawing himself, forsaking though but for a moment, as of thē that on this account walk in darkness and see no light, that seek him, and find him not, but are filled with troubles, terrors, arrows from him &c. And this is some measure they find to be the condition of their own souls; they have not the Life, Light, Power, Joy, Consolation, sense of God's love as formerly, and therefore they think there are Spiritual desertions, and that in respect of their souls, these dispensations of God are signally, and significantly so termed; and they fear that those who deny all desertions, never had any enjoyments from, or of God.
Of Spiritual incomes, there is the same Reason. It is not the phrase of speech, but the thing it self we contend about. That God who is the Father of Mercy, and God of all Consolation, gives Mercy, Grace, Joy, Peace, Consolation, as to whom, so in what manner, or in what degree he pleaseth; The receiving of these from God, is by some (and that perhaps not ineptly) termed Spiritual incomes; with regard to God's gracious distributions of his kindness, love, goodwill, and the reciving of them. So that it be acknowledged, that we do receive Grace, Mercy, Joy, Consolation, and Peace from God, variously as he pleaseth, we shall not much labor about the significancy of that, or any other expression of the like kind. The Scriptures, mentioning the goings forth of God, leave no just cause to M. B. of condemning them, who sometimes call any of his works, or dispensations, his outgoings. His rehearsal of all these particular instances, in doctrines that are found neither Name nor Thing in Scriptures, M. B. closeth with an &c. which miught be interpreted to comprize as many more, but that there remain not, as many more important heads in Christian Religion. The Nature of God being abased, the Deity & Grace of Christ denied, the sin of our Natures, and their renovation by Grace in Christ rejected: M. B's remaining Religion, will be found scarce worth the inquiry after, by those whom he undertakes to instruct: there being scarcely anything left by him, from whence we are peculiarly denominated Christians: nor anything that should support the weight of a sinful soul, which approacheth to God for life and Salvation.
To prevent the entertainment of such Doctrines as these, M. B. commends the advice of Paul 2 Tim. 1. 13. hold fast the form of sound words &c. then which we know none more wholesome, nor more useful, for the safeguarding, and defense of those Holy and Heavenly principles of our Religion, which M. B. rejects and tramples on: nor are we at all concerned in his following discourse, of leaving Scripture terms, and using Phrases, and expressions coined by men; for if we use any word or phrase in the things of God, and his worship, and cannot make good the thing signified thereby, to be founded on, and found in the Scriptures, we will instantly renounce it. But if indeed the words and expressions, used by any of the Ancients, for the explication and confirmation of the Faith of the Gospel, especially of the Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ, in the vindication of it from the Heretics, which in sundry ages bestir'd themselves (as M. B. now doth) in opposition thereunto, be found consonant to Scriptures, and to signify nothing but what is written therein with the beams of the Sun, perhaps we see more cause to retain them, from the opposition here made to them by M. B. then formerly we did: considering, that his opposition to words and phrases, is not for their own sake, but of the things intended by them.
The similitude of the ship, that losts its first matter and substance, by the addition of new pieces, in way of supplement to the old decays, having been used by some of our Divines, to illustrate the Roman Apostasy, and Traditionall-Additionalls to the Doctrines of the Gospel, will not stand Mr B. in the least stead; unless he be able to prove, that we have lost in the Religion we profess, any one material part of what it was, when given over to the Churches by Christ and his Apostles, or have added any one particular, to what they have provided, and furnished us withal in the Scriptures: which until he hath done, by these and the like insinuations, he doth but beg the thing in question; which being a matter of so great consequence, and importance as it is, will scarce be granted him on any such terms. I doubt not, but it will appear to every person whatsoever, in the process of this business, who hath his senses anything exercised in the Word, to discern between good and evil, and whose eyes the God of this World hath not blinded, that the glorious light of the Gospel of God, should not shine into their hearts, that Mr B. as wise as he deemes it, & reports himself to be, is indeed like the foolish Woman, that puts down her house with both her hands, laboring to destroy the house of God with all his strength, pretending that this, and that part of it, doth not originally belong thereto, (or like Ajax in his madness, who killed sheep, and supposed they had been his Enemies) upon the account of that enmity, which he finds in his own mind unto them.
The close of M. B's Preface, contains an Exhortation to the study of the Word, with an account of the success he himself hath obtained, in the search thereof, both in the detection of Errors, and the discovery of sundry Truths: Some things I shall remark upon that discourse, and shut up these considerations of his Preface.
1. For his own success he tells us, that being otherwise of no great abilities, yet searching the Scriptures impartially, he hath detected many errors, & hath presented the Reader with a body of Religion from the Scriptures, which whoso shall well ruminate and digest, will be enabled &c.
For M. B's Abilityes, I have not anything to do, to call them into question; whether small or great, he will one day find, that he hath scarce used them to the end for which he is entrusted with them; And when the Lord of his Tallents, shall call for an account, it will scarce be comfortable to him, that he hath engaged them so much to his dishonor, as it will undoubtedly appear he hath done. I have heard by those of M. B's time, and acquaintance in the University, that what abilitye he had then obtained, were it more or less, he still delighted to be exercising of it, in opposition to received truths in Philosophy; and whither an itching desire of novelty, and emerging thereby, lie not at the bottom of the course he hath since steared, he may do well to examine himself.
What errors he hath derected (though but pretended such) (which honor in the next place he assumes to himself,) I know not. The error of the Deity of Christ was detected in the Apostles days, by Ebion, Cerinthus and others: not long after by Paulus Samosatenus, by Photinus, by Arius and others; The error of the purity, simplicity, and Spirituallity of the Essence of God, by Audaeus, and the Anthropomorphites. The error of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, was long since detected by Macedonius, and his companions; the Error of original sin, or the corruption of our nature, by Pelagius: the Error of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, by Abailardus; All of them by Socinus, Smalcius, Crellius, &c. What new discoveries M. B. hath made, I know not; nor is there anything that he presents us with, in his whole body of Religion, as stated in his questions, but what he hath found prepared digested, & modelled to his hand, by his masters the Socinians; unless it be some few gross notions about the Deity; nor is so much as the Language, which here he useth of himself, and his discoveryes his own, but borrowed of Socinus Epist. ad Squarcialupum.
We have not then the least reason in the world, to suppose that M. B was lead into these glorious discoveryes, by reading of the Scriptures, much less impartial reading of them; but that they are all the fruits of a deluded heart, given up righteously of God to believe a lie, for the neglect of his word, & contempt of reliance upon his Spirit, & Grace, for a right understanding thereof, by the cunning slights of the forementioned persons, in some of whose writings, Satan lies in wait to deceive. And for the body of Religion which he hath collected, which lies not in the Answers which are set down in the words of the Scripture, but in the Interpretations, and conclusions, couched in his Questions, I may safely say, it is one of the most corrupt, and abominable, that ever issued from the endeavors of one, who called himself a Christian; for a proof of which assertion, I refer the Reader to the ensuing considerations of it. So that whatever promises of success M. B. is pleased to make unto him, who shall ruminate, and dig • st in his mind, this body of his composure, (it being indeed stark poison, that will never be digested, but fill and swell the heart with pride, and venom, until it utterly destroy the whole person) it may justly be feared, that he hath given too great an advantage to a sort of men in the world, not behind M B. for abilities and Reason, (the only guide allowed by him is affairs of his nature) to decry the use and Reading of the Scripture, which they see u • stable, & unlearned men fearfully to wrest to their own destructions. But let God be true, and all men liars Let the Gospel run and prosper; and if it be hid to any, it is to them, whom the God of this world hath blinded, that the glorious light thereof, should not shine into their hearts. What may farther be drawn forth of the same kind with what is in these Catechisms delivered, with an imposition of it upon the Scripture, as though any occasion were thence administered thereunto, I know not: but yet do suppose, that Satan himself is scarce able to furnish the thoughts of men, with many more Abominations of the like length, and breadth, with those here dneavoured to be imposed on simple, unstable souls, unless he should engage them into down right Atheism, and professed contempt of God. Of what tendency these Doctrines of M. B. are unto Godliness, which he nextly mentioneth, will in its proper place fall under consideration. It is true, the Gospel is a doctrine according to Godliness, and aims at the promotion of it in the hearts, and lives of men, in order to the exaltation of the Glory of God. And hence it is, that so soon as any poor deluded soul, falls into the snare of Satan, and is taken captive under the power of any Error whatever, the first sleight he puts in practice for the promotion of it, is to declaim about its Excellency and usefulness for the furtherance of godliness; though himself in the mean time, be under the power of darkness, and know not in the least what belongs to the Godliness, which he professeth to promote. As to what M. B. here draws forth to that purpose, I shall be bold to tell him, that to the accomplishment of a Godliness amongst men, (since the fall of Adam ) that hath not its rise and foundation in the effectual powerful changing of the whole man, from death to Life, darkness to Light, &c. in the washing of the pollutions of nature by the blood of Christ, that is not wrought in us, and carried on by the efficacy of the Spirit of Grace, taking away the heart of stone, and giving a new heart, circumcised to fear the Lord, that is not purchased and procured for us, by the Oblation, and Intercession of the Lord Jesus, a Godliness that is not promoted by the consideration of the viciousness, and corruption of our hearts by nature, and their Alienation from God, and that doth not in a good part of it consist in the mortifying, killing, slaying of the sin of nature, that dwelleth in us, and an opposition to all the actings and workings of it, A Godliness that is performed by our own strength, in yielding obedience to the precepts of the Word, that by that obedience we may be justified before God, and for it accepted, &c. there is not one tittle, letter, nor iota in the whole Book of God tending. M. B. closeth his Preface with a commendation of the Scriptures, their excellency, and divinity, with the eminent success that they shall find who yield obedience to them, in that they shall be even in this life equal unto Angels. His expressions as first view seem to separate him from his Companions in his Body of Divinity, which he pretends to collect from the Scriptures, whose low thoughts, bold expressions, concerning the contradictions in them, shall afterwards be pointed unto. But I fear
And in this kiss of the Scripture with hail unto it, there is vile treachery intended, and the betraying of them to the hands of men, to be dealt withal at their pleasure. I desire not to entertain evil surmises of any (what just occasion soever be given on any other account) concerning things that have not their evidence and conviction in themselves. The bleating of that expression, The Scriptures are the exactest rule of an holy life, evidently allowing other rules of an holy life, though they be the exactest, and admitting other things, or Books, into a compartnership with them, in that their use and service, though the preeminence be given to them, sounds as much to their dishonor, as anything spoken of them by any, whoever owned them to have proceeded from God. It is the Glory of the Scriptures, not only to be the Rule, but the only one of walking with God. If you take any other into comparison with it, and allow them in the trial to be Rules indeed, though not so exact as the Scripture, you do no less cast down the Scripture from its Excellency, then if you denied it to be any Rule at all. It will not lie as one of the many, though could be an equality between the obedience, yielded by us, whilst we are yet sinners, and continue so, ( for if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves ) and the exact obedience of them who never sinned, but abide in doing the will of God, but the principal, and main work of God required in them, and which is the root of all other obedience whatever, being to believe on him whom he hath sent, to as many as so believe on him, and so receive him, power is given to become the sons of God; who being so adopted into the great family of Heaven and Earth, which is called after God's name, and invested with all the privileges thereof; having fellowship with the Father and the Son, they are in that regard, even in this life, equal to Angels. Having thus briefly as I could, washed off the paint, that was put upon the Porch of M. B's Fabric, and discovered it to be a composure of rotten posts, and dead men's bones, whose Pargeting being removed, their abomination lies naked to all, I shall enter the building, or heap it self, to consider what entertainment he hath provided therein, for those, whom in the entrance he doth so subtly and earnestly invite to turn in, and partake of his provisions.
CAP. I.
M. B's first Chapter Examined. Of the Scriptures.
MR Biddle having imposed upon himself the task of insinuating his Abominations, by applying the express words of Scripture, in way of Answer to his captious and Sophisticall Queries, was much straitened in the very entrance, in that he could not find any Text, or tittle in them that is capable of being wrested to give the least color to those imperfections, which the residue of men, with whom he is in the whole System of his doctrine in compliance and communion, do charge them withal. As that there are contradictions, in them, though in things of less importance: that many things are, or may be changed, and altered in them; that some of the books of the Old Testament are lost, & that those that remain, are not of any necessity to Christians, although they may be read with profit; Their subjecting them also, and all their Assertions, to the last judgment of Reason, is of the same nature with the other. But it being not my purpose, to pursue his opinions, through all the secret windings and turnings of them, so to drive them to their proper issue, but only to discover the sophistry and falseness of those insinuations, which grossly and palpably overthrow the foundations of Christianity. I shall not force him to speak to anything, beyond what he hath expressly delivered himself unto.
This first Chapter then, concerning the Scriptures, both in the greater and lesser Catechisms, without farther trouble, I shall pass over; seeing that the stating of the Questions, and Answers in them, may be sound, and according to the Common Faith of the Saints, in those who partake not with M. B's companions, in their low thoughts of them, which here he doth profess. Only I dare not join with him, in his last assertion, that such and such passages, are the most affectionate in the Book of God; seeing we know but in part, and are not enabled, nor warranted, to make such peremptory determinatons concerning the several passages of Scripture, set in comparison, and competition for Affectionatenesse, by ourselves.
CAP. II.
Of the Nature of God.
HIS second Chapter which is concerning God, his Essence, Nature, and Propertyes, is second to none in his whole Book, for Blasphemyes and Reproaches of God and his Word.
The description of God, which he labors to insinuate, is, that he is one Person, of a visible shape, and similitude, finite, limited to a certain place, mutable, comprehensible, and obnoxious to turbulent passions, not knowing the things that are future, and which shall be done by the sons of men, whom none can love withal his heart, if he believe him to be one in three distinct Persons.
That this is punctually the Apprehension, and notion concerning God, and his Being, which He labors to beget, by his suiting Scripture expressions to the blasphemous insinuations of his Questions, will appear in the consideration of both Questions and Answers, as they lie in the second Chapter of the greater Catechism.
His first Question is, How many God's of Christians are there? And his Answer is; One God, Eph. 4. 6. Whereunto he subjoins, secondly, who is this one God? And Answers, The Father of whom are all things, 1. Cor. 8. 6.
That the Intendment of the connection of these Queryes, and the suiting of words of Scripture to them, is to insinuate some thoughts against the doctrine of the Trinity, is not questionable; especially being the work of him, that makes it his business to oppose it, and laugh it to scorn. With what success this attempt is managed, a little consideration of what is offered will evince. It is true, Paul says to us, there is one God: treating of the vanity and nothingness of the Idols of the Heathen, whom God hath threatened to deprive of all worship, and to starve out of the world. The Question as here proposed, how many God's of Christians are there, having no such occasion administered unto it; as that expression of Paul, being no parcel of such a discourse, as he insists upon, sounds pleasantly towards the allowance of many God's, though Christians have but one. Neither is M. B. so averse to Polutheisme, as not to give occasion (on other accounts) to this supposal. Jesus Christ he allows to be a God. All his companions, in the undertaking against his truly eternal divine Nature, still affirm him to be Homo Deificatus, and Deus Factus, and plead pro verâ deitate Jesu Christi; denying yet with him, that by Nature He is God, of the same Essence with the Father: So indeed grossly and palpably falling into, and closing with that Abomination, which they pretend above all men to avoid, in their opposition to the thrice Holy and Blessed Trinity. Of those monstrous figments in Christian Religion which on this occasion they have introduced, of making a man to be an Eternal God, of worshiping a mere Creature, with the worship due only to the Infinitely blessed God, we shall speak afterwards.
2. We confess that to us, there is one God, but one God, and let all other be accursed. The God's that have not made Heaven, and the Earth, let them be destroyed, according to the word of the Lord from under these heavens. Yet we say moreover, that there are Three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, Word, and Spirit, and that these Three are one. And in that very place, whence Mr B. cuts off his first Answer, as it is asserted, that there is one God; so one Lord, and one Spirit, the fountain of all spiritual distributions are mentioned, which whether they are not also that one God, we shall have farther occasion to consider.
To the next Query, concerning this one God, who he is, the words are, the Father from whom are all things; in themselves most true. The Father is the one God, whom we worship in spirit, and in truth; and yet the Son also is our Lord, and our God, John. 20. 28. Even God over all blessed forever: Rom: 9. 5. The spirit also is the God which works all in all, 1 Cor. 12. 6, 11. And in the name of that one God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are we Baptized, whom we serve, who to us, is the one God over all. Neither is that Assertion, of the Fathers being the one, and only true God, anymore prejudicial to the Sons being so also, then that Testimony given to the everlasting Deity of the Son, is to that of the Father, notwithstanding that to us there is but one God. The intendment of our Author in these Questions, is to Answer what he found in the great exemplar of his Catechism, the Racovian: two of whose questions are comprehensive of all that is here delivered, and intended by M. Biddle. But of these things more afterwards.
His next inquiry is after the nature of this one God: which he Answers, with that of our Savior, in John: 4. 24. God is a spirit; in this he is somewhat more modest, though not so wary as his great Master, Faustus Socinus, & his disciple (as to his notions about the Nature of God) Vorstius. His acknowledgement of God to be a Spirit, frees him from sharing in impudence, in this particular, with his Master, who will not allow any such thing to be asserted, in these words of our Savior. His words are, Fragment. Dispute. de Adorat. Christi cum Christiano Francken: p. 60. Non est fortasse eorum verborum ea sententia, quam pleri{que} omnes arbitrantur: Deum scilicet esse Spiritum, ne{que} enim subaudiendum esse dicit aliquis verhum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , quasi vox 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , recto casu accipienda sit, sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 repetendum verbum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , quod paulo ante praecessit, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quarto casu accipiendum, ita ut sententia sit, Deum quaerere & postulare spiritum, Vorstius also follows him, Not. ad Dispute. 3. p. 200. because the verb substantive, [ is, ] is not in the original expressed, (then the omission whereof, nothing being more frequent, though I have heard of one, who from the like omission 2 Cor. 5. 17. thought to have proved Christ to be the new Creature there intended) contrary to the Context, and coherence of the Words, design of the Argument in hand, insisted on by our Savior, (as he was a bold man) and emphaticallnesse of significancy in the expression as it lies, he will needs thrust in the word seeketh, and render the intention of Christ to be, that God seeks a spirit, that is, the spirits of men to worship him. Herein I say is M. B. more modest then his Master, (as it seems following Crellius, who in the exposition of that place of Scripture is of another mind) though in craft, and foresight, he be outgone by him, for if God be a Spirit indeed, one of a pure spiritual Essence; and Substance, the Image, shape, and similitude, which he afterwards ascribes to him, his corporal postures, which he asserts (Qu 4.) will scarcely be found suitable unto him. It is incumbent on some kind of men, to be very wary in what they say: and mindful of what they have said; falsehood hath no consistency in it self, no more then with the Truth. Smalcius in the Racovian Catechism is utterly silent as to this Questions & Answer. But the consideration of this also, will in its due place succeed.
To his 4 th Query, about a farther description of God, by some of his Attributes, I shall not need to sub oyn • anything in way of Animadversion; for however the Texts he cites, come 〈◊〉 of delivering that of God, which the import of the question, to which they are annexed, doth require, yet being not wrested to give countenance to any perverse apprehension of his Nature, I shall not need to insist upon the consideration of them.
Qu. 5. He falls closely to his work: in these words, Is not God, 〈…〉 current of the Scriptures, in a certain place, namely in Heaven? Whereunto he Answers by many places of Scripture, that make mention of God in Heaven.
That we may not mistake his mind, & intention in this Query, some light may be taken from some other passages in his book. In the preface he tells you: that God hath a similitude and shape, (of which afterwards) & hath his place in the Heavens. That God is in no certain place, he reckons amongst those errors he opposesin the same Preface. Of the same kind he asserteth the belief to be, of God's being infinite, & incomprehensible: & Cat. les. p. 6. That God glistereth with Glory, & is resident in a certain place of the Heavens, so that one may distinguish between his right and left hand by bodily sight. This is the Doctrine of the man, with whom we have to do, concerning the Presence of God. He is (saith he) in Heaven, as in a certain place; That which is in a certain place, is finite, and limited; as from the nature of a place, and the manner of any things being in a place, shall be instantly evinced. God then is finite, and limited, be it so: (that he is infinite and incomprehensible is yet Scripture Expression) yea he is so limited, as not to be extended to the the whole compass, and limit of the Heavens; but he is in a certain place of the Heavens, yea so circumscribed, as that a man may see from his right hand to his left: wherein M. B. comes short of Mahomet, who affirms, that when he was taken into Heaven, to the sight of God, he found three days journey between his eye-brows, which if so, it will be somewhat hard, for any one to see from his right hand to his left, being supposed at an answerable distance to that of his eye-brows. Let us see then on what Testimony, by what Authority, M. B. doth here limit the Almighty, and confine him to a certain place, shutting up his Essence and being, in some certain part of the Heavens, cutting him thereby short, as we shall see in the issue, in all those eternal perfections, whereby hitherto he hath been known to the sons of men.
The proof of that lies in the places of Scripture, which making mention of God, say, He is in Heaven, and that He looketh down from Heaven, &c. Of which out of some Concordance, some 20, or 30. are by him repeated. Not to make long work of a short business; The Scriptures say, God is in Heaven; whoever denied it? But do the Scriptures say he is nowhere else? Do the Scriptures say he is confined to Heaven, so that he is so there, as not to be in all other places? If M. B. thinks this any argument, God is in Heaven, therefore his Essence is not Infinite, and immense, therefore He is not everywhere, we are not of his mind. He tells you in his Preface, that He asserts nothing himself: I presume his Reason was, least any should call upon him for a proof of his Assertions. What he intends to insinuate, & what conceptions of God he labors to ensnare the minds of unlearned, & unstable souls withal, in this question under consideration, hath been from the evidence of his intendment therein, and the concurrent Testimony of other expressions of his to the same purpose, demonstrated. To propose anything directly, in way of proof of the truth of that which he labors insensibly to draw the minds of men unto, He was (doubtless) conscious to himself of so much disability for its performance, as to wave that kind of procedure. And therefore his whole endeavor is, having filled, animated, and Spirited, the understandings of men, with the notion couched in his Question, to cast in some Scripture expressions, that as they lie, may seem fitted, to the fixing of the notion before begotten in them. As to any attempt of direct proof of what he would have confirmed, the man of Reason is utterly silent.
2. None of those Texts of Scripture, where mention is made of God's being in Heaven, are in the coherence, and dependence of speech, wherein they lie, suited, or intended at all, to give answer to this Question, or any like it, concerning the Presence of God, or his actual existence in any place, but only in respect of some dispensations of God, and works of his, whose fountain and original he would have us to consider in himself, and to come forth from him there, where in an eminent manner he manifests his Glory. God is I say in none of the places by him urged, said to be in Heaven, in respect of his Essence or being, nor is it the intention of the Holy Ghost, in any of them, to declare the manner of God's Essentiall presence, and existence, in reference to all, or any places; but only by the way of eminency, in respect of manifestations of himself, and operations from his glorious presence, doth he so speak of him. And indeed in those expressions, Heaven, doth not so much signify a place, as a thing, or at least a place, in reference ot the things there done, or the peculiar manifestations of the Glory of God there; so that if these places should be made use of, as to the proof of the figment insinuated, the Argument from them would be, â non causâ pro causâ. The reason why God is said to be in Heaven, is not because his Essence is included in a certain place, so called, but because of the more eminent manifestation of his Glory there, and the regard which he requires to be had of him, manifesting his Glory, as the first cause, and Author of all the works, which outwardly are of him.
3. God is said to be in Heaven in an especial manner, because he hath assigned that as the place of the Saints expectation of that enjoyment of eternal fruition of himself, which he hath promised to bless them withal. But for the limiting of his essence to a certain place in Heaven, the Scriptures, as we shall see, know nothing, yea expressly, and positively affirm the contrary.
Let all then supply our catechamens, in the Rome of M. B's, with this Question, expressly leading to the things inquired after.
What says the Scripture concerning the Essence and presence of God, is it confined and limited to a certain place, or is he infinitely, and equally present everywhere?
Ans. The Lord your God, he is God in Heaven above, and in earth beneath Josh. 2. 11.
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the Heavens, and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee, how much less the House that I have built. 1 Kings 8. 27.
Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascended up into Heaven thou art there, if I make my bed in Hell, behold thou art there, &c. Psal. 139. 7, 8, 9, 10. The Heaven is my Throne, and the Earth my footstool. Isaiah 66. 1. Acts 7. 47, 48.
Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God, afar of, can any hide himself in secret places, that I shall not see him, saith the Lord, do not I fill Heaven and Earth saith the Lord? Jerem. 23. 24.
It is of the ubiquity and omnipresence of God, that these places expressly treat; and whereas i • was manifested before, that the expression of God's being in Heaven, doth not at all speak to the abomination, which M. B. would insinuate thereby, the naked rehearsal of those Testimonies, so directly asserting, and ascribing to the Almighty, an Infinite, Unlimited Presence, and that in direct opposition, to the gross apprehension of his being confined to a certain place in Heaven, is abundantly sufficient, to deliver the thoughts, and minds of men, from any entanglements that M. B's Questions and Answers (for though it be the word of the Scripture he insists upon, yet, male dum recitas incipit esse tnum ) might lead them into. On that account no more need be added: but yet this occasion being administered, that Truth it self, concerning the Omnipresence, or Ubiquity of God, may be farther cleared, and confirmed.
Through the prejudices and ignorances of men, it is inquired, whether God be so present in any certain place, as not to be also equally elsewhere, everywhere.
Place has been commonly defined to be, superficies corporis ambientis; Because of sundry inextricable difficulties, and impossibility of suiting it to every place, this definition is now generally decried. That now commonly received, is more natural, suited to the Natures of things, and obvious to the understanding. A place, is, spatium corporis susceptivum; any space wherein a body may be received, and contained. The first consideration of it, is, as to its fitness and aptness, so to receive anybody: so it is in the imagination only. The second, as to its actual existence, being filled with that body, which it is apt to receive. So may we imagine innumerable spaces in Heaven, which are apt, and able to receive the bodies of the Saints; and which actually shall be filled with them, when they shall be translated thereinto, by the power of God.
Presence in a place, is the actual existence of a person in its place: or as Logicians speak, in its Ubi; that is, answering the enquiry after him, where he is. Though all bodies are in certain places, yet Persons only, are said to be present in them; other things have not properly a presence to be ascribed to them: They are in their proper places, but we do not say, they are present in, or to their places. This being the general description of a place, and the presence of any therein, it is evident, that properly it cannot be spoken at all of God, that he is in one place or other; for he is not a body, that should fill up the space of its receipt; nor yet in all places, taking the word properly, for so one Essence can be but in one place; and if the word should properly be ascribed to God in any sense, it would deprive him of all his infinite Perfections.
It is farther said, that there be three ways of the Presence of any, in reference to a place, or places; some are so in a place, as to be circumscribed therein, in respect of their parts, and dimensions, such is their length, breadth, and depth, so doth one part of them fit one part of the place wherein they are, and the whole the whole, so are all solid bodies in a place; so is a man, his whole body in his whole place, his head in one part of it, his arms in another: some are so conceived to be in a place, as that in relation to it, it may be said of them, that they are there in it, so as not to be anywhere else, though they have not parts, and dimensions filling the place wherein they are, nor are punctually circumscribed with a local space; such is the presence of Angels, and Spirits, to the places wherein they are, being not infinite or immense; These are so in some certain place, as not to be at the same time, wherein they are so, without it, or elsewhere, or in any other place: And this is proper to all finite, immaterial substances, that are so in a place, as not to occupy and fill up that space wherein they are. In respect of place, God is immense, and indistant to all things, and places, absent from nothing, no place, contained in none; present to all, by and in his infinite Essence, and Being, exerting his power variously, in any, or all places, as he pleaseth, revealing and manifesting his Glory, more or less, as it seemeth good to him.
Of this Omnipresence of God, two things are usually inquired after. 1. The thing it self, or the Demonstration, that he is so Omnipresent. 2. The manner of it, or the Manifestation, and declaring how he is so present. Of this latter perhaps sundry things have been over curiously, and nicely, by some disputed: though upon a through search, their disputes may not appear altogether useless. The Schoolemens distinctions of God's being in a place, repletive, immensive, impletive, superexcedenter, conservative, attinctive, manifestative, &c. Have, some of them at least, foundation in the Scriptures, and right Reason. That which seems most obnoxious to exception, is their assertion, of God to be everywhere present, instar puncti: but the sense of that, and its intendment, is to express, how God is not in a place, rather then how he is. He is not in a place as quantative bodies, that have the dimensions attending them: Neither could his presence in Heaven, by those who shut Him up there, be any otherwise conceived, until they were relieved by the rare notions of M. B. concerning the distinct places of His right hand and left. But it is not at all about the manner of God's presence, that I am occasioned to speak, but only of the thing it self. They who say, He is in Heaven only, speak as to the thing, and not as to the manner of it; When we say, He is everywhere, our Assertion is also to be interpreted, as to that only; The manner of His Presence being purely of a Philosophical consideration: His Presence it self divinely revealed, and necessarily attending his Divine perfections; Yea it is an Essentiall property of God. The properties of God, are either absolute, or relative. The absolute properties of God are such, as may be considered, without the supposition of anything else whatever, towards which their energy, and efficacy should be exerted. His relative are such, as in their egress and exercise, respect some things in the Creatures, though they naturally and eternally reside in God. Of the first sort is God's Immensity; it is an absolute property of his nature and Being; for God to be immense, infinite, unbounded, unlimited, is as necessary to him, as to be God; that is, it is of his Essentiall perfection, so to be. The Ubiquity of God, or his presence to all things, and persons, is a relative property of God; for to say, that God is present in, and to all things, supposes those things to be. Indeed the Ubiquity of God, is the Habitude of his Immensity to the Creation; supposing the Creatures, the world that is, God is by reason of his Immensity, indist •• to them all: or if more worlds be supposed, (as all things possible to the power of God, without any absurdity may be supposed) on the same account as he is Omnipresent, in reference to the present world, he would be so to them & all that is in them.
Of that which we affirm in this matter, this is the sum; God, who in his own being and Essence is Infinite and Immense, is by reason thereof, present in, and to the whole Creation, equally, not by a diffusion of his substance, or mixture with other things, Heaven or Earth; in, or upon them, but by an inconceivable indistancy of Essence to all things, though he exert his power, and manifest his Glory, in one place more then another: as in Heaven, in Zion, at the Ark, &c.
1. That this is the Doctrine of the Scriptures, in the places before mentioned, needs no great pains to evince. In that 1 Kings 8. 27. the design of Solomon in the words, gives light to the substance of what he asserted, he had newly with labor, cost, charge, and wisdom, none of them to be paralleled in the world, built a Temple for the worship of God; The house being large, and exceedingly glorious, the apprehensions of all the Nations round about, (that looked on, and considered the work he had in hand,) concerning the Nature, and Being of God, being gross, carnal, and superstititous, themselves answerably, worshipping those, who by nature were not God, & his own people of Israel, exceedingly prone to the same abominations, least any should suppose, that he had thoughts of including the Essence of God in the house that he had bulit; he clears himself in this confession of his Faith, from all such imaginations; affirming that though indeed God would dwell on the Earth, yet he was so far from being limited unto, or circumscribed in the House that he had built, that the Heavens, even the Heaven of Heavens, any space whatever that could be imagined, the highest Heavens, could not, cannot contain Him, so far is he from having a certain place in Heaven, where he should reside, in distinction from other places, where he is not; He is God in Heaven, and in Earth, Josh. 2. 11. That which the Temple of God was bulit unto, that the Heaven & the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain: Now the Temple was built to the Being of God, to God as God. so Acts. 7. 47. But Solomon built him an House Him v. 48. that is, the most High, who dwelleth not, (is not circumscribed) in Temples made with hands.
That of the 139. Psalm is no less evident; The presence, or face of God, is expressly affirmed to be everywhere: Whether shall I go from thy face, if I ascend up into Heaven 〈◊〉 art there, if I go into hell behold thou art there. As God is affirmed to be in Heaven, so everywhere else, now that he is in Heaven, in respect of his Essence and being, is nor questioned.
Neither can that of the Prophet Isa. 66. 1. be otherwise understood, but as • o ascribing an Uliquity to God, and a pres • nce in Heaven and Earth: Heaven is my throne, and the Earth is my footstool; the words are Metaphoricall, and in that way expressive of the Presence of a person; and so God is present in Heaven and Earth. That the Earth should be his foot-stool, and yet himself be so inconceivably distinct frō it, as the Heaven is from the Earth (an expression chosen by himself, to set out the greatest distance imaginable) is not readily to be apprehended. He is not far from any one of us, for in him we live, and move, and have our being. Acts 17. 27, 28,
The Testimony which God gives to this his perfection in Jerem. 23. 23, 24. is not to be avoided; more then what is here spoken by God himself, as to his omnipresence, we cannot, we desire not, to speak; can any one lie hid from me? do not I fill Heaven and Earth saith the Lord? Still where mention is made of the presence of God, thus Heaven and Earth (which two are comprehensive of, and usually put for, the whole creation) are mentioned; and herein he is neither to be thought afar of, or near, being equally present everywhere, in the hidden places, as in Heaven; that is, He is not disti •• from anything or place; though he take up no place, but is nigh all things, by the infiniteness, and existence of his being.
From what is also known of the Nature of God, His Attributes, and perfections; The Truth delivered may be farther argued, and confirmed. As
1. God is absolutely perfect; whatever is of perfection, is to be ascribed to him; otherwise he could neither be absolutely self-sufficient, all-sufficient, nor eternally blessed in himself; He is absolutely perfect, in as much as no perfection is wanting to hi; and comparatively above all that we can conceive, or apprehend of Perfection. If then Ubiquity or omnipresence be a perfection, it no less necessarily belongs to God, then it does to be perfectly good and blessed. That this is a perfection, is evident from its contrary. To be limited, to be circumscribed, is an imperfection and argues weakness. We commonly say, we would do such a thing in such a place, could we be present unto it; and are grieved and troubled that we cannot be so; that it should be so, is an imperfection attending the limitednesse of our natures. Unless we will ascribe the like to God, his Omnipresence is to be acknowledged. If every Perfection then be in God (and if every perfection be not in any, he is not God) this is not to be denied by Him.
2. Again: If God be now in a certain place in Heaven, I ask where he was before these Heavens were made: These Heavens have not always been: God was then where there was nothing but God: no Heaven, no Earth, no Place; in what place was God, when there was no place? When the Heavens were made, did he cease this manner of being in H • mselfe, existing in his own Infinite Essence, and remove into the New place made for him? Or is not God's removal out of his existence in Himself, into a certain place, a blasphemous imagination? Ante omnia Deus erat, solus ipse sibi, & locus, & mundus, & omnia. Tertul. Is this change of place and posture to be ascribed to God? Moreover, if God be now only in a certain place of the Heavens, if he should destroy the Heavens, and that place, where would he then be? In what place? Should he cease to be in the place wherein he is, and begin to be in, to take up, and possess another? And are such apprehensions suited to the infinite perfections of God? Yea may we not suppose, that he may create another Heaven? Can be not do it? How should he be present there? Or must it stand empty? Or must he move himself thither? Or make himself bigger then he was, to fill that Heaven also?
3. The Omnipresence of God is grounded on the Infiniteness of his Essence. If God be Infinite, he is Omnipresent; suppose him Infinite, and then suppose there is anything besides himself, and his Presence with that Thing, where ever it be, doth necessarily follow; for if he be so bounded, as to be in his Essence distant from anything, He is not Infinite. To say God is not Infinite in his Essence, denies him to be Infinite, or Unlimited in any of his Essence, denies him to be Infinite, or Unlimited in any of his Perfections or Properties; and therefore indeed upon the matter Socinus denies God's Power to be Infinite, because he will not grant his Essence to be. ( Catech: cap: 11. part. 1.) That which is absolutely Infinite, cannot have its residence in that which is finite and limited; so that if the Essence of God be not Immense, and Infinite, his Power, Goodness, &c. are also bounded and limited; so that there are, or may be many things, which in their own Natures are capable of Existence, which yet God cannot do, for want of Power. How suitable to the Scriptures & common notions of Mankind, concerning the Nature of God, this is, will be aside known. It is yet the common Faith of Christians, that God is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .
4. Let Reason (which the Author of these Catechisms, pretends to advance and honor, (as some think above its due) & therefore cannot decline its dictates) judge of the consequences of this gross apprehension concerning the confinement of God is the Heavens, yea a certain place in the Heavens, though He glister never so much in Glory, there where he is. For first, he must be extended as a body is, that so he may fill the place, and have parts as we have, if he be circumscribed in a certain place; which though our Author think no absurdity, yet as we shall afterwards manifest, it is as bold an attempt to make an Idol of the living God, as ever any of the Sons of men engaged into. 2. Then God's Greatness & ours as to Essence, & Substance, differ only gradually, but are still of the same kind God is bigger then a man it is true, but yet with the same kind of greatness, differing from us as one man differs from another. A man is in a certain place of the Earth, which he fills and takes up: and God is in a certain place of the Heavens, which He fills and takes up; only some gradual difference there is; but how great or little that difference is, as yet we are not taught. 3. I desire to know of M. B what the Throne is made of that God sits on in the Heavens and how far the Glistering of his Glory doth extend, and whither that Glistering of Glory doth naturally attend his person, as beams do the sun, or shining doth fire, or can He make it more or less as He pleaseth. 〈◊〉 . Doth God fill the whole Heavens, or only some part of them? If the Whole, being of such substance as is imagined, What room will there be in Heaven for anybody else? Can a lesser place hold him? Or could He fill a greater; if not, how came the Heavens so fit for him? Or could he not have made them of other dimensions less or greater? If he be only in a part of Heaven, as is more then insinuated in the expression, that He is in a certain place in the Heavens: I ask why he dwells in one part of the Heavens rather then another? Or whether he ever removes, or takes a journey, as Elijah speaks of Baal 1 Kings 18. or is eternally, as limited in, so confined unto, the certain place wherein He is? Again how doth he work out those effects of Almighty power, which are at so great a distance from Him, as the Earth is from the Heavens, which cannot be effected by the intervenience of any created power: at the Resurrection of the dead, &c. The Power of God doubtless follows his Essence: and what this extends not to, that cannot reach. But of that which might be spoken to vindicate the Infinitely Glorious being of God, from the Reproach, which His own Word is wrested to cast upon Him, this that hath been spoken is some what, that to my pres • nt thoughts doth occure.
I suppose that M. B. knows, that in this his circumscription of God to a certain place, he transgresses against the common consent of Mankind; if not, a few instances of several sorts, may I hope, suffice for his conviction; I shall promiscuously propose them, as they lie at hand, or occur to my remembrance. For the Jews, Philo gives their judgment Hear (saith he) of the Wise God, that which is most true, that God is in no place; for He is not Contained, but containeth all. That which is made, is in a place; for it must be contained, and not contain. And it is the observation of another of them, that so often as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a place, is said of God, the exaltation of his Immense, and Incomparable essence, (as to its manifestation) is to be understood. And the Learned Buxtorfe tells us, that when that word is used of God, it is by an Antiphrasis, to signify that he is Infinite, Illocall, received in no place, giving place to all. That know saying of Empedocles passed among the k Heathen, Deus est circulus, cujus centrum ubi{que}, circumferentia nusquam. And of Seneca: Turn which way thou wilt, thou shalt see God meeting thee; nothing is empty of him, he fills his own work. All things are full of God, says the Poet: and another of them,
Of those on the other hand, who have no less grossly, and carnally, then he of whom we speak, imagined a diffusion of the substance of God through the whole Creation, and a mixture of it with the Creatures, so as to animate, and enliven them in their several forms, making God an Essentiall part of each creature, or dream of an assumption of Creatures, into an unity of Essence with God, I am not now to speak.
CAP. III.
Of the Shape, and Bodily visible-figure of God.
M. Biddles Question.
IS God in the Scripture said to have any
- Likeness,
- Similitude,
- Person,
- Shape.
The Proposition which he would have to be the Conclusion of the Answers to these Questions, is this, That according to the Doctrine of the Scriptures, God is a person shaped: like a man. A conclusion so grossly absurd, that it is refused as ridiculous, by Tully an Heathen, in the person of Cotta (de Na • Deorum ) against Velleius the Epicurean; the Epicureans only amongst the Philosophers, being so soctish, as to admit that conceit. And M. B. charging that upon the Scripture, which hath been renounced by all the Heathens, who set themselves studiously to follow the light of nature, and by a strict Inquiry to search out the Nature and Attributes of God, principally attending that safe Rule of ascribing nothing to him, that eminently included imperfection, hath manifested his pretext of mere Christianity, to be little better then a cover for down right Atheism, or at best, of most vile, and unworthy thoughts of the divine Being. And here also doth M. B. forsake his Masters. Some of them have had more reverence of the Deity, and express themselves accordingly, in express opposition to this gross figmena.
According to the Method I proceeded in, in consideration of the precedent Questions, shall I deal with this; and first, consider briefly the Scriptures produced to make good this monstrous, horrid Assertion. The places urged & insisted on of old, by the Anthropomorphites, were such as partly ascribed a shape in general to God; partly such as mention the parts and Members of God, in that shape: His Eyes, his Arms, his Hands &c. from all which they looked on him, as an old man, sitting in Heaven on a Throne. A conception that M. B. is no stranger to. The places of the first sort are here only insisted on by M. B. and the attribution of a Likenes, Image, Similitude, Person, & Sh • pe unto God, is his warrant to conclude that he hath a Visible, Corpore all Image, & Shope, like that of a man, which is the plain intendment of his Question, Now if the Image, Likeness, or Similitude, attributed to God as above, do no way, neither in the sum of the words themselves, nor by the intendment of the Places, where they are used, in the least ascribe, or intimate, That there is any such Corporeall, visible Shape in God, as he would Insinuate, but are properly expressive of some other thing, that properly belong to him, I suppose it will not be questioned, but that a little matter will prevail with a person, desiring to emerge in the world by noveliyes, and on that account casting off that Reverence of God, which the first and most Common nations of mankind would instruct him into, to make bold with God and the Scripture, for his own ends & purposes.
I say then first in general, if the Scripture may be allowed to expound it self, it gives us a fair and clear account of its own intendment, in mentioning the Image and Shape of God, which man was created in; and owns it to be his Righteousness and Holiness, in a state whereof, agreeable to the condition of such a creature, man being created, is said to be created in the Image, & Likenes of God; in a kind of resemblance unto that Holines & Righteousness which is in him Eph. 4. 23, 24, &c. what can hence be concluded, for a Corporal Image, or Shape, to be ascribed unto God, is too easily discernible: From a likeness in some virtue on Property, to conclude to a Likenes in a bodily shape, may well befit a man, that cares not what he says, so He may speak to the derogation of the Glory of God.
2. For the particular places by M. B. insisted on, and the words used in them, which he lays the stress of this proposition upon: The two first words, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both of which are used in the 1. Gen. the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used Gen. 5. 1. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 9. 7. but whither of these words do in their genuine signification, imply any Corporerty or Figure, The most learned of all the Rabbins, and most critically skillful in their Language, hath observed and proved, that the proper hebrew word, for that kind of outward form or similitude, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and if these be ever so used, it is in a metaphorical and borrowed sense, or at least, there is an Amphiboly in the words; the Scripture sometimes using them in such subjects, where this gross Corporeall sense cannot possibly be admitted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 like the Serpent Psal. 58. 4. here is indeed some Imaginable, or rather rational resemblance in the properties there mentioned, but no corporeal similitude. vide • ze. 1. 28. and 23. 15. To which may be added many more places, where if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall be interpreted of a bodily similitude, it will afford no tolerable sense. The same likewise may be said of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : It is used in the Hebrew for the essential form, rather then the figure or shape: & being spoken of men, signifies rather their souls, then body; so it is used Psal. 73. 20. which is better translated, thou shalt despise their soul, then their Image: so where it is said Psal. 39. 6. every man walketh in a vain show; (the same word again) however it ought so to be interpreted, it cannot be understood of a corporeal similitude; so that these testimonys are not at all to his purpose. What indeed is the Image of God, or that likeness to him, wherein man was made, I have partly mentioned already, and shall farther manifest ( chap. 2.) and if this be not a bodily shape, it will be confessed, that nothing can here be concluded for the attribution of a shape to God; And hereof an account will be given in its proper place.
The sum of M. B's reasoning from these places is, God in the creation of the lower world, and the inhabitancy thereof, making man, enduing him with a mind and soul, capable of knowing him, serving him, yielding him voluntary and rational Obedience, creating him in a condition of Holiness and Righteousness, in a resemblance to those blessed perfections in himself, requiring still of him to be holy as he is holy, to continue & abide in that likeness of his, giving him in that estate, Dominion over the rest of his works here below, is said to create him in his own Image, and Likeness, He being the Sovereign Lord over all his Creatures, Infinitely wise, knowing, Just, and Holy: therefore he hath a bodily shape and Image, and is therein like unto a man, quod erat demonstrandum.
The next quotation is, from Numb. 12. 7, 8. where it is said of Moses, that he shall behold the Similitude of the Lord, the word is Themunah which as it is sometime taken for a Corporeall Similitude, so it is at other times for that Idea, whereby things are Intellectually represented; in the former sense is it frequently denied of God, as Deut. 4. 16. you saw no simillitude, &c. But it is frequently taken in the other sense, for that Object, or rather impression, whereby our intellectual apprehension is made: as in Job 4. 16. an Image was before mine, eyes viz in his dream: which is not any Carpereall shape, but that Idea, or objective representation, whereby the mind of man understands its object: that which is in the Schools commonly called Phantasm, or else an intellectual species, about the notion of which it is here improper to contend. It is manifest, that in the place here alleged, it is put to signify the clear manifestation of God's Presence to Moses, with some such glorious Appearance thereof, as he was pleased to represent unto him, Therefore doubtless God hath a bodily shape.
His next quotation is taken from Ja. 3. 9. made after the Similitude of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Certainly M. B. cannot be so ignorant, as to think the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to include in its signification a Corporeall similitude; the word is of as large an extent as Similitude in Latin: and takes in as well those abstracted Analogies, which the understanding of man finds out, in comparing several objects together, as those other outward conformities of figure and shape, which are the the objects of our carnal eyes. It is the word by which the Septuagint use to render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of which we have soken before. And the examples are inuumerable in the Septuagint's Translation, & in Authors of all sorts, written in the Greek Language, where that word is taken at large, & cannot signify a Corporeall Similitude, so as it is in vain to insist upon particulars; and this also belongs to the same head of inquiry with the former, viz. what likeness of God it was, that man was created in, whether of Eyes, Ears, Nose, &c. or of Holiness, &c.
His next Allegation is from Job. 13. 7, 8. will ye accept his Person, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . An allegation so frivolous, that to stand to answer it studiously would be ridiculous. 1. It is an Interrogation, and doth not assert anything. 2. The thing spoken against is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which hath in it no regard to shape or Corporeall Personality, but to the partiality, which is used in preferring one before another in Justice. 3. The word mentioned, with its derivative, is used in as great, or greater, variety of metaphorical Translations, then any other Hebrew word; and is by no means determined to be a signification of that bulbey substance, which with the soul concurs to make up the person of man. It is so used Gen. 33. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jacob pitched his Tent before (or in the face of) the City. It is confessed, that it is very frequently translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Seventy; as it, is very variously Translated by them sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , see Jer, 38 26. Neh. 2. 13. Joh. 16. 16. Deut. 2. 36. Prov. 27. 23. Besides that, it is used in many other places for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and in many moresences; so that to draw an Argument concerning the nature of God, from a Word so amphibologicall, or of such frequent Translation in metaphorical speech, is very unreasonable.
Of what may be hence deduced this is the sum, in every plea or contest about the ways, dispensations, and judgments of God, that which is right, exact, and according tot he thing it self, is to be spoken, His Glory not standing in the least need of our flattery or lying; therefore God is such a person, as hath a bodily shape and similitude, for there is no other person, but what hath so.
His last Argument is from Joh. 5. 37. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But it argues a very great ignorance in all Philosophical, and accurate writings, to appropriate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to a Corporeall shape, it being very seldom used, either in Scripture, or else where, in that notion. The Scripture having used it, when that sense cannot be fastened on it, as in the 1 Th. 5. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; which may be rendered; Abstain from every kind, or every appearance, but not from every shape of evil: and all other Greek Authors, who have spoken accurately, and not figuratively of things, use it perpetually almost in one of those two senses, & very seldom, if at all, in the other.
How improperly, & with what little Reason, these places are Interpreted of a corporeal similitude, or shape, hath been shown: wherein the Image of God consists, the Apostle shows, as was declared, determining it to be in the Intellectuall part, not in the Bodily Col. 3. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The word here used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is of a grosser signification then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which hath its original from the Intellectuall operation of the mind yet this the Apostle determines to relate to the mind, and Spiritual excellencies, so that it cannot from the places he hath mentioned, with the least Colour of Reason be Concluded, that God hath a Corporeall Similitude, Likeness, Person, or Shape.
What hath already been delivered concerning the Nature of God, and is yet necessarily to be added, will not permit, that much be peculiarly spoken to this head, for the removal of those Imperfections from him, which necessarily attend that Assignation of a bodily Shape to him, which is here aimed at. That the Ancient of days, is not really, one in the shape of an old man, sitting in Heaven on a Throne, Glistering with a Corporeall Glory, his hair being white, and his Raiment beautiful, is Sufficiently evinced, from every property, and perfection, which in the Scripture is assigned to him.
The holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture concerning God, doth not without Indignation suppose anything to be Likened or compared to him, Maimonides hath observed, that these words Aph Ira, &c. are never attributed to God, but in the case of Idola •• y; that never any Idolater was so silly, as to think that an Idol of wood, stone, or metal, was a God that made the Heavens & Earth, but that through thē, all Idolaters intend to worship God. Now to fancy a Corporeity in God, or that he is like a Creature, is greater, and more irrational dishonor to him, then Idolatry. To whom will ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare to Him? Isa. 40. 18. Have ye not known, have ye not heard, hath it not been told you from the beginning, have ye not understood from the foundation of the Earth? v. 22. it is He that sitteth &c. to whō then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal saith the holy one? Because the Scripture speaks of the Eyes, and Ears, Nostrells, and Arms of the Lord, and of man's being made after his likeness, if any one shall conclude, that he sees, hears, smells, and hath the shape of a man, He must upon the same reason conclude, that He hath the shape of a Lion, of an Eagle, and is like a drunken man, because in Scripture he is compared to them, & so of necessity make a monster of Him, and worship a Chimera.
Nay the Scripture plainly interprets it self, as to these Attributions unto God; his arm is not an arm of flesh, 2 Chro. 32. 8. Neither are his eyes of flesh, neither seeth he as man seeth Job. 10. 4. Nay the highest we can pretend to (which is our way of understanding,) though it hath some resemblance of him, yet falls it Infinitely short of a likeness, or equality with Him. And the Holy Ghost himself gives a plain interpretation of his own intendment in such expressions. For whereas Luk. 11. 20. our Savior says, that he with the finger of God casts out Devils, Math. 12. 28. He affirms, that He did it by the Spirit of God, intending the same thing. It neither is, nor can righteously be required, that we should produce any place of Scripture, expressly affirming, that God hath no Shape, nor Hands, nor Eyes as we have, no more then it is, that He is no Lyon or Eagle: it is enough that there is that delivered of him abundantly, which is altogether inconsistent with any such Shape, as by M. B. is fancied: and that so eminent a difference, as that now mentioned, is put between his arms, & eyes, or ours, as manifests them to agree in some Analogy of the thing signified by them, and not in an Answerblenesse in the same kind; wherefore I say, that
The Scripture speaking of God, though it condescends to the nature and capacityes of men, and speaks for the most part to the Imagination (farther then which, few among the Sons of men were ever able to raise their cogitations, ) yet hath it clearly delivered to us such Attributes of God, as will not consist with that gross notion which this man would put upon the Godhead. The Infinity, and Immutability of God, do manifestly overthrow the Conceipt of a Shape and form of God. Were it not a contradiction that a body should be actually infinite, yet such a body could not have a shape, such an one as He imagines. The shape of anything, is the figuration of it: the figuration is the determination of its extension towards several parts, consisting in a determined proportion of them to each other; that determination is a bounding and limiting of them; so that if it have a shape, that will be limited, which was supposed to be Infinite; which is a manifest contradiction. But the Scripture doth plainly show that God is Infinite and Immense, not in magnitude (that were a contradiction, as will appear anon) but in Essence: speaking to our fancy, it saith, that he is higher then Heaven, deeper then Hell, Job 11. 8. that He fills Heaven and Earth, Ierem. 23. 24. That the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain God, 1 King 8 27. And hath many expressions to shadow out the Immensity of God, as was manifest in our consideration of the last Query. But not content to have yielded thus to our Infirmity, it delivers likewise in plain and literal terms, the Infiniteness of God. His understanding is infinite Ps. 147. 5. And therefore his Essence is necessarily so: this is a consequence that none can deny, who will consider it, till he understands the terms of it, as hath been declared. Yet least any should hastily apprehend, that the Essence of God were not therefore necessarily infinite, the Holy Ghost saith, Ps. 135. 3. That his greatness hath no end, or is inconceivable, which is Infinite. For seeing we can carry on our thoughts, by calculation, potentially in infinitum, (that is, whatever measure be assigned, we can continually multiply it by greater and greater numbers (as they say) in infinitum: it is evident, that there is no greatness, either of magnitude or Essence, which is unsearchable or inconceivable, beside that which is actually Infinite: such therefore is the greatness of God, in the strict and literal meaning of the Scripture 〈◊〉 and therefore that he should have a shape implies a contradiction. But of this so much before, as I presume we may now take it for granted.
Now this Attribute of Infinity, doth immediately and demonstratively overthrow that gross conception of an human shape we are in the consideration of, and so it doth by consequence overthrow the conceit of any other, through a Sphaericall shape. Again,
Whatever is incorporeal is destitute of shape; what ever is Infinite is Incorporeall, therefore what is Infinite, is destitute of Shape.
All the Question is of the minor proposition. Let us therefore suppose an Infinite body, or line, and let it be bisected; either then, each half is equal to the whole, or less. If equal, the whole is equal to the part; if less, then that half is limited within certain bounds: and consequently is finite, and so is the other half also: Therefore two things which are finite shall make up an Infinite; which is a contradiction.
Having therefore proved out of Scripture, that God is Infinite, it follows also, that he is Incorporeall, & that he is without Shape.
The former Argument proved him to be without such a shape, as this Catechist would Insinuate: this, that he is without any shape at all. The same will be proved from the Immutability or impassibility of God's Essence, which the Scripture assigns to him. Mal. 3. 6. I am the Lord I change not. The Heavens are the work of thy hand, they shall perish, but thou endurest, they shall be changed, but thou art the same Psal. 102. 26.
If he be immutable, then he is also incorporeal, and consequently without Shape.
The former consequence is manifest, for everybody is extended, and consequently is capable of division, which is mutation; wherefore being immutable he hath no Shape.
M. Biddle's great plea for the considering his Catechism, & insisting upon the same way of inquiry with himself, is from the success, which himself hath found in the discovery of sundry Truths, of which he gives an account in his book, to the Reader. That among the glorious discoveries made by him, the particular now insisted on is not to be reckoned, I presume M. B. knoweth For this discovery, the world is beholding to one Audaeus a Monk, of whom you have a large account in Epiphanius Tom. 1. lib. 3. Haeres. 70. as also in Theodoret. lib. 4. Ecles. Hist. cap. 10. who also gives us an account of the man, and his conversation, with those that followed him. Austin also acquaints us with this worthy Predecessor of our Author de Haeres cap. 50. He that thinks it worth while to know, that we are not beholding to M. B. but to this Audaeus for all the Arguments, whither taken from the creation of man in the Image of God, or the attibution of the parts and members of a man unto God in the Scripture, to prove him to have a visible Shape, may at his leisure consult the Authors above mentioned, who will not suffer him to ascribe the praise of this discovery to M. B.'s ingenious inquiryes. How the same figment was also entertained by a company of stupid Monks in Egypt, who in pursuit of their opinion came in a great drove to Alexandria, to knock Theophilus the Bishop on the head, who had spoken against them, and how that crafty companion deluded them with an ambiguity of expression, with what learned stirs ensued thereon, we have a full relation in Socrat. Eccles. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 7.
As this madness of brainsick men, was always rejected by all e Persons of sobriety, professing the Religion of Jesus Christ, so was it never embraced by the Jews, or the wiser sort of Heathens, who retained any impression of those common notions of God, which remain in the hearts of men. The Jews to this day do solemnly confess in their public worship, that God is not corporeal, that he hath no corporeal propriety, and therefore can nothing be compared with him. So one of the most learned of them of old. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Phil. de opificio mundi. Neither hath God an human form, nor does an human body resemble him. And in Sacrifi. Abel. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had the same apprehēsions of him: thus discourses Mercurius ad Tatium, in Stobaeus: serum: 78. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And Calicratides apud Stob. Serm. 83. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .
Of the like import is that Distich of Xenophones in Clemens Alexan: Storm. 5.
Seperate God from mortals, and think not thyself of flesh, like him.
And Posidonius plainly in Stobaeus as above, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God is an intelligent fiery spirit, not having any shape. And the same Apprehension is evident in that of Seneca, Quid est Deus? men's universi. Quid est Deus? Quod vides totum, & quod non vides totum. Sic demum magnitudo sua illi redditur, quâ nihil majus excogitari potest. Si solus est omnia, opus suū extra & intra tenet. Quid ergo interest inter naturam Dei & nostram? Nostri melior pars animus est, in illo nulla pars extra animum. Natural. Quaest. lib. 1. Praefat. It would be burdensome, if not endless, to insist on the Testimonyes, that to this purpose might be produced, out of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Epictetus, Julisu Firmicus, and others of the same order. I shall close with one of Alcinous de Doctrina Platon. cap. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is absurd to say that God is of matter and form: for if so, he could neither be simple, nor the principal cause.
The thing is so clear, and the contrary even by the Heathen Philosophers accounted so absurd, that I shall not stand to persue the arguments flowing from the other Attributes of God, but proceed to what follows.
CAP. IV.
Of the Attribution of Passions, and Affections, Anger, Fear, Repentance unto God: in what sense it is done in the Scripture.
HIS next inquiry about the Nature of God, respects the Attribution of several Affections and Passions unto him in the Scripture, of whose sense and meaning he thus expresseth his apprehension.
Quest. Are there not according to the perpetual tenor of the Scriptures, affections and passions in God, as Anger, Fury, Zeal, Wrath, Love, Hatred, Mercy, Grace, Jealousy, Repentance, Grief, Joy, Fear? Concerning which he labors to make the Scriptures determine in the affirmative.
The main of M. B's design in his Questions about the Nature of God, being to deprive the Deity of its distinct Persons, its Omnipresence, Prescience, and therein all other infinite Perfections, he endeavors to make him some recompense for all that loss, by ascribing to him in the foregoing Query, a Human visible shope, and in this, Human, turbulent affections, and passions; commonly where men will not ascribe to the Lord that which is his due, He gives them up to assign that unto Him, which he doth abhor. Neither is it easily determinable, whether be the greater abomination. By the first, the dependence of men upon the true God is taken off; by the latter, their hope fixed on a false. This on both sides at present is M. B's sad employment: The Lord lay it not to his charge, but deliver him from the snare of Satan, wherein he is taken alive at his pleasure.
2. The things here assigned to God are ill assotiated, if to be und • rstood after the same manner Mercy, and Grace, we acknowledge to be Attributes of God; the rest mentioned, are by none of M. B's c Companions, esteemed any other, then Acts of his will: and those Metaphorically assigned to him.
3. To the whole I ask. whither these things are in the Scriptures ascribed properly unto God, denoting such affections & passion, in him as those in us are, which are so termed, or whither they are aisigned to Him, & spoken of him Metaphorically, only in reference to his outward works and dispensations, correspondent and answering to the actings of men, in whom such affections are, and under the power whereof they are in those actings. If the latter be affirmed, then as such an attribution of them unto God, is eminently consistent with All his Infibite Perfections, and Blessedness, so there can be no difference about this Question, and the answers given thereunto; all men readily acknowledging, that in this sense the Scripture doth ascribe all the affections mentioned unto God; of which we say as He of old, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But this I fear will not serve M. B's turn: the very Phraise and manner of expre • lion, used in this question; the plain intimation that is in the forehead thereof, of its Authors going off frō the common received interpretation of these Attributions unto God, do abundantly manifest, that it is their proper significancy which he cōtends to fasten on God, & that the affections mentioned are really and properly in Him, as they are in us. This being evident to be his mind and intendment, as we think his anthropopathisme in this Query, not to come short in folly and madness of his anthropomorphisme in that foregoing: so I shall proceed to the removal of this insinuation in the way and method formerly insisted on.
M. Biddle 's Masters tell us, that These affections are vehement commotions of the will of God, whereby He is carried out earnestly to the object of his desires, or earnestly declines, and abhors, what falls non out gratefully, or acceptably to him. I shall first speak of them in general, and then to the particulars, (some or all) mentioned by M. Biddle.
1. In General, that God is perfect and perfectly Blessed, I suppose will not be denied; it cannot be, but by denying that he is God. He that is not perfect in himself, and perfectly Blessed, is not God. To that which is perfect in any kind, nothing is wanting in that kind. To that which is absolutely perfect, nothing is wanting at all. He who is blessed, is perfectly satisfied, & filled, & hath no farther desire for supply. he who is blessed in himself, is All-sufficient for himself. If God want, or desire anything for himself, he is neither perfect nor blessed. To ascribe then affections to God properly, (such as before mentioned) is to deprive him of his perfection and blessedness. The Consideration of the nature of these, and the like Affections, will make this evident.
1. Affections considered in themselves, have always an incomplete, imperfect act of the will, or volition joined with them. They are something that lies between the firm purpose of the soul, and the execution of that purpose: The proper actings of affections lie between these two; that is, in an incōpleat, tumultuary volition. That God is not obnoxions to such volitions, & incomplete actings of the will, besides the general consideration of his perfections, & blessedness premised, is evident frō that manner of procedure which is ascribed to him. His purposes and his works comprise all his actings. As the Lord hath purposed so hath he done. He worketh all things according to the Counsel of his will. Who hath known his mind, and who hath been his Counselor. Of him, and from him are all things.
2. They have their dependence on that, wherewith he, in whom they are, is affected; that is, they owe their rise & continuance to something without him, in whom they are. A man's fear ariseth from that, or them, of whom he is afraid; by them it is occasioned, on them it depends; what ever affects any man, (that is the stirring of a suitable Affection) in all that frame of mind, and soul, in all the volitions and commotions of will, which so arise from thence, he depends on something without him. Yea our being affected with something without, lies at the bottom of most of our purposes and resolves; Is it thus with God? With Him, who is I Am? is he in dependence upon anything without him? Is it not a most eminent contradiction, to speak of God, in dependence on any other thing? Must not that thing either be God, or reduced to some other, without, and besides him, who is God? As the causes of all our affections are. God is of one mind, and who can turn him: whatever he pleaseth that he doth.
3. Affections are necessarily accompanied with change and mutability. Yea he who is affected properly, is really changed: yea there is no more unworthy change or alteration, then that which is accompanied with passion, as is the change, that is wrought by the affections, ascribed to God. A sedate, quiet, considerate alteration, is far less inglorious, and unworthy, then that which is done in and with passion: Hitherto we have taken God upon his Testimony, That He is the Lord, and he changeth not: that with him there is neither change nor shadow of turning: it seems like the worms of the earth, He varieth every Day.
4. Many of the affections here ascribed to God, do eminently denote impotence, which indeed on this account, both by Socinians and Arminians is directly ascribed to the Almighty. They make him affectionately, and with Com • notion of will, to desire many things, in their own Nature not impossible, which yet the cannot accomplish nor bring about; of which I have elsewhere spoken. Yea it will appear, that the most of the Affections ascribed to God by M. Biddle, taken in a proper fence, are such as are actually ineffectual, or commotions through disappointments, upon the account of impotency, or defect of power.
Corol. To ascribe affections properly to God, is to make him weak, imperfect, dependant, changeable, and impotent.
2. Let a short view be taken of the particulars, some or all of them, that M. Biddle choseth to instance in; Anger, Fury, wrath, Zeal, (the same in kind, only differing in degree and circumstances,) are the first he instances in; and the places produced to make good this Attribution to God, are, Numb. 25. 3, 4. Ezek. 5. 13. Exod. 32. 11, 12. Rom. 1. 18.
1. That mention is made of the Anger, Wrath, and Fury of God, in the Scripture, is not questioned, Numb. 25. 4. Deut. 13. 11. Josh. 1. 26. Psal. 18. 29. Isa. 13. 9. Deut. 29. 24. Judge. 2. 14. Psal. 14. 1. Psal. 69. 24. Isa. 30. 30. Lament. 2. 6. Ezek. 5. 15. Psal. 18. 49. Isa. 34. 2. 2 Chron. 28. 11. Ezra. 10. 14. Hab. 3. 8. 12. are farther Testimonies thereof. The words also in the Original, in all the places mentioned, express or intimate perturbation of mind, Commotion of Spirit, corporal mutation of the parts of the body, & the like distempers of men, acting under the power of that passion. The whole difference is about the intendment, of the Holy Ghost in these Attributions, and whether they are properly spoken of God, assertting this passion to be in him, in the proper significancy of the words, or whether these things be not taken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and to be understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in such a sense, as may answer the meaning of the figurative expression, assigning them their truth to the utmost, and yet be interpreted in a suitableness to divine perfection and blessedness.
2. The Anger then which in the Scripture is a signed to God, we say denotes two things.
1. His Vindictive Justice, or constant and immutable will of rendering vengeance for sin: so God's purpose of the demonstration of his Justice, is called his being willing to show his wrath or anger Rom. 9. 22. so God's Anger and his Judgments are placed together Psal. 1. 6. and in that anger he judgeth, v. 8. and in this sense is the wrath of God said to be revealed from Heaven, Rom. 1. 18. that is, The Vindictive Justice of God against sin, to be manifested in the effects of it, or the Judgments sent, and punishments inflicted on, & throughout the world.
2. By Anger Wrath, Zeal, Fury, the effects of Anger are denoted. Rom. 3. 5. Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? The words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who inflicteth, or bringeth anger on man: that is, sore punishments, such as proceed from Anger, that is, God's Vindictive Justice. And Eph. 5. 6. For this cause cometh the wrath of God upon the Children of disobedience: Is it the passion or affection of Anger in God, that M. Biddle talks of, that comes upon the Children of Disobedience? Or is it indeed the effect of his Justice for this sin? Thus the day of Judgment is called the day of wrath, and of anger, because it is the day of the Revelation of the Righteous Judgment of God Rom. 2. 5. After thy hardness &c. In the place of Ezekiel, chap. 5. 13. mentioned by M. B. The Lord tells them, he will cause his fury to rest upon men; and accomplish it upon them. I ask whether he intends this of any passion in him, (and if so, how a passion in God can rest upon a man) or the Judgments which for their iniquities he did inflict? We say then, Anger is not properly ascribed to God, but metaphorically, denoting partly his vindictive Justice whence all punishments flow, partly the effects of it in the punishments themselves, either threatened, or inflicted, in their terror and bitterness, upon the account of what is Analogous therein to our proceeding, under the power of that passion; and so is to be taken in all the places mentioned by M. Biddle. For
3. Properly, in the sense by him pointed to, anger, wrath, &c. are not in God. Anger is defined by the Philosopher to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Desire joined with grief of that which appears to be revenge, for an appearing neglect, or contempt. To this grief he tells you there is a kind of pleasure annexed, arising frō the vehement fancy, which an angry person hath of the revenge he apprehends as future; which saith he, is like the fancy of them that dream: and ascribes this passion mostly to weak impotent Persons; Ascribe this to God, and you leave him nothing else; There is not one Property of his nature wherewith it is confistent. If he be Properly, and literally angry, and Furious, and wrathful, he is moved, troubled, perplexed, desires revenge, and is neither blessed, nor perfect; but of these things in our general Reasons against the property of these Attributions afterwards.
4. M. Biddle hath given us a rule in his preface, that when anything is ascribed to God in one place, which is denied of him in another, then it is not properly ascribed to him: Now God says expressly, that fury, or anger is not in him, Isa. 27. 4. and therefore it is not properly ascribed to him.
5. Of all the places where mention is made of God's repentings or his Repentance, there is the same Reason. Exod. 32. 14. Gen. 6. 6, 7. Judges 10. 16. Deut. 30. 9. are produced by M. B. That one place of the 1 Sam. 15. 29. where God affirms, that he knoweth no Repentance, casts all the rest under a necessity of an interpretation suitable unto it. Of all the affections or passions, which we are obnoxious to, there is none that more eminently proclaims imperfection, weakness, and want in sundry kinds, then this of Repentance. If not sins, mistakes, and miscarriages, (as for the most part they are,) yet disapointment, grief, & trouble are always included in it. So is it in that expression Gen. 6. 6. It Earth, and it grieved him at the heart. What but his mistake, and great disappointment, by a failing of wisdom, foresight, and power, can give propriety to these Attributions unto God? The Change God was going then to work in his Providence on the earth, was such, or like that, which men do, when they repent of a thing, being grieved at the heart for what they had formerly done. So are these things spokē of God, to denote the kind of the things which he doth, not the nature of God himself; otherwise such expressions as these would suit him, whose frame of spirit & heart is so described: Had I seen what would have been the Issue of making man, I would never have done it. Would I had never been so overseen, as to have engaged in such a business. What have I now got by my rashness? nothing but sorrow and grief of heart redounds to me. And do these become the Infinitely blessed God?
6. Fear is added, from Deut. 32. 26, 27. Fear, saith the Wise man, is a betraying of those succors which reason offereth: natures avoidance of an impedent evil. Its contrivance to fly and prevent what it abhors, being in a probabillity of coming upon it: a turbulent weakness. This God forbids in us, upon the account of his being our God, Isa. 35. 4. Fear not O worm Jacob &c. Every where he asserts fear to be unfit for them, who depend on him, and his help, who is able, in a moment to dissipate, scatter, and reduce to nothing, all the causes of their fear. And if there ought to be no fear, where such succor is ready at hand, sure there is none in him who gives it. Doubtless it were much better to exclude the Providence of God out of the world, then to assert him afraid properly, & directly of future events. The Schools say truly Quod res sunt futurae, a voluntate Dei est, (effectiva vel permissiva ) How then can God be afraid of what he knows will, and purposeth shall come to pass? He doth, he will do things in some likeness to what we do, for the prevention of what we are afraid of. He will not scatter his people, that their Adversaries may not have advantage to trample over them. When we so act as to prevent anything, that (unless we did so act) would befall us, it is because we are afraid of the coming of that thing upon us: Hence is the reason of that attribution unto God; That properly he should be afraid of what comes to pass, who knows frō eternity what will so do, who can with the breath of his mouth destroy all the objects of his dislike, who is infinitely wise, blessed, all-sufficient, and the sovereign disposer of the lives, breath, and ways, of all the sons of men, is fit for M. B. and no man else to affirm. All the Nations are before him, as the drop of the bucket, and the dust of the balance, as vanity, as nothing; he upholds them by the word of his power, in him all men live, & move, & have their being, & can neither live, nor act, nor be without him: their life, & breath, and all their ways, are in his hands, he brings them to destruction, and says return ye children of men; and must he needs be properly afraid of what they will do to him, and against him?
7. Of God's Jealousy, and hatred, mentioned, from Psal. 5. 4, 5. Exod. 20. 5. Deut. 32. 21. There is the same reason. Such effects as these things in us produce, shall they meet withal, who provoke him by their blasphemies and abominations. Of Love, Mercy, and Grace, the condition is something otherwise, principally they denote God's Essentiall goodness & kindness, which is eminent amongst his Infinite perfections: and secondarily, the effects thereof, in, and through Jesus Christ, are denoted by these expressions. To manifest, that neither they nor anything else, as they properly intend any affections or passions of the mind, any commotions of will, are properly attributed to God, unto what hath been spoken already, these ensuing Considerations may be subjoined.
1. Where no cause of stirring up affections or passions can have place, or be admitted, there no affections are to be admitted: For to what end should we suppose that, whereof there can be no use to eternity. If it be impossible any affection in God should be stirred up, or acted, is it not impossible any such should be in him? The causes stirring up all affections, are the access of some good desired, whence Joy, Hope, Desire, &c. have their spring; or the approach of some evil to be avoided, which occasions Fear, Sorrow, Angen, Repentance, and the like. Now if no good can be added to God, whence should joy, and desire be stirred up in him: If no evil can befall him, in himself, or any of his concernments, whence should he have Fear, Sorrow, or Repentance. Our goodness extends not to him; He hath no need of us, or our Sacrifices. Can a man be profitable to God, as he that is wise may be profitable to himself. Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art Righteous, or is it gain to him that thou makest thy ways perfect?
2. The Apostle tells us, that God is blessed forever, Ro. 9. 5. He is the blessed & only potentate, 1 Tim. 6. 15. God All-sufficient, Gen. 17. 1. That which is inconsistent with absolute Blessedness, & Alsufficiency is not to be ascribed to God; to do so, casts him down frō his excellency. But can he be blessed, is he All-sufficient, who is tossed up and down with Hope, Joy, Fear, Sorrow, Repentance, Anger, and the like? doth not Fear take off from absolute Blessedness? Grant that God's fear doth not long abide, yet whilst it doth so, He is less blessed then he was before, and then he is, after his fear ceaseth. When He Hopes, is He not short in happiness of that condition, which he attains in the enjoyment of what he hoped for? And is He not lower, when He is disappointed, and falls short of his expectation? Did ever the Heathens speak with more contempt of what they worshipped? Formerly the pride of some men heightened them to fancy thenselves to be like God, without passions or affections; being not able to abide in their attempt against their own sense and experience; it is now endeavored to make God like to us, in having such passions & affections. My aim is brevity, having many heads to speak unto; Those who have written on the Attributes of God, his Self-sufficiency, & Blessedness, Simplicity, Immutability, &c. are ready to tender farther satisfaction, to them who shall desire it.
CAP. V.
Of God's Prescience or Fore-knowledge.
HIS next attempt is to overthrow, and remove the Prescience, or fore-knowledge of God; with what success, the farther consideration of the way whereby he endeavors it, will manifest. His Question! (the engine whereby he works) is thus framed.
As for our free Actions, which are neither past, nor present, but may afterwards either be or not be, what are the chief passages of Scripture from whence it is wont to be gathered, that God knoweth not such actions until they come to pass, yea that there are such actions?
That we might have had a clearer acquaintance with the intendment of this interrogation, it is desirable M. B. had given us his sense on some particulars, which at first view present themselves; to the trouble of every ordinary Read r. As
1. How we may reconcile the words of Scripture given in answer to his preceding Query, with the design of this. There it is asserted, that God understands our thoughts (which certainly are of our free actions, if any such there are) afar off; Here, that he knows not our free Actions, that are future, and not yet wrought or performed.
2. By whom is it wont to be gathered from the following Scriptures, that God knoweth not our free actions until they come to pass: Why doth not this mere Christian, that is of no Sect, name his Companions and Associates in these learned Collections from Scripture? Would not his so doing discover him to be so far from a mere Christian, engaged in none of the Sects, that are now amongst Christians, as to be of that Sect, which the residue of men so called, will scarce allow the name of Christian unto.
3. What he intends by the close of his Query, yea that there are such actions; An advance is evident in the words towards a farther negation of the knowledge of God, then what was before expressed. Before he says, God knows not our actions that are future contingent: Here, he knows not that there are such actions. The sense of this must be, either that God knows not that there any such actions, as may, or may not be, which would render him less knowing then M. B. who hath already told us, that such there be, or else that he knows not such actions when they are, at least without farther enquiring after them, and knowledge obtained, beyond what from his own in •• perfections, and Eternal purpose he is furnished withal In M Biddles next book or Catechism, I desire he would answer these questions also.
Now in this eudeavour of his, M. B. doth but follow his leaders. Socinus in his his Prelections, where the main of his design, is to vindicate man's free-will, into that latitude and absoluteness, as none before him had once aimed at, in his 8 th Chapter objects to himself this fore-knowledge of God, as that which seems to abridge, and cut short the liberty contended for; He Answers, that he grants not the fore-knowledge pretended, and proceeds, in that and the two following Chapters, laboring to answer all the Testimonyes, and Arguments which are insisted on for the proof and demonstration of it; giving his own Arguments against it, Chapter 11. Crellius is something more candid as he pretends, but indeed infected with the same venom with the other; for after he hath disputed for sundry pages, to prove the fore knowledge of God, he cōcludes at last, that for those things that are future contingent, he knows only, that they are so, & that possibly they may come to pass, possibly they may not. Of the rest of their Associates few have spoken expressly to this thing. Smalcius once and again manifests himself to consent with his Masters, in his disputations against Franzius, expressly consenting to what Socinus had written in his Prelections, and affirming the same thing himself, yea disputing eagery for the same opinion with him.
For the vindication of God's fore-knowledge, I shall proceed in the same order as before, in reference to the other Attributes of God, insisted on: viz. 1. What M. B. hath done, how he hath disposed of sundry places of Scripture for the proof of his assertion, with the sense of the places, by him so produced, is to be considered. 2. Another Question and Answer is to be supplied in the roomeof his. 3. The Truth vindicated, to be farther confirmed.
For the First.
In the proof of the Assertion proposed, Mr B. finds himself entangled more then ordinarily; though I confess his task in general be such, as no man, not made desperate by the loss of all, in a shipwreck of Faith, would once have undertaken. To have made good his proceeding according to his engagement, he was at least to have given us Texts of Scripture, express in the letter, as by him cut off from the state, condition, and co • erence, wherein by the Holy Ghost they are placed, for the countenancing of his assertion. But here, being not able to make any work in his method proposed, and boasted in, as signal and uncontroleable; no apex, or tittle in the Scripture, being pointed towards the denial of God's knowing anything, or all things, past, present, & to come: He moulds his Question into a peculiar fashion, and asks, whence, or from what place of Scripture may such a thing as he there averrs, be gathered? At once plainly declining the trial he had put himself upon, of infisting upon express Texts of Scripture only; not one, of the many quoted by him, speaking one word expressly to the business in hand, and laying himself naked to all consequences, rightly deduced from the Scripture, and expositions, given to the letter of some places, suitable to the proportion of Faith. That then which he would have, he tells you, is gathered from the places of Scripture subjoined; but how, by whom, by what consequence, with what evidence of Reason, it is so gathered, he tells you not. An understanding indeed informed with such gross conceptions of the nature of the Deity, as M. B. hath labored to insinuate into the minds of men, might gather from his collection of places of Scripture for his purpose in hand, that God is afraid, troubled, grieved, that he repenteth, altereth, and changeth his mind to and fro; but of his knowledge, or sore-knowledge of things, whether he have any such thing or not, there is not the least intimation; unless it be in this, that if he had any such fore-knowledge, he need not put himself to so much trouble and vexation, nor so change, and alter his mind, as he doth. And with such figments as these, (through the Infinite, Wise, and good Providence of God, punishing the wantonness of the minds, and lives of men, by giving them up to strong delusurs, and vain Imaginations, in the darkness of their foolish hearts, so far, as to change the glory of the incorruptible God, into the likeness of a corruptible, weak, ignorant, sinful man) are we now to deal.
But let the places themselves be considered. To these heads they may be referred, (1.) such as ascribe unto God fear, and being afraid. Deut. 32. 26, 27. Exod. 13. 17. Gen. 3. 22. 23. are of this sort. (2.) Repentance: 1 Sam. 15. 10, 11, ult. (3.) Change, or alteration of mind: Numb. 14. 27, 30. 1 Sam. 2. 30. (4.) Expectation, whether a thing will answer his desire or no: Isa. 5. 4. Conjecturing, Jerem. 36. 1, 2, 3. Ezek. 12. 1, 2. (5.) Trying of experiments, Judge. 3. 1, 4. Dan. 8. 2. 2 Chron. 32. 31. From all which and the like, it may, by M. B's direction and help, be thus gathered: If God be afraid of what is to come to pass, and repenteth him of what he hath done, when he finds it not to answer his expectation, if he sits divining, and onjecturing at events, being often deceived therein, and therefore tries and makes experiments, that he may be informed of the true state of things, then certainly he knows not the free actions of men, that are not yet come to pass. The Antecedent M. B. hath proved undeniably from ten texts of Scripture; and doubtless the consequent is easily to be gathered by any of his Disciples. Doubtless it is high time, that the old musty Catechisms or prejudicate persons, who scarce so much as once consulted with the Scripture in their composures, as being more engaged into factions, were removed out of the way, and burned, that this mere Christian, may have liberty to bless the growing Generation, with such notions of God, as the Idolatrous Pagans of old, would have scorned to have received.
But do not the Scriptures ascribe all the particulars mentioned unto God? Can you blame M. Biddle without reflection on them? If only what the Scripture affirms in the letter, and not the sense wherein, and the manner how it affirms it, (which considerations are allowed to all the writings, and speakings of the sons of men,) is to be considered, the End seeming to be aimed at in such undertakings, as this of M. B. namely, to induce the Atheistical spirits of the sons of men, to a contempt and scorn of them, and their Authority, will probably be sooner attained, then by the efficacy of any one engine raised against them in the worldbesides.
As to the matter under consideration; I have some few things in general to propose to M. Biddle, and then I shall descend to the particulars insisted on.
1. Then, I desire to know whether the things mentioned, as Fear, Griefe, Repentance, Trouble, Conjecturings, making trials of men for his own information, are ascribed properly to God, as they are unto men, or tropically and figuratively, with a condescension to us, to express the things spoken of, and not to describe the nature of God? If the first be said, namely, that these things are ascribed properly to God, and really signify of him, the things in us intended in them, then to what hath been spoken in the consideration taken of the foregoing Query, I shall freely add, for mine own part, I will not own, nor worship him for my God, who is truly and properly afraid what all the men in the world either will, or can do; who doth, can do, or hath done anything, or suffered anything to be done, of which he doth, or can truly and properly repent himself, with sorrow and grief for his mistake; or that sits in Heaven divining, and conjecturing at what men will do here below: and do know, that He whom I serve in my spirit, will famish and starve all such God's out of the world. But of this before. If these things are ascribed to God figuratively, & improperly, discovering the kind of his works, and dispensations, not his own Nature or Propertyes; I would fain know what inference can be made, or conclusion be drawn from such expressions, directly calling for a figurative interpretation? For instance, if God be said to repent that he had done such a thing, because such and such things are come to pass thereupon, if this Repentance in God, be not properly ascribed to him (as by M. B's own rule it is not) but denotes only an alteration & change in the works, that outwardly are of him, in an orderly subserviency to the in mutable •• posi of his will, what can thence be gathered to prove, that 〈◊〉 screseeth not the free actions of men? And this is the Issue of M. Biddles confirmation of the Thesis, couched in his Query insisted on, from the Scriptures.
2. I must crave leave once more to mind him of the Rule he hath given us in his Preface, viz That where a thing is improperly ascribed to God, in some other place it is denied of him; as he instances in that of his being weary: so that what ever is denied of him in any one place, is not properly ascribed to him in any other. Now, though God be said in some of the places by him produced, to repent; yet it is in another expressly said, that he doth not do so, and that upon such a general ground and Reason, as is equally exclusive of all those other passions, and affections, upon whose assignment unto God, the whole strength of M. Biddles plea against the Prescience of God doth depend. 1 Sam. 15. 29. Also the strength of Israel will not lie, no repent, for he is not a man that he should repent. The immutability of his nature, & unlikeness to men in obnoxiousness to alterations, is asserted as the reason of his not repenting; which will equally extend its force and efficacy, to the removal from him, of all the other human affections mentioned. And this second general consideration of the foundation of M. B's plea, is sufficient: for the removal of the whole.
3. I desire to know, whether indeed it is only the free actions of men that are not yet done, that M. B. denies to be known of God? Or whether he exclude him not also from the knowledge of the present state, frame and actings of the hearts of men, and how they stand affected towards him: being therein like other Rulers among men, who may judge of the good & evil actions of men, so far as they are manifest and evident, but how men in their hearts stand affected to them, their Rule Goverment, and Authority, they know not. To make this enquiry, I have not only the observation premised, from the words of the close of M. Biddles Query, being of a negative importance, ( yea that there are such actions ) but also from some of the proofs by him produced, of his former assertion, being interpreted according to the literiall significancy of the words, as exclusive of any figure, which he insisteth on. Of this sort is that of Gen. 22. 12, 10, 11, 12. where God is said to tempt Abraham, and upon the Issue of that trial says to him, (which words M. B. by putting them in a different character, points to, as comrehensive of what he intends to gather, & conclude from them) NOW I KNOW that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. The collection which M. B. guides unto from hence, is, that God knew not that which he inquired after, and therefore tempted Abraham that he might so do, and upon the issue of that trial says, now I know. But what was it that God affirms, that now he knew? Not anything future; not any free action, that was not as yet done; but something of the present condition and frame of his heart towards God: viz. His fear of God; not whether he would fear him, but whether he did fear him then. If this then be properly spoken of God, & really, as to the nature of the thing it self, then is he ignorant no less of things present, then of those that are for to come. He knows now who fears him, nor who hates him, unless he have opportunity to try them, in some such way as he did Abraham: And then what a God hath this man delineated to us? How like the dunghill Deities of the Heathen who speak after this rate. Doubtless the description that Elijah gave of Baal, would better suite him, then any of those divine Perfections, which the living, alseeing God, hath described himself by. But now if M. B. will confess, that God knows all the things that are present, & that this enquiry after the present frame of the heart and spirit of a man, is improperly ascribed to him, from the Analogy of his proceedings in his dealings with him, to that which we insist upon, when we would really find out what we do not know; then I would only ask of him, why those other expressons which he mentions, looking to what is to come, being of the same nature & kind with this, do not admit of yea call for the same kind of exposition and interpretation.
Neither is this the only place insisted on by M. B. where the inquiries ascribed unto God, & the tyall that he makes, is not in reference to things to come, but punctually to what is present. Deut. 8. 2. chap. 13. 3. The Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul. 2 Chron. 32. 31. God left him to try him, that he might know what was in his heart; and Phil. 4. 6. In everything let your request be made know to God. Let M. Biddle tell us now plainly, whether he suppose all these things to be spoken properly of God, and that indeed God knows not our hearts, the frame of them, nor what in them we desire and aim at, without some eminent trial & inquiry, or until we ourselves do make known what is in them unto him. If this be the man's mind (as it must be, if he be at any agreement with himself in his principles, concerning these scripturall Attributions unto God,) for my part, I shall be so far from esteeming him eminent, as a mere Christian, that I shall scarcely judge him comparable, as to his apprehensions of God, unto many that lived and died mere Pagans. To this sense also is applied that Property of God, that he trieth the hearts, as it is urged by M. Biddle from 1 Thes. 2. 4, that is, he maketh inquiry after what is in them, which but upon search and trial, he knoweth not. By what ways and means God accomplisheth this search, and whether hereupon he comes to a perfect understanding of our hearts, or no, is not expressed. John tells us, that God is greater then our hearts, and knoweth all things; and we have thought on that account, (with that of such farther discoveryes as he hath made of himself, and his Perfections unto us) that he had been said to search our hearts, not that himself, for his own information, needs any such formal process by way of trial and enquiry, but because really and indeed he doth that in himself, which men aim at in the accomplishment of their most diligent searches, and exactest trials.
And we may by the way see a little of this man's consistency with himself. Christ he denies to be God. A great part of his Religion consists in that negative. Yet of Christ it is said, that he knew all men, and needed not that any should testifyin of man, for he knew what was inman, John 2. 24, 25. and this is spoken in reference to that very thing in the hearts of men, which he would persuade us, that God knows not without inquiry. That is, upon the account of his not committing himself to those, as true Believers, whom yet upon the account of the profession they made, the Scripture calls so, and says, they believed in his name when they saw the miracels that he did, v. 23. Though they had such a veil of profession upon them, that the Holy Ghost would have us esteem them as Believers, yet Christ could look through it, into their hearts, and discover & know their frame, and whether in sincerity they loved him, and believed in his name or no; but this God cannot do, without enquiry and yet Christ (if we believe M. B.) was but a mere man, as he is a mere Christian. Further, it seems by this Gentleman, that unless we make known our requests to God; he knows not what we will ask. Yet we ask nothing but what is in our thoughts: and in the last query he instructs us, that God knows our thoughts, and doubtless knows M. Biddles to be but folly. Further yet, if God must be concluded ignorant of our desires, because we are bid to make our requests, known to him, He may be as well concluded forgetful of what himself hath spoken, because he bids us, put him in remembrance, and appoints some to be his Remembrancers: But to return.
This is the aspect of almost one half of the places produced by M. Biddle, towards the business in hand; if they are properly spoken of God, in the same sense as they are of man; they conclude him not to know things present, the frame of the heart of any man in the world towards himself, and his fear, nay the outward, open, notorious actions of men. So it is in that place of Gen. 18. 21. insisted on by Crellius, one of M. B's great Masters. I will go down and see (or know) whether they have done altogether according to the cry that is come up unto me. Yea the places which in their letter & outward appearance seem to ascribe that ignorance of things present unto God, are far more express and numerous, then those that in the least look forward to what is yet for to come, or was so, at their delivery. This progress then have we made under our Catechist, if we may believe him, as he insinvates his notions concerning God: God, sits in Heaven (glistering on a throne) whereunto he is limited, yea to a certain place therein, so as not to be elsewhere, being grieved, troubled, and perplexed, at the affairs done below which he doth know, making inquiry after what he doth not know, and many things, ( things future ) he knoweth not at all.
Before I proceed to the farther Consideration of that which is eminently, and expressly denied by M. Biddle. viz. God's foreknowledge of our free actions that are future, because many of his proofs, in the sense by him urged, seem to exclude him from an acquaintance with many things present, as in particular, the frame and condition of the hearts men, towards himself, as was observed; it may not be amiss, a little to confirm that Perfection of the knowledge of God as to those things, from the Scripture, which will abundantly also manifest, that the expressions insisted on by our Catechist, are metaphorical, and improperly ascribed to God. Of the eminent predictions in the Scripture, which relate unto things future, I shall speak afterwards. He knew, for he foretold the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Famine in Egypt, the selling and exaltation of Joseph. the Rain of David, the division of his Kingdom, the Babylonish captivity, the Kingdom of Cyrus, the return of his people, the state and ruin of the four great Empires of the world, the Wars, Plagues, Famines, Earthquakes, Divisions, which he manifestly foretold. But farther, he knows the frame of the hearts of men. He knew that the Keilites would deliver up David to Saul if he staid amongst them, which probably they knew not themselves, 1 Sam. 23. He knew that Hazael would murder women and infants, which he knew not himself. He knew that the Egyptians would afflict his People, though at first they entertained them with Honor, Gen. 15. 13. He knew Abraham, that he would instruct his household. Gen. 18. 19. He knew that some were obstinate, their neck an iron sinew, and their brow brass Isa. 48. 4. He knew the imagination, or figment of the heart of his People, Deut. 31. 21. That the Church of Laodicea (notwithstanding her profession) was lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, Rev. 3. 15. Man looketh on the outward appearance, God looketh on the heart, 1 Sam. 16. 7. He only knows the hearts of all the children of men, 1 Kings 8. 39. Hell and destruction are before the Lord, how much more then the hearts of the Sons of men. Prov. 15. 11. so also Prov. 24. 12. Jerem. 1. 9, 10. Ezek. 11. 5. Ps. 38. 9. Psal. 94. 11. Job. 31. 4. Math. 6. 4, 6, 8. Luk. 16. 15. Act. 1. 24. &c. Innumerable other places to this purpose may be insisted on: though it is a superisall to be put to prove, that God knows the hearts of the Sons of men. But to proceed to that which is more directly under consideration.
3. The sole foundation of M. Biddles insinuation, that God knows not our free actions that are future, being laid (as was observed,) on the assignation of Fear, Repentance, Expectation, & Conjecturing unto God, the consideration which hath already been had of those Attributions in the Scripture, and the causes of them, is abundanly sufficient to remove it out of the way, and to let his inference sink thither, whence it came. Doubtless never was painter so injurious to the Deity, who limned out the shape of an old man on a cloth or board, and after some disputes with himself, whether he should sell it for an emblem of winter, and then set it out as a representaton of God the Father, as this man is, in snatching God's own pencil out of his hand, & by it presenting him to the world in a gross, carnal, deformed shape. Plato would not suffer Homer in his Commonwealth, for entrenching upon the imaginary blessedness of their dunghill Deities; making Jupiter to grieve for the death of Sarpedon, Mars to be wounded by Diomedes, and to roar thereupon, with disputes & conjecturs in heaven among thenselves about the issue of the Trojan war: though he endeavors to salve all his heavenly solecismes, by many noble expressions, concerning purposes not unmeet for a Deity; telling us in the close and Issue of a most contingent affaire, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Let that man think of how much sorer punishment he shall be thought worthy (I speak of the great account he is one day to make) who shall persist in wresting the Scripture to his own destruction, to represent the living and incomprehensible God unto the world, trembling with fear, pale with anger, sordid with grief, and Repentance, perplexed with conjectures, and various expectations of events, and making a diligent enquiry after the things he knows not, that is altogether such an one as himself; let all who have the least reverence of and acquaintance with that Majesty, with whom we have to do, judge and determine. But of these things before.
4. The proposure of a Question to succeed in the room of that removed, with a Scriptural resolution thereof, in order to a discovery of what God himself hath revealed, concerning his knowledge of all things, is the next part of our employment. Thus then it may be framed.
Q. Doth not God know all things, whether past, present, or to come, all the ways, and actions of men, even before their accomplishment, or is anything hid from him? What says the Scripture properly and directly hereunto?
Ans. God is greater then our hearts, and knoweth all things, 1 John 3. 20. Neither is there any Creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked, and open to the eyes of him, with whom we have to do. Heb. 4. 12. He is a God of knowledge, 1 Sam. 2. 3. Thou knowest my downsitting, and mine uprising, thou understandest my thoughts a far off. Thou compassest my paths, and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways, for there is not a word in my tongue but O Lord thou knowest it altogether: Psal. 139. 2, 3, 4, 5. Great is our Lord, and of great power his understanding is Infinite, Psal. 141. 5. Who hath directed the spirit of the Lord, or being his Counselor hath taught him? With whom took he Council, or who instructed him, and taught him in the paths of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shown to him the way of understanding? Isa. 40. 13, 14. There is no searching of his understanding v. 28. Ro. 11. 34, 35, 36. of him are all things; And Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the World, Act. 15. 18, &c.
Of the Undeniable evidence and conviction of God's Prescience or Foreknowledge of future contingents, from His predictions of their coming to pass, with other demonstrations of the Truth under consideration, attended with their several testimonies from Scripture, the close of this discourse will give a further Account.
It remains only, that according to the way and method formerly insisted on, I give some farther Account of the Perfection of God pleaded for, with the Arguments wherewith it is farther evidenced to us, and so to proceed to what followeth.
1. That Knowledge is proper to God, that testimony of the Scripture unto the excellency and perfection of the thing it self, doth sufficiently evince. I cannot tell (says the Apostle) God knoweth 2 Cor. 12. 2, 3. It is the General voice of Nature, upon relation of anything that to us is hid, and unknown, that the Apostle there makes mention of; GOD KNOWETH. That he knows the things that are past, M. B. doth not question. That at least also some things that are present, yea some thoughts of our hearts are known to him, eh doth not deny. It is not my intendment to engage in any curious Scholastical discourse about the understanding, science, knowledge, or Wisdom of God; nor of the way of God's knowing things, in, and by, his own Essence through simple intuition. That which directly is opposed, is his knowledge of our free actions, which in respect of their second & immediate caudses, may, or may not be. This therefore I shall briefly explain, and confirm the truth of it, by Scripture Testimonyes, and Arguments from right Reason, not to be evaded, without making head against all God's infinite perfections; having already demonstrated, that all that which is insisted on by M. B. to oppose it, is spoken metaphorically, and improperly to God.
That God doth fore-see all future things was amongst mere Pagans so acknowledged, as to be looked on as a common notion of mankind: So Zenophon tells us; That both Grecians and Barbarians consented in this, that the God's knew all things present, and to Come. And it may be worth our observation, that whereas Crellius, one of the most learned of this Gentleman's Masters, distinguisheth between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , affirming; that God knows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which though future are necessarily so, yet he knows not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which are only (says he) likely sto to be; Zenophon plainly affirms, that all Nations consent, that he knows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And this knowledge of his (saith that great Philosopher,) is the foundation of the Prayers and supplications of men, for the obtaining of good, or the avoiding of evil. Now that one calling himself a mere Christian, should oppose a perfection of God, that a mere Pagan affirms all the world to acknowledge to be in him, would seem somewhat strange, but that we know all things do not answer, or make good, the names whereby they are called.
For the clearer handling of the matter under considerration, the Termes wherein it is proposed are a little to be explained.
1. That Prescience, of Fore-knowledge is attributed to God, the Scripture testifieth. Act. 2. 23. Rom. 8. 29. chap. 11. 2. 1 Pet. 1. 2. are proofs hereof. The term indeed (Foreknowing) rather relates to the things known, and the order wherein they stand one to another, and among themselves, then is properly expressive of God's knowledge. God knows all things as they are; and in that order wherein they stand. Things that are past, as to the order of the creatures, which he hath appointed to them, and the works of Providence, which outwardly are of him, he knows as past: not by Remembrance as we do, but by the same act of knowledge, wherewith he knew them from all Eternity, even before they were. Their existence in time, and being cast by the successive motion of things, into the number of the things that are past, denote an alteration in them, but not at all in the knowledge of God. So it is also in respect of things future. God knows them in that esse intelligible which they have, as they may be known and understood; and how that is, shall afterwards be declared. He sees and knows them as they are, when they have that respect upon them of being futures when they loose this respect by their actual existence, he knows them still as before. They are altered, his knowledge, his understanding it infinite, and changeth not.
2. God's knowledge of things is either of Simple intelligence (as usually it is phrased) or of vision The first is his knowledge of all possible things; that is, of all that he himself can do. That God knows himself, I suppose will not be denied. An Infinite Understanding knows thoroughly all Infinite Perfections. God then knows his own power, or Omnipotency, and thereby knows all that he can do. Infinite science must know (as I said) what Infinite p • wer can extend unto. Now what ever God can do is possible to be done; that is, whatever hath not in itself a repugnancy to being, Now that many things may be done by the power of God, that yet are not, nor ever shall be done, I suppose is not denied. Might he not make a new world? Hence ariseth the Attribution of the knowledge of simple intelligence, before mentioned, unto God. In his own infinite understanding he sees, and knows all things, that are possible to be done by his power, would his good pleasure concur to their production.
Of the world of things possible which God can do, some things, even all that he pleaseth, are future. The creation it self, and all things that have had a being since, were so future before their creation. Had they not sometimes been future, they had never been. What ever is, was to be, before it was. All things that shall be to the end of the world are now future. How things which were only possible in relation to the power of God, come to be future, and in what respect, shall be briefly mentioned. These things God knoweth also. His science of them is called, of vision. He sees them, as things which in their proper order shall exist. In a word, Scientia Visionis, and Simplicis Intelligentiae, may be considered in a threefold relation; that is, in ordine ad objectum, mensuram, modum. 1. Scientia Visionis hath for its object things past, present, and to come, whatsoever had, hath, or will have actual being. 2. The measure of this knowledge is his will: because he will, & decree of God only make those things future, which were but possible be fore, therefore we say scientia visions fundatur in voluntate. 3. For the manner of it, it is called scientia libera, quia fundatur in voluntate, as necessarily presupposing a free act of the divine will, which makes things future, and so objects of this kind of knowledge. 2. That scientia, which we call simplicis intelligentiae; the object of it is, possible, the measure of it, Omnipotency; for by it he knows all he can do; & for the manner of it, 'tis scientia necessaria, quia non fundatur in voluntate, sed potestate; (say the Schoolmen) seeing by it he knows not what he will, but what he can do. Of that late figment, of a middle science in God, arising neither from the infinite Perfection of his own being, as that of simple intelligence, nor yet attending his free purpose and decree, as that of Vision, but from a consideration of the second causes that are to produce the things fore known, in their kind, order, and dependence, I am not now to treat. And with the former kind of knowledge it is, or rather in the former way, (the knowledge of God being simply one and the same) is it, that we affirm him to know the things that are future, of what sort soever, or all things before they come to pass.
3. The things inquired after are commonly called contingent. Contingencyes are of two sorts.
- 1. Such as are only so.
- 2. Such as are also free.
1. Such as are only so, are contingent only in their effects: such is the falling of a stone from an house, and the killing of a man thereby. The Effect it self was contingent, nothing more; the cause necessary; the stone being loosed from what detained it upon the house, by its own weight necessarily falling to the ground. (2.) That which is so contingent, as to be also free, is contingent both in respect of the Effect, and of its Causes also. Such was the Soldiers piercing of the side of Christ. The effect was contingent, such a thing might have been done, or not: and the cause also, for they chose to do it, who did it, and in respect of their own elective faculty, might not have chosen it. That a man shall write, or ride, or speak to another person tomorrow, the Agent being free, is contingent, both as to the cause, and to the effect. About these is our principal enquiry; and to the knowledge of God, which he is said to have of them, is the opposition most expressly made by M. B. Let this then be our conclusion.
God perfectly knows all the free actions of men, before they are wrought by them; all things that will be done, or shall be to all Eternity, though in their own natures contingent, and wrought by agents free in their working, are known to him from Eternity.
Some previous observations will make way for the clear proof and demonstration of this truth. Then
1. God certainly knows everything that is to be known: that is, everything that is scibile. If there be in the nature of things an impossibility to be known, they cannot be known by the divine understanding. If anything be scibile, or may be known, the not knowing of it, is his imperfection if he knows it nor. To God this cannot be ascribed, ( viz. that he should not know what is to be known) without the destruction of his Perfection. He shall not be my God, who is not infinitely! Perfect. He who wants anything to make him blessed in himself, can never make the fruition of himself the blessedness of others.
2. Every thing that hath a determinate cause is scibile, may be known, though future, by him that perfectly knows that cause, which doth so determine the thing to be knwn unto existence. Now Contingem things, the free Actions of men, that yet are not, but in respect of themselves may or may not be, have such a determinate cause of their existence, as that mentioned. It is true, in respect of their immediate causes, as the wills of men, they are contingent, and may be, or not be; but that they have such a cause as before spoken of, is evident from the light of this consideration. In their own time and order they are: now what ever is at any time, was future; before it was, it was to be. If it had not been future, it had not now been. Its present existence is sufficient demonstration of the futurition it had before. I ask then, whence it came to be future; that that action was rather to be, then a thousand others, that were as possible as it? For instance, that the side of Christ should be pierced with a spear, when it was as possible in the nature of the thing it self, and of all secondary causes, that his head should be cut off. That then which gives any action a futurition, is that determinate cause wherein it may be known, whereof we speak. Thus it may be said of the same thing, that it is contingent, and determined, without the least appearance of contradiction, because it is not spoken with respect to the same things, or causes.
3. The determinate cause of contingent things, that is, things that are future, (for everything when it is, and as it is, is necessary) is the Will of God himself concerning their Existence and Being, either by his efficiency and working, as all good things in every kind, (that is, that are either Morally or Physically so, in which latter sense, all the actions of men, as actions, are so or by his permission, which is the condition of things Morally evil, or of the irregularity and obliquity attending those actions, upon the account of their relation to a Law, which in themselves are Entitative and Physically good, as the things were which God at first created. Whether anything come to pass, besides the will of God, and contrary to his purpose, will not be disputed with any advantage of Glory to God, or honor to them that shall assert it. That in all events the will of God is fulfilled, is a common notion of all rational creatures. So the accomplishment of his determinate council, is affirmed by the Apostle, in the issue of that mysterious dispensation, of the crucifying of his Son. That of Jam. 4. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , intimats God's will to be extended to all actions, as actions, whatever. Thus God knew, before the world was made, or anything that is in it, that there would be such a world, and such things in it: yet then the making of the world, nothing was more free or contingent. God is not a necessary Agent, as to any of the works, that outwardly are of him: whence then did God know this? Was it not from his own decree, and eternal purpose, that such a world there should be? And if the knowledge of one contingent thing be from hence, why not of all? In brief, these future contingencyes depend on something for their existence, or they come forth into the world in their own strength and upon their own account, not depending on any other. If the latter, they are God; if the former, the will of God, or old fortune, must be the Principle on which they do depend.
4. God can work with contingent causes, for the accomplishment of his own will, and purposes, without the least prejudice to them, either as causes, or as free, and contingent. God moves not, works not in, or with any second causes, to the producing of any effect, contrary, or not agreeable, to their own natures. Notwithstanding any predetermination, or operation of God, the wills of men in the production of everyone of their actions, are at as perfect liberty, as a cause in dependence of another, is capable of. To say it is not in-dependence, is Atheism. The purpose of God, the council of his will concerning anything, as to its existence, gives a necessity of infa • libillity to the event, but changes not the manner of the second causes operation, be it what it will. That God cannot accomplish and bring about his own purposes by free and contingent agents, without the destruction of the natures he hath endued them withal, is a figment, unworthy the thoughts of any, who indeed acknowledge his Sovereignty and power.
5. The Reason why M. B's companions in his undertakings, as others that went before him of the same mind, do deny this fore-knowledge of God, they express on all occasions to be, that the granting of it is prejudicial to that absolute independent liberty of will, which God assigns to men; so Socinus pleads Praelect. Theol. c. 8. Thus far I confess more accurately then the Arminians. These pretend (some of them at least) to grant the Prescience of God, but yet deny his determinate Decrees, and purposes on the same pretence that the other do his Prescience, viz. Of their Prejudiciallnesse to the free will of man. Socinus discourses, (wich was no difficult task) that the fore-knowledge of God is as inconsistent with that independent liberty of will, and contingency, which he, and they had fancied, as the predetermination of his will; and therefore rejects the former as well as the latter. It was Augustine's complaint of old concerning Cicero, that ita fecit homines liberos, ut fecit etiam sacrilegos. Cicero was a mere Pagan; and surely our complaint against any that shall close with him in this attempt, under the name of a mere Christian, will not be less just then that of Augustine. For mine own part, I am fully resolved, that all the liberty and freedom, that as creatures we are capable of, is eminently consistent with God's absolute decrees, and infallible fore-knowledge. And if I should hesitate in the apprehension thereof, I had rather ten thousand times deny our wills to be free, then God to be omniscient, the sovereign disposer of all men, their actions, and concernments, or to say that anything comes to pass, without, against, or contrary to the counsel of his will. But we know through the godnesse of God, that these things have their consistency, and that God may have preserved to him the glory of his infinite Perfection, and the will of man not at all abridged of its due and proper liberty.
These things being premised, the proof & demonstration of the truth proposed lies ready at hand, in the ensuing particulars;
1. He who knows all things, knows the things that are future though contingent. In saying they are things future and contingent, you grant them to be among the number of things; as you do those which you call things past: But that God knows all things, hath already been abundantly confirmed out of Scriptures. Let the Reader look back on some of the many texts and places, by which I gave answer to the Query, about the Fore-knowledge of God, and he will find abundantly enough for his satisfaction, if he be of those that would be satisfied, and dares not carelessly make bold to trample upon the Perfections of God. Take some few of them to a review. 1 John 3. 20. God is greater then our hearts, and knoweth all things. Even we know things past and present: If God knoes only things of the same kind, his knowledge may be greater then ours by many degrees, but you cannot say his understanding is infinite; there is not on that supposition an infinite distance between his knowledge and ours, but they stand in some measurable proportion. Heb. 4. 13. All things are open and naked before him with whom we have to do. Not that which is to come, not the free actions of men that are future, saith M. Biddle. But to distinguish thus, when the Scripture doth not distinguish, and that to the great dishonor of God, is not to interpret the Word, but to deny it. Acts 15. 18. Known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world. I ask, whether God hath anything to do in the free actions of men? For instance, had he anything to do in the sending of Joseph into Egypt, his exaltation there, and the entertainment of his Fathers household afterwards by him in his greatness and power? All which were brought about by innumerable contingencyes, and free actions of men: if he had not, why should we any longer depend on him, or regard him in the several transactions, & concernements of our lives?
If he had to do with it, as Joseph thought he had, when he affirmed plainly, that God sent him thither, and made him a Father to Pharaoh, and his house, then the whole was known to God before; for known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world. And if God may know any one free action before hand, he may know all; for there is the same reason of them all. Their contingency is given as the only cause, why they may not be known; now every action that is contingent, is equally interested therein: a quatenus ad omne valet argumentum. That place of the Psalm before recited Psal. 139. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. is express, as to the knowledge of God concerning our free actions, that are yet future. If anything in the world may be reckoned amongst our free actions, surely our thoughts may: and such a close reserved treasure are they, that M. B. doth more then insinuate in the application of the texts of Scripture, which he mentioneth, that God knoweth them not when present, without search and inquiry. But these (saith the Psalmist,) God knows afar off, before we think them; before they enter into our hearts. And truly I marvel, that any man, not wholly given up to a spirit of giddiness, after he had produced this Text of Scripture, to prove that God knows our thoughts, should instantly subjoin a Question, leading men to a persuasion, that God knows not our free actions, that are future: unless it was with a Julian design, to impair the credit of the Word of God, by pretending it liable to self-contradiction; or with Lucian to deride God, as bearing contrary Testimonies concerning himself.
2. God hath by himself and his Holy Prophets, which have been from the foundation of the world, fore-told many of the free actions of men, what they would do, what they should do, long before they were borne who were to do them. To give a little light to this Argument, which of it self will easily overwhelm all that stands before it, I shall handle it under these propositions.
1. That God hath so fore-told the free actions of men.
2. That so he could not do unless he knew them, and that they would be, then when he foretold them.
3. That he proves himself to be God by these his predictions.
4. That he foretells them as the means of executing many of his Judgments, which he hath purposed and threatened, and the accomplishment of many mercies, which he hath promised; so that the denial of his foresight of them, so exempts them from under his Providence, as to infer, that he rules not in the world by punishments and rewards.
For the first.
1. There need no great search or inquiry after witnesses to confirm the truth of it; the Scripture is full of such predictions from one end to the other: some few instances shall suffice: Gen. 18. 18, 19. Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty Nation, and all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed in him; For I know him, that he will command his Children, and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do Justice and Judgment; that the Lord may bring upon upon Abraham, that which he hath spoken of him. Scarce a word but is expressive of some future contingent thing, if the free actions of men be so, before they are wrought. That Abraham should become a mighty nation: that the nations of the Earth should be Blessed in him: that he would command his Children, and household after him to keep the ways of the Lord; it was all to be brought about by the free actions of Abraham, and of others; and all this I know saith the Lord, and accordingly declares it. By the way, if the Lord knew all this before, his following trial of Abraham was not to satisfy himself whether he feared him or no, as is pretended.
So also Gen. 15. 13, 14. And he said unto Abraham, know of a surety that they seed shall be a stranger in a Land that is not theirs, and they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years: And also that Nation which they shall seive will I Judge: and they shall come out with great substance. The Egyptians affliction on the Israelites was by their free actions, if any be free: It was their sin to do it: they sinned in all that they did for the effecting of it. And doubtless if any, men's sinful actions are free; yet these doth God here fore tell; they shall afflict them.
Deut. 31. 16, 17, 18. you have an instance beyond all possible exception. And the Lord said unto Moses, behold thou shalt s •• pe with thy Fathers, & this People will rise up, and go a whoring after the God's of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be amongst them, and will forsake me, and break my commandments. Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not amongst us? &c. The sum of a good part of what is recorded in the book of Judges, is here foretold by God. The people's going a whoring after the God's of the strangers of the Land; their forsaking of God, their breaking his Covenant, the thoughts of their hearts, & their expressions, upon the consideration of the evils and afflictions that should befall them, were of their free actions: but now all these doth God here foretell; and thereby engages the honor of his Truth, unto the certainty of their coming to pass.
1 Kings 13. 2. is signal to the same purpose: Behold a child shall be borne unto the house of David, Josiah by name, and upon thee shall he offer the Priests of the High places, that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt on thee. This prediction is given out 300 years before the birth of Josiah. The accomplishment of it you have in the story 2 Kings 23. 17. Did Josiah act freely? Was his proceeding at Bethel by free actions, or no? If not, how shall we know what actions of men are free, what not? If it was, his free actions are here foretold, and therefore (I think) fore scen.
1 Kings 22. 28. The Prophet- Micaiah in the name of the Lord, having fore told a thing that was contingent, and which was accomplished by a man acting at a venture, lays the credit of his Prophesy, and therein his life, (For if he had proved false as to the event, he was to have suffered death by the Law,) at stake before all the people, upon the certainty of the Issue fore-told. And Micaiah said, if then return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken at all by me. And he said, hear all ye people.
Of these predictions the Scripture is full. The Prophesyes of Cyrus in Isaiah; of the issue of the Babylonish War, and Kingdom, in Jeremiah; of the several great alterations and changes in the Empires of the world, in Daniel, of the Kingdom of Christ in them all, are too long to be insisted on. The Reader may also consult Math. 24. 5. Mark, 13. 6. Mark. 14. 30. Act. 20. 29. 2 Thes. 2. 3, 4. &c. 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2 Tim. 3. 1. 2 Pet. 2. 1. And the Revelation almost throughout. Our first proposition then is undeniably evident, that God by himself, and by his Prophets, hath fore-told things future, even the free-actions of men.
2. The second Proposition mentioned is manifest, and evident in its own Light. What God fore-telleth, that he perfectly fore-knows. The honor and repute of his Veracity, and Truth, yea of his Being, depend on the certain accomplishment of what he absolutely fore-tells. If his predictions of things future are not bottomed on his certain Prescience of them, they are all but like Satan's Oracles, conjectures, and guesses of what may be accomplished or not; a supposition whereof, is as high a pitch of blasphemy as any creature in this world can possibly arrive unto.
3. By this Prerogative of certain predictions, in reference to things to come, God vindicates his own Deity; and from the want of it convinces the vanity of the Idols of the Gentiles, and the falseness of the Prophets that pretend to speak in his name. Isa. 41. 21, 22, 23, 24. Produce your cause, saith the Lord, bring forth, your strong Reasons, saith the King of Jacob: let them bring then forth, and show us what shall happen, let them show the former things what they be, or delare us things for to come: Show the things which are to cme hereafter, that we may know ye are God's. Behold you are of nothing. The Lord calling forth the Idols of the Gentiles, Devils, Stocks, and Stones, to plead for themselves, before the denunciation of the solemn sentence ensuing, v. 24. He puts them to the plea of fore-knowledge for the proof of their Deity. If they can fore-tell things to come certainly and infallibly, on the account of their own knowledge of them, God's they are, and God's they shall be esteemed. If not (saith he) you are nothing, worse then nothing, and your work is of naught, and he is an Abomination that chooseth you. And it may particularly be remarked, that the Idols, of whom he speaketh, are in especial those of the Chaldeans, whose worshippers pretended above all men in the world to Divination, and Predictions. Now this issue doth the Lord drive things to betwixt himself, and the Idols of the world; If they can fore-tell things to come, that is, not this, or that thing, (for so by conjecture, upon consideration of second causes, and the general dispositions of things, they may do, and the Devil hath one) but anything, or everything, they shall go free, that is, is there nothing hid from you that is yet for to be? Being not able to stand before this interrogation, they perish before the Judgment mentioned. But now if it may be replied to the Living God himself, that this is a most unequal way of proceeding, to lay that burden upon the shoulders of others, which himself will not bear; bring others to that trial, which himself cannot undergo, for he himself cannot fore-tell the free-actions of men, because he doth not foreknow them, would not his plea render him like to the Idols, whom he adjudgeth to shame and confusion? God himself there concluding, that they are vanity and nothing, who are pretended to be God's, but are not able to fore-tell the things that are for to come, asserts his own Deity, upon the account of his Infinite Understanding, and Knowledge of all things, on the account whereof he can foreshow all things whatever, that are as yet future. In like manner doth he proceed to evince what is from himself, what not, in the Predictions of any, from the certainty of the event. Deut. 18. 21, 22. If thou say in thine heart, how shall we know the word that the Lord hath not spoken, when a Prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.
4. The fourth Proposition, that God by the free actions of men (some whereof he fore telleth,) doth fulfill his own counsel as to Judgments, and Mercyes, Rewards, and Punishments, needs no farther proof nor confirmation, but what will arise from a mere review of the things before mentioned, by God so foretold, as was to be proved. They were things of the greatest import in the World, as to the good or evil of the inhabitants thereof; & in whose accomplishment as much of the Wisdom, Power, Righteousness, and Mercy of God was manifest, as in any of the works of his Providence what ever. Those things which he hath disposed of, as to be subservient to so great ends, certainly he knew that they would be. The selling of Joseph, the crucyfying of his Son, the destruction of Antichrist, are things of greater concernment, then that God should only conjecture at their event. And indeed the taking away of God's fore-knowledge of things contingent, renders his Providence useless, as to the government of the World. To what end should any rely upon him, seek unto him, commit themselves to his care through the course of their lives, when he knows not what will, or may befall them the next day? How shall he Judge, or rule the world, who every moment is surprised with new emergencyes, which he foresaw not, which must necessitate him to new counsels and determinations? On the consideration of this Argument doth Episcopius conclude for the Prescience of God, Epist. 2. ad Beverovicium de termino vitae, which he had allowed to be questioned in his private Theological Disputations, though in his public afterwards he plead for it. The sum of the Argument insisted on, amounts to this,
Those things which God foretells, that they shall certainly and infallibly come to pass; before they so do, those he certainly and infallibly knoweth, whilst they are future, and that they will come to pass.
But God foretells, and hath foretold all manner of future contingencies, and free Actions of men, good and evil, duties, and sins, therefore he certainly and infallibly knows them, whilst they are yet future.
The Proposition stands and falls unto the honor of God's Truth, Veracity, and Power.
The Assumption is proved by the former, and sundry other instances that may be given.
He foretold, that the Egyptians should afflict his People 400 years, that in so doing they would sin, and that for it he would punish them, Gen: 15. 13, 14, 15, 16. And surely the Egyptians sinning therein, was their own free action. The incredulity of the Jews, treachery of Judas, calling of the Gentiles, all that happened to Christ in the days of his flesh, the coming of Antichrist, the rise of false teachers, were all fore-told, and did all of them purely depend on the free actions of men: which was to be demonstrated.
3. To omit many other Arguments, and to close this discourse; All perfections are to be ascribed to God, they are all in him. To know is an excellency: He that knows anything, is therein better then he that knows it not. The more any one knows, the more excellent is he. To know all things is an absolute perfection in the good of knowledge: to know them in, and by himself, who so knows them, & not from any discourses, made to him from without, is an absolute perfection in it self, and is required where there is Infinite Wisdom and Understanding. This we ascribe to God, as worthy of him, as by himself ascribed to himself. To affirm on the other side (1.) That God hath his knowledge from things without him, and so is taught Wisdom and Understanding, as we are, from the events of things, for the more any one knows the wiser he is. (2.) That he hath (as we have) a successive knowledge of things, knowing that one day, which he knew not another, and that thereupon there is (3.) A daily and hourly change, and alterati • n in him, as from the increasing of his knowledge there must actually and formally be; and that he (4.) sits conjecturing at events, To assert I say, these and the like monstrous figments, concerning God, and his Knowledge, is as much as in them lieth, who so assert them, to shut his Providence out of the World, and to devest him of all his Blessedness, self sufficiency, and infinite Perfections. And in deed if M. B. believe his own principles, and would speak out, he must assert these things, how desperate soever; for having granted the premises, 'tis stupidity to stick at the conclusion. And therefore some of those whom M. B. is pleased to follow in these wild vagaries, speak out, and say, (though with as much blasphemy as confidence) that God doth only conjecture, and guess at future contingents. For when this Argument is brought, Gen. 18. 19. I know (saith God) Abraham will command his Children after him, &c. Therefore future contingents may be certainly known of him. They deny the consequence, and granting that he may be said to know them, yet say 'tis only by guess, and conjecture, as we do. And for the present vindication of the Attributes of God this may suffice.
Before I close this discourse, it may not be impertinent to divert a little to that, which alone seems to be of any difficulty, lying in our way, in the assertion of this Prescience of God, though no occasion of its consideration be administered to us by him, with whom we have to do.
That future contingents have not in themselves a determinate truth, and therefore cannot be determinately known, is the great plea of those, who oppose God's certain Fore-knowledge of them: and therefore say they, doth the Philosopher affirm, that propositions concerning them, are neither true nor false. But
1. That there is, or may be, that there hath been, a certain prediction of future contingents, hath been demonstrated, and therefore they must on some account or other, (and what that account is hath been declared) have a determinate Truth. And I had much rather conclude, that there are certain predictions of future contingents in the Scripture, and therefore they have a determinate truth: Then on the contrary, they have no determinate Truth, therefore there are no certain predictions of them: Let God be true, and every man a liar.
2. As to the falsity of that pretended Axiom: This proposition, Such a Soldier shall pierce the side of Christ, with a Spear, or he shall not pierce him, is determinately true, and necessary, on the one side or the other, the parts of it being contradictory, which cannot be together. Therefore if a man before the Flood had used this Proposition in the affirmative, it had been certainly and determinately true; for that Proposition, which was once not true, cannot be true afterward upon the same account.
3. If no affirmative Proposition, about future contingents, be determinately true, then every such affirmative proposition is determinately false; for from hence, that a thing is, or is not, is a proposition determinately true or false. And therefore if any one shall say, that that is determinately future, which is absolutely indifferent, his affirmation is false; which is contrary to Aristotle, whom in this they rely upon, who affirms, that such Propositions are neither true nor false. The Truth is, of propositions that they are true or false, is certain. Truth, or Falseness are their proper & necessary affections, as even and odd of numbers: nor can any proposition be given, wherein there is a contradiction, whereof one part is not true, and the other false.
4. This Proposition, Petrus or at, is determinately true de presenti, when Peter doth actually pray: (for quiequid est, dum est, determinate est ) therefore this proposition de futuro, Petrus orabit, is determinately true. The former is the measure and rule, by which we judge of the latter. So that because 'tis true de presenti, Petrus orat, Ergo, This ( de futuro) Petrus orabit, was ab aeterno true ( ex parte rei ) and then ( ex parte modi ) because this Proposition Petrus orat, is determinately true de presenti: Ergo, This Petrus orabit, was determinately true from all eternity. But enough of this.
M. B. having made a sad complaint of the ignorance and darkness that men were bred up in, by being led from the Scripture, and imposing himself upon them for a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructer of the foolish, and a teacher of the babes, doth in persuit of his great undertakinge, in this Chapter instruct them, what the Scripture speaks concerning the Being, Nature, and Prope • tyes of God. Of his Goodness, Wisdom, Power, Truth, Righteousness, Faithfullnesse, Mercy, Independency, Sovereignty, Infiniteness, men had before been informed, by Books, Tracts, and Catechisms, composed according to the fancyes and interests of men, the Scripture being utterly justled out of the way: Alas of these things the Scriptures speaks not at all: but the description wherein that abounds of God, and which is necessary that men should know, (whatever become of those other inconsiderable things, wherewith other poor Catechisms are stuffed) is, that he is finite, limited, and obnoxious to Passions, &c. Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit Sacrilege.
CAP. VI.
Of the Creation, and Condition of man before, and after the fall.
Mr BIDDLE'S 3d Chapter.
Qu. WEre the Heaven and Earth from all eternity, or created at a certain time? And by whom?
A. Gen. 1. 1.
Q. How long was God a making them?
A. Exod. 20. 11.
Q. How did God create man?
A. Gen. 2. 7
Q. How did he create Woman?
A. Gen. 2. 21, 22.
Q. Why was she called Woman?
A. Gen. 2. 23.
Q. What doth Moses infer from her being made a woman, and brought unto the man?
A. Gen 2. 24.
Q. Where did God put man, after he was created?
A. Gen 2. 8.
Q What commandment gave he to the man, when he put him into the Garden?
A. Gen. 2. 16, 17.
Q. Was the man deceived to eat of the forbidden fruit?
A. 1 Tim. 2. 14.
Q. By whom was the woman deceived?
A. 2 Cor. 11. 3.
Q. How was the Woman induced to eat of the forbidden fruit? And how the Man?
A. Gen. 3. 6.
Q. What effect followed upon their eating?
A. Gen. 3. 7.
Q. Did the sin of our First Parents in eating of the forbidden fruit, bring both upon them, and their posterity, the guilt of Hell-fire, deface the Image of God in them, darken their understanding, enslave their will, deprive them of power to do good, and cause mortality? If not, what are the true penalties that God denounced against them for the said offense?
A. Gen. 3. 16, 17, 18, 19.
EXAMINATION.
HAving delivered his thoughts concerning God Himself, His Nature, and Propertyes, in the foregoing Chapters; in this our Catechist proceeds to the consideration of his Works, ascribing to God the Creation of all things, especially insisting on the making of man. Now although many questions might be proposed, from which M, B. would (I suppose) be scarcely able to extricate himself, relating to the impossibility of the proceeding of such a Work, as the Creation of all things, from such an Agent as he hath described God to be, so limited both in his Essence and Propertyes; Yet, it being no part of my business, to dispute, or perplex anything, that is simply in its self true, and unquestionable, with the attendencyes of it from other corrupt notions of him, or them, by whom it is received, and proposed, I shall wholly omit all considerations of that nature, and apply myself merely to what is by him expressed. That He who is limited & finite in Essence, and consequently in Propertyes, should by his power, without the help of any intervening instrument, out of nothing produce, at such a vast distance from him, as his hands can by no means reach unto, such mighty effects, as the earth it self, and the fullness thereof, is not of an easy proof or resolution. But on these things at present I shall not insist: Certain it is, that on this apprehension of God, the Epicureans disputed for the impossibility of the Creation of the world.
Were the Heavens and Earth from all eternity, or Created at a certain time? And by whom?
To which he answers with Gen. 1. 1. In the Beginning God created Heaven and Earth.
Right! only in the Exposition of this verse, as it discovers the principal efficient cause of the Creation of all things, or the Author of this great work, M. B. afterwards expounds himself to differ from us, and the Word of God, in other places. By ( God ) he intends the Father only, and exclusively; the Scripture plentifully ascribing this Work also to the Son, and Holy Ghost, manifesting their concurrence in the indivisible Deity unto this great work; though by the way of Eminency, this work be attributed to the Father, as that of Redemption is to the Son, and that of Regeneration to the Holy Ghost; from neither of which notwithstanding is the Father excluded.
Perhaps the using of the name of God in the plural number, where mention is made of the Creation, in conjunction with a Verb singular, Gen. 1. 1. and the express calling of God our Creators and Makers, Eccles. 12. 1. Psal. 149. 2. Job. 35. 10. wants not a significancy to this thing. And indeed, he that shall consider the miserable evasions, that the Adversaries have invented, to escape the Argument thence commonly insisted on, must needs be confirmed in the persuasion of the force of it, M. Biddle may hapily close with Plato in this business; Who in his Timaeus brings in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , speaking to his Genii about the making of man; telling them that they were mortal, but encouraging them to obey him, in the making of other creatures upon the promise of immortality. Turn you (saith he) according to the Law of nature to the making of living Creatures, and imitate my power, which I used in your Generation, or birth. A speech fit enough for M. B's God, who is shut up in Heaven, and not able of himself to attend his whole business. But what a sad success this Demiurgus had, by his want of Prescience, or fore-sight of what his Daemons would do, (wherein also M. Biddle likens God unto him) is farther declared: for they imprudently, causing a conflux of too much matter and humor, no small tumult followed thereon in Heaven, as at large you may see in the same Author. However, it is said expressly the Son or Word created all things, John 1. 3. and by him are all things, 1 Cor. 8. 6. Revel. 4. 11. Of the Holy Ghost the same is affirmed, Gen. 1. 2. Job. 26. 13. Psal. 33. 6. Nor can the Word and Spirit be degraded from the place of Principal efficient cause in this Work, to a condition of instrumentallity only, which is urged, (especially in reference to the Spirit) unless we shall suppose them to have been created before any creation, and to have been instrumental of their own production. But of these things in their proper place.
Q. His second question is, How long was God a making them? And he answers from Exod. 20. 11. In six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, the Sea, and all that is in them.
The rule formerly I prescribed to myself of dealing with M. B. causes me to pass this Question also, without farther inquiry; although having already considered what his notions are, concerning the Nature and Propertyes of God, I can scarce avoid conjecturing, that by this crude proposal of the Time, wherein the work of God's Creation was finished, there is an intendment, to insinuate such a gross conception of the working of God, as will by no means be suited to his omnipotent production of all things. But speaking of things no farther then enforced, I shall not insist on this Query.
Q. His third is, How did God Create man? And the Answer is, Gen. 2. 7. To which he adds a fourth, How did He Create Woman? which he resolves from Gen. 2. 21, 22.
M. Biddle undertaking to give all the grounds of Religion in his Catechisms, teacheth as well by his silence as his expressions. What he mentions not in the known Doctrine he opposeth, he may well be interpreted to reject. As to the matter whereof Man and Woman were made, M. Biddles Answers do express it; but as to the condition and state, wherein they were made, that he is silent; though he knows the Scripture doth much more abound in delivering the one then the other. Neither can his silence in this thing be imputed to oversight, or forgetfulness, considering how subservient it is to his intendment, in his two last questions, for the subverting of the Doctrine of Originel sin, and the denial of all those effects, and cons • quents of the first breach of Covenant, whereof he speaks. He can upon another account take notice, that man was made in the Image of God. But whereas hitherto Christians have supposed, that that denoted some Spiritual perfection bestowed on man, wherein he resembles God, M. B. hath discovered, that it is only an expression of some imperfection of God, wherein he resembles man: which yet he will as hardly persuade us of, as that a man hath seven eyes, or two wings, which are ascribed unto God also. That man was created in a resemblance and likeness un-God, in that immortal substance breathed into his nostrils, Gen. 2. 7. in the excellent rational faculties thereof; the dominion he was entrusted withal over a great part of God's Creation, but especially in the integrity and uprightness of his person, Eccl. 7. 29. wherein he stood before God, in reference to the obedience required at his hands; which condition, by the implanting of new qualities in our soul, we are through Christ in some measure renewed unto, Coll. 3. 10, 12. Eph. 4. 24. the Scripture is clear, evident, and full in the discovery of; but hereof M. B. conceives not himself bound to take notice. But what is farther needful to be spoken, as to the state of man before the Fall, will fall under the consideration of the last Question of this Chapter.
M. B's process in the following questions, is to express the story of man's outward condition, unto the eighth, where he enquires after the Commandment given of God, to man, when he put him into the Garden, in these words.
Q. What commandment gave he to the man, when he put him into the Garden? This he resolves from Gen. 2. 16, 17. That God gave our first Parents the command expressed, is undeniable. That the matter chiefly expressed in that command, was all, or the principal part of what he required of them, M B. doth not go about to prove. I shall only desire to know of him, whether God did not in that estate require of them, that they should love him, fear him, believe him, acknowledge their dependence on him, in universal obedience to his will? And whether a suitableness unto all this duty, were not wrought within them by God? If he shall say no, and that God required no more of them, but only not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; I desire to know, whether they might have hated God, abhorred him, believed Satan, and yet been free from the threatening here mentioned, if they had only forbore the outward eating of the fruit? If this shall be granted, I hope I need not insist to manifest what will easily be inferred? Nor to show how impossible this is, God continuing God, and man a rational creature? If he shall say, that certainly God did require, that they should own him for God, that is, believe him, love him, fear him, and worship him, according to all that he should reveal to them, and require of them, I desire to know, whether this particular command, could be any other then Sacramental, and Symbolical, as to the matter of it, being a thing of so small imimportance in its own nature, in comparison of those moral acknowledgements of God before mentioned. And to that question I shall not need to add more.
Although it may justly be supposed, that M. B. is not without some thoughts of deviation from the truth, in the following Questions, yet the last being of most importance, and he being express therein, in denying all the effects of the first sin, but only the Curse that came upon the outward visible World, I shall insist only on that, and close our considerations of this Chapter. His question is thus proposed.
Q. Did the sin of our first Parents in eating of the forbidden fruit, bring both upon them, and their posterity, the guilt of hell fire, deface the Image of God in them, darken their understandings, enslave their wills, deprive them of Power to do good, and cause mortality? If not, what are the true penalties denounced against them for that offense.
To this he answers from Gen. 3. 16, 17, 18, 19.
What the sin of our first Parents was, may easily be discovered from what was said before, concerning the commandment given to them. If universal obedience was required of them unto God, according to the tenor of the law of their Creation, their sin was an universal Rebellion against, and Apostasy from him; which though it expressed it self, in the peculiar transgression of that command mentioned, yet it is far from being reducible to any one kind of sin, whole whole nature is comprised in that expression. Of the effects of this sin, commonly assigned, M. B. annumerates, and rejects Six: sundry whereof are coincident, and all but one, reducible to that general head of loss of the image of God. But for the exclusion of them all at once from being any effects of the first sin, M. Biddle thus argues; If there were no effects, not consequences of the first sin, but what are expressly mentioned Gen. 3. 16, 17. &c. then those now mentioned are no effects of it; but there are no effects, or consequences of that first sin, but what are mentioned in that place; therefore those recounted in his Query, and commonly esteemed such, are to be cashired from any such place in the thoughts of men.
Ans. The words insisted on by M. Biddle, being expressive of the Curse of God for sin, on man, and the whole creation here below for his sake, it will not be easy for him to evince, that none of the things he rejects, are not eminently enwrapped in them. Would God have denounced, and actually inflicted such a Curse on the whole Creation, which he had put in subjection to man, as well as upon man himself, and actually have inflicted it with so much dread, and severity, as he hath done, if the Transgression upon the account whereof he did it, had not been as universal a rebellion against him, as could be fallen into? Man fell in his whole dependence from God, and is cursed universally in all his concernments, Spiritual and Temporal.
But is this indeed the only place of Scripture, where the effects of our Apostasy from God, in the sin of our first Parents, are described? M. Biddle may as well tell us, that Gen. 3. 15. is the only place, where mention is made of Jesus Christ; for there he is mentioned. But a little to clear this whole matter in our passage, though what hath been spoken may suffice, to make naked M. B's Sophistry.
1. By the effects of the first sin, we understand everything of evil, that either within, or without, in respect of a present, or future condition, in reference to God, and the fruition of Him, whereto man was created, or the enjoyment of any goodness from God, which is come upon mankind, by the just ordination & appointment of God, whereunto man was not obnoxious in his Primitive state and condition. I am not at present at all engaged to speak de modo, of what is privative, what positive in original sin, of the way of the Traduction, or propagation of it, of the imputation of the guilt of the first sin, and adhesion of the pollution of our nature, defiled thereby, or any other questions, that are coincident with these, in the usual inquest made into, and after the sin of Adam, and the fruits of it, but only as to the things themselves, which are here wholly denied. Now
2. That whatsoever is evil in man by nature, whatever he is obnoxious and liable unto, that is hurtful, and destructive to him, and all men in common, in reference to the end whereto they were created, or any Title wherewith they were at first entrusted, is all wholly the effect of the first sin, and is in solidum to be ascribed thereunto, is easily demonstrated. For
1. That which is common to all things in any kind, and is proper to them only of that kind, must needs have some common cause equally respecting the whole kind: but now of the evils that are common to all mankind, and peculiar, or proper to them, and everyone of them, there can be no cause, but that which equally concerns them all, which by the Testimony of God himself, was this fall of Adam, Rom. 5. 15, 18.
2. The evils that are now incumbent upon men in their Natural condition, (which what they are, shall be afterward considered) were either incumbent on them at their first creation, before the sin and fall of our first Parents, or they are come upon them since, through some interposing cause, or occasion. That they were not in them, on them, that they were not liable, nor obnoxious to those evils, which are now incumbent on them, in their first Creation, as they came forth from the hand of God, (besides what was said before, of the state and condition wherein man was Created, even upright in the sight of God, in his favor and Aceptation, no way obnoxious to his anger and wrath,) is evident, by the light of this one consideration, viz. That there was nothing in man, nor belonging to him, no Respect, no Regard, or Relation, but what was purely, and immediately of the holy God's creation, and institution. Now it is contrary to all that he hath revealed, or made known to us of himself, that he should be the immediate Author of so much evil, as is now by his own Testimony in man by nature, and without any Occasion, of so much vanity, and misery as he is subject unto: and besides, directly thwarting the Testimony which he gave of all the Works of his hands, that they were exceeding good: it being evident, that man in the condition whereof we speak, is exceeding evil.
3. If all the evil mentioned, hath since befallen mankind, then it hath done so by some chance and Accident, whereof God was not aware, or by his righteous Judgment and Appointment, in reference to some procuring, and justly deserving Cause of such a punishment. To affirm the first, is upon the matter to deny him to be God: And I doubt not, but that men, at as easy and cheap a rate of sin, may deny that there is a God, as confessing his Divine Essence, to turn it into an Idol; and by making thick clouds, as Job speaks, to interpose between him & the affairs of the World, to exclude his Energeticall Providence in the disposal of all the works of his hands. If the latter be affirmed, I ask as before, what other common cause, wherein all and everyone of mankind is equally concerned, can be assigned of the evils mentioned, as the procurement of the Wrath and Vengeance of God, from whence they are, but only the fall of Adam, the sin of our first Parents; especially considering, that the Holy Ghost doth so expressly point out this fountain, and source of the evils insisted on, Rom. 5.
4. These things then being premised, it will quickly appear, that everyone of the particulars, rejected by M. B. from being fruits or effects of the first sin, are indeed the proper issues of it: and though M. B. cut the