Translated By: Archtelos Intelligence

Volumes

Chapters

Contemplative and Practical Theology

In which, running through all the theological topics, the exegetical, doctrinal, polemical, and practical parts are set forth jointly, joined together distinctly by an unbroken chain.

To this is added a complete brief compendium of Church History, a treatise on Moral Theology, and a sketch of Ascetical Theology, etc.

Written in Latin by Petrus van Mastricht, Doctor and Professor of Sacred Theology at the University of Utrecht. Translated into Dutch from the latest edition, together with the Funeral Oration by the celebrated Professor Henricus Pontanus on the death of the esteemed Author.

Volume One

With a Preface by the Reverend Cornelius vander Kemp, Doctor of Sacred Theology, Professor of Practical Theology at the Illustrious School, and Minister of the Holy Gospel in the congregation at Rotterdam.

Rotterdam: Hendrik van Pelt, the Widow of P. van Gilst, Jacobus Bosch, and Adrianus Douci, Jr.; and at Utrecht by Jan Jacob van Poolsum. 1749.

This work has been published in accordance with Church order.

Preface by Cornelius vander Kemp

That among all the precious privileges with which the Father of lights has favored the children of men, none is so inestimable as the revelation of saving Truth — this no one who bears the name of Christian will dare to deny. Even the heathen perceived this, by the mere twilight of corrupted natural reason, with such conviction that Pindar called her Διὸς Θυγάτηρ, a Daughter of Jupiter (a); others called her a Daughter of Time and Mother of Virtue (b); and under the guise of a beautiful woman, with sparkling eyes, elegantly though simply arrayed (c), she was honored as a goddess (d) — even though for them saving wisdom itself remained buried in a deep pit. How much more precious, then, ought she to be esteemed among us, upon whom the eternal light of the Gospel has risen? Must we not readily confess that, unless the truth be rightly KNOWN by us, openly CONFESSED, valiantly DEFENDED, and godlily LIVED OUT, we make ourselves guilty of the most shameful ingratitude (e)?

(a) In Olymp. Ode 10. (b) Hofmann, Lexicon, art. Veritas. (c) Ibid. (d) Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, L. 12, c. 11. (e) It is worth noting what Aelian relates of the high priest of the Egyptians, who was also their supreme judge: he wore about his neck an image made of a sapphire stone, and that image was called Truth. He wore, that is, an image fashioned of sapphire about his neck, and that image was named Truth. By this they signified the obligation (I) to keep the truth before one's eyes through right knowledge; (II) to bear it publicly through confession; (III) to defend it heroically — which was required above all of a supreme judge; and (IV) to walk in it in holiness; wherefore this same author adds, in his own words, that he would judge it more fitting that a judge should carry about not a Truth made and fashioned of stone, but one held within his very soul. So too I should judge it more worthy that Truth be not made of stone, or worn as an image, but be kept in one's heart. Aelian, Var. Hist., L. 14, c. 34, p. 977, ex edit. Gronov. On this passage the celebrated Perizonius calls to mind the Urim and Thummim in the breastplate of the high priest. This last word the Septuagint rendered as Ἀλήθεια, Truth; see the note on the cited passage.

That every person who has come to years of discretion must have, at the very least, a literal grasp of the way of salvation, such that he is able to give an account of it, needs no proof. But who despises the day of small things? Are they alone the Socinians, and those who very readily extend to them the hand of brotherhood, who, in order to commend a general way of salvation, reduce religion to two acts, namely obedience to the commandments and hope in the promises — dismissing the knowledge of the articles of faith, of which they thus openly show they make little account? Or do the Papists alone err in this matter, when, in order to introduce an unlimited supremacy, they give to ignorance the name of the Mother of Devotion, and are not ashamed to teach openly that faith may better be called an ignorance than a knowledge? Is there not an exceedingly great multitude in our own Reformed Church who live in an incomprehensible ignorance, incredible except to one who has witnessed it? Indeed, how many will one not discover, if only one pays careful attention, who, though they imagine themselves — and appear to others — to have advanced quite far, and wish not merely to be called Reformed but truly to be so, have nevertheless never received the true taste, nor any real grasp of that which distinguishes our Reformed confession from every other?

These people follow their own natural notions, and have devised for themselves a way to heaven that best agrees with their corrupted inclination. The first and weightiest article of man's pitiable misery they have all but lost from view, together with the doctrine of the heart-changing calling, regeneration, and conversion. In a manner ruinous to their souls, they confuse faith and obedience, law and gospel, that which God does in and through grace, and that to which the rational creature is bound as a duty. Their practical theology is nothing but a dry morality or ethics, in which Christ enters in merely as an example to be imitated, and as a common cause to make the way to heaven easier; while of the necessary influence of the Spirit, needed to live in a spiritual and heavenly-minded way, scarcely anything is heard.

Both these sorts stray, certainly, to their ruin: the first, through utter ignorance, unfit to receive the preaching of the Gospel; the latter, through the scheming of their flesh, set against a distinct ministry and against the heart-changing work of grace, and hostile to it. And should such times ever come upon the Church of the Netherlands — which God graciously avert — in which the old Pelagian errors, cast out by our valiant forefathers in the ages past, should acquire open champions, very many would abandon their present camp and go over to another, from which, owing to their natural bent, they are even now not far removed.

It was bad enough that the people perish because they are either without any, or without true, knowledge (f); but that one finds this also among the Lord's own people — those who set too low a price on literal knowledge — is a thing that cannot be denied. For although there is not a single soul that has received grace who does not hold in high esteem what God reveals as truth in His Word, one must nevertheless disapprove in some, that they occupy themselves with the experiential exercises of the soul in a manner altogether too divorced from the reasoned inquiry into divine truths, as these are set forth in intelligible language in Holy Scripture, or drawn from it and compiled into theological systems.

(f) Hos. 4:6.

Let no one ever think or speak lowly of literal knowledge in itself. None of the holy men driven by the Spirit ever did so — not even Paul, not even when he says that knowledge puffs up (g), and the letter kills (h); for in the first place the Apostle speaks of knowledge without love, and in the second of the letter without the Spirit. Nor may any of the Lord's true children let courage fail them, whether on account of their own dullness and lack of natural capacity, or on account of the constant hindrance of manifold earthly business; for if there be only a true acknowledgment of our obligation, and a fitting esteem for this knowledge and its glorious fruits, the readiness of mind — each according to his station and opportunity — will not be lacking to apply all diligence toward acquiring or increasing the same.

(g) 1 Cor. 8:1. (h) 2 Cor. 3:6.

Would anyone who fears the Lord let himself be spurred on to the diligent search of the truth, let him call to mind: (1) the multitude of prophecies that promise the Church, under the New Dispensation, a rich measure of light and knowledge. The earth would be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the bed of the sea (i). The light of the moon would be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun sevenfold, as the light of seven days (k). Then knowledge would be increased (l), etc. (2) Let him recall the manifold exhortations to search the Scriptures (m); to grow, not only in grace, but also in the knowledge of Christ (n), etc. (3) Let him only understand that a pretended experiential knowledge, without the literal knowledge drawn from the Word, is dangerous, apt to lead into imagination and error; since all experience must rest upon the truth, flow from it, agree with it, and be tested by it. (4) Let him but consider whether there be any more common cause of the many grim doubts by which the upright are tossed about concerning their state than this very lack of knowledge — seeing that wisdom is an excellent thing to make anything right (o), and the commandment is a lamp, and the law a light (p), etc. (5) Let him picture to himself not only how little advantage the weak in understanding can bring to the good cause through their weakness, but also how much harm they bring to it when, being unable through the force of argument to convince those enemies who cry out that the experiential work of grace is an idle fancy or foolish enthusiasm, they only confirm such adversaries the more in their prejudice. (6) Let him see whence it comes that some make no further progress on the way of sanctification, often act so perversely, and are so frequently inconstant in the enjoyment of soul-enlarging grace — because they no longer work upon the truth, but chase after more immediate impulses and sweet emotions instead.

(i) Isa. 11:9. (k) Isa. 30:26. (l) Dan. 12:4. (m) John 5:39. (n) 2 Pet. 3:18. (o) Eccl. 10:10. (p) Prov. 6:23.

If, then, the literal grasp of the truth is so necessary, it is nevertheless, for salvation, not sufficient in itself; an inward, experiential, and practical knowledge must be added to it. This distinction is taught from God's Word (q), and is confirmed by experience; indeed it follows of itself from our confession of man's natural blindness in spiritual matters, and the necessary illumination of our understanding in and through regeneration. This distinction cannot be named in a single stroke. It consists by no means in the objects considered in general — as the false Mystics would have it, as though one obtained, above and beyond the Word, through the inward illumination of the Spirit, a discovery of wholly other truths, which is altogether contrary to Scripture (r) — but chiefly in the manner of illumination. Let us note but these few points. (1) Saving wisdom is a free gift from God alone to His children; but the other kind is also imparted, through a common illumination of the Spirit, to some worldly men, who sometimes surpass many of God's children in literal understanding. Therefore a person who has received grace, however simple, is a θεοδίδακτος, one taught by the Lord Himself (s). He has the anointing of the Holy One, and knows all things (t). And no wonder, indeed! For all that the Lord Christ hears from His Father, He makes known to such a one (u). (2) The knowledge of the saints is a true and experiential knowledge.

An unregenerate man knows everything only by reading and hearing, and obtains, through the mere sound of the words, only a very faint and superficial notion of divine things; but those who are taught by the Spirit behold the truth by a divine light, in its own proper nature and form. They feel its weight with a divine pressure (x) upon their souls, and taste its sweetness. They can, like the converted Samaritans, say to their teachers: We believe no longer merely because of your report; for we ourselves have heard Him, and know that this is truly the Christ, the Savior of the world (v). The difference is here as great as between two men reasoning about the tender love of a mother for her nursing child, of whom the one has never had children and the other has; or, indeed, between one who knows some pleasant food only by description, and another who has himself tasted its delight upon the tongue. (3) The wisdom that is from above has its seat not only in the head, but descends into the heart. It occupies not only the understanding, but also moves the will, and all the subordinate powers of the soul. A natural man contemplates the truth as something outside himself, whereby now and then some loose affections and thoughtless resolutions may be produced, which soon enough vanish into smoke; but no least change of heart follows from it. He remains what he was; indeed, he sometimes becomes even less capable of conversion than he was before. But when God shines upon a man with heavenly light, and reveals Himself to him in His awesome glory, he falls before that high Majesty, as Saul did, down to the ground; he sees who he is, and what he has done. Everything within him is set in motion. With sensible pain he sees how unclean, guilty of punishment, and damnable he is before God. He is filled with disgust at himself; he abhors and condemns all his doings; indeed, he gives the service of sin a bill of divorce, and grants himself no rest until he has fled that miserable state of nature. Should that same light reveal to him the glory of Christ, he becomes so taken with Him that all the desire of his soul is toward His name and remembrance (z). He enters into covenant fellowship with Him; chooses him wholly, alone, forever, and thus becomes Immanuel's own possession. (4) Add to this, finally, that the saving illumination of the Holy Spirit changes the one who has received grace not only inwardly but also outwardly. Just as, through a common discovery of the truth, many affections may be stirred inwardly in the mind of an unconverted person, so one will sometimes observe in him a considerable outward improvement and moral refinement of conduct. He may, through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior, escape the pollutions of the world (a); indeed, he may go so far as to give his body to be burned for the truth's sake (b); and yet to perform a duty in a spiritual manner, and to a divine end, remains something unknown to him. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits (c). He who beholds the sun is illumined by it. One cannot dwell in the divine presence without there occurring a transference of glory, just as happened to Moses, whose face shone when he came down from the mountain (d). Paul, looking to this, says: We all, with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord (e). Now the soul, shone upon with divine light, has no greater delight than that the divine nature, of which it has been made partaker through gracious change, should shine forth ever more brightly in a tender manner of life.

(q) 1 Cor. 2:14. (r) Isa. 8:20; Gal. 1:8; 1 John 4:1. (s) Isa. 54:13. (t) 1 John 2:20. (u) John 15:15. (x) 2 Cor. 5:14. (v) John 4:42. (z) Isa. 26:8. (a) 2 Pet. 2:20. (b) 1 Cor. 13:3. (c) Jas. 3:17. (d) Exod. 34:29–35. (e) 2 Cor. 3:18.

Now if someone has received the priceless talent of the soul-transforming knowledge, he may not, like the wicked servant, bury it in the ground; that entrusted pledge must be put out to gain. He who puts the light under a bushel turns it into darkness; but placed on the lampstand through open confession, it gives light to all who are in the house. That a Christian is bound to confess the known truth openly; and that this confession must be made sincerely, out of the full conviction of his heart; wholly, withholding nothing; voluntarily, driven by no other compulsion than the burning zeal for God's honor and for salvation, both his own and that of his neighbor, and from an inward conviction of the truth; boldly, without fear of man; prudently, so that one knows the time and the manner, and does not cast pearls before swine; and steadfastly, persevering therein to the end — this will never be gainsaid by anyone who but calmly considers (I) the divine exhortation to give an account to everyone of the hope that is in us (f); (II) the inseparable bond between the heart's faith unto righteousness and the mouth's confession unto salvation (g); (III) the surpassingly glorious promises made to those who observe this duty, as well as the very grave threats set against those who neglect it (h); (IV) finally, the end for which the great Creator has granted us tongue and speech. Can anything more unreasonable be conceived than that man should be silent for God's honor alone, while he is so ready to speak for his own advantage?

(f) 1 Pet. 3:15. (g) Rom. 10:10. (h) Luke 12:8–9.

Yet there are those who would still argue against this, and defend it as an act of praiseworthy prudence — teaching, in imitation of the ancient Helcesaites, refuted by Origen; of the Priscillianists, refuted by Augustine; and of the false Nicodemites, refuted by Calvin — that it is enough to believe the truth in and with one's heart, though one, especially in a time of persecution, does not confess it with the mouth (i). This misguided opinion of these heretics the free-thinking Hobbes has fetched up again as it were from the abyss, not ashamed to declare openly: that one may well omit the confession of the mouth, if the authorities forbid it, since it is merely outward, and to be regarded as no higher than any other bodily gesture (k). Such notions please the men of this world, who imagine they have thereby discovered an easy way to reconcile religion with their fleshly interests; indeed, they make not the least scruple, when come into places and churches where popery rules, to conform to the idolatrous ceremonies, and even to bow their knees before the mute images — pretending that bodily posture is an outward, and therefore indifferent, thing, while the heart remains fixed on the Lord. But were this so, then the people of Lactantius's day would rightly hold as fools the martyrs, who with gladness saw their goods plundered for religion's sake, and died a thousand deaths (l) — men who, by dissembling their inward convictions and conforming to the times, could easily have lived at ease. Had the first Christians confessed the truth only as it walked on silver slippers, in the warm sunshine, they would never have been honored with the surpassingly glorious title of CONFESSORS.

(i) See, among others, the most learned Salden, Otia Theologica, Lib. 2, Exerc. 20, De Verit. Div. Prof. (k) Leviathan, ch. 42. (l) Lib. 5, ch. 13.

Among the many objections there is one drawn from Holy Scripture that I judge necessary to remove, since it is not entirely devoid of every appearance of force. One casts up to us the case of Naaman the Syrian, who, after having embraced the true religion upon his miraculous cure, obtained from the prophet Elisha that he might, when accompanying his master the king of Syria into the temple of the idol, bow himself down there (m). But let us hear Naaman's own words: "Your servant," he said, "will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice to other gods, but to the Lord. In this matter may the Lord pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and leans on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon — when I so bow myself in the house of Rimmon, may the Lord pardon your servant in this matter." To which the prophet said, "Go in peace." Here we note, with our very learned annotators, that Naaman's petition, for which he asked pardon, may be translated in the PAST tense thus: "In this matter may the Lord pardon your servant: when my master HAS gone into the house of Rimmon, etc., and HAS leaned on my hand, and I HAVE bowed myself in the house of Rimmon," etc. This translation can very well be reconciled with the nature of the Hebrew words; it entirely removes the objection, and gives us the strongest argument against any conforming of a confessor to the times; indeed, it has very considerable advocates among Popish, Lutheran, and Reformed commentators. The names of many the celebrated Pfeiffer has recorded (m), as has also, more fully and in their own words, the learned Quenstedt (o), who likewise attempts to establish this translation, being of the same opinion, with various arguments. It does not, however, seem to us the more probable; for it appears to us that if Naaman had meant a crime he had already committed, he would surely not have set his sin forth so lightly, nor spoken only of the bowing and not of the sacrificing or of any other idolatrous act, nor confined his confession solely to what he had done in his office as the king's servant — which might seem to admit of some excuse — but would rather have confessed his entire idolatry, practiced throughout his whole life. Following, then, our own translation, with which the Eastern versions, the Septuagint, and the common Latin agree, we read, with the majority of biblical commentators, Naaman's words in the FUTURE tense, according to which he speaks of what he would do. But even so there is scarcely any proof at all in this against the point we are now defending: for (I) one brings forward an example, not a law, and the former legitimates nothing unless it rests upon the latter. (II) One reasons from an act that is nowhere approved, either by the prophet or by Naaman himself. Certainly not by the prophet; though he said, "Go in peace" (p) — for these are not words of approval, but of a friendly farewell. Otherwise one would have to think that Elisha also approved the request of the captain for a load of Israelite earth, to build an altar to the Lord (q) in Syria — which is not to be supposed, since the one was superstitious and the other contrary to the express letter of the divine law.

(m) 2 Kings 5:17–19. (m) In Difficil. Script. loc., centur. 3. (o) See his dissertation on the passage in Thes. Theol. Philol. ad Text. V.T. (p) 2 Kings 5:19. (q) Verse 17.

Perhaps the prophet instructed the Syrian, in some manner not recorded, of the impropriety of the one and the other act; certainly we do not read that the captain carried out either of the two intentions. Nor can one say that Naaman judged the requested bowing to be an altogether sinless act, since he asked God's pardon for it. (III) One does not prove, from this alleged case, the very point in dispute — namely, whether someone who keeps the truth hidden in his heart for the sake of temporal interests may not only refrain from coming forward with it, but may even, by conforming to idolatrous ceremonies, be willing to appear to be an idolater himself. That nothing less is disclosed in Naaman's example is plain: (1) He speaks only of the bowing, and not of any other act of homage such as sacrificing, washing, kissing, etc. (2) He confines the bowing solely to the king's presence and to service to the king — when his master went into the house of Rimmon, bowing while leaning on his hand. (3) He openly binds himself never again to sacrifice to other gods — under which act, being the chief one, the whole of idol-worship is comprehended. (4) By wishing to build an altar of Jewish earth to the Lord in Syria, he comes forward openly for the truth. It is therefore beyond question that Naaman regards the bowing as nothing other than a civil service, to which he was bound as a courtier, and which, so long as he remained at court and in his rank, he was obliged to render (s). Should one say: Naaman ought to have left the court, avoided every appearance of evil, delivered himself from the dangerous snare of temptation, and prevented all occasion of offense — I answer that my purpose is by no means to acquit the captain of all guilt. The man himself was not entirely at ease, and therefore asked pardon twice. Far more noble was the refusal of the Protestant Electors and Princes of the Empire at the Diet of Augsburg, in the year 1530, to accompany Emperor Charles the Fifth, as he had desired, in the procession on the Feast of Corpus Christi — giving as their reason that they held that ceremony to be a false religion, and could not, for conscience' sake, attend it, lest they should seem by their presence to approve it. My intent is only to show that Naaman's bowing in the temple of the idol was solely a civil, and by no means a divine, service, which he had openly forsworn, and from which he clearly distinguished himself by a careful abstention from every other idolatrous ceremony. Sleidan (t) relates that a few days after the above-mentioned case, when the Emperor commanded the Elector of Saxony — whose office it was — to carry the sword before him as he went to Mass, that same Elector, after having first taken counsel with his theologians on the matter, made no scruple of performing this as part of his civil service. I conclude, therefore, that this case of Naaman not only cannot help, but must rather burden all the more, the false Nicodemites of our own time in their concealment of open confession and their conforming themselves to an outward idol-worship.

(s) "That bowing was not before the idol, but before the king." Heidegger, Corp. Theol., Tom. 2, p. 621. (t) Hist., Lib. 7.

If, then, the confession of the rightly known truth is to please God, edify the neighbor, and bring profit to the Church, everyone must also, according to his ability, seek to defend it. This is commanded us: "Contend," says Jude, "for the faith once delivered to the saints" (t). The matter itself teaches the same, seeing that truth is the most precious jewel of all. Once this priceless jewel is stolen away, all is lost. The heathen writers speak very highly of the Palladium (u). This was the wooden statue of Pallas, holding a shield in one hand and a spear in the other, so fashioned that it could move both of these, as well as its eyes. It is further said that when the Trojans, in their citadel, built a temple in honor of that goddess — while it was yet without a roof — this image descended from heaven and chose the temple as its permanent seat. Thereupon the oracle of Apollo is said to have made known that the city would remain preserved so long as this image was kept unharmed within it, but that, should it be carried outside the walls, the city would be lost — as the outcome is said to have taught. The very same thing may, without embellishing the matter with trifles, be said with double right of our own Netherlands. Since Satan understands very well how great an interest truth has for the salvation of men, he never ceases to assail it as an enemy — whether by open violence, as in the heathen and antichristian persecutions (in which the hellish Dragon, enraged against the Woman, made war against the remnant of her seed who kept the commandments of God (x), everywhere erecting stakes of burning and scenes of murder, and making the blood of the saints — less weary of suffering than their executioners were of tormenting them — flow like water across the earth), or else by hidden cunning, seeking to corrupt the doctrine of the truth through errors and heresies. Never has the cunning Serpent lacked instruments and means to draw the hearts of men away from the simplicity that is in Christ. Against these two evils he who longs to enter into life must arm himself. Every true confessor is, after all, a martyr — if not in deed, then at least, according to the Savior's teaching (y), in preparation of mind. Against errors that arise, or that are gaining currency, one must not only stand firm for oneself, but must also publicly defend the truth. This is the duty of magistrates. What Constantine (though he stained his acquired honor not a little, by favoring the Arians all too much for a certain time), what Jovian, Theodosius the Great, Honorius, Theodosius the Second, and — not to name others — what the Princes of Orange in the days of our forefathers have done in support of the truth, the history books record. Above all, ministers are bound to this. They who are numbered among the heroes of the typical Solomon must not only be trained for war, each having a sword, but must also carry it at the hip, indeed, drawn and in hand. Truth is, after all, a pledge entrusted to them: sharp watchfulness is needed lest they be robbed of it. This duty, too, is required of all confessors, who ought to aim not only at knowledge of doctrinal and practical theology, but especially also at that of polemical theology. Do not the times we now live in call loudly to us? Do not the discerning, who have eyes in their heads (alas, how small is their number!) — do they not see the danger that threatens our Church? Is there not cause for concern that free-thinking and Pelagian errors, which creep in secretly and by degrees, will, perhaps within a very short time, overwhelm us — seeing that a spirit of indifference is beginning to reign, and the old tolerance, a specious pretext but in fact for many a harmful plague, whereby one can tolerate everything except the truth, seems to be reviving? What was it (thus wrote a celebrated teacher of our Church (a)) that our congregations formerly had disputants who dared to confront parties, and to fly at their shoulder; who dared to stretch their hands into the pit of basilisks, and delight themselves over the venom of those adders; who would enter into their meetings and assemblies to attack them openly with disputations? — but that earnestness, and for the most part also that capacity, has largely disappeared, etc.

(t) v. 3. (u) Hofmann, Lexicon, art. Palladium. (x) Rev. 12:17. (y) Matt. 16:24–25. (a) Hellenbroek, Hoogl. p. 806.

To know the truth thoroughly, to confess it openly, and to defend it manfully is not enough — one must also live it out in godliness. I would very gladly show wherein the right practice of godliness consists, and how it flows from the truth once known; but this preface has already, contrary to my intention, grown so long that I must now hasten to a close. I merely note this, that the knowledge and confession of pure religion, unless joined with a holy walk, brings no advantage to a man, neither for himself nor for others. "Though," as Paul will say (b), "I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing." If a confessor by his own impure walk overthrows his own words, they will lose all their force with his hearers. Indeed, what do I say? — the literal grasp of the truth, without holiness of life, does the confessor by chance great harm. It causes him to swell with pride, leaves him wholly without excuse, and aggravates his judgment. So the servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself, nor act according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes (c). Above all, the words of a teacher whose worldly walk contradicts his preaching will not only very seldom bear fruit, but will generally confirm the hearers the more in their unbelief. Whereas, on the contrary, nothing lends more power to the proclamation of the truth, to awaken in men a high regard for it, and to make them fall in love with its winsome beauty, than the exercise of godliness.

(b) 1 Cor. 13:1–2. (c) Luke 12:47.

It is therefore very necessary that the duties we have discussed be constantly impressed upon all confessors, but above all upon students of theology, and upon those who aspire to the holy ministry. The Reverend Petrus van Mastricht, formerly a renowned theologian, latterly at the University of Utrecht, has in this book, which now appears in the Dutch language, pressed home all these points. Of the man's life and circumstances the reader will receive ample report from the translated Funeral and Commendatory Oration by Mr. Pontanus, appended here, by which he has erected a monument of honor to his friend and colleague. To gain an understanding of the work itself, one must first attentively examine the Author's own brief preface, whereupon one will soon learn in what manner, and to what extent, divine truth is here treated. As soon, then, as one enters the inner chambers of this edifice, one will find that the entrance hall does not deceive. The principal parts of theology are here joined together in a manner nowhere else to be matched — for which reason this book has been called a Complete System of Sacred Theology, indeed may be regarded as a treasury and storehouse of all manner of divine things. One finds in it, of this kind, everything that can make a theologian complete. In a manner truly to be admired, our theologian has known how to unite, in the presentation of these matters, brevity with clarity, sublimity with simplicity, and force with great elegance of expression, so that this book, notwithstanding the fullness and abundance of its material, allows itself, without much labor, to be read with great pleasure by anyone who is even a little versed in theology; and it thereby seems to me to bear, not only in its matter but also in its manner of presentation, an inviting resemblance to the Book of Books from which it is drawn. It is no wonder, then, that this laboriously wrought work, so highly esteemed, so eagerly sought, and used with such profit by so many, has gained such renown even beyond our borders, that Mr. Buddeus, once the widely famed professor at the Lutheran University of Jena, has more than once named it among the theological systems of the most celebrated theologians of our Church (d).

(d) Buddeus, Isag. Hist. Theol., pp. 376, 595, 596.

The description of this book has often made lovers of the truth who are unacquainted with the Latin language long for a Dutch translation of it. Great is the debt our Dutchmen owe to the booksellers, who have spared neither trouble nor expense to satisfy this strong desire. May the Lord crown the Dutch edition of this work with his most precious blessing, so that many, thereby instructed, may become mighty in the Scriptures, capable of refuting error, and enabled to use the concise propositions of the practical part, both as nourishment for their own meditations and, by extension, for the edification of their neighbor.

This wishes and prays, beloved Reader of truth and virtue, your soul-seeking servant in Christ,

Rotterdam, 7 January 1749.

C. vander Kemp.

To the Very Renowned and Very Discerning Mr. Gerhardus van Mastricht

Jurist, formerly Professor of Law and History, now Syndic of the Republic of Bremen, my very learned and only Brother, Petrus van Mastricht wishes all health.

You see, my only Brother, your name standing here on the forefront — to what end, do you suppose? Is it that I should make you known, hidden away in obscurity as you are, to your fellow Bremeners, or even to the whole world? That I should bring to light your virtues — your piety, righteousness, fairness, modesty, wisdom, and prudence? That I should set forth before our learned age your erudition and comprehensive knowledge and experience in every kind of learning — in theological, legal, historical, critical, and other studies? If I know you — and truly I do know you — you care little for such vanities; and if you know me, such things matter little to me either. Let others do that, and they have long since done it, even great men; and you yourself have done it too — not, indeed, in words, but, what is better, in deeds. For this is attested not only by the writings which you have long since shared with the public — concerning the surety (De Susceptore), concerning ecclesiastical and papal law, in your annotations upon Antonius Augustinus and Gratian, and other writings besides — but you would do it even more through those writings which you have ready concerning the various readings of the New Testament, concerning a general library, and especially concerning ecclesiastical antiquities, which I myself have long since seen with these my own eyes, if only divine providence granted you the time to carry through what you have undertaken. Why, then, does your name stand here at the front? That I might attest not only our kinship, but also my brotherly love; that posterity too might know our fellowship — alike in blood and in affections and studies; that I might make known my longing to see your unpublished writings, which I have named, brought to light. I need add nothing more, for I well know that you fully approve this work of mine, at least as far as the joining together of the Contemplative and the Practical parts is concerned, and that you have even been an advocate for such a work. Oh, that among statesmen and jurists such men were found everywhere! Then truly both Church and Republic would have that in which and by which they might congratulate themselves. Receive, then, my Brother, what I offer you, and receive it in the same spirit in which I offer it, so that the world may know that we are brothers both in name and in deed. Farewell, and grant that we may see yours, even as you here see mine.

Preface of Petrus van Mastricht to the Second Latin Edition

I shall not detain you, kindly Reader, with many things, but with a few, in this entrance hall, so that you may grasp the character of this renewed edition.

Should you wonder that smaller type has been used for this edition than for the preceding one, please consider that this was done in order that I might bring the two volumes of the first edition into one binding, and thereby spare your expense — although this aim has been somewhat defeated by the many wholesale additions; at the least, you will have this advantage, that what you would otherwise have needed three volumes for, you now have in two: and if this be somewhat harmful to the keenness of the eyes, I thought that this would be easily made up for by the sharp sight of the young, as well as by the spectacles of the old.

Meanwhile, in this edition you will have all that you had in the previous one — and not only much neater and more purified, but also increased by at least a third part.

For in the Exegetical parts, the scriptural texts that are laid as the foundation of the theological chapters, on account of the shortness of space in the previous edition, are set forth somewhat more briefly at the head; but here they appear somewhat more fully elucidated by philology, in order that our Nazirites might, in laying the foundation of the theological chapters, accustom themselves to the foundations of Scripture. In this we have, as far as possible, refrained from the manners of speech of rhetoric, which are not entirely suited for public use before the common people, and have derived matters from the nature and character of the text itself, so that they too might accustom themselves in this respect to the nature of things.

In the Polemical parts we have reduced all points of controversy to questions, so that we might touch each history in particular, and so that the attentive reader might the more easily encounter and grasp the middle ground of the orthodox, between the unorthodox opinions deviating on either side. For I judged it the greatest possible compendium in determining controversies, if you have a right view of the excesses of both parties.

In the Practical parts the expansion occurs more rarely, so that our theology might not run out into too great a bulk, so that it might not extend into more volumes, and so that I might not thereby be deprived of my aim of brevity — especially since an attentive reader, having considered the expansions from the heaped-up testimonies of Holy Scripture a little more carefully, can without great trouble make them out for himself, particularly if he notes that not all the testimonies of Holy Scripture are added for demonstration, but some only for elucidation.

To the eighth Book, concerning the division of the Covenant of Grace through all the ages of the Church, is added the Church History — indeed whole and complete, yet concise — in which you shall have the champions of the particular ages of the Church, both civil and ecclesiastical: patriarchs, judges, kings of both kingdoms, both the Jewish and the Israelite, and the most noteworthy things of each in particular, with respect to the Old Testament; and with respect to the New, there shall come before you the Roman emperors and popes, each in particular, in what is most noteworthy of them; then the states of theology, and the heresies and errors that continually diverged from it; then also the states of the Church, and its propagators — patriarchs, prophets, apostles, evangelists — whose history is drawn up, each in particular: the aids also of its propagation, namely the ecclesiastical writers, synods, schools, forms of government, persecutions, martyrdoms, and whatever other such things belong to the Church — by which things I believe that everything required for a complete Church History is satisfied, though concisely, since otherwise I should have had to run out into very many thick volumes. I had long since undertaken, as an elaboration on the shorter compendium of the first edition, a sufficiently large work on the fortunes of the Church, and had brought it as far as the history of the patriarch Isaac; but when I noticed that the work would become too large, having made a comparison with my more advanced age, and considering that it would exclude other things more useful to the Church, I have, as one in despair, confined myself to this compendium which you see here. If, meanwhile, you desire to have a complete system of Church History, then, as I well know, the very renowned and now blessed Spanheim, in his historical works — now being fortunately printed at Leiden, and which may God favor with his blessing, that they may soon see the light — will satisfy you, more than many others. Meanwhile, so that you may the better grasp the order and connection of our concise chapters in somewhat longer paragraphs, I shall try to assist you by means of a special outline for the Church History, contained in the eighth Book. Into the endless differences and disputes of the chronologists I have not wished to enter, being content to follow the most generally accepted opinion.

In this edition, to the completion of the theological system is added an outline of Moral Theology, concerned with the simple Christian virtues, to each of which I have added its nature, marks, benefits, and aids, in a sufficiently elevated style, such as demands an attentive reader. I have followed the order of teaching of the very renowned Ames, in his Marrow and Cases of Conscience, which has seemed to me so fitting and convenient that I have neither wished, nor needed, to put any other in its place. In these matters I had at first intended to be more elaborate, as appears from three disputations held solely on the obedience of faith; afterward, mistrusting my age, and thereby swinging to the other extreme, I have been all too concise, so that I have compressed those three disputations into a few lines; finally I have arrived, in what follows, at a middle way, so that it should be neither too dry and meager, nor of little help to the reader.

I have also added to this an outline of Ascetical Theology, concerning the compound virtues, or the exercises of godliness through all the circumstances of life, in a full four Books — which, being more piecemeal in more chapter-divisions, would now have been drawn together into one, had not the fear of too great prolixity restrained me; you will nevertheless have the most and the best of it, which, should the matter require, can without difficulty be expanded further. I have here had to strike out on a path not much trodden by Protestants, since I have continually had to enter the lists against the enemies of the truth. The English have generally done more in this respect, whom I would altogether advise comparing.

Regarding the moral and, at the same time, the duty-exhorting parts, I ought to have been more elaborate; but since this was not granted me, on account of my nearly seventy years of age, and so that this edition might not be too long delayed, I wish for nothing more than that learned men, whom our age nourishes in so great a number, may spend those vital energies which they now exhaust on less necessary and unprofitable things upon these more practical matters instead — and they shall find at once as much difficulty and as much usefulness in it, such that they may promise themselves no less praise and renown from it than from their vain and unprofitable present writings, and with a far greater advancement of God's glory, and of the upbuilding and edification of the Church.

Finally, as regards the Indexes: as for that of the scriptural passages — since one must choose from a great abundance — I have entirely entrusted this to the fidelity of the very worthy and very learned young man Mr. Guilielmus Mullerus, who is shortly to be advanced to the rank of Candidate for the Holy Ministry; the rest I have compiled myself, with the addition of his help and service.

Finally, that you may also have the usefulness of our Work in your sermons, I admonish you of this one thing: that you attend carefully and circumspectly to the principal content of your text; then, that from our work, through its chapters, you compare those things which will be most fitting and appropriate to your subject; only, with the exertion of the powers of your understanding, that you may grasp and comprehend the force and emphasis of the scriptural passages, so far as is sufficient, both for expansion and for demonstration.

Having briefly said this beforehand, I now send you on to the work itself.

Funeral and Eulogistic Oration on the Death of Petrus van Mastricht, by H. Pontanus

The Earth, who according to the mythology of the heathen was the consort of Heaven and mother of all the gods, was worshiped with great zeal by the Egyptians, the Phrygians, and finally also the Greeks and Romans, after Scipio Nasica had received her image, brought over from Phrygia to the Tiber, from the sailors, and had entrusted it to certain noble women to be set up in the Temple of Victory. Among these women Claudia Appia, daughter of Appius Caecus, was preeminent, and was judged worthy to have her own statue erected in the forecourt of that temple — a statue said to have remained unharmed even though the sanctuary itself was twice consumed by fire. Now since such great reverence was shown by these unfortunate people, driven by a blind and detestable superstition, to a mother from whom, as they imagined, all bodily sustenance was born, how much more justly and reasonably do all right-minded members of a society and commonwealth — as do the citizens and inhabitants of the city of Utrecht — love and honor their common mother, their far-famed university, from which the fathers of the fatherland have, within these walls, received their formation, as a fruitful shaper not only of bodies but especially of souls, so useful and necessary both for divine and human affairs — indeed, I might say, salutary for the city and for the state. The more powerful and lively the love and pious reverence we bear toward our common mother, the more painful and just is our sorrow and mourning when we must see her sunk down in calamity, or hear or sense a foreboding of her utter ruin.

At any rate this mournful feeling has clung to me most strongly and inwardly ever since I became a member of that body of public scholars and professors whom the care and good will of the magistracy have appointed to instruct the young, so that they might not pass and waste their life without letters — such a life being nothing else than the burial of a living man. As often as happy days and fortunate events arose for our literary pursuits, these were to me the choicest and most delightful refreshments, far more precious than any bodily pleasure or diversion; but when, on the contrary, misfortunes came, my soul sat down in sorrow and sighing, little less than over the woes of my own mother. Of this latter kind, alas, so many and so great difficulties have pressed upon us that I can scarcely recall them without tears. It is true that, through the goodness of Almighty God, our academic affairs, and especially those touching theology, have by no means yet declined so far, nor has our misfortune gone so far, as the lying tongue of slander has spread abroad both far and near — as if the ancient fullness of our schools had turned into utter emptiness and dismal desolation. Such slanderous rumors must find themselves put to utter shame by the filled seats of the students of my other colleagues — among whom, with your permission, I may count my own, which in the past half-year have been occupied by fifty of the finest young men, who have flocked hither not only from these our regions but also from England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Silesia, Prussia, and Hungary. Meanwhile, however, I cannot deny that grievous wounds have been inflicted upon us, and mournful death-blows have struck us. Not to trace the matter back further, I confine myself to the three years last past, within which death has snatched from our midst the incomparable Graevius — a loss whose greatness and irreparable damage to us and to the whole learned world not even envy itself can deny. Rightly, therefore, one heard the widely famous Professor Burmannus, who was to deliver the funeral oration over him, cry out with the words of the Macedonian Metellus: "Come, and gather yourselves together, O citizens; the walls and bulwarks of our city and academy have been thrown down." And although we may still hope that the predictions of far-seeing men consecrated to learning will prove false — predictions which, sung as mournful dirges in our famous commonwealth of letters, foretold that this illustrious university lay dying together with the illustrious Graevius — yet our times are such that we cannot, without good reason, tremble at such calamities and omens.

It was three years ago that Graevius died; half a year ago Gerhardus de Vries passed away — I appeal to your consciences: what a great ornament of our order was he! By his last will he had desired that none of his colleagues deliver a funeral oration over him. But far be it from me, having now obtained so fitting an occasion, to pass over in ungrateful silence that man's uncommonly great merits, by which he laid our academy under obligation to him. He had as his predecessors excellent men — Reinerius, Schotanus, de Goor, Senguerd, Berkringer, Paulus and Daniel Voet, Ravensperg, de Bruin, Mansveld — among whom some were preeminent in renown and merit. I shall not now sound their praises at length, lest I seem, through some insipid affectation, to flatter such highly honored men with a fawning tongue, many of whose descendants, bound to them by close ties of blood and kinship, and sprung from the houses of these their forebears, are still living in this city. I wish only to mention one of them, Ravensperg, who in his youth far outstripped his father, a celebrated theologian at the universities of Steinfurt and Groningen, and won great fame for keenness of understanding and judgment, especially when he attacked Spinoza — though his writings have for the most part been lost, by some mishap I know not how, but assuredly to the very great loss of the common good of scholars and of posterity. It was for this reason that, when those two famous men of immortal memory, Bisterveld and Alstedius, sought to found a new academy for the city of Weissenburg (Alba Julia) in Transylvania, under the protection and support of Prince Rágóczi, Ravensperg was called there to the professorship of philosophy, on terms so generous that I know of no one among our professors here in the Netherlands who enjoys so great a salary. Whether he declined this offered post because he could not easily part from beloved Utrecht, or whether death forestalled him before he could accept the call, I dare not determine; but the rest of the man's circumstances are well known to me. For when I was laying the first foundations of my own ministry at Meppel, in the province of Drenthe — a time I shall, as long as I live, never recall except with joyful remembrance — I found, in the possession of the chief bailiff Sciccard, a very learned old man and the uncle of our Ravensperg, the documents of this call, and I read them not without wonder and with great eagerness. Of such great men de Vries was a successor; but I am much mistaken if he did not equal or surpass them all — whether in fame of name, in ease of teaching manner, or in steady and unshaken diligence in labor, even while worn down by the most painful pangs of a lingering illness, or finally in the great number of his hearers, both in his public lectures and in his private house-instructions. So great was his love for his native city and for his ancestral academy that, when in the most precarious circumstances — the French having scarcely left the city, and the common treasury being pitifully drained — he was called, on a by no means generous salary, from the Leiden States College, of which he had charge, to this university, neither money, nor the offer of the ordinary professorship in philosophy, nor any other promises could keep him in Holland's Leiden. When he flourished here and adorned the Utrecht chair, he was a second time invited to the Leiden academy on a considerable stipend; but our great and honorable council, fearing the loss of a citizen so dear to them and so wholly devoted to this academy, strove by every means to retain him, leaving it entirely to his own will to choose whatever conditions of staying he himself desired; but, content with quite fair and moderate advantages, he bound himself forever to his native city and this university. When in the last six years of his life he carried about a body worn out and all but lifeless from piercing pains, he could still not abandon his public chair, while a crowd of students constantly drew and urged their master onward. For although that bad habit has broken in even among us, whereby academy students, to their great disadvantage, attend private house-exercises but neglect the public academic lectures, he could nevertheless rejoice in a filled lecture hall of hearers right up to his very last lecture, possessing as he did the singular art of charming and stirring the ears and minds of his hearers, as by a kind of enchantment — one, however, most praiseworthy and useful — so that they remained most steadfastly attached to him, a thing which the famous Boxhornius also related, to his great credit, of Justus Lipsius. Who is there, still found as an admirer and lover of our far-famed academic mother, who must not mourn for his sake and lament this fatal death, following the example of the members of the honorable and great magistracy of this city, who could scarcely bear it, and only with great difficulty consented, that a eulogistic and funeral oration over so great a man should be left in obscurity — a position from which they would not have let themselves be moved, had not, in the end, reverence for the deceased man's last will and wish prevailed — which itself was a fresh proof of the honor and love borne toward him, and which I hope will now in some measure be satisfied by me, through this eulogy now offered at a fitting time. For I acknowledge in the fathers of this fatherland and of our academy that praiseworthy magnanimity of the sons of the Roman general Pomponius, who, when they had erected for their triumphant father three statues — one for him as warrior, another for him as conqueror, and a third for him as triumphator — and when their father's modesty declined to claim this honor for himself, added yet a fourth pillar for Pomponius the Refuser, or Despiser of this honor. While Graevius still moved among us in health and prosperity, and the health of our de Vries began to falter, he had more than once, with a sorrowing heart, sighed to me (for he was, as everyone knows, my bosom friend) that great calamities threatened our schools should the ailing man come to die. While, then, I now renew these things in my memory, and think upon both these great men — upon Graevius, whose great number of excellent poets bewailed the fatal misfortunes of the academy in connection with his death, and upon de Vries, in whose death Graevius foreboded and mourned the calamities of the academy — no one, I think, will accuse me of faintheartedness if I feel within me a like fear and anxiety: for as I reflect that henceforth not so many young men will come flocking to the training-schools of theologians, jurists, and physicians who, to gain proper access to them, were prepared in great numbers by these two great men, fright and trembling seize me in every limb. Should malicious envy, against all these things I have said — from which not the least particle deviates from the truth — dare to open its jaws, which I can scarcely believe, it will do the greatest harm to itself, and none at all to the dead man of letters, who is now placed above all envy. Thus, then, in this adjoining hall our de Vries is silent; from that nearest chamber the speaking Wisdom has departed; and there would be no end, nor measure, to our mourning and sorrow, were there not still left to us other very learned and very diligent men, who will strive with all their might and manly courage to hold up the departing and fleeing Wisdom, and to bring her back to her old dwelling places.

While we were thus still occupied with mourning, and lamenting our de Vries, taken from us by death — behold, the aged Petrus van Mastricht, so many years our colleague, dies too; whose feeble remains we buried but yesterday, in the very same grave, alongside the deceased de Vries, that these two souls, so closely united in life, might, in body too, rest together in one grave, and, rising with clasped hands, go together to meet the Savior when he shall appear for judgment. But for the present we are gathered here to consider the pious and learned endowments of soul, and the praiseworthy deeds, of this man. Such was the custom of antiquity toward its heroes; so it did toward men and women who had acquitted themselves with honor in peace or war, and especially toward the learned. The Church practiced this duty of love toward the martyrs, who did not hold their lives dear for the sake of confessing the truth. From these this praiseworthy custom passed on, by succession, down to our own times, so that the survivors might look, as in a mirror, into the lives of the departed, and learn from them to direct their own words, deeds, and thoughts after their example, with emulation. This charge I would gladly, for more than one weighty reason, have declined; but after I learned the dying man's last will, and that the wish of our Senate agreed with it, that this praiseworthy task be laid upon me, and considered that in this respect only the honor of obedience was left to me, I did not undertake it unwillingly. But while I was girding myself to the task of honoring our Petrus with a funeral oration, another ornament of our order, Mr. Paulus Bauldri, whose bones and remains we laid to earth the day before yesterday, ended his days — a man who was most dear and friendly to me as a colleague. A man who, just as he had become known and pleasing, through his learning, to the foremost men and most learned scholars in Italy and France, particularly to Cardinal Noris and Bishop Huet, so too, as a victim of French cruelty, exchanged his great riches — possessed as by another Croesus — for a miserable exile, out of love for the true religion, and by an outstanding holiness of life gave light to his countrymen and to all of us, and to me most especially — so much so that he may with the fullest right be placed, for his merits, on the roll of martyrs and confessors; and he is worthy also that a eulogy be delivered over him within a short time by the widely famous Reland, my very dear colleague. Setting this aside for now, I turn again to my Petrus, and, to honor him as is fitting, I begin with the place of his birth, which gave him so honorable an entrance into the light, for he was by birth a native of Cologne.

Were my purpose to make an excursion to the ancient Ubii, and to climb back to the age of Nero's mother, who was born among that people, and by whose arrangement a Roman colony was afterward brought into that region (such a colony being called, in Latin, Colonia), then this city would be seen to be named Cologne after that same word, and the name of the Ubii exchanged for that of the Agrippinenses, and thus the full name of this city became Colonia Agrippina. Were I to wish to speak of all the splendors of this most flourishing city — so far as that be truth, and not the stuff of legend, and to make mention of Archbishop Hermann, who embraced the Reformed religion — or were I willing to come down to later times, and to recall the learned men who have flourished in this city, and to name in particular the theologians whom she has brought forth from her bosom — not the triflers and deceitful orators, who through their barbarous scholastic learning kept back and spoiled the years of youth with useless disputes and empty lessons, but those better and worthier men who happily devoted themselves to good letters and the exposition of Greek and Latin authors, among whom Mauritius, Count of Spielberg, canon of the cathedral church of Cologne, was preeminent, who together with Rudolphus Agricola, and the Münster knight Langius, and Franciscus Philelphus, and Theodorus of Gaza, and other vigorous restorers of both languages in Italy, applied his labor — were I, I say, to wish to relate these and yet other things here, where would be the end of my discourse? One does not find, in anyone's native land, only matter for praise and glory: has Cologne brought forth good men, she has also produced bad ones. Of this latter sort was a certain Theodoricus, who was a member of that shameful Roman assembly at Constance, and in the thirteenth session delivered a speech before those fathers, and in a godless manner tormented that most simple and upright martyr, John Hus. Of such a kind too was Conradus Vorstius, whom Piscator used to call the worse of his two greatest pupils, just as he called Heinrich Alting the better of the two — while he abused his very sharp wit and his extensive reading and learning, and lamentably tore apart the University of Steinfurt, my own native city, indeed the whole Reformed Church, and would have torn it further still had he ascended and occupied the Leiden chair, and had this not been prevented by all the champions of truth throughout the Netherlands, and by the intercession also of various foreign princes and kings, who valiantly and manfully set themselves against it. Very gladly would I have judged charitably of the errors of that most learned man, hateful though they were, had he honestly confessed what he kept concealed in his breast. But who could not feel himself moved to indignation against one who, by his dissimulations, in which he continually hid himself, deceived and misled the less discerning? Once and again he took an oath at Heidelberg that he would live and die by the doctrines of the Palatinate Catechism; with mouth and pen, with protestations and with tears, he declared several times to the States of Holland that he differed from certain Reformed churches only in the doctrine of predestination and what is connected with it, but that in all other articles of doctrine and faith he agreed with them at the bottom of his heart. From this it was that Bertius, who had fallen away from the Reformed faith, composed an epitaph for him, the substance of which was that the Reformed Church had done Vorstius the greatest wrong, seeing that he was, and remained, greatly attached to it — for he had, after all, always confessed the Trinity in the one divine Being, and had at the same time condemned the opinions of Arius and Socinus. He offered himself before the Synod of Dordrecht, before his opinions were even condemned by that assembly, to refute them expressly in a separate book — and no one, save some ill-disposed person, doubted that he was an opponent of the most holy, adorable Three Persons in the divine Being, as Sandius, a learned and forthright man, though he saw this too, did not conceal. Of such a character, then, was this Cologne theologian — which I judged it not unprofitable, in this digression, to recall, that those who in our own days still plead and defend his cause, and who do not scruple sharply to rebuke and accuse the worthiest and most praiseworthy men who in Church and State have taken care that the University of Leiden should not be deceived and harmed by such a man, may be covered with shame and cease from slandering. Since, then, it is a matter of little moment, and of no great worth, that one be born in a famous land, or be a citizen of an eminent city, I would rather say this of our man of Cologne: that his ancestors were inhabitants and strangers there, and not native-born citizens of Cologne. For both they, and, still today, our own Bauldri, were formerly praiseworthy confessors of the truth who had fled to Cologne to enjoy freedom of conscience and religion — precious pledges which, in their own fatherland, the cruel executioners of the popish persecution sought in a horrible manner to rob from them. It was accounted by them infinitely better to go into exile and live as strangers at Cologne, for the sake of practicing their most holy religion, than to enjoy the privileges of citizenship and be clothed with the dignity of burgomasters in their own fatherland.

His great-grandfather, then, and his great-grandmother, were among the first who were illumined by the rising light of the Gospel. In the year fifteen hundred seventy-nine, when Maastricht was for the first time cruelly besieged and stormed, and he could not be rescued quickly enough by his children from the hands of the Spaniards, he was drowned in the river Meuse, which flows past that city. His grandfather was Cornelius, who, like his grandmother, was eighty-three years old, and who, in the time of the cruel persecution under the rule of the bloodthirsty Duke of Alva, having purchased his freedom to depart with a large sum of money, betook himself with his only sister from Maastricht to Cologne. From this it is that he and his descendants took the name of Mastricht, whereas otherwise they were sprung from the house of Sconing, a family that was at that time highly esteemed in the city of Maastricht. His father was named Thomas, who, treading in the footsteps of his pious forefathers, was for a long time an elder of the Cologne consistory, and together with the ministers faithfully shepherded and governed, as a herdsman, the flock of that congregation, gathered there in secret and under the cross. His grandfather, on the mother's side, was Plancius, or le Plang, burgomaster of Ath, whose grandmother lies buried there in the chief church, together with him, along with twenty-two children, and is still today seen in effigy, made in a monk's or beguine's habit, and likewise with so many children in holy (so-called) garb, in a tomb overlaid with copper. He himself, however, no longer able to remain in the Roman superstition — as countless examples have lately done in the French persecution — abandoned not only his office of burgomaster, but even his wife and children, who would not follow him, and betook himself to Antwerp, which was at that time the refuge of the poor persecuted. Afterward, feigning and pretending to be ill, he summoned his wife to him, and, though unwilling and weeping, brought her with his four children to Cologne — to whom, though their fruitful marriage added yet five more children, the good God provided so abundantly, through a prosperous trade, that they attained a rich estate, and had no reason to complain of the lost and forfeited goods of their ancestors, or to be greatly desirous of them. Of these nine children, the daughter Johanna was married to Thomas van Mastricht, who made him the father of a great number of children, of whom, after the death of our Petrus, only Gerhardus now remains alive — who, though ten years younger than he, need in no way yield to him in godliness and learning; for of both he has given no common proofs, formerly at Duisburg, where he held the professorship of law with great renown, and now still at Bremen, where he is state councilor and syndic of that free commonwealth, and has made himself famous through various embassies and learned writings that will endure time and envy. More I dare not say of him, out of respect for his presence, so as not to wound his modesty.

From these things it appears, then, from what blood our Petrus sprang, and upon what illustrious images of ancestors he may boast. He came into the world in the month of November of the year sixteen hundred thirty; but he himself told me, as I stood by his sickbed, that he was further from seventy years than from eighty. Thus he attained the utmost limit of man's ordinary lifespan, and thus he bore the snow-white and glistening crown of old age. It is almost to be reckoned a wonder that, in this present state of the frailty and weakness of human nature, so long a life should nevertheless have fallen to the lot of so very many of the most excellent theologians, notwithstanding that they, through constant care and unwearied labor, exhaust and wear out their bodily strength and vital spirits, and extinguish the lamp of their life through too frequent use: Peter, Paul, John, Titus, Polycarp, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Jerome, and a great number of other ancients besides; the venerable Beza, Molinaeus, Paraeus, both the Rivets, Maresius, Heidanus, Spanheim, and — whom above all I ought not to forget — Gisbertus Voetius, that immortal foundation-pillar of this university — who, though daily weighed down by the astonishing burdens of their weighty offices, nevertheless either completed the age of eighty years, or at least came very near to this highest stage of human life. Just as the Lord God, in his holy providence, visits the sins of the Church with the rod of chastisement, in this too, that he often snatches away her best and greatest men, who have scarcely yet worn off the bloom of their youth, so too he grants remarkable proofs of his goodness and power, as often as he prolongs to the very highest pitch the lives of the champions of his Church congregation. "An old man in one's household is a good sign," was the proverb of the ancient wise men among the Hebrews — because old people not seldom, by their prudence and piety, uphold and support their tottering households. And why should we not also say, for the same reason, that an old man in the household of God's Church is a good sign — seeing that its leaders and governors are called elders, or the eldest, and the church council bears the name of the eldership? Not, indeed, that the government of the Church should be entrusted only, and always, to persons who are advanced in years, but only to such as match others in dignity, prudent wisdom, and godliness, and who excel above others in such qualities. If, then, an old man in God's house be a good sign, one may justly count it a bad sign when the Church is deprived of old men and of their wise counsel. Some of the Jewish teachers, too, gave to the old people in a household the name of shields, or props, of such a house. Let us apply this again to the spiritual house of God's Church — who would not then justly fear the fall and collapse of the same, when the props and supports of it are broken, and taken away from beneath? There are, it is true, in every age and stage of life, and so too in old age, blemishes enough, even among churchmen, whose wickedness grows with their years; but as we do not concern ourselves with such, so the others, who receive the laurel wreath of old age while they walk in the path of righteousness, and end their days believing in the work of their sovereign Lord — even as our man of whom we now speak — are worthy of manifold honor in the highest degree, and are to be revered as so many gods and divinities upon the earth, who, for our sake and for our benefit, delay their journey homeward to the heavenly fatherland.

But since our Petrus need not be measured by his birth and descent, nor by the blood of his parents and ancestors, nor by his lineage and house, and everything which he himself had not accomplished he did not reckon as his own — come, then, let us look more closely at those things which were peculiarly his own, and concern his person alone. His childhood he passed at the Latin school of Duisburg, where he acquired as a fellow student that excellent Theodorus Undereyck, who afterward became an outstanding servant in the ministry at Kassel and Bremen, and made himself famous through his useful writings. After he had passed through the years of his childhood, and had made outstanding progress in Greek and Latin letters, and was to be sent to the universities, the Utrecht academy pleased him above others — not only on account of the renown of the professors there, but especially also on account of Mr. Scor, who was there a very famous surgeon, whose help his parents sought in order to heal the defect which he had in one of his feet, and the weakness of his loins, defects which he did not have from birth, but which had come upon him solely through the carelessness of a maidservant who had let him fall. And although the hope placed in this physician was disappointed, and he could not remove the lameness of the body, nevertheless the professors to whose charge the care of his soul was entrusted — Voetius, Hoornbeek, and de Maets, men of immortal memory — so formed his mind that he excelled above all the students of the university in diligence and progress. He also visited the university of Leiden in Holland, and that of Heidelberg in the Palatinate. Once, too, he crossed over to England, to learn that language, and to be instructed in the practice, or Christian moral exercise. But he continually returned to his old teachers at Utrecht, of whom he availed himself so steadily and so long that, reckoning the months and days together, he sojourned here about five whole years, though not without interruption. In the fifty-second year of the preceding century he presented himself for examination before the Reverend Classis of Utrecht, which admitted him to the number of the candidates for the ministry, and thus, furnished with very praiseworthy testimonials, both academic and ecclesiastical, he returned to his native place, and was shortly afterward called to the church at Xanten near Wesel, where for some time, as an assistant, he exercised the holy ministry.

Afterward he preached the Gospel at Gelukstadt (an island in the middle of the Sound, otherwise called Tychopolis, after the great astronomer Tycho Brahe), which at that time was nowhere else permitted to the adherents of the Reformed religion in the whole of Denmark; but when, through the outstanding piety of Queen Charlotte Amalie, who came to that city the previous summer, a church was founded in the royal capital for the Reformed religion, it was deliberated at the Danish court whether our man should be called from that neighboring island to Copenhagen. This call, however, came to nothing: for the illustrious and mighty Elector of Brandenburg, surnamed the Great (who was greater through no titles of honor or praise, or laurels won in war, than through his love for the true religion and Christian piety), moved by the good report of the man, resolved to place him among the theological professors of his university at Frankfurt an der Oder, and moreover appointed him professor of the Hebrew language — indeed, a very rare example, at the same time honored him with the professorship of Practical Theology as well, on generous terms, and with certain forceful letters of invitation which, breathing nothing but pure piety, were read by me too with desire and great pleasure. In these lands, too, it has often been considered — not only by pious and learned men, but also by whole classes and synods, as in particular at the Synod of Dordrecht — whether it would not be useful that in the universities a theologian should be specially appointed to teach Practical Theology, who should treat of the Christian virtues and vices, distinguish the lawful from the unlawful, and the praiseworthy and commendable from that which is to be blamed and avoided, in cases of conscience, as they are called, and who should thus teach the young men, fit for the service of God and his Church, not so much to dispute well as, in particular, to live well, and thereby make them fit to preach God's Word to the people reverently and with fruit, and to attend properly to the other parts of their coming ministry. But these so desirable deliberations have long since vanished again from view in these regions. Our Mastricht, however, obtained this post in the margraviate, and while in the second year of his call he strove to make this his office glorious and to extend it, he could not well be without the title and privileges of a public teacher. He therefore betook himself to Duisburg, in the land of Cleves, where he had lived and been brought up in his childhood years. Here he held a public disputation on the character of doctrinal-practical theology, which he defended manfully and with credit; and after he had delivered an oration on the name and office of a theological teacher, he was, in the year sixteen hundred sixty-nine, solemnly, and in the splendid manner of the forefathers — with the cap, as they say — in the great lecture hall, and before a great assembly of hearers, inaugurated by the widely famous Crellius, at once as teacher of theology and of philosophy — outward forms which he would perhaps have despised all his life, could he, without breach of order and the established laws of the university, have dispensed with them.

Our man of Maastricht was thus trained and prepared at Frankfurt, in order finally the better and the more happily to fulfill his office among us. This city and university had formerly taken from Groningen the Utrecht man Martinus Schoockius, and had lately taken from us the illustrious Cocceius — but she made good this loss by giving up our Mastricht. In such a manner, indeed, is it arranged with the fortunes and turns of fate of the universities, that they increase and decrease through mutual losses and gains. Yet he did not return to Utrecht to hold the professorship until after he had served out his years teaching at Frankfurt, and had spent seven years at the academy of Duisburg. The excellent theologian and eloquent preacher Martinus Hondius, who sprinkled me with the holy sign of the covenant of baptism when he shepherded the flock of that congregation at Steinfurt, had died. This celebrated man had learned, from the little book on the Covenants by the widely renowned Cocceius, the method of expounding the divine dispensations of grace, which Amyraut followed, and which he, being in France, had made his own; and he was so fortunate in grasping and expounding this and many other of that man's thoughts, then rightly understood by very few, that Cocceius mourned the death of his Hondius no otherwise than as if he had been his own tenderly beloved brother or son. For besides a very diligent teachableness, which made him uncommonly dear to his master, there was added also a nephew's or blood relationship, by which he was his kinsman. This excellent man, then, who had brought no small luster to the new Cleves academy, having been snatched away by death, a successor had to be sought in his place. No one seemed to the illustrious Elector more worthy for this than our Mastricht, to make good the loss of Hondius and, as it were, to revive him. For although indeed the luster of the Frankfurt academy need not yield to that of Duisburg, he nevertheless, moved by love for his fatherland, preferred to teach at Duisburg, where he had been brought up, and had lately obtained the highest honors in theology and philosophy, and where, moreover, he found his dearly beloved brother, who there, among the ranks of the jurists, was in high flower and esteem at the university — as he himself did not conceal in his oration on the obligation of the academic oath, which he delivered in the year sixteen hundred seventy, when he was there inaugurated as professor of theology and the Hebrew language. But after the passing of seven years, of all our theologians here in this place only Burmannus remained alive — who, though known everywhere throughout the learned world by his widely famous name, and far exalted above my praise, could not alone bear the burden of the theological professorship. Wherefore, when this academy, which for some time had been under French power, but was now released from that captivity, had to be restored, and it was deliberated how to give her a successor in place of the great Voetius, this his pupil and former hearer came into consideration, who, both near and far, in the mouths and eyes of all, had given such great proofs of learning and piety, that there was good ground to hope that in him the aged old man would live again. To these two professors a third was shortly afterward added, who is still living — Melchior Leydekker, our very beloved and highly esteemed colleague, whom I hesitate to praise in his own presence; yet while I am now occupied in giving others their true and deserved praise, it would surely be unjust to be silent that he has laid this university under great obligation to himself, by his unwearied labor of many years, and has so filled and made famous by his manifold learning and mastery of very many languages, arts, and sciences, that he need in no way yield to any of us, but indeed surpasses most, if not all. Oh, how fortunate was our school then, under the guidance and government of such a triumvirate! Indeed, when our Mastricht, who held this professorship here for nearly thirty years, wielded the academic scepter in the year sixteen hundred eighty-two, he saw so numerous a body of academic youth as no one before him had ever seen — which is evident even from this, that in that very year more than sixty were promoted and honored with the dignity of ministers. It is true that in his last years he had to occupy himself mostly with private house-instruction, without contributing much to the public services of the academy; but this was to be attributed solely to his weak and enfeebled bodily constitution and ill health, which so far gained the upper hand that, according to the judgment of the physicians, it had long threatened him with a stroke. One should also consider his advanced age: for what could reasonably have been demanded of an eighty-year-old man, who in the churches and universities had, over so long a time, broken and worn out the powers of mind and body? Especially when we take into consideration his two great volumes, in which he has set forth Doctrinal and Practical Theology, and which he not only revised in this city, but enriched by more than a third part — we must acknowledge that by his writing he has glorified our academy, even as his powers to go about, to speak, and publicly to give lectures failed him. Truly, had he spent his whole life solely in composing, producing, publishing, and bringing to perfection and adorning this most beautiful offspring of his mind, he would have done abundantly enough, and would thereby alone have shown that he had lived for the Church, for the academy, and for posterity.

My thoughts have never dwelt on any of his other writings, of which some, as I now understand, have been published in print, while others still lie written out only in his own hand. But as regards this body of theology, I dare say with confidence that it is arranged in so exact an order, filled and laden with so great a weight of matter, and so stuffed with such great and manifold learning, that I do not know whether, in this kind of writing, anything so precise and compact will anywhere be found: which, should anyone presume to deny, oh, how pitifully would such a one have to crawl back into his shell, show up his own poor and foolish brains to his shame, sit with his hands in his hair, and gnaw his own fingernails, were he required to undertake such a work himself once, or to compose something better, or were it laid upon him to point out, with sound reasons, anything blameworthy in this excellent work, point by point. But why do I use so many words to uphold the honor and dignity of a book upon which, long since, the most rightful prejudgments of so many thoroughly learned and discerning theologians have set so high a price — a book everywhere so eagerly bought that the booksellers, not without reason, are considering laying out a new and third printing of it; a book, finally, whose fame and high esteem shall endure, while the names of its detractors and enviers, plunged into an everlasting darkness, shall no more be remembered, and shall vanish from the earth, and their useless and unworthy writings shall serve for various mean uses in the daily marketplace, or for things even meaner. The eagerness of speaking of the praise of a single book has carried me so far that it is needless to add anything further here of the man's learning. No one, I believe, will wish to deny that there are many who dwell in obscurity, and go about as it were clothed in a mean garment, whose learning nevertheless ought to be esteemed highly and honored by all. Many, on the other hand, there are who rise to the highest dignities and offices of honor, though unworthy of the lowest rank. But just as our man's high dignities came to him in so many universities and schools, so he made and won them for himself by his own steady labor and sweat, and by his outstanding learning. This, too, must at last not be forgotten to his praise: that, having his mind constantly set on death, he was a stranger to all discords and factions, and a hater of all who, for the sake of the cause of truth, lose sight of and set aside Christian love. It is true, it is imputed to him as a fault that he set himself somewhat too strongly against reason, and, under the pretext of religion, thrust her down from her throne. But it is also true that many things run off, and turn, into contentions over words and manners of speech, which are at present so fiercely disputed on this point. Mr. Werenfels, that ornament of the Basel academy, has in these days published a very fine writing on the war of words among the learned; and were one to add further everything in which, on all sides, one sins in respect of such disputes, to what a size would a volume on that subject swell? Should anyone wish to have banished and cast out all use of reason by men in theology, surely such a one might well himself be banished from the society of men, and sent off to the company of beasts: for the holy books of revelation are given for rational men, not for irrational beasts. Quite otherwise has the Reformed Church felt about this, even from her first establishment, and has shown, with manifold arguments and proofs, how great a service she has had from sound and sober philosophy. In accordance with this she has, in all her universities, appointed teachers of philosophy as well as of theology, being well assured of how great a usefulness this handmaid is to her mistress. The widely renowned Maresius (not to mention many others now), whom one is otherwise accustomed to count among the enemies of reason, delivered a very grave and elegant oration on the use of reason in theology, when he was invested with the office of teacher by the great Rivet. Therefore, if in these matters there is no difference at all, where then shall it be found? Perhaps in this, that some hold reason to be fallible, and others, on the contrary, acknowledge her free of this defect. But whatever the case, since all must acknowledge not only that reason is finite, but must also confess her, through the original sin of our first father, to be corrupted, defiled, and blinded — a thing recently shown most excellently in this very lecture hall before a numerous assembly — who then is there who will be able to acquit blind reason of the danger of erring and of leading others astray? Would you object to this, that reason, insofar as it is reason, does not deceive, and that conscience, insofar as it is conscience, neither deceives nor can be deceived; for as often as it errs and causes others to err, it is no longer reason or conscience, but folly, presumption, and prejudice? I am by no means so carping and ill-disposed about trifles of words and expressions, and I would rather say, out and with the divine oracles themselves, that all men, since and because of the corruption of their nature, have become foolish, and have lost their wisdom; that they are wrapped in a thick darkness, indeed are altogether darkness, and have lost the light first implanted in them; that they have a deceitful heart, by no means upright or pure, but unclean; that the conscience is defiled and not undefiled — indeed, that both religion and conscience are idolatrous. Would you dispute against this and say: insofar as we are wise, we are not foolish; the understanding, insofar as it does not comprehend or understand, is no understanding; the conscience, insofar as it is defiled, is no conscience, and whatever else of this kind — oh, pretty and sweet subtlety, I say; that is to say, an eye is no eye, insofar as it is blind; the ear is not deaf, insofar as it is an ear; the soul is no soul, insofar as it sins and stumbles; an angel is not wicked, insofar as he is an angel — and consequently there are found no blind eyes, no deaf ears, no sinning souls, nor any evil angels. Truly! that right reason, that lamp and image of God in the soul, does not err nor deceive — who can deny this, save only a fool? But insofar as it errs and deceives, insofar it surely departs from rightness. Further, where indeed is this right reason to be found, but in God alone, and in the perfectly blessed inhabitants of heaven? But corrupted reason is wholly fallible and deceitful. Yet if you will not call this reason itself, but rather the defect and corruption of reason, I can let that pass. Accordingly, then, since we are agreed on this point too, wherein lies the pith and marrow of the disagreement? Certainly in nothing at all, except only a useless and petty matter — of no greater weight, indeed, than that general doubt which has furnished occasion for so many controversies, being held to be nothing other than an inquiry concerning matters that are most certain and most true, and, once tested, serve for their still stronger confirmation, and for the satisfying conviction of the most obstinate doubters — just as I lately saw with great pleasure how one of the greatest men of our age treated this matter in a public oration, with which, having honorably obtained release from his office, he took leave of his academic labor.

On the contrary, should anyone wish to set his own reason and wisdom against the divine; should anyone presume to find fault with God in his speaking, and twist and adapt his heavenly words to his own reasonings; should anyone reason in such a manner as we lately saw the corrupters of the Christian religion do — and should our Petrus van Mastricht have set himself against such persons, both in his younger years and in his gray old age — far be it from us that we should reckon this to the pious man as an error or a fault. On the contrary, I set it among his praiseworthy qualities, and hope to die in that same conviction with him, and to appear before the judgment seat of God, the Giver of his Word and the Author of the Christian religion. From the time of Christ's birth onward, no philosophical system has ever been introduced but its misuse has brought harm to the holy mysteries of the Christian faith. Of this no one can be in doubt concerning the Platonic philosophy and manner of teaching, who is not wholly a stranger to Church antiquity. The Aristotelian teaching that followed, which through its scholastic barbarity was very ill-suited, has most wretchedly spoiled both the most fitting terms in theology and the matters themselves. Granted that the newly arisen and now widely prevailing teaching of the noble philosopher Descartes has placed some arts and sciences in a clearer light — yet whoever denies that some overbold minds have misused it to the harm of the Christian religion is either not sincere and denies what he sees with his own eyes, or is blinder than a mole. Heidanus saw it, Cocceius likewise — those two fine lights formerly at the neighboring university — and both, in their given judgment, sought to stem this evil, in the year sixteen hundred sixty-six. Heideggerus too has seen it, and with him Suicerus, both professors at Zurich in Switzerland — and what great men were these! The former, after so many printed compendia of theology, wrote, at the urging of Fabricius, that excellent theological philosopher at Heidelberg in the Palatinate, at the end of his life, The Marrow of Theology, which writing has since grown into a great body of work, without any admixture of old or new philosophy, and indeed to this very end, as he himself says: that he might thereby deal the death-blow to so many monstrous errant and confused spirits, who had begun to lift up their heads in the Church, and threatened to thrust God himself, together with his Word, down from his throne. And the latter, who, alas, was but lately snatched by death from the Palatinate churches, over whose restoration and governance he had been placed, showed this in an oration on the terrors of the Reformed Church. This too all my teachers and the guides of my youth have seen, among whom Jacobus Alting and Reinoldus Pauli were preeminent. This the noble and mighty States of Holland have seen, who have more than once curbed these unruly and seducing worldly-wise men and their sophistries by their forceful and earnest legislative decisions. No less have the noble and mighty Lords States of this province seen it, and the right honorable councils and magistracies of this city, our most highly esteemed magistracy, who by a praiseworthy resolution in the year sixteen hundred ninety-five established and decreed that no one should presume to adapt and teach the chief articles of the revealed Christian religion according to the rule of reason. Finally, the whole Christian world, at least the pious part of it, has seen and sighed over this.

One might think that we had now done enough in our funeral and eulogistic oration to establish the worthy renown and name of our departed, having given a proper account of his fatherland and birthplace, of his lineage and descent, of his age and years, of his offices of honor and learning; but all these things are to be reckoned as mere shameful and glittering vanities, unless there be added to them an unfeigned love for God and for one's neighbor. What use, indeed, is found in a sharp-witted disputation over hidden and obscure matters, ignorance of which can bring us not the least harm at the divine judgment seat? What does it profit to be uncommonly diligent and industrious in raising and settling questions and controversies, while meanwhile being wholly careless and slothful in rooting out vices, and in sowing and planting virtues? What does a lofty and sublime speculation and assertion of the mystery of the divine Trinity avail, if we lack the right submission to, and are displeasing to, this Triune Godhead? Before the divine judgment seat, on that great day of the kingdom and of judgment, a theological teacher shall not be asked what he has read, and how finely, elegantly, and wittily he has spoken and written, but what he has done, and how he has lived. Oh, how much more excellent will it be, on that dreadful day, to have felt one's repentance and contrition with sorrow of heart, than to have known the most precise description of it! As many as there are who, puffed up by the vanity of some knowledge, strive after the grand titles of teachers, masters, great men, most renowned, and widely famous, and who meanwhile are empty of Christian love, such are the most foolish of all mortals, and shall be cast out and mocked by God and by the inhabitants of heaven. He alone is truly great who dwells with himself, and is small in his own eyes, and who has great love. He alone is truly learned who does God's will, and denies his own. To know the Lord Jesus Christ, and him crucified, and to esteem him precious, and to count and despise all earthly things as loss and dung — this alone is the true and lovable knowledge. To fear Jehovah is truly to be wise, and to depart from evil is understanding. So long, then, as I have not yet mentioned the godliness of our departed, all my eulogy is mere slander; whereas, if I shall be able to ascribe it to him, then this shall constitute the true crowning seal of his renown. He is the only one, among the Reformed teachers whom I know, who has been adorned with the name and title of Professor of Practical Theology. He alone is the one who has composed and published a body of Practical Theology, a book which in its kind surpasses in worth all other writings. But what a pattern he set forth for the improvement and formation of the morals of Christians, according to that same pattern he also ordered his entire course of life. I do not extol to the utmost any all-round perfection which might be supposed to have been in and about him. Perfection is desired and longed for by the truly godly in this present time of imperfection, but shall be enjoyed only in the other and coming age. We all still stumble now in many things. He was a man to whom nothing that is human was foreign; but if such a man is the best who is beset with the fewest faults, if such a one is truly godly who walks in uprightness before God's face, and who by a continual striving seeks to be godly, then godliness may without any doubt be ascribed to him — since from his childhood to his last years he was set upon it. As witnesses of this I call all the godly who have known him; indeed, I appeal even to the ungodly themselves, who, being enemies of him and of the truth, are thereby also enemies of God — whether he did not excel among the godly? How chaste, always and everywhere, was the unmarried life he led, not only without stain or reproach of any evil deed, but even without any suspicion or the least appearance of evil; how holy and blameless he lived in his household and among his family, and how strictly he observed his daily exercises of godliness, neglecting them less than his nightly rest, or his midday and very sober evening meal — this all who lived in the house with him know by experience. With what zealous diligence he attended public worship, this we have all seen. When, in this last year, owing to the decline of his strength, he had to give up his public lectures, and could not appear at the academic council meetings, and finally had to leave off all his particular official duties, he nevertheless remained steadfast in going up to the house of God. Wherever he was and lived, he showed himself magnanimous; with contempt for all promises and threats made to him, he proved himself as brave an enemy of vice as a champion against error. Many and very glorious testimonials from professors, ministers of the Gospel, classes, synods, churches, and universities, given to him from his young years down to this his last old age, I have read; but not one in which his singular godliness was not commended as an example to others. But why need many words be used, when the factual testimonies themselves are at hand? Just as his middle years corresponded to his youth, so also his last and old days lent luster to his manly age. This you will understand and grant with me, if I may, with your permission, give in a few words also a sketch of his very last period of life.

On account of his advanced age he had long been very weak, and through many illnesses and constant labor his strength was broken, in which state he awaited his last hour. At last, on Friday, the third of February, when in the evening he descended the stone steps to the kitchen, he had an unforeseen fall upon the floor — caused, whether by a bewilderment and dizziness of his brain, such a fainting and weakness of the head as he had experienced more than once before this, or by the weakness of his lame foot, or by some other cause, but certainly, at any rate, by divine providence. He thereby received a bruise and a wound on his weaker foot, and exactly in that place which he was accustomed to strengthen and nurse with a bandage smeared with Nuremberg salve. But as he did not feel this injury, so he disclosed it too late. When he came to himself again, the weakened body was seized by fever, and the foot by gangrene. And notwithstanding that the very learned and experienced physicians — our colleague Professor Leusden, together with the physician Wachtendorp, and besides these also the burgomaster Sypestein, who had grown gray in the practice of medicine, and was sought out and employed even by kings and princes on account of his renown — applied every art and effort to restore him; and notwithstanding that they had overcome the fever and the pains in his left side, and had even checked the cankerous wound, so that it might eat no further — he nevertheless, little by little, through the failing of his vital powers, on the fourth day of March, at nine o'clock in the evening, gently fell asleep. It would take too long to recount all the proofs of his godliness which he gave during his last illness; I shall mention only what happened in my presence, when, out of duty, I came to visit him, or, being requested to do so, joined him once and again together with others, to whom, besides myself, he had entrusted the documents for the execution of his last will. It is remarkable that, when on the Lord's Day the minister Petrus Eindhoven (a man venerable not only for his gray age, but also for his learning and piety, and some years older than our departed) commended before God, together with the whole congregation, in fervent prayers, this his namesake and contemporary, now having death upon his lips; and when I, after the close of the worship service, together with my two celebrated colleagues Leydekker and Luyts, approached the bed of the dying man, and, with bended knees, led him and the others who were present there in prayer, he, with voice and gestures, sighing, said, "Amen, Amen," assenting to that intercession. This act of worship performed, he declared openly that he was dying in and upon that doctrine in which he had instructed others, and that he was now going forth to appear before the tribunal of that supreme Judge, to whom he should accordingly give account. He added further, with a loud voice, that he held every defense of the truth that was not bound by an inseparable tie to unfeigned godliness and holiness of life to be of no worth or value whatsoever. At the same time he praised the divine providence in this his last fall, and expressed his ready submission to the will of God, whether to go hence at once, or also to remain still longer; and he added that he would gladly undergo that fall again, and all the other calamities and misfortunes he had ever suffered in his life, should it so please the heavenly Father, and the sovereign Lord and Disposer of his and others' affairs; this he said without any sighing, and without any show of sorrow or grief. Just such a patient composure he showed also formerly, when in the year sixteen hundred eighty-two he was tormented with a bowel affliction, and it was feared that he would vomit out his very intestines (of which sickness also died that widely renowned Rivet, a man never to be mentioned without the highest praise, though God's provident hand prevented that most pure mouth, from which had flowed the sweetest utterances of words and orations, from being defiled by the discharge of his own bowels, as the physician Crucius, though himself a Roman Catholic, testified) — for throughout the whole course of this his illness he did not once complain, nor let any sighing be heard, until at last, through divine goodness, he had a movement of the bowels precisely at the moment when the church congregation was publicly offering its prayer to God for his recovery; and when shortly afterward he had somewhat improved, and the academic staff of office was delivered to him, who could scarcely yet leave his sickroom, he made mention, in his oration of thanks which he delivered to the right honorable burgomasters, and which I attended, of both these unexpected benefits, the greater as well as the lesser, shown to him by God; and he added, to the praise of the good and almighty Triune Covenant God, that in the sharpest pressure of that so keenly felt pain, he had been overwhelmed with such great joy, and illumined with so great a light and comfort from his portion in the divine fellowship, that he had not felt even the least prickings of the fever's heat — over which favors and privileges of God, granted to but few men, we are wont justly to marvel as in the martyrs. At the last, then, when we all bade him farewell, reaching him our right hand, until the heavenly palace should reunite us with one another, he blessed us and others with the greatest and tenderest expressions of gratitude and wishes in prayer; but in the outpouring of all manner of divine blessings he was, both then and on other occasions, so abundant toward the right honorable burgomaster Cornelius Quint, with his household and posterity, that one would say it was whole streams of loving-kindness that flowed from those dying lips. Such prayers now, just as no Christian holds them lightly, so we too, fixing our attention on his every word, parted from him not without shedding tears.

At another time, when I was with him, and spoke with him almost alone, and extolled his happy state, consisting in this, that, being conscious of his own uprightness, he could say with King Hezekiah, "Remember, O Jehovah, that I have walked before you in truth and with a perfect heart," he turned this away from himself with a look of displeasure, out of fear and dread of pride; and when I thereupon replied to him that I was not praising his own powers, but the divine grace-working power in him, and cried out once and again, "By the grace of God you are what you are," then he was content. All these particulars, if they are not outstanding proofs of a Christian patience, composure, and confidence of faith, where and in whom shall such be found? Since, then, we are convinced from so many grounds of his true godliness, who can doubt that God, who is true and righteous, will also have granted him that reward of grace which he has promised to such as these? Thus, then, is our Petrus van Mastricht relieved of all difficulties and labor: he now rejoices in the midst of the heavenly inhabitants, and enjoys the immediate fellowship of his Creator and Redeemer, while we must still sigh, as slaves in captivity, over the dark and uncertain times in which the Church and the civil state now find themselves. Let us, then, and you especially, Gerhardus, his brother, and you, Petrus, namesake, likeness, and image of your father and uncle, wipe away our tears, and rest, without murmuring, in the divine will. Let us praise the loving-kindness of our God, who for so long a time granted us the use of this man, until, his strength failing him, he was no longer fit for the work which he lays upon his servants in this life — but is now nonetheless made perfect and fit to perform his heavenly duties among the choirs of angels. Let us honor with high esteem his mortal remains, whose memory shall never be to this city and university a matter of shame or disgrace; let us reverently kiss his excellent gifts and virtues, with which divine bounty had so richly endowed him with a liberal hand, and follow them, though not indeed with equal, yet with sure and continually persevering steps, until we shall have reached, together with him, that end set before us. You meanwhile, O Jehovah, look down from your high heaven upon the wounds and calamities of our academy, and prevent her from going to ruin, but grant that she may stand and flourish, age after age, to your glorification, to the growth and flourishing of Church and State, and to the eternal salvation of many!

Epigram on the Theologia Theoretico-practica of D. Petrus van Mastricht, Professor of Theology at Utrecht

Conjugio stabili, conjuncta scientia praxi,
Viribus unitis, est tibi tuta salus.
Scire tuum sterile est, si non gradiatur eodem
Tramite, cum facere; fertile si coëat.
Fac igitur facias, quo congrediatur utrumque,
Pronuba conjugio, pagina docta fiet.

Thus did Gerardus van Mastricht, Syndic of Bremen, applaud his only Brother.

On the Likeness of the Author, Prefixed to This Work

Cernere si MAGNI, multa gravitate decora,
Ora VIRI, cupias, haec tibi Charta dabit.
Quam studio veri, simul et virtutis amore,
Ardeat: hoc scripti pagina quaeque docet.
En tibi sic animo, pariter sic corpore notus,
VIR qui communi vovit utrumque bono.

This double verse for his most deserving Teacher was gladly composed by Guilielmus Muller, Student of Sacred Theology.

On the Portrait of the Right Reverend Author, Mr. Petrus van Mastricht

The Author's motto: Ὅταν γὰρ ἀσθενῶ, τότε δυνατός ἐιμι — "For when I am weak, then am I strong."

The ever-unpraisable Art thus makes to live again
The dignified countenance, the very being, of Mastricht,
Who was raised up to be a teacher in God's Church,
Who gave light to Frankfurt, to Duisburg, and to Utrecht too:
Who led the youth of the academy along the track of the ancient Truth,
And guided them to the good of Christ's Church:
Who spoke and wrote with dignity, with uncommon clarity,
And labored diligently in the work of his Lord:
Who sketches his inward image in this Theology,
Wherein he has so exquisitely expounded the Lord's Word,
The Truth neatly sifted from every kind of error,
And Knowledge joined so tightly together with Practice.
That man, full of virtue and honor — let Envy freely mock him;
He is, and remains, beloved by all who fear the LORD.
One may easily behold his true likeness,
When one reads this peerless Book, and the man's own motto too.

Adrianus Douci, Jr.

Synopsis of the Order of Instruction of the Whole Work

The whole of theology is made up and completed:

I. By three matters which must be known beforehand, concerning (Book I): (Ch. 1) 1. The nature of theology. (Ch. 2) 2. Its principle, that is, Holy Scripture. (Ch. 3) 3. The division into its parts.

II. By the system itself, in which is set forth — Faith, with respect to:

1. Its nature. (Book II, Ch. 1)

2. Its principal Object, namely God, with respect to:

— a. His existence and his knowability. (Ch. 2)

— b. His incomprehensible Being, in its Independence, which is made known:

—— i. By the divine Names. (Ch. 4)

—— ii. By his Attributes, which are treated:

——— (1) In general. (Ch. 5)

——— (2) In particular, with respect to:

———— (A) The original Attributes, by which is represented —

————— *. What God is, namely, a Spirit of and from himself: — his Spirituality and Simplicity (Ch. 6); — his Unchangeableness (Ch. 7).

————— **. How great he is, with a greatness which is: — Distinguished (here, the Unity of God, Ch. 8); — Continuing and enduring, which is considered as: (1) Absolute and unlimited, in God's Infinity (Ch. 9); (2) Relative — (I) to the Everywhere, or to Presence, called God's Immensity (Ch. 10); (II) to his Duration, called his Eternity (Ch. 11).

————— ***. What manner of being God is. Here is explained (Ch. 12): his Life and Immortality; his Understanding, Knowledge, and Wisdom (Ch. 13); his Truthfulness and Faithfulness (Ch. 14); his Will and the Affections of his Will (Ch. 15); his Goodness (Ch. 16); God's Love, Grace, Mercy, Longsuffering, and Loving-kindness (Ch. 17); God's Righteousness (Ch. 18); God's Holiness (Ch. 19); God's Power and Might, or his Omnipotence (Ch. 20).

———— (B) The derived Attributes, namely: God's All-sufficiency or Perfection (Ch. 21); God's Majesty and Glory (Ch. 22); God's Blessedness (Ch. 23).

— c. God's mode of Subsistence. Under this is treated: (a) The Holy Trinity in general (Ch. 24); (b) The Persons of the Holy Trinity — God the Father (Ch. 25); God the Son (Ch. 26); God the Holy Spirit (Ch. 27).

— d. God's Efficacious Working. Of which is treated: (a) In general; (b) In particular, of the Works of God, namely:

—— (i) Of the inward works, or the Decrees. Of these is set forth: (a) Their general nature (Book III, Ch. 1); (b) Their parts or kinds, namely: *. Predestination in general; **. In particular — Election (Ch. 3); Reprobation (Ch. 4).

—— (ii) Of the outward works, among which is: (a) Creation. Of this are treated: *. The general production, or the nature of Creation.

The things brought forth, or the creatures, being: the irrational — such as the world, that is, the heavens and the earth; and the rational — namely the angels, both the good and the evil, and mankind.

1. Creation. 2. Excellence in the image of God.

A twofold Providence: first, a natural or general providence; second, a moral or particular providence concerning man in his threefold state — of nature, wherein is treated the Covenant of Works; of sin, wherein is noted the breach of the Covenant of Works (Book IV, Chapter 1), and the consequences of that breach, namely: 1. Sin, namely (A) original, or hereditary sin, and (B) actual sin; 2. The punishment, and the state of sin; and of grace, wherein is treated the ransom-redemption, and thereof, 1. Its rule, in the Covenant of Grace (Book V, Chapter 1).

2. The Provider and Procurer, namely Christ, with respect to his (A) Names, (B) Person, and (C) Office — under which is to be noted, first, his constitution as true God and true man, and second, his threefold ministry and function: 1. The Prophetic, 2. The Priestly, 3. The Kingly; and (D) his twofold state: of Humiliation, wherein is taught, 1. Its nature in general, and 2. Its four degrees: (a) his Incarnation, (b) his Life, (c) his Death, (d) his Descent; and of Exaltation, wherein is taught, 1. Its nature in general, and 2. Its degrees: (a) the Resurrection, (b) the Ascension, (c) his Sitting at the right hand of God.

3. The Procuring itself: the ransom-redemption (Chapter XVII).

The application of the ransom-redemption, and of its 1. Nature in general (Book VI, Chapter 1); 2. Its acts, namely (A) the Calling, (B) the Regeneration, (C) the Conversion; 3. Its foundation, namely the union with Christ; 4. The benefits applied: (A) Justification, (B) Adoption as children, (C) Sanctification, (D) Glorification; 5. Its subject, namely the Church (Book VII, Chapter 1); 6. The instruments of its application, namely (A) the Ministry of the Word, (B) the Sacraments — of spiritual birth (Baptism), and of nourishment (the Lord's Supper) — (C) Church discipline, (D) the Government of the Church; 7. Its various dispensations, namely (A) under the Patriarchs (Book VIII, Chapter 1), (B) under Moses, (C) under Christ, (D) in and under eternity.

Obedience, which is occupied and active with respect to:

1. Moral matters, concerning the Virtues and the Vices set over against them, treated in three books, namely:

In general, concerning the Obedience of Faith, of which is explained (a) its nature, with respect to (α) its description, (β) its division, (γ) its dispositions, (δ) its marks, (ε) its exercise — holding fast throughout to its origin, its benefits, and its helps; and concerning Disobedience, and its (α) nature and acts, (β) its evils, (γ) its healing, which comprises (δ) the causes and (ε) the remedies (Book I, Chapter 1).

(b) Its twofold rule: first, the principal rule, the Law of God, and its (α) use — under which its nature, division, obligation, exercise, effects, benefits, and affections and dispositions are treated — and (β) its neglect and disregard, and thereof the nature, the evils, the causes, and the remedies. Second, the subordinate rule, namely Conscience, and its (α) care — together with its nature, kinds, keeping, acts of keeping, benefits, and helps — and (β) its neglect and disregard, and thereof the defects, the evils, the causes, and the remedies.

(c) Its affections and dispositions, with respect (α) to the Understanding: concerning Knowledge, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and exercise; and concerning Ignorance, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies. (β) To the Will, under which is: humility toward God, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and helps; and pride and arrogance, and its nature, causes, evils, and remedies. (γ) To the passions, affections, and inclinations, wherein is treated: the fear and the disregard of God — in particular, fear, and its nature, distinction and division, marks, benefits, and helps; and the disregard of God, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; zeal and lukewarmness — zeal, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and means; and lukewarmness, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; and, with respect to the whole man, sincerity and hypocrisy — sincerity, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and means; and hypocrisy, and its nature, evils, causes, and healing.

Its parts, namely virtue and vice in general — virtue, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and means; vice, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies — and the affections and dispositions of virtue, namely: prudence and imprudence — prudence, and its nature, division, benefits, and means; imprudence, and its nature, marks, evils, causes, and remedies; vigilance and drowsiness — vigilance, and its nature, division, benefits, and means; drowsiness, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; strength and courage, treated in general — strength and courage, and their nature, division, marks, benefits, and means; and weakness, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; and in particular: trust and timidity — trust, and its nature, division, benefits, and means; timidity, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; steadfastness and rashness — steadfastness, and its nature, division, benefits, and means; rashness, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; patience and impatience — patience, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and helps; impatience, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; temperance and intemperance — temperance, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and means; intemperance, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies.

Good and evil action — the good, and its nature, division, benefits, and manner of working; the evil, or sin, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies.

In particular, concerning Religion: godliness and ungodliness — godliness, and its nature, division, benefits, and means; ungodliness, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies (Book II, Chapter 1); faith and unbelief — faith, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and means; unbelief, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; the confession and the denial of the faith — confession, and its nature, division, benefits, and dispositions; denial, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; hope and despair — hope, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and means; despair, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; love and hatred toward God — love, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and means; hatred, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; the hearing and the neglect of the Word of God — hearing, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and means; neglect, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; prayer and its neglect — prayer, and its nature, division, benefits, manner, and helps; its neglect, and its nature, evils, causes, and helps and remedies; the confession and the concealment of sins — confession, and its nature, division, benefits, dispositions, and helps; concealment of sins, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; the use and misuse of vows — use, and its nature, division, benefits, and manner; misuse, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; the oath and perjury — the oath, and its nature, division, and use; perjury, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; the use and misuse of the lot — the lot, and its nature, division, and use; its misuse, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; communion with God and estrangement from him — communion, and its nature, division, marks, benefits, and means; estrangement, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; the instituted worship of God, and superstition — worship, and its nature, division, benefits, and exercise; superstition, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; the use and misuse of instituted worship — use, and its nature, division, and benefits; misuse, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; the sanctifying and the profaning of the Sabbath — sanctifying, and its nature, division, sanctification, and benefits; profaning, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies.

Concerning righteousness and wrongdoing toward the neighbor, in general — righteousness, and its nature, division, and benefits; wrongdoing, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies (Book III, Chapter 1); love and ill-will toward the neighbor — love, and its nature, division, marks, and means; ill-will, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; honoring and disparaging the neighbor — honor, and its nature, division, benefits, and helps; disparagement, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; discretion and courtesy, and manslaughter — discretion and courtesy, and their nature, division, benefits, and helps; manslaughter, and its nature, evils, causes, and helps and remedies; chastity and lust — chastity, and its nature, division, benefits, and helps; luxury and lust, and their nature, evils, causes, and remedies; commutative justice, and theft — justice, and its nature, division, benefits, and helps; theft, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; truthfulness and lying — truthfulness, and its nature, division, benefits, and means; lying, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; contentment and covetousness — contentment, and its nature, division, benefits, and means; covetousness, and its nature, evils, and remedies.

2. Concerning matters of exhortation, touching the exercise of the virtues, or the practice of godliness and ungodliness, in four books, namely:

In a general way: concerning the nature of the practice of godliness, and of sluggishness and negligence — the practice of godliness, and its nature, benefits, and helps; and of ungodliness, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies (Book I, Chapter 1); concerning progress in the practice of godliness, and of spiritual satiety — progress, and its nature, benefits, and helps; and spiritual satiety, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; concerning the practice of ungodliness, and its renunciation.

Spiritually: concerning the exercise and practice of godliness with respect to God, wherein is treated: the acknowledgment and the rejection of God — acknowledgment, and its nature, benefits, and helps; the disdain and rejection of God, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies (Book II, Chapter 1); the seeking and the shunning of God — seeking, and its nature, division, benefits, and manner and means; the shunning of God, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; delight and displeasure in God — delight, and its nature, benefits, and helps; displeasure, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; walking with God, and straying from him — walking with God, and its nature, marks, benefits, manner, and helps; straying and wandering from God, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; goodwill and ill-will toward God — goodwill, and its nature, benefits, and helps; ill-will, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; the particular service rendered to the glory of God; and the public or churchly service — in general, and its ingredients; in particular, with respect to all its duties; and most particularly, with respect to (a) the hearing of the Word of God, (b) prayer, (c) the singing of psalms, (d) the sacraments in general, (e) baptism, (f) the Lord's Supper, (g) almsgiving; the domestic service of God, and its neglect and disregard — domestic service, and its nature and ingredients, benefits, and helps; its neglect and disregard, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; daily worship, and its neglect and disregard — worship, and its nature, benefits, and helps; its neglect and disregard, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; the service of God in fasting, and its nature, benefits, and manner; the service rendered in the seals of the covenant, and its nature, benefits, and helps; self-examination and self-testing, and the neglect and disregard thereof — examination and testing, and its nature, benefits, and helps; its neglect, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies.

With respect to the neighbor: the use and misuse of solitude — use, and its nature, benefits, and manner; misuse, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies (Book III, Chapter 1); association and dealings with the neighbor, godly and ungodly, in general — godly association, and its nature, benefits, and helps; ungodly association, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; and in particular, association and dealings: at feasts — its use, and its nature, benefits, and helps; and its misuse, with respect to its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; in trade — a just trade, and its nature, benefits, and helps; an unjust trade, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; with the afflicted and the visited, by way of comfort, of which comfort is shown — the exercise thereof, with respect to its nature, benefits, and helps; and its neglect and disregard, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; with the fallen, and their rebuke, and fellowship with their sins — rebuke and reproof, and its nature, benefits, and helps; fellowship with sins, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; with the good, through love and friendship, of which is taught its nature, its benefits, and its helps; with the wicked and enemies, and thereof the nature, the benefits, and the helps.

With those of higher, lower, and equal rank; in particular between equals, and between unequals — in the domestic state, wherein are the duties: 1. of the husband toward his wife; 2. of the wife toward her husband; 3. of parents toward their children; 4. of children toward their parents; 5. of masters toward their servants; 6. of servants toward their masters; in the civil state, wherein is treated the duties: 1. of the magistrate toward the subjects; 2. of the subjects toward the magistrate; in the ecclesiastical state, namely: 1. of the ministers toward the hearers; 2. of the ruling elders; 3. of the hearers and those under authority — to which are added (a) the benefits of this association and dealing, and (b) its helps.

Concerning ourselves, and this with respect to our life: of whose duties is treated, more generally, with respect to (α) diligence and idleness — diligence in life, and its nature, benefits, and helps; and idleness, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies (Book IV, Chapter 1); (β) sustenance or food — its use, and its nature, benefits, and helps; its misuse, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; (γ) protection and defense by means of clothing — use, and its nature, benefits, and helps; misuse, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; (δ) refreshment or recreation — its use, and its nature and benefits; its misuse, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies. And more particularly, with respect to a given condition of life: concerning prosperity — in general, with respect to (a) its use, and its nature, benefits, and helps, and (b) its misuse, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; and in particular, with respect to the world and worldly things — use and misuse: of the world, use, and its nature, benefits, and helps; misuse, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; the vanity of worldly things, and its nature and use. Concerning adversity, and its nature — wherein is treated the bearing of the cross, and its nature, benefits, and helps; its origin through temptations, of which is explained: its use, and its nature, comforts, and helps; its misuse, and its nature, evils, causes, and remedies; its kinds, wherein is treated: a bodily cross, and its nature, grounds of comfort, and helps; and a spiritual cross, namely: confused and melancholic terrors, and their nature, causes, and remedies; blasphemous suggestions, and their nature, grounds of comfort, and healing or helps; spiritual desertions, and their nature, healing, and comforts; and doubts of various kinds, and their general and particular remedies. Concerning death: wherein is treated the art of dying well, and its nature, benefits, and helps.

Outline of Church History, according to the Eighth Book

Since, throughout the whole range and series of the foregoing systematic ordering, the lines of the outline alone would have been too brief to admit of the further necessary subdivisions with respect to the ecclesiastical narrative — and since, besides, the gap between what precedes and what follows would have been greater than would suit its due proportion — it has therefore seemed good to me, so that you might have a more distinct thread running through the connection of the history, to pursue this book a little more distinctly than the rest, and the more so because the paragraphs here, for certain reasons, come forth at greater length and fullness. Let attention, then, be paid to the dispensation of the Covenant of Grace according to its four periods, namely:

I. Under the Patriarchs. Here occurs: the Explanatory Part, on the text of Ephesians 1:9-10 (Book VIII, Chapter 1, §1-2 and following); and the Doctrinal Part, carefully distinguishing between Election, the Covenant of Grace, its proclamation through the Gospel, and its dispensation according to the twofold Testament, the Old and the New — and in the first dispensation, two ages, under the Patriarchs and under Moses, and under each again three periods, namely:

From Adam to Noah and the Flood. Here is taught: (A) the Covenant of Nature — (a) the theology, with respect to (1) what is general, (2) the things that must be believed, and (3) the things that must be done; (B) the Church, and its state and condition; and (B) the Covenant of Grace, its dispensation and proclamation, in three periods, namely: from Adam to Noah, wherein is explained (a) the succession and the history of the eleven patriarchs, (b) the theology, and its chapters — theoretical and practical — (c) the heresies and the two schisms: between the seed of the woman and of the serpent, and between the Sethites and the Cainites, of which the origin and the chief points, together likewise with the persecutions, are related. From Noah to Abraham: wherein (a) the making of the covenant, and its manner, is shown and defended to have been spiritual both before and after the Flood; (b) the propagation under ten patriarchs, whose history is related; (c) the theology — testamentary and systematic, according to its theoretical and practical chapters, with respect to religion toward God and righteousness toward the neighbor; (d) the Church, with respect to the propagation of a threefold schism — of the serpent, the Cainite, and the Hamite. From Abraham to Moses: wherein (a) the various covenant-makings with Abraham, of which the reason and manner are explained; (b) the propagation under six patriarchs, whose history is taught; (c) the theology, testamentary and systematic, with respect to the theoretical and practical matters, according to religion and righteousness, and symbolic or ceremonial; (d) the Church, under two schisms, the Ishmaelite and the Esauite, with the persecutions. The Polemical Part of this has six controverted points. The Practical Part has five uses.

II. Under Moses. Here occurs: the Explanatory Part, on the text of Deuteronomy 5:1 (Chapter 2, §1-2); and the Doctrinal Part, and thereby (A) the proclamation of the Law — of the moral law, of the ceremonial law with respect to its four classes, expositions, and two relations, and of the civil law; (B) the renewal of the covenant — of the national covenant, of that of works, and of the Covenant of Grace, out of which is born the one Sinaitic covenant, whose nature is explained; (C) three periods, namely: from Moses to David, wherein is explained (1) the succession of sixteen judges and their history; (2) the theology — testamentary, systematic (both theoretical and practical), and symbolic or ceremonial; (3) the Church, and thereof (a) its state and government, (b) schisms — that of the serpent, the Hamite, the Korahite — (c) various idolatries — of the ephod, of Baal-Peor, of Gideon and Ephod, of Micah the Ephraimite — (d) persecutions under six Canaanite kings. From David to the Babylonian captivity, wherein (A) the renewal of the covenant, and thereof (a) its ingredients, (b) its cause, (c) its content, in mutual promises and demands, (d) its form, (e) its growth and increase; (B) the succession of the twenty-two kings of Judah, with the contemporary kings of Israel, together with the history of each in particular; (C) the theology, wherein (a) the testamentary and systematic theology, (b) the origin of the canonical and apocryphal books, (c) the history of the prophets; (D) the Church, and thereof (a) its state, (b) the schisms — the Israelite, or that of Jeroboam's calf-worship, and the Baalite, propagated among the heathen, with its various idolatries, (c) the persecutions, (d) reformations in both kingdoms, (e) divine judgments, (f) the Samaritan schism. From the Babylonian captivity to Christ, wherein: (1) a threefold Babylon; (2) the renewal of the covenant, wherein is explained (a) its nature, (b) its content, with respect to the mutual promises and demands, and its increases; (3) the rulers, namely (a) five Babylonian kings, (b) ten Persian kings, (c) fifteen princes of Israel, (d) eleven Hasmonean rulers, (e) Herod; (4) the theology — (a) testamentary, (b) systematic, proven by the testimonies of the prophets, (c) the Great Synagogue, (d) the translations of Holy Scripture, (e) the symbolic, observed in new feasts and various visions; (5) the Church, under its (A) entrance into Babylon, wherein various corruptions of the Church in morals are noted; (B) progress, wherein (a) Daniel's seventy weeks and their termini, (b) the heresies and schisms — namely the Samaritan schism, with temples on Gerizim and at Heliopolis; Phariseeism, its origin and sects; Sadduceeism, its origin and tenets; Karaism, its origin and tenets; the dispute between Hillel and Shammai; Herodianism and its tenets, (c) two persecutions, under Esther and under the Maccabees, (d) two reformations, under the prophets and under the Maccabees; (C) departure, wherein the state of theology among the Jews before the time of Christ, being greatly corrupted, is related. The Polemical Part of this chapter has eight controverted points. The Practical Part consists of seven uses.

III. Under Christ. Here again is: an Explanatory Part, on the text of Jeremiah 31:31-35 (Chapter 3, §1-2); and a Doctrinal Part, and thereby (A) a most perfect renewal of the Covenant of Grace, and thereof (a) its nature, (b) its causes, (c) its parts, (d) its content; (B) concerning the New Testament — (a) its difference from the Old, (b) its beginning, (c) its duration; (C) the seven ages of the New Testament, according to the seven seals in the Revelation.

The first age of the New Testament, under the first seal, on the text of Revelation 6:1-2. Here are explained: (a) the foundation — wherein is (1) the rise of the Christian era, (2) the birth of Christ, (3) the seventh proclamation of the Covenant of Grace, (4) the rejection of the Jews; (b) the rulers — (1) in the state, namely twelve Roman emperors, and the history of each in particular; (2) in the Church, namely four Roman popes, and the history of each in particular, with a general observation; (c) the state and condition of theology, wherein is noted (1) a threefold theology, testamentary, symbolic, systematic, (2) the origin of the New Testament, (3) the ecclesiastical writers, (4) its corruption through heathenism, a twofold Judaism, and seven heresies; (d) the Church. Here are mentioned: (A) the founders and establishers of the Church — (1) John the Baptist, (2) the Apostles, (3) the Evangelists, (4) the seventy disciples — the history of each in particular; (B) the helps of its foundation, namely (1) the preaching of the Gospel, and the dispersion of the Apostles, (2) the government of the Church, (3) Church discipline, (4) six synods, (5) the founding of some notable congregations, (6) the persecutions — four within Judea, and two throughout the whole Roman empire, up to Trajan, (7) the martyrs of this first age of the New Testament.

The second age of the New Testament, under the second seal, on the text of Revelation 6:3-4. Here are explained: (1) the rulers — (A) in the state, namely twenty Roman emperors, whose history is touched on individually; (B) in the Church, namely twenty-nine Roman popes, and the history of each in particular; (2) the theology, and thereof (a) its state, the same as that of the preceding age, (b) its propagation, both through various translations of Holy Scripture — for example by Aquila, by Theodotion, by Origen in his Tetrapla, Hexapla, Octapla — and through ecclesiastical writings, the creed of the Apostles, and the writings of the church fathers of this age, (c) its corruption, through (1) the heathen, (2) the Jews, (3) thirteen heresies in the second century, and especially five in the third century, (4) through the Christians themselves; (3) the Church, and its (a) very wide and extensive propagation, (b) the teachers of the principal congregations, (c) the ecclesiastical writers or church fathers, (d) the helps of its propagation — the public exercises of worship, the government of the Church, the councils, church discipline, the schools — (e) the hindrances and obstacles to its propagation, namely five schisms, eight persecutions, chiefly under the heathen emperors, whence (f) countless martyrdoms, (g) under which are also included the morals of the Christians.

The third age of the New Testament, under the third seal, on the text of Revelation 6:5-6, of which the explanation is given. Hereof: (1) the rulers — (a) civil, or nineteen Roman emperors, whose history is touched on individually; (b) ecclesiastical, or thirty-three Roman popes, whose history is touched on individually; (2) the theology of the third age, under (A) the fourth century, and thereof (a) its state, (b) its corruption, through heathenism, Judaism, seven heresies, and errors arising within the Church; (B) the fifth century, and thereof (a) its state, (b) its corruption, through heathenism, Judaism, chiefly through four heresies, and errors arising within the Church; (C) the sixth century, and thereof (a) its state, (b) its corruption, through two heresies and errors within the Church; (3) the Church —

under the fourth century, wherein: (1) its propagation, through (a) Constantine the Great, (b) chiefly through fifteen church fathers, who are named individually, (c) through the exercises of worship of the Christians, (d) through Church government, (e) through various synods, and (f) schools; (2) its impediment, through (a) the rise of monasticism, (b) schisms, (c) six persecutions. Under the fifth century, and thereof the propagation, with respect to its (1) boundaries, namely through various parts of the world, (2) helps, namely (a) the teachers of notable congregations, (b) Church government, (c) the councils, general and particular, (d) the Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno; (3) hindrances and obstacles, namely (a) the Eutychian troubles, (b) persecutions through various parts of the world, (c) various martyrdoms, (d) the morals of the Church. Under the sixth century, wherein: (A) the propagation over (a) various parts of the world, (b) the propagators, or various ecclesiastical writers, whose history is recorded, (c) the declining government of the Church, (d) the growth of monasticism through various orders, (e) councils, both general and particular; (B) hindrances and obstacles, through (a) schisms, (b) persecutions.

The fourth age of the New Testament, under the fourth seal, on the text of Revelation 6:7-8, of which the explanation is given. Hereof: (1) a brief summary is set forth; (2) the rulers, in (a) the state, namely the Roman emperors, both thirty-two of the East and seventeen of the West — the history of each in particular; (b) the Church, or ninety-three popes — the history of each in particular; (3) the theology, and thereof (1) its state, partly purer, partly more corrupt, according to the fifth seal of the Revelation; (2) its corruption through (a) heathenism, (b) Judaism, (c) Muhammedanism, here having arisen, (d) seven heresies, (e) the origin of the dispute over the Holy Supper, (f) the growth and increase of Antichristianism, (g) errors within the Church; (4) the Church, under the fourth age of the New Testament, and its (a) propagation over various parts of the world; (b) propagators, namely (1) various ecclesiastical writers, (2) various defenders of the truth against Antichristianism, (3) various synods, (4) reformations, (5) schools; (c) hindrances and obstacles, through (a) schisms, (b) persecutions — under which is also added (c) the condition of the Church under the fourth age of the New Testament.

The fifth age of the New Testament, under the fifth seal, on the text of Revelation 6:9-11, of which the explanation is given. Hereof: (1) the rulers, in (a) the state, namely twenty-one Roman emperors — the history of each in particular; (b) in the Church, or sixty-two Roman popes — the history of each in particular; (2) the theology, and thereof (A) its state: (1) the public state, under the Papal Antichristendom, now brought to its height; (2) the hidden state, among the defenders of the truth, of various ranks — of the civil rank, emperors, kings, etc., and of the ecclesiastical rank, councils, particular persons, for example Wycliffe, Hus, the Bohemians, etc.; (B) its corruption, through (a) heathenism, (b) Judaism, (c) Muhammedanism, (d) Antichristendom, (e) heresies through its centuries, sometimes real, more often feigned or falsely so called; (3) the Church, and thereof (a) its propagation through its centuries, (b) the ecclesiastical writers through its centuries, (c) the government of the Church through its centuries, chiefly related in various monastic orders, (d) the councils through its centuries, (e) forty-one schools, (f) the holy war, pursued through its centuries, (g) the schisms through its centuries, in particular the Gallican or Avignon schism, of fifty years, (h) the persecutions, among which, besides those of the Hussites, the chief place is occupied by the Bohemian war.

The sixth age of the New Testament, under the sixth seal, on the text of Revelation 6:12, of which the explanation is found. Hereof: (1) the condition of the Church at the beginning of the Reformation, chiefly; (2) the rulers — (A) in the state, wherein eight Roman emperors — the history of each in particular; (B) in the Church, namely twenty-six popes — the history of each in particular; (3) the theology, both still needing to be reformed, and already reformed, and thereof (a) the Reformation, through Zwingli, Luther, and others; (b) its corruption, through the heresies (1) of the Anabaptists, (2) of the Quakers, (3) of the Socinians, (4) of the Jesuits, (5) of the Lutherans, (6) of the Arminians — the history of each in particular; (4) the Church, and thereof (A) its propagation among (a) the Indians, (b) the Danes, (c) the Swedes, (d) the Bohemians, (e) the Poles, (f) the Lithuanians, (g) the Dutch, (h) the English, (i) the Scots, (k) the French, (l) the Germans — a brief history of each; (B) the propagators — (a) forty-five and more Reformed, (b) twenty-eight Lutherans, (c) Papists, (d) Fanatics — the history of each in particular; (C) the government of the Church among (a) the Papists, (b) the Lutherans, (c) the Reformed; (D) the synods — (a) of the Papists, for example that of Trent, (b) sixty-six of the Protestants — the history of each in particular; (E) twenty confessions of faith, and the history of each in particular; (F) forty-four schools, and the history of each in particular; (G) the crossing of William III, Prince of Orange, to England; (H) schisms — (a) of the Sacramentarians, (b) of the Arminians, (c) of the churchmen in England, (d) of the Labadists, (e) of the antinomians, (f) of the Universalists, (g) the Cartesian, (h) the Cocceian, (i) seventeen among the Lutherans, (k) six among the Papists, (l) of the Fanatics — the history of each in particular; (I) persecutions — (a) the German, under which four wars, (b) the Dutch, under which three wars, (c) three English, (d) four French, (e) various Piedmontese, (f) Hungarian, (g) of the Lutherans against the Reformed, (h) of the hierarchical party of the Reformed in England, (i) of the Indians — the history of each in particular. Below is added a closing discourse on Church History. The Polemical Part has four questions and controverted points. The Practical Part has three uses.

VII. The seventh age of the New Testament. Here is: (1) an Explanatory Part, on the text of Revelation 7:1 through chapter 11 (Chapter 4, §1-2); (2) a Doctrinal Part, which explains the seven, as it were, steps of eternity: (a) the coming of Christ, (b) the destruction of the Antichrist, (c) the raising of the dead, (d) the Last Judgment, (e) the consummation of the world, (f) the surrendering of the Kingdom, (g) eternal life; (3) a Polemical Part, having eleven questions and controverted points; (4) a Practical Part, having three uses.

Index of the Chapters contained in this First Volume

FIRST BOOK, of those things which must be known beforehand concerning theology.

I. Of the Nature of Theology. Text, 1 Timothy 6:2-3. First doctrine: concerning the manner of teaching theology. Second doctrine: concerning the subject-matter of theology as described. Third doctrine: concerning the description of theology.

II. Of Holy Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

III. Of the division of theology. 2 Timothy 1:13.

SECOND BOOK, of Faith in the Triune God.

I. Of Saving Faith. Text, John 1:11-12.

II. Of the Existence and the Knowledge of God. Hebrews 11:6.

III. Of the Being and the Independence of God. Exodus 3:13-14.

IV. Of the Names of God. Exodus 3:15.

V. Of the Attributes of God in general. Exodus 33:18-23.

VI. Of the Spirituality and Simplicity of God. John 4:24.

VII. Of the Immutability of God. James 1:17.

VIII. Of the Unity of God. Deuteronomy 6:4.

IX. Of the Infinity and Greatness of God. Psalm 145:3.

X. Of the Immensity and Omnipresence of God. Psalm 139:7-10.

XI. Of the Eternity of God. Psalm 90:1-2.

XII. Of the Life and Immortality of God. John 5:26.

XIII. Of the Understanding, Knowledge, and Wisdom of God. Romans 11:33-34.

XIV. Of the Truthfulness and Faithfulness of God. Romans 3:3-4.

XV. Of the Will and the Affections of the Will of God. Psalm 115:3.

XVI. Of the Goodness of God. Matthew 19:17.

XVII. Of God's Love, Grace, Mercy, Longsuffering, and Goodness. Exodus 34:6.

XVIII. Of God's Righteousness. Psalm 119:137.

XIX. Of the Holiness of God. Leviticus 19:2.

XX. Of the Might and Power of God. Ephesians 3:20-21.

XXI. Of the All-Sufficiency and Perfection of God. Genesis 17:1.

XXII. Of God's Majesty and Glory. Isaiah 42:8.

XXIII. Of God's Blessedness. Psalm 16:11.

XXIV. Of the Holy Trinity. 2 Corinthians 13:13.

XXV. Of God the Father. Ephesians 3:14-15.

XXVI. Of God the Son. Psalm 2:7-8.

XXVII. Of God the Holy Spirit. John 14:26.

THIRD BOOK, of the Works of God.

I. Of the Acts and Decrees of God. Text, Ephesians 1:11.

II. Of Predestination. Romans 9:22-23.

III. Of Election. Ephesians 1:4-6.

IV. Of Reprobation. Jude v. 4.

V. Of Creation in general. Genesis 1:1.

VI. Of the World, and the Work of the Six Days. Exodus 20:11.

First topic: Of the World. Second topic: Of the Heavens. Third topic: Of the Earth. Fourth topic: Of the things contained in heaven and on earth, according to the six-day creation.

Petrus van Mastricht

Doctor and Professor of Philosophy and Theology at the Academies of Frankfurt-an-der-Oder, Duisburg, and Utrecht.

Motto. When I am weak, then am I strong.

Book I: Of Contemplative-Practical Theology, Concerning Those Things Which Must Be Known Beforehand

Chapter I: Of the Nature of Theology

On 1 Timothy 6:2-3.

These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, etc.

I. This first part, which concerns theoretical-practical theology, we shall, following the nature and character of every kind of teaching, comprise in two divisions: namely, in those things which must be known beforehand, and in the system itself. In such a way that, in this first book, we shall set forth three matters concerning the things to be known beforehand — namely its nature, its rule and standard, and then its division. And since the nature of any given thing is nowhere made clearer to us than through an exact and careful description of it, upon which the described matter then rests as upon its foundation, we shall in this chapter, after a preliminary introduction concerning the manner of teaching theology, consider the described matter — which is Christian theoretical-practical theology — and its description, namely, that it is a doctrine of living for God through Christ. As the foundation of all this we shall lay down the text sent before us, from 1 Timothy 6:2-3.

The Explanatory Part

II. In which the Apostle, wishing to bring this his letter to a close, gives Timothy a very weighty admonition and warning concerning true and false theology — namely, to press for the former, but to flee the latter. In which we find:

1. A certain exhortation, to pursue the good; in these words: ταῦτα δίδασκε, καὶ παρακάλει, that is, Teach and exhort these things. And in this we find:

α. The subject of the exhortation: namely, ταῦτα, those, or these things: to wit, those which I have taught, not only in the immediately preceding words, but throughout this whole letter — indeed, throughout the whole course of my ministry, during which I have expounded the entire holy theology, both by my living voice and in writing, Acts 20:27. So that here the whole of Christian theology is commended to Timothy, which is made known not only by the contrast in the following verse, εἴ τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ, If any man teach otherwise, but also by the parallel passage, 2 Timothy 1:13.

β. A twofold duty of the exhortation, which had to be observed with respect to theology — namely, that Timothy should:

A. Teach it. Δίδασκε, Teach. That is, that he should instruct the understanding: partly by expounding the true doctrines, and partly by refuting the false.

B. Exhort concerning it. Παρακάλει. Exhort: stir up: namely, by moving and setting in motion the heart and the will, so as to carry over into practice what the understanding has grasped — which is the chief end and the highest point of theology. For the root word παρακαλεῖν means to call someone, to call to, namely, to a duty. And since I call another most of all for this reason — to rouse him when I see him listless and drowsy, or to spur him on when he is sluggish and lead him with kindly words, or to comfort him when he is sorrowful, etc. — this word therefore very often means to exhort, to entreat, to pray, to comfort; and one who does all these things is a παράκλητος, an exhorter, a comforter (says Tarnovius, in his Exercitationes Biblicae). All of which belongs to practice. Yet it must also be noted that the Apostle wishes this twofold duty to be exercised with respect to one and the same object, which stands in the plural: ταῦτα, those, or these things. Namely, to signify that speculation and practice must be joined together not only in the whole body of theology, such that these two together constitute the two essential parts of theology, but also in every particular part that occurs within it — so that every single article of it should have both its speculation and its practice.

2. An exhortation to flee the evil, namely, the false teachers and their teaching. In connection with which the Apostle notes three things.

A. The false teaching, of which he chiefly gives four marks, by which it is distinguished from the true — namely:

α. That it teaches otherwise. ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ stands there in the Greek: that is, that it teaches either something different, or in a different manner, than he himself, together with the other Apostles, had taught. That is, whatever is contrary to the Prophets and the Apostles, Ephesians 2:20, Galatians 1:8-9.

β. That the false teaching does not abide in those things. In the Greek stands μὴ προσέρχηται, which word the common Latin translation renders "consents not" — namely, either by adding to it, or by taking from it; thus violating the warning of God, Deuteronomy 4:1-2, Isaiah 8:20, Galatians 6:16, Revelation 22:18-19.

γ. That it does not teach the wholesome words of Christ, or concerning Christ. Which happens either by not teaching Christ at all — the power and wisdom of God, 1 Corinthians 1:24 — or, if it does teach him, not soundly and sincerely, but peddling the word for gain, 2 Corinthians 2:17, whether concerning his Person, or his Offices, or his Benefits.

δ. That it does not teach a doctrine which is according to godliness. With which words the Apostle, by way of contrast, gives an exact description of true theology. Of which:

A. The general notion is: a doctrine, because it must be taught by way of appropriation, John 6:45. For there, not only all other knowledge, but even natural theology is far more readily taught — there (I say) this must be taught, not only by men, but by God himself: and that not only outwardly, through the word, but also inwardly, through the Spirit — so that we are hence said to be "taught of the LORD," Isaiah 54:13.

B. The distinguishing notion lies in the words καθ' εὐσέβειαν, according to godliness. As if one were to say: a doctrine for rightly serving and honoring — namely, God. Which elsewhere is expressed in like manner as living unto God through Christ, Romans 6:11 — whence theology is called a word of life, Acts 5:20. So that from this it follows that Christian theology is best described as being: a doctrine of living unto God, through Christ. But of this more fully in its proper place.

2. The Apostle here also marks the false teachers, when he says: He is proud, and knows nothing, etc.

3. The fruits and effects of both these — namely, of the false teaching and of the false teachers — saying: from which comes envy, strife, etc. But this is not the place to speak of that.

First Doctrine: Concerning the Manner of Teaching Theology

The Doctrinal Part

III. It already appears, then, from the foregoing, that theology must be taught according to a certain order and method — and indeed such a one whereby speculation and practice always go together inseparably; and that in such a way that speculation goes first, practice follows, and this holds true in all its particular articles. For (1) the Apostle commands Timothy that he teach all the chapters of theology and likewise exhort concerning them together, and indeed in such a way that he must first teach, and afterward exhort. For this reason (2) we read, 2 Samuel 23:5, of a covenant "ordered in all things," ברית ערוכה בכל — not only so called because the Covenant of Grace itself is εὐτακτότατον, well-ordered and arranged in all things, but also because its records, in which theology is contained, are written in a most fitting and suitable order. For this reason (3) the Apostle calls a tried workman one who "rightly divides," ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, the word of truth, 2 Timothy 2:15. But that cannot be rightly divided which is not rightly composed and arranged. And (4) the worship which theology teaches is called, Romans 12:1, λογικήν, a reasonable service, because it is arranged according to the rules of right reason. And this same point is also urged (5) not only by so many and so illustrious individual examples of an orderly arrangement of doctrine which occur everywhere in Holy Scripture — for if you look to what one must do, you have the Ten Commandments, which excel in a wonderful order; if you look to what one must pray and ask for, you have the Lord's Prayer; if you look to what one must believe, you have, as it were, a very neat and elegant catechism, Hebrews 6:1-2 — but also the whole composition of theology, in almost all the epistles of Paul. Let me add (6) the whole book of the Bible, that you may not doubt that the Covenant is ordered in all things. And (7) since the particular chapters of theology are scattered throughout the whole body of Holy Scripture, it is certainly necessary that they be brought together and arranged in a suitable order of teaching. For this reason (8) Christian theology, from the very first rise of the Christian Church — when heresies in doctrine began to creep in — at once began to be gathered together in compositions of doctrine, and in an orderly arrangement. As appears from the most illustrious confessions of faith — the Apostles', the Nicene, the Ephesian, the Chalcedonian, and others — but also from the particular writings of the earliest church fathers: for example, from the eight books of Clement of Alexandria, which books are called Stromata, or "Tapestries"; from the four books of Origen, Περὶ Ἀρχῶν, "Of Origins and Principles"; from the seven books of Lactantius on the Divine Institutes; from the five books of Gregory Nazianzen on Theology; from the books of Augustine on Christian Doctrine, and his little handbook to Laurence; from Rufinus, in his Exposition of the Creed; from Theodoret, in his Compendium of Divine Doctrines; from Prosper, in his little book of Sentences; from the four books of Damascene concerning the Orthodox Faith; from the four books of the Sentences of Peter Lombard, together with what Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, Bonaventure, and others have written by way of commentary; from the Compendium of Theology of Thomas Aquinas: and finally from the theologians who came forth out of the Papacy — Zwingli, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Aretius, Martyr, Ursinus, Zanchius, and a thousand others — all of whom have labored to the utmost to bring the chapters of theology together into orderly systems.

IV. But besides Scripture, an order of teaching is also urged by three further arguments: (1) The nature of God, who is not a God of confusion, and who has accomplished, and still accomplishes, all his works in a most fitting order, just as he also wills that all things be done decently and in order, 1 Corinthians 14:33-40. Indeed, to this very end he has implanted the beginnings of a fitting order in rational creatures, so that he might show himself to be the author of all fitting order, and so that he might likewise prescribe to us a well-ordered arrangement to be observed and followed, not only in general, but chiefly in matters of so great weight as, without doubt, theological matters are. To this end he has also inspired and given his Scriptures to his amanuenses to be written down, in an order not indeed arbitrary, but nevertheless fixed and rational — something which is made abundantly clear by the logical analyses which learned men have made of the Old and New Testaments. (2) The nature of theology itself. Which, since it comprises various doctrines that are similar to one another, subordinate to one another, and aimed at one and the same end, though scattered throughout the whole body of Scripture, therefore without doubt requires that these doctrines be gathered and brought together, and joined to one another in a fitting manner — in which precisely a well-ordered arrangement of doctrine consists. (3) The excellent fruits of order in teaching itself, which, if they belong to any branch of knowledge at all, will belong at least to that which is the most excellent of all. For what does order in teaching do? It brings clarity, distinctness, and intelligibility to the matters which must be taught, when, through the connection of things that follow upon one another, it gives to the memory an ease of retention, binding the material together, as it were, with a certain chain, by which, if something should perhaps slip away, one can easily draw it back again: finally, it lends to the material splendor and elegance; for, in the words of Philo, without a fitting order there is ἐπιστήμη ἀνεπιστημόνως, knowledge without knowledge. Could you, with any well-grounded right, deny these fruits and benefits belonging to theological matters?

V. One will then ask, by what manner of teaching theology is best and most suitably taught? Since order is nothing other than a fitting arrangement of various matters among one another, according to the dependence which they have — both in their mutual relation to and coexistence with one another, and in their relation to us, as we come to understand and grasp them — and since it is at least necessary that the order of theology not only correspond and be fitted to the matters which are to be taught (whereby, for example, one lets the general precede the particular, and the simple precede the composite), but also be suited to the capacity, and likewise to the usefulness, of those who are being taught: to this end, various teachers have followed various orders of teaching, which we shall not now examine. Of all of them, that pleases us best which the Apostle applies not only in the text to Timothy — where he wills that the matters of theology be first taught and instructed, and that afterward one should exhort, so that practice may continually go hand in hand with speculation — but which he himself also generally uses throughout all his epistles, especially in those which he wrote to the Romans, the Ephesians, and the Hebrews, etc. An order of teaching, I say, whereby practice is grounded upon speculation, not only in the whole body of theology — so that, among the things which must be believed, the first place is given, and among the things which must be practiced, the second place is given — but also, in the particular parts and members of theology, through a continual comparison and correspondence, practice goes hand in hand with speculation. I shall state, distinctly and point by point, what I would wish in this regard, and I shall follow it, with God's help, to the best of my ability. Namely, that the chapters of theology (1) be first proven positively from Scripture, confirmed by reasons, and expounded point by point — and let this be a firm foundation for the whole building. (2) That they then be defended polemically against the wiles and deceits of opponents — without which the foundation laid neither stands sufficiently firm in itself, nor is sufficiently rooted in the hearts and minds of those who learn divine things. Finally (3) that they be applied practically — without which the first two parts would be entirely and altogether useless. For as practice without speculation is nothing, so speculation without exercise is idle, fruitless, and in vain. Wherefore the Savior very wisely joins both these together, when he says, John 13:17: If you know these things, happy are you if you do them.

The Polemical Part

VI. The question is, whether theology must be taught according to a fixed and certain order of teaching? In excess, the Scholastics err here, who, according to the character of their philosophical theology, are all too fondly devoted to the philosophical order of teaching of Aristotle, both as to analysis and as to composition. In defect, the Anabaptists, the Fanatics, and the Quakers err here, who, out of ignorance and hatred of philosophy, judge that all order must be banished from theology — a view to which perhaps one or another of the Reformed theologians, enslaved to their own presuppositions, may have inclined. The Reformed require an order of teaching, against the Anabaptists and Quakers, though not one strictly and precisely philosophical, but a natural one: that is, such a one as both agrees with theological matters and serves for the help of the judgment and the strengthening of the memory, though otherwise arbitrary as to the rest. Such an order of teaching we have already shown above, §III, IV, V; and it is further confirmed by the constant practice of the writers driven by the Spirit of God, who, according to how matters presented themselves to them, employed various orders and manners of teaching. They object against us (1) that theology surpasses and transcends the grasp of reason, and therefore also a rational order of teaching. We answer: that it does indeed transcend the comprehension of corrupt reason, but not of that reason which is enlightened by the Word and the Spirit, which judges and discerns in a spiritual manner, and which for that reason also arranges and orders spiritual things, 1 Corinthians 2:10, 12-13, 15. (2) That theology is above all sciences, and therefore also above the laws of an order of teaching. We answer: Let it surpass all natural sciences; is it therefore also above all order? Indeed, does it exclude order? (3) That an order of teaching and the subtlety of logic harm the simplicity of theology. Answer: (1) This indeed casts down the excess of the Popish Schoolmen, but not the order of teaching which is natural to theological matters. Moreover (2) it is false: for a fitting order does not alter the thing that is ordered, nor does it take away anything from its perfection. And if it does take something away from theology, this happens not through the fault of the order of teaching, but through the ignorance and inexperience of the one who constructs the order of teaching — who twists and distorts theology according to his own corrupt rules, and who does not wisely and carefully fit the order of teaching to theology and apply it thereto.

The Practical Part

VII. As for practice: first, there are here, by way of reproof, those (1) who treat theological matters, whether from the lectern or from the pulpit, without any order at all. Or (2) those who use some order for it without any real design, either merely appearing to have one, or having no set purpose in it whatsoever. Or (3) those who do show forth some order thereby, but one that does not correspond to the subject matter. Or (4) those who give an order that does correspond to the subject matter, but which is not fitted to the condition of the learner. Finally (5), even in the case of those who are here to be reproved, if their order is indeed suited to the subject matter, yet it is fitted only to the learner's understanding, for speculation, but not to his will and affections, for practice. Such persons (1) make themselves guilty of disorder and confusion, which is hated by God, 1 Corinthians 14:33. (2) They strip theological instruction of all its charm, splendor, and luster. (3) They render themselves useless to their hearers, since by their disorder they thwart and dull both the understanding and the memory at once.

VIII. On the other hand: Better are those Timothys — that is, the teachers and preachers — who follow the exhortation of Paul, observing a certain order of teaching, whereby they teach the chapters of religion together and then also exhort concerning them, and indeed in such a way that they first teach, and afterward exhort. In this way (1) they show themselves to be children of God, as followers, namely, of him who is a God of order, and not of confusion — while other, opposing teachers show themselves to be brokers of Satan, who is an author and promoter of confusion. (2) Likewise, they thereby show themselves to be tried workmen who will not be ashamed, as being able rightly to divide, ὀρθοτομεῖν, the word of truth, 2 Timothy 2:15. (3) By the neatness and elegance of their order of teaching they make the divine doctrine pleasing to their hearers. "For it is not the labor, of and by itself, but that which is adorned with art, that is good" — ὅτι οὐχ ὁ πόνος κατ᾿ αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τέχνης, ἀγαθός — says Philo in his treatise; that the inferior brings hindrance and harm to the better. (4) Indeed, they will make the divine doctrine not only pleasing and agreeable, but also useful and fruitful. For, by the neatness of their order of teaching, they will aid the understanding and comprehension of their hearers, strengthen their memory, and kindle their zeal, desire, and inclination, etc. For the search after truth deserves a great place, which nevertheless is then not deprived of the hoped-for and desired fruit, if the understanding strives, along right lines, to attain to knowledge — according to Fulgentius, book 1, chapter 3. And that one may the better hit upon and follow the order of teaching, I would advise that the following things be observed: namely, that the order of teaching correspond (1) to the matter which is to be treated; (2) to the comprehension of the hearers — such that one deal otherwise with beginners, in a catechetical manner of teaching, than with those more advanced, in a systematic manner: namely, partly affirmatively, through descriptions, divisions, propositions, proofs; partly negatively, through a concise refutation of objections: and otherwise still with the mature, in an expository, text-explaining manner, whereby the catechetical and systematic matters are applied to the elucidation of the sense and meaning of Scripture; and again, that one deal otherwise with beginners, namely in a catechetical manner. (3) That the order of teaching correspond to usefulness and to godliness, whereby everything is carried over into practice and there finds its end, 2 Timothy 3:16.

Second Doctrine: Concerning the Subject-Matter of Theology as Described

The Doctrinal Part

IX. According to this order of teaching, we shall first track down the nature of theology through an exact description of it — where, nevertheless, its described subject-matter must be allowed to go before, which is: Christian theology, theoretical-practical, to be taught only among Christians. For the Apostle commands that Timothy should teach ταῦτα, those, or these things — namely, those which he himself had taught, together with Christ and with the Prophets and Apostles; at any rate, Christian theology, and that which can be taught and at the same time also urged upon others by exhortation, as being a doctrine κατ' εὐσέβειαν, according to godliness, that is, theoretical-practical. He also forbids ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, teaching some other doctrine.

X. The Scriptures everywhere urge this same thing — when they direct us to walk according to this rule, Galatians 6:16; when they forbid another Gospel, Galatians 1:6-9; when they insist that one must not depart from it, either to the right hand or to the left, whether by adding to it or by taking from it, Deuteronomy 4:1-2 and 12:32, Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 1:13; that otherwise God is honored in vain, Matthew 15:9; and that one can obtain the dawning light of grace in no other way, Isaiah 8:20.

XI. For (1) Christians are rightly served only by the theology of him who alone is the Head of his congregation, Ephesians 1:22-23 — who has brought it down from heaven, from the bosom of the Father, John 1:18 — who perfectly knows the manner in which God must be served, John 1:18 — who has the power of eternal life, Revelation 1:18, which eternal life one seeks through theology. Again (2), any other theology, or any other manner of religion, whatever it may be, other than that of Christ, is not heard and not acknowledged by Christians, John 10:5, 8-12. In particular, not the teaching of reason, which is blind, 1 Corinthians 2:14, nor that of any men, Matthew 23:8, 1 Corinthians 3:5-7, since all men are liars, Romans 3:4. Finally (3), the theology which must be urged is his alone, in whom alone Christians are baptized, 1 Corinthians 1:13, after whom they are called Christians, Acts 11:26, and whose church and religion is the Sect of the Nazarenes, Acts 24:5 — who is therefore the only Teacher of Christians credible and infallible in and of himself, Matthew 23:7-8.

XII. That there is a certain theology — for this (1) not only calls out the general consent of all peoples, Romans 2:15, but also (2) Nature herself teaches that there is a God, and that he must be glorified, Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:19-21; likewise, that he is a rewarder of those who seek him, Hebrews 11:6 — the manner and mode of whose service we point out in and through theology. (3) Nature teaches that the soul is immortal, burning with an undying desire for an everlasting blessedness which can be satisfied, to which theology is believed to open the way. (4) The light of nature teaches that the rational creature, having been created by God, strives toward God, to be satisfied by God alone — whither theology also leads it: theology which, with us, is nothing other than a discourse concerning God, concerning the service of God, concerning the undying blessedness of the undying soul, and concerning the manner of attaining to communion with God and of living for him.

XIII. As for the origin of the word, we owe it, without doubt, to the heathen. For among them, Pherecydes of Syros, who lived in the time of Cyrus, is said to have been the first to have treated theological matters. He was followed by Pythagoras, his pupil, and by this man's own followers, who called Pherecydes, above all others, a theologian (see Pliny, Natural History, book 7, chapter 5; Diogenes Laertius, in the life of Pherecydes). Others trace the origin of this name to Musaeus, the son of Eumolpus, whom the Platonists pointedly called a theologian. Philostratus also testifies (in his Heroica) of Homer, that he surpassed Orpheus himself in many matters belonging to theology. These heathen called those who reasoned and dealt with matters concerning God θεολόγοι, theologians; and the things which they treated they called θεολογούμενα, theological matters; and their science they called θεολογία, theology. Now these theologians were poets, according to the testimony of Aristotle (Metaphysics, book 3) and of Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, book 3). They wrote, for the most part, in a symbolic, mysterious, or hidden manner, concerning the origin and birth of their gods — for they supposed their gods to have been born. Whatever the case may be, the word is unscriptural, and is found in Holy Scripture neither literally nor by way of an equivalent. At what time it obtained the rights of Christian citizenship is uncertain. It does indeed stand in the title of the Revelation; but besides the fact that one may doubt whether that title carries regular authority, that title is also given to John for another reason and in another sense — namely, because he ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, testified the Word of God, Revelation 1:2, that is, the Godhead of Christ. Dionysius the Areopagite uses this word so familiarly, as if it had been quite common in his time. But that this writer was given to great exaggeration, nearly everyone sufficiently concedes. The word first occurs in Origen. Nevertheless, this word, because it is unscriptural, ought not straightway to be cast out of the vocabulary of Christians, as some would have it, since its meaning is forceful enough, and it has been in use even from the very beginning of Christianity — especially since its equivalent name, Theologos, that is, Theologian, is given to John in the title of the Revelation, without doubt so named from Theologia, that is, from theology. And the words out of which it is composed — namely Θεός, God, and λόγος, a discourse, or λόγια, sayings — also occur together in Holy Scripture. Now theology is so called because it is a discourse not only concerning God, but also proceeding from God, 2 Peter 1:20 (compare Owen, De Natura Theologiae, book 1, chapter 1).

XIV. Its equivalent names are, among the Hebrews: חכמת האלהים, the Wisdom of God; ידיעת התורה, legal science; תלמוד תורה, the study of the Law. Among the ancient fathers: Θεοσοφία, the Wisdom of God, Θεοσέβεια, the Reverence of God, sometimes also Θεουργία, the Practice of God, or concerning God. In the writings of the New Testament: עבדת, service, honor, namely, of God, Exodus 12:26; τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ, the oracles of God, Romans 3:2, 1 Peter 4:11, Hebrews 5:12; εὐσέβεια, godliness, 1 Timothy 3:16; the pattern of wholesome words, 2 Timothy 1:13; the wholesome words of Christ, 1 Timothy 6:3. In both Testaments: דרך, ὁδός, the way of God, Psalm 25:4, 12, Matthew 22:16, Acts 24:14. Among the Latins, Religio (Religion), derived either à relegendo, that is, from reading over again, or à religando, that is, from binding together.

XV. Meanwhile the word "theology" has more than one meaning, in that it sometimes signifies Archetypal theology — the exemplary knowledge of God himself, which he has of himself — and sometimes Ectypal theology — a copied, derivative knowledge, being, as it were, a certain imprint of the first. This latter is again distinguished into the theology of those who behold, who are in the homeland, in heaven; and of those who journey, who are on earth. Furthermore, this latter theology is either natural or revealed — concerning which the observations of the common places (as they are called) occur everywhere.

XVI. We now have to do, not with theology considered nakedly and bare in itself, but specifically, and by way of selection, with the Christian. Which is called a revealed theology, after him who is in the bosom of the Father, John 1:18, whom the text, with a like-sounding name, calls the word of our Lord Jesus Christ. In which is comprised everything that belongs to theology — whether it is granted to us through a pure divine inspiration, or otherwise through nature, provided only that it stands written for us in the Scriptures. For even natural theology has nothing which Scripture does not have.

XVII. Christian, revealed theology therefore does not exclude natural theology, but includes it, as a greater number includes a lesser. Wherefore, just as revealed theology has reference to those things which must be believed and done, so it comprises natural theology within itself — which shows forth nothing but some rough remnants of revealed theology — in matters which must be known (which the philosophers gather up in their metaphysical and pneumatological matters), and in matters which must be done, which the philosophers pursue in their moral, domestic, and political teachings. Natural theology is therefore in part in the Understanding, which knows the true and the false in theology, whether speculatively or practically — which Holy Scripture itself attributes even to the most godless, provided only they are endowed with some use of reason, Romans 1:19-20, Psalm 19:1-2, Acts 17:27, Romans 2:15; and in part in the Will, which inclines toward the good once it is known as such — which, experience itself calling for it, not even barbarism itself rejects. Meanwhile, we wish natural theology, as such, to be carefully and cautiously distinguished from heathen theology, because the latter is a false, but the former a true, theology.

XVIII. Now natural theology is observed to have in particular a fourfold use and benefit — of which the first has regard to God, who, by means of it, renders the ungodly inexcusable, Romans 1:20. The second has regard to the heathen and to atheists, who, by means of it, are most powerfully convicted, Acts 17:24-26, Psalm 8:2-3, Matthew 6:26. The third bears upon revealed theology, which, always with respect to us, is thereby confirmed in an outstanding manner, while it is found thereby to agree entirely with natural theology. Finally, the fourth benefit has regard to ourselves, in that we are greatly built up and rooted in the acknowledgment of revealed truth, when we find that nature herself gives her assent to it — and likewise in the practice of the good, when nature herself invites us to it.

XIX. Meanwhile, over against its lawful use is set a threefold misuse. (1) When it is made a foundation and standard for revealed theology, and thus the Mistress is made subject to the handmaid — whereas the latter ought rather to be governed by the former, 2 Corinthians 10:6. (2) When such a theology is invented as would be sufficient unto salvation — whereas, apart from Christ, of whom natural theology is ignorant, no hope of salvation stands open, Acts 4:12 — that is, when one imagines a certain universal theology, whereby everyone, even apart from Christ and without faith in him, might come to be saved by the help of reason and of nature alone; which Christ himself contradicts, John 14:6 and 15:5.

XX. Wherefore a Christian, theoretical-practical theology is required — which implies that it is neither speculative alone, resting in a mere contemplation of the truth, nor practical alone, which values the knowledge of the truth little or not at all (which the Socinians and Arminians would indeed like, so that they might the more easily set aside, indeed banish, faith in Christ and the other fundamental articles of religion, and, on the other hand, entice and win over to their fellowship every single person, even one destitute of the knowledge of Christ and of the fundamental doctrines of Christians) — but here a theology is required which joins speculation together with practice, and is thus a knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, Titus 1:1, and a doctrine according to godliness, whereby we both know and do, John 13:17, whose parts are faith and love, 2 Timothy 1:13. And in this the ancient church fathers also agree. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem says, Catechesis 4: The manner of religion, he says, consists in these two things: namely, in the exactness of godly doctrines, and of good works. Thus also a certain confessor at the Council of Nicaea says, that bare and naked knowledge must be preserved and kept safe by faith and good works (Socrates, book 1, chapter 5). Indeed, all of its parts, and each in particular, require of themselves a certain activity, whereby we, according to the maxim of the Savior, also do everything that we know. For, according to Lactantius, neither can religion be separated from wisdom, nor wisdom from religion — because it is the same God who must both be known, which is an act of wisdom, and be honored, which is an act of religion. Yet wisdom goes before, and religion follows — because it is first necessary to know God, and the consequence of that is to honor and serve God. Thus one and the same thing consists in two parts, although it may seem to be diverse (Lactantius, book 4, chapter 4).

XXI. Against this stands every false, and falsely so-called, theology — whether it is entirely ignorant of Christ, or whether it lies about Christ and falsely represents him. The first is that of the unbelievers, namely (1) of the heathen, whom Paul, Colossians 3:11, divides into Barbarians and Scythians; (2) of the Jews of our own day, who even hate Christ. I say, of the Jews of our own day, since the ancient Jews, as to the matter itself, held the same view of the Christ as we do; (3) of the Muhammedans, who indeed know and revere Christ, but only as an eminent prophet, not as Redeemer and all-sufficient God-Man — above whom they esteem and prefer even Muhammad, that most wicked deceiver, setting his teachings and ordinances, contained in the Koran, in the place of the oracles of Christ. The second kind is that of the heretics — both the ancient, whom Augustine, Epiphanius, Danaeus, Schlüsselburg, and others catalogue, and the more recent and present-day ones. Among the number of these, first are the Socinians, who come closest of all to the unbelievers and the Muhammedans, inasmuch as these ascribe just as much to Christ as those do, when both alike deny His Godhead and His Satisfaction. Second, the Anabaptists, who diminish the true humanity of Christ, and also do not sufficiently agree among themselves concerning the Satisfaction, and who likewise refuse baptism to little children, and sometimes repeat it in the case of adults, etc. Third, the Papists, who cling to the Antichrist, and who indeed ascribe to Christ His Godhead and His Satisfaction, but only in words, while they deny the latter more than enough in deed, when they add to Him yet other mediators, and set their own satisfactions — the merits of good works, papal indulgences, and the like — in the place of His Satisfaction. To the heretics we add the schismatics and the schismatically inclined, who commonly end in heresy — such as those who call themselves Lutherans, and who hold that the human nature of Christ is either omnipresent, or at least present in the elements of the Holy Supper, and eaten with the mouth; as also those who follow Arminius, otherwise called Remonstrants — though only those who are proponents of the notorious five articles, for the Socinianizing Arminians, or the Apologists, we place on the same footing as Socinus. The Fanatics, the Enthusiasts, the Libertines, and others of that sort, we do not even bother to enumerate, because they have far more a denial of God than a theology.

The Polemical Part

XXII. One asks (1): Whether heathen theology, which we have distinguished from natural theology, is true theology? The heathen writers, who have taught and written concerning theological matters — among whom Julian, Porphyry, and Celsus are preeminent — say to this, without doubt, yes. The Christians, the Jews, the Muhammedans, and as many as admit any regular Scripture at all, deny this with one voice. For although the theology of the heathen (I) had some things concerning God and the service of God, Romans 1:19-20 and 14-15, yet it did not have the true God, namely the Triune God; and even most of the things which it had concerning the one God were not truths. Indeed, the mass of the heathen counted, in place of one God, well-nigh countless gods — among whom, besides the sun, the moon, and other stars, were mere men — sometimes indeed illustrious men, but for the most part the very worst and most depraved, indeed even the devils themselves. Although also (II) the theology of the heathen acknowledged that God must be served, and His will obeyed, yet the manner of serving God, and the will of God which must be obeyed, remained entirely hidden from it. Whence it came about that it devised for itself childish, unclean, and utterly abominable and dreadful ways and manners of serving God. Although (III) heathen theology taught certain virtues, yet it was wholly ignorant of their nature, their qualities, and their essential acts and requirements — namely, that they must be performed to the glory of God, for the benefit and edification of the neighbor, and for one's own welfare and salvation; that they must be regulated according to the prescription of the will of God; that they must be exercised not by one's own powers, but by the power which God grants — but rather it directed and ordered them to its own honor and advantage, according to the prescription of blind understanding, and by the powers of nature alone. (IV) Although heathen theology had some sort of knowledge of man's wretchedness, yet it was utterly ignorant of its origin, and sought the very worst remedies in sacrifices — even of human beings — and in other most abominable things. And there is almost nothing that the heathen can allege on behalf of their theology, except that it derives from nature and reason, and that it agrees therewith. But we answer: (1) That they groundlessly and vainly presuppose that heathen theology agrees with natural theology — whereas we have already distinguished natural theology from heathen theology, precisely in this, that the former is true, but the latter false. (2) Even if we granted that it flowed from and out of nature and reason, we nevertheless deny that it flowed from unimpaired nature and from right reason, but rather from corrupted and depraved nature, and from blind reason. But indeed (3) we say, on the contrary, that nature contradicts polytheism, and that right reason does not allow men to be held as gods, nor a religious honor to be shown to them, nor God to be served in that manner which heathen theology prescribes, just as we have already taught.

XXIII. One asks (II): Whether there is a certain natural theology, both innate and acquired? Here those err to excess who ascribe too much to natural theology, as the Scholastic doctors among the Papists do — who, when they can bring forward absolutely nothing from revealed theology to support their Transubstantiation and other superstitions, take refuge in their philosophical theology, which comes closest to the natural (of which a little more hereafter). Here also err to excess those who dream up a certain universal theology, by which everyone, in his own religion, would come to be saved — as, for example, Thomas Campanella, from whom the Socinians are not far removed, when, for salvation, they require only a few things concerning God and Christ as necessary to be believed; likewise those who, following Plato, teach that the ideas of all things, even of theological matters, are innate in man, in the contemplation and stirring up of which they place all our endeavor — so that they suppose nothing ought to be accepted as true which they do not find in those ideas by a clear, distinct, and well-defined apprehension; against whom we have disputed elsewhere in our book bearing the name Gangraena Cartesiana, that is, "The Cartesian Cancer." But in defect, the Socinians err here — such as Socinus, Ostorodt, and others — who deny absolutely all natural theology, both the innate and the acquired, with this aim, without doubt: that they might not be compelled to grant that man was created with an original righteousness which includes the knowledge of divine things, Colossians 3:10. To these belongs also Johannes Crellius, together with many others of that sort of men, who, while denying the innate theology along with Socinus, nevertheless not only acknowledge the acquired, but even, with a heaping-up of proofs, defend and maintain it at length. The Reformed indeed accept both — the innate and the acquired theology — but in such a way that they do not understand thereby an actual theology, which would belong, in act, to all men alike, even down to little children and the insane —

...when man was created, is born within him of itself — all revelation being set aside — in the same way that the faculty of reasoning is said to be innate in human beings. Those, then, who deny natural theology are refuted: (I) From Holy Scripture, Rom. 1:19-20, ch. 2:14-15, Ps. 19:2-3 and 104, Acts 14:15, as it often teaches that divine things were perceived by the heathen from reason, without revelation. (II) From conscience, which by its own nature excuses or accuses even the unlearned for their good or evil deeds, Rom. 2:15. (III) From the consent of the nations, which has become widely known through the voyages of the Portuguese, the English, and the Dutch. (IV) From experience, which appears everywhere in so many philosophical, ethical, domestic, and political writings. The objections of the gainsayers refute only that natural theology which, by nature, actually and always coexists with each and every person, or which is held sufficient unto salvation — neither of which we ourselves accept or acknowledge; or a natural theology which they infer merely from a verbal denial of God's existence, from a heart that secretly wishes God did not exist, and from a godless life, concluding from these that there are some wholly devoid of any sense of a deity. Compare Ps. 10:4 and 14:1, Titus 1:16.

XXIV. One asks (III): Is natural theology sufficient unto salvation? There are some, on the one side, who hold that it is not even useful at all — thus Socinus and his followers, denying it altogether, a view to which the Anabaptists readily incline, out of hatred toward philosophy. There are others, on the other side, who so highly esteem it that they hold it sufficient unto salvation — thus the heathen maintain; thus too, of old, the Pelagians, when they teach that the patriarchs were saved by the law of nature alone; thus likewise Campanella; indeed, thus, deliberately and at length, the Libertines. The Reformed do acknowledge that it is useful — to convict the ungodly, to demonstrate a deity and a certain service owed to God, Rom. 1:19-20; also to render the heathen, and among them the philosophers, without excuse or defense, Rom. 1:21, 24, 32, Acts 17:24ff, 1 Cor. 1:13-14. But that it should be sufficient unto salvation they allow in no way whatsoever. For (1) justification requires the knowledge of Christ Jesus, Isa. 53:11. Likewise (2) eternal life requires it, John 17:3. So that (3) apart from Christ there is no salvation at all, Acts 4:12, John 14:6. And also (4) philosophy is so far from being commended by Paul that it is rejected by him as an empty deceit, Col. 2:8; a spirit of this world, 1 Cor. 2:12; a worldly wisdom, v. 13, proper to the natural man, who does not grasp the things of the Spirit of God, v. 14; a wisdom of the flesh, which does not submit itself to the law of God, nor indeed can, Rom. 8:6-7. Besides also (5), that it proceeds from nature and from reason, which are corrupted, indeed blind, so that it cannot furnish us any theology sufficient unto salvation. And yet those same Reformed do not deny that natural theology, as it existed in the state of uprightness, was sufficient to obtain eternal life by virtue of the covenant of nature — precisely because at that time nature, by force of the wisdom of original righteousness, was still unimpaired and entire; just as then also, since there was as yet no sin, there was no need of a Mediator to be disclosed through theology. Should the Libertines wish to bring forward anything for the opposite view, it would have to be this: (1) That it is said, Acts 10:35, that in every nation he who fears God is acceptable to Him, and consequently also he who has been instructed only in natural theology. But it would have to be shown that anyone, without Christ — who is disclosed only in revealed theology — could truly have had God at all, since without Christ we can do absolutely nothing, John 15:5. If (2) they press the example of Cornelius the centurion, that he was a heathen man, up to that point still outside of Christ, and yet is said to have been godly and fearing God with all his house, giving many alms, and praying to God continually: we shall answer that he was indeed a heathen by descent, but a Jew by profession, who, through the revealed theology of the Jews, believed in the Messiah, though he did not yet know who that Messiah was, and concerning whom he then had to be instructed through the ministry of Peter. Should it be said (3) that natural theology is true and good, as being originally from God Himself: we shall answer that it is not thereby immediately sufficient unto salvation for the sinner.

XXV. One asks (IV): what must be thought and held concerning Scholastic theology, which stands midway between natural and revealed theology, because it teaches revealed matters in a natural manner and with natural proofs? By Scholastic theology we do not here mean revealed theology insofar as it is taught in the manner peculiar and common to the schools — in which sense our Alsted published his Scholastic Theology — but we mean that philosophical theology which holds sway in the schools of the Papists, for upholding their transubstantiation and their other superstitious tenets; born and arising under the Papist Lanfranc, when he disputed with Berengar concerning transubstantiation. At that time, lacking as he generally did the authority of Augustine as much as of Holy Scripture — since nothing whatever to confirm transubstantiation was furnished him either from Augustine or from Scripture — he was still comparatively modest and measured; but afterward, having devised ever more monstrous philosophical terms and turns of phrase, he grew ever more shameless, down to Peter Lombard in his four books of Sentences, and from there down to Albertus Magnus and his pupil Thomas Aquinas, through whom, without any shame, those monstrous philosophical terms were not only endlessly multiplied, but moreover, with no regard for Holy Scripture, the articles of faith began to be proved by philosophical reasonings, and Aristotle, Averroes, and others were set on a level with Holy Scripture, so as not to be reckoned inferior to it. Now the question is: what must one hold concerning this Scholastic theology? The Papists, since they find in Holy Scripture no help for their chief doctrines concerning transubstantiation, the supremacy of the pope, works of supererogation and merit, and all their other popish teachings, commonly take refuge in philosophical subtleties and in thorn-hedges of dreadful terminology. The Reformed judge, in general, for the reasons already given, that this Scholastic theology must be strictly cast out and banished — a judgment to which, as regards the main point, not a few outstanding men among the Papists themselves subscribe, such as Erasmus, Cajetanus, Petavius, and others. And yet there are not lacking among the Reformed those who hold that a middle course must be taken: that it should neither be retained whole, nor yet wholly banished, but purged of its blemishes and errors, and thereafter retained. For it has its usefulness (1) in controversies with the Papists, with whom one will dispute more successfully and effectively the less ignorant one is of their style, their contrivances, and their thorn-hedges; (2) to convince the heathen and atheists; (3) to confirm minds concerning the revealed truth itself; and above all (4) in those questions and points of controversy where one position is theological and the other philosophical.

The Practical Part

XXVI. Only the Christian theology of Christians, then, must be impressed upon us, and that so manifold a false and falsely-named theology surrounds it that this must be reckoned our very first duty: carefully and precisely to distinguish the true from the false. To this (1) Holy Scripture itself calls us, 1 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1, Heb. 5:14, Phil. 1:9-10. (2) The matter itself counsels it, since it is exceedingly shameful, and at the same time exceedingly ruinous, to be deceived and led astray in a matter of such great weight and importance, Eph. 4:14. To this is added (3) the danger of error and seduction which hangs over us on every side, and which therefore urges so careful an inquiry — a danger, I say, which hangs over our heads from the deceiver Satan, who blinds, 2 Cor. 4:4 and 11:3; from the false prophets, who are Satan's vassals and instruments, Matt. 7:15; from the slipperiness, blindness, and dullness of our own understanding, 1 Cor. 2:14, Eph. 4:18; from the diversity of errors and their gloss and cunning deceit, whereby they wear a form of godliness, or of a genuine and sincere theology, 2 Tim. 3:5. So that here are required senses well exercised to discern good and evil, Heb. 5:14, and knowledge and all judgment, to test the things that differ, Phil. 1:9-10. (4) The weight and importance of true and false theology presses us to it, since on it depends either eternal ruin or the eternal salvation of the soul, 2 Pet. 2:1, John 6:68. That inquiry, then, in order that it may succeed happily, requires (1) that we have Scripture ready at hand as an infallible touchstone, Isa. 8:20, Gal. 6:16, and from it (2) the rule of faith, Rom. 12:6, and a pattern of sound words, 2 Tim. 1:13; and besides (3) certain particular marks drawn from it, which scarcely anyone will be able to set forth more precisely than our very text, following the second paragraph — by comparing which, every falsely-named theology will be found to be either (a) unscriptural, agraphos, or teaching some other doctrine, heterodidaskalōn; or (b) not agreeing with the sound words of Christ, whether by adding to them — through which chiefly Popery falls, which piles endless traditions onto Holy Scripture — or by taking away from them — through which Socinianism collapses, which does away with the Trinity, the Satisfaction, and other fundamental articles; or (c) without Christ, not teaching the word of Christ — through which paganism, Judaism, and Muhammadanism, insofar as they do not retain the words concerning Christ, are struck at the very root; or (d) contributing little to godliness — with which defect above all the schismatic theology of the Lutherans and the Arminians is afflicted, insofar as they either exalt man too highly, together with his free will, his works, and his perfection, while depressing and belittling God and His grace and mercy in Christ (which, besides the Pelagians, Papists, and Socinians, the Arminians also do, giving occasion to despair through their doctrines of a total perfection required, of a total falling-away of the saints, and of continual doubts concerning salvation — which last, together with those already named, the Lutherans too hold, at least as regards a total falling-away of the saints); or give free rein to carnal carelessness through a universal grace of God and a universal satisfaction of Christ, said to be equally profitable for all — with which, besides others, the Lutheran Confession in particular is afflicted; or open a way of salvation which agrees little either with the righteousness or with the mercy of God — through which the Socinian way perishes, which confounds and mingles mercy with righteousness. Reformed theology, therefore, answers most exactly to those apostolic marks of orthodoxy, as the enumeration just made plainly shows. More on the truth of the Christian religion has been written by Mornay, Ludovicus Vives, Hugo Grotius, and recently Huet, in his Evangelical Demonstration.

XXVII. Yet, since it is not enough to have distinguished true theology from false, it is necessary, secondly, that each and every falsely-named theology which one has discovered and detected be rooted out, according to the measure of its rank and station. By a false theology we here presuppose, from the preceding paragraph, a heterodidaskalia, another or a foreign doctrine. This duty concerns (1) the preachers of Christian truth, Titus 3:10-11, Acts 15:2, Gal. 2:11,14; (2) the magistrate, to whom of old it was even charged, under pain of death, to set himself against it, Deut. 13:5 and 18:20, 1 Kings 18:40; (3) all who profess the Christian truth, Matt. 7:15, Rom. 16:17, 2 Thess. 3:14, 2 Tim. 2:16-17, Titus 3:10-11, 2 John 10. One must now set oneself against all false persons with force: (1) because it seeks to overthrow the gospel of Christ, Gal. 1:7; (2) because it blasphemes the way of truth, 2 Pet. 2:2; (3) because it bewitches those who are not obedient to the truth, Gal. 3:1; (4) because it disturbs and lays waste congregations and unsettles souls, Acts 15:24, Gal. 5:10,12; (5) because it is destructive, indeed deadly, 2 Pet. 2:2-3; (6) because it is hated both by and with Christ, Rev. 2:6,15. Wherefore the ministers of the gospel must watch over the flock, Acts 20:29-31, Rev. 2:6, by refuting those who teach another doctrine, 2 Tim. 2:16,24, Titus 1:9 — following the example of Stephen, Acts 6:9ff, of Paul, Acts 9:22, of Paul and Barnabas, ch. 15:2, of Apollos, ch. 18:28, of Peter, 2 Pet. 3:4, etc.; likewise, by confirming and strengthening their own people in the Christian truth, Acts 14:19,22; and further, by drawing back those who have been led astray, Gal. 1:6-7. But it is also the duty of magistrates, by their public authority and power, to restrain and curb all false teaching, as we have taught above, and to conduct themselves as nursing-fathers of the Church, Isa. 49:23. Finally, it is the duty of each and every one to watch himself carefully, Matt. 7:15, to fortify his mind in the truth against errors, so that he not be moved and carried away, like a child, by every wind of doctrine, Eph. 4:14; but that, being well strengthened by the rule of faith, the pattern of sound words, the catechetical articles, and the passages of Holy Scripture, he hold fast to them and keep them ready at hand, 2 Tim. 1:13, etc.

XXVIII. Now that all false theology has been banished, it is necessary, thirdly, that in its place there come an unwearied care, zeal, and exercise for and in true Christian theology, among all who profess Christ. For although the knowledge of theological matters which anyone may here attain is, in comparison at least with that which is to come, only partial, and as it were seen through a glass, darkly, 1 Cor. 13:12 — it nevertheless admits of degrees, according to which believers are called children or full-grown, 1 Cor. 3:1-2, Heb. 5:12-14: namely (a) according to the nature and condition of the times and the degrees of illumination, whence a more differentiated knowledge is required now, under the New Testament, than formerly under the Old, Joel 2:28-29, 1 Cor. 13:12, Isa. 11:9, Jer. 31:34,36; (b) according to the condition of the means for attaining knowledge, of which one place has a greater abundance than another, Col. 3:16, Heb. 1:1-2 — for which reason a more differentiated knowledge is required of us Europeans than of the Indians, of the Reformed than, for example, of the Papists; (c) according to the nature and condition of the persons and their duties, a greater and more differentiated knowledge being required in teachers and pastors than in others, Mal. 2:7, Hos. 4:6; (d) finally, according to the nature of theological matters themselves, insofar as some are more foundational than others, Heb. 6:1, 1 Cor. 3:1-2, for which reason they are distinguished into articles of faith, which belong to a person's being a Christian, and points of theology, which serve a Christian's well-being. Although, I say, degrees of knowledge must in every respect be allowed for these reasons, it is nevertheless the duty of each and every one (1) to acquire and possess for himself a knowledge of the foundational and catechetical articles, Jer. 31:34; (2) to strive to increase and grow more rooted in them, Col. 2:6-7, Heb. 5:12, 1 Cor. 14:20. Yet even here every kind of knowledge of Christian matters is not enough, for there is (1) a corrupt knowledge, 1 Tim. 1:4 and 6:20, apt only for disputes, ibid. vv. 4-5; (2) an empty, merely literal and speculative knowledge, which hovers only in the brain and does not penetrate to the heart, except perhaps to puff it up, 1 Cor. 13:1, 8:1; (3) a saving, experiential, and practical knowledge, which penetrates to the innermost being, and thus produces the practice of the truths known, of which it is spoken, John 13:17, Phil. 3:8-10 and 4:9, Col. 1:9-10, and which the Apostle calls a knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, Titus 1:1. Such knowledge, therefore, each and every one must strive to obtain with the utmost exertion of all his powers — I say, each and every one: (1) teachers and ministers of the gospel, in order (a) to hold fast the doctrine, 1 Cor. 2:2, Mal. 2:7, Hos. 4:6; (b) to teach it to others, 1 Tim. 6:2, 2 Tim. 4:2; (c) to explain it, 2 Tim. 2:15; (d) to defend it, Titus 1:9; and (e) to apply it, 1 Tim. 4:2, according to the variety of persons, states, and conditions, Titus 2:2, 1 Tim. 6:17; (2) the magistrates, who must (A) know theology and keep it before their eyes, Deut. 17:18-20, Josh. 1:8, Ps. 19:8; (B) prescribe it to their subjects, 2 Chron. 17:7-9, Josh. 24:14ff; (C) protect it against its enemies, as nursing-fathers of the Church, Isa. 49:23 and 60:16, and as guardians of both tables of the divine law; (D) indeed also propagate it, Gen. 18:19 — to say it in one word, they must kiss the Son in this way, Ps. 2:10-12, so that their civic government may become a government of God, or of Christ; (3) every single Christian, who must (1) acknowledge and receive the Christian truth, Col. 3:16; (2) do his best to advance more and more in it, John 5:39, Ps. 1:2; (3) rest and lean upon it, 2 Pet. 1:19; (4) each, according to his ability, pass it on to others, Col. 3:16.

XXIX. The reasons which can urge all to this most gently are these that follow. (1) The excellence of theology, whereby it is raised infinitely above all other branches of learning, Eph. 3:19, 1 Cor. 2:2 — an excellence which it possesses (1) from its origin and birth, which are heavenly and divine, Gal. 1:1, namely a wisdom that is from above, John 3:17 — indeed also from the manner of its bringing forth, which is utterly glorious, 2 Cor. 4:6; (2) then, the majesty of its content, which is God Himself, whence it is called a wisdom of God, 1 Cor. 1:6-7, Prov. 1:5; likewise Christ, whence Paul speaks of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ, for the sake of which he also counted all things loss and dung, esteeming all other knowledge as nothing, Phil. 3:8, 1 Cor. 2:2; further too, the manner of living for God, Rom. 6:11, whence one reads of words of life, Acts 5:20, John 6:68; (3) then its end, use, and usefulness, insofar as it directs man to live for God, to glorify God, and to obtain a blessed immortality, all of these being, among the several ends proper to it, directed to one and the same common and highest end, without which all the rest would wander from the right course; (4) then its unshakeable and immovable certainty, resting on the infallible trustworthiness and faithfulness of God, who cannot lie, and which takes hold of everything under the formal ground (as one says) of infallibility, 1 Cor. 15:15, John 3:33, while all other sciences are obtained only through a loose and slippery experience and reasoning, and rest thereon; (5) then its purity and holiness, James 3:17, which is so great and so complete that it makes its possessor pure and holy, Ps. 19:9-10; (6) then the sweetness and pleasantness with which the possession of it wonderfully overwhelms the mind, Ps. 19:9-10 and 119:103, Prov. 2:10 and 24:13-14, Job 23:12, which flows as much from the excellency of its object as from the nature of the knowledge itself; (7) then its manifold and surpassing usefulness, so that here one may use the saying of Christ, one thing is needful, Luke 10:42, and of the Apostle, profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4:8; (8) then its absolute necessity, since no one can obtain, without it, either justification in this life, Isa. 53:11, or life hereafter, John 17:3 — indeed, all your studies and pursuits, however many, if they wander from this supreme aim, will be in vain, so that David, not without reason, makes the whole happiness of man depend on this exercise and pursuit, Ps. 1:1-2; (9) then the evils and calamities of ignorance, whereby we are (1) estranged from the life of God, Eph. 4:18-19; (2) alienated from the covenant of grace, Jer. 31:33-34; (3) made liable to divine wrath, Ps. 79:6; (4) subjected to the heaviest temporal judgments, Amos 4:6; (5) and even made liable to eternal damnation itself, 2 Thess. 1:8-9, 2 Cor. 4:3. Persuaded by all these considerations, (10) the saints under both testaments — the patriarchs and prophets under the Old, 1 Pet. 1:10-11; the apostles and evangelists under the New, 2 Tim. 3:15, Acts 18:24; indeed, even the heavenly angels themselves, 1 Pet. 1:12, Eph. 3:10 — have, by their examples, gone before us in zeal, earnestness, and diligence toward divine things.

XXX. But, that we may not seem to urge the pursuit of theology or religion in vain with so great a weight of reasons, we must here without fail set forth the means for obtaining it. First of all, then, and before all things, one must acknowledge the supreme cause and first fountain of it, which is God, James 3:17, whence it is called sophia tou Theou, the wisdom of God, 1 Cor. 2:6-7, because it concerns God as much as it is from God. Likewise Christ, for which reason it is called logoi tou Christou, the words of Christ, 1 Tim. 6:3. So too the Holy Spirit, who is for this reason called the Spirit of wisdom, Isa. 11:2, Eph. 1:17. From Him it is, and is obtained, through the revelation of the Father, Matt. 16:17, of the Son, John 1:18, and of the Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21, through His illumination to know and grasp the revealed truth, Eph. 1:18, and through His leading into the truth grasped, John 16:13, Ps. 25:5 and 143:10. Let us, therefore, from this point, seek with the most fervent prayers, James 1:5, 1 Cor. 3:9, that He give us the Spirit, John 16:13, that He anoint the eyes of our understanding with eyesalve, Rev. 3:18, so that we, beholding, may see the wondrous things of His law, Ps. 119:18,27.

Then, secondly, in order that we may the more surely obtain theology, we must, when we set ourselves to it, take heed that we be (1) reconciled with God and His friends, John 15:15; (2) fearing God, Ps. 25:12; (3) of humble heart, 1 Pet. 5:5, Ps. 25:9, Matt. 11:25; (4) fools as regards this world, 1 Cor. 3:18. Thus disposed, let us, thirdly, have the helps ready at hand: (1) the Book of Nature, opened from within by conscience, Rom. 2:14-15, and from without by the contemplation of created things, Rom. 1:20, Ps. 19:1; then also (2) the Book of Scripture, which will open up theology, especially the Christian and revealed theology, Ps. 19:8-9; and (3) the service and help of schooling and ecclesiastical instruction, Mal. 2:7, Eph. 4:11-14. Then, fourthly, let us banish (1) a contrived and feigned ignorance, 2 Pet. 3:5, Prov. 1:22 and 29:7; (2) a vain curiosity and a falsely-named knowledge, 1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim. 2:23, Titus 3:9, whereby we should be wrongly preoccupied with prying into the secret things of God, Deut. 29:29; or with things that do not concern us, John 21:22, Acts 1:6-7; or with things less necessary to be known, 1 Cor. 14:1; or whereby we should aspire to higher things while neglecting the first principles, Heb. 6:1; or fail to rest in the sayings of God unless they agree with our own reason, Luke 1:34, Rom. 9:19-20; (3) pride, 1 Cor. 8:1; (4) fleshly wisdom, 1 Cor. 2:14 and 3:18-19; (5) fleshly lusts, which blind the understanding, Eph. 4:18, by darkening it and enticing it away. Let means, finally, be diligently applied with respect to the Word of God, Ps. 19:7-8 and 119:130, 2 Tim. 3:15-17: its reading, 1 Tim. 4:15; the hearing of it, Ps. 1:2; comparison with other passages, Luke 24:27; meditation, John 7:17, James 1:25, Ps. 119:99-100, Rev. 22:7, John 13:17. (Cf. Ames, Cas. Lib. III, Cap. II.)

XXXI. As for academic exercises, we shall touch upon them one by one, only briefly, and as it were with the finger. First, we shall wholly presuppose their excellence, usefulness, necessity, holiness, extent, and difficulty, from what has already been said and what will yet be said. Then, secondly, a theological disposition is required — teachable, industrious, godly, and consonant with theology — arising as much from a keenness of judgment able to discern spiritual things, as from a faithfulness of memory able to store up so many and such various matters, as also from the well-orderedness, purity, and steadiness of the passions, whereby one inclines toward studies devoted to God not against one's will and grudgingly, but with a certain holy readiness. Thirdly, that the student set before himself a theological aim — not riches and wealth, not honor, not pleasures and idleness, but the honor of God, the edification and building up of the Church, and his own salvation. Furthermore, fourthly, that in the study itself there go before it a threefold prerequisite knowledge: a philological one, namely of languages — Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Latin; a philosophical one, of ethics, physics, metaphysics, mathematics, and practical philosophy; and a historical one, which, like two wings, accompanies the knowledge of place and time. Let there follow, fifthly — or rather let it go paired continually with all the rest — a biblical exercise: one done as it were in passing, and one which must constantly be added to everything else; that is, an exegetical and precise exercise, whereby the connection of the text is traced out, the difficulties and hard places are noted and unraveled, and the doctrines, both speculative and practical, are drawn out and brought forth. Let there follow, meanwhile, sixthly, a doctrinal and positive theology — both catechetical and systematic, of the commonplaces, as they are called. On this follows, seventhly, polemical theology — the general kind, which touches more than one party, and likewise the particular kind, which touches particular parties in particular: the unbelieving heathen, Muhammadans, Jews, atheists; the heretics — Socinians, Anabaptists, Papists, Enthusiasts; the schismatics — Arminians, Lutherans, Brownists, Independents, Koelmanists, and others. And also, eighthly, practical theology: the moral kind, which concerns virtues and vices; the exhortatory kind, which concerns the exercises of godliness; the casuistical kind, which concerns cases of conscience; and the pastoral kind, which concerns the government of the Church. Ninthly, that the student trace out antiquities, ecclesiastical histories, the church fathers, and the councils, according to their age and period. Further, tenthly, that he be occupied in all these things with hearing, reading, meditating, praying, and disputing. And this, eleventhly, according to a fixed and orderly method, which apportions the tasks by years, by days, and by hours. Let it suffice merely to have touched upon these matters, which are set forth and explained at large by others — for example, by Erasmus, Hyperius, Crocius, Alsted, and one who must be named before and above the rest, Voetius, in his particular treatises.

XXXII. Yet even the study of theology, however true it be, is not enough, unless one apply oneself, fourthly, to exercising theology, and to the exercise itself. Wherefore our thesis presses not merely for a Christian theology, but in particular for a speculative-practical one. By this we mean not a pagan theology, such as that of Socrates, Plato, Scipio, Aristides, Cato, Seneca; nor a philosophical theology, consisting in ethical, domestic, and civic exercises; nor yet a Pharisaic theology, of which Josephus speaks (Antiquities, Bk. XIII, ch. 18), which insisted on an unmarried state, on frequent fasting, on prayers and alms, and abstained only from gross scandals, occupying itself, with great strictness, only with the outward exercises of godliness; nor an Essene theology, which, by the testimony of Josephus in his eighteenth book, ch. 2, exceeded even the Pharisaic in exactness; nor yet a monastic and pilgrim theology; and finally, not any hypocritical or feigned theology whatsoever — all of which have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof, 2 Tim. 3:5, a matter which perhaps we shall treat expressly and at length in the chapter on Hypocrisy.

XXXIII. But of all these duties — and countless others besides, even those that are the more inward — the marks of what is truly and in deed according to godliness, Ps. 2:8, Rom. 2:28-29, are these: (1) that it not remain in outward things, but flow out of the depths of the heart, being endowed with a true and living faith, Rom. 14:23, Gal. 5:6; (2) that it aim not at private advantage, honor, and riches, Matt. 6:1-5, but at the honor and glory of God, 1 Cor. 10:31, the edification of one's neighbor, Matt. 5:16, and one's own salvation, 1 Pet. 1:9; (3) that it proceed and be put into practice, not according to one's own opinion, Matt. 15:9, but according to the prescript of God, Gal. 6:16; and finally, (4) that it not be brought forth by the powers of nature, John 3:6, but by the Spirit of God, Gal. 5:22.

XXXIV. There are many things that urge the exercise of such a practical theology, and of such a theological practice. (1) Because Christian theology is not speculative, nor even speculative-practical — though we so name it according to our manner of treatment — but is, purely and above all, practical; a matter we here presuppose, though it must be explained and proved in its own place. (2) Because not only is the whole of theology called a doctrine of the truth which is according to godliness, 1 Tim. 6:3 and Titus 1:1, and said to be profitable for doctrine, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfectly furnished unto every good work, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, but also because we read that its several parts, each with its own practice, are bound together — so that, God willing, we shall show, in setting forth the whole body of theology, that faith and love, 2 Tim. 1:13, hearing and doing, James 2:22-23, run together, that the end of the commandment is said to be love out of a pure heart and a good conscience, 1 Tim. 1:5, and that from it there arises the obedience of faith, Rom. 1:5; and likewise, that in practice there lies the power of godliness or of theology, whereas, on the contrary, bare speculation brings about nothing but a form of it, 2 Tim. 3:5. (3) Because salvation is attached to practice, but is refused and denied to bare speculation, John 13:17, James 1:22-25. (4) Because the conviction of gainsayers, as also their conversion, depends more on practice than on speculation, James 2:18-19, 1 Pet. 3:1-2; indeed, moreover, that faith which is born of love toward practice is more safe, tested, and steadfast than that which flows from speculation alone. Not even to press further (5) that, through the exercise of practical theology and theological practice, one refutes most powerfully the slanders of the Arminians and Papists, who accuse our theology of being useless, idle, and merely speculative — and (6) because Satan, with his own, sets himself against the practical no less forcefully than against the theoretical; indeed, from day to day brings forth ever new and newly-devised contrivances, 1 Tim. 4:1, so as all the more to shut out practical study and the practice of study.

XXXV. The means for obtaining and advancing this practical theology, the thirty-fourth paragraph can furnish us, if only one alters what needs altering. Yet we shall let follow here some further points more particularly proper to practical study. (1) A diligent, constant, and practical contemplation and exercise of God's Word is here of the utmost service and usefulness, that the man of God may be perfectly furnished unto every good work, 2 Tim. 3:17 — especially if thereby is sought not only the knowledge of the truth, but also its power and efficacy; and to this end let one add the reading of all sorts of writers, both old and more recent, especially the wholly practical Dutch and English ones, which must then be gathered together into commonplaces, as they are called. (2) The experiential exercise of theology, whereby we not only know, but also feel and experience, the power and working of each theological article — whence the Apostle joins together knowledge and all judgment, Phil. 1:9, whereby we at once taste and see how good the Lord is, and how blessed is he who trusts in Him, Ps. 34:9. For I hold, too, that the authors of practical theology have obtained their practice by no other means more happily than this: that they first duly and rightly furnished their own minds with an inward sense of theological truths, then compared the things they had experienced and felt with Holy Scripture, and finally set down the one and the other in writing. For which reason Luther declared those sermons to be the best, in which the preacher feels and experiences the things he speaks, and speaks the things he feels and experiences. (3) The exercise of an exemplary theology, whereby you not only feel it for yourself, but also set yourself before others as an example, that they too may come to feel it — which the Apostle especially commends to ministers, when he says, Titus 1:7, show yourself in all things an example of good works, in doctrine, etc. Nothing, too, according to the testimony of Luther, penetrates deeper into the heart than that which springs and wells up from the innermost and deepest part of the heart. (4) When theologians, in the arrangement and enumeration of the theological articles, treat expressly and at length not only the doctrinal and polemical, but also the practical. Let me add to this, (5), that in the examinations of candidates, samples and proofs be required not only of doctrinal and polemical, but also of practical theology, and indeed of the practice itself.

Third Doctrine

Concerning the Description of Theology

The Doctrinal Part

XXXVI. Christian theology, which is speculative-practical, is nothing other than a doctrine of living for God through Christ; or a doctrine which is according to godliness, Titus 1:1. Whence it was called by the ancient church fathers, sometimes by the name theosebeia, godliness or piety; sometimes theozōia, God-livingness; indeed also theourgia, God-working — (1) when it is called the word of life, John 6:68, Acts 5:20; (2) when the habitual theology, or the working-unto-God, is meant, in agreement with Holy Scripture, which expresses the theological art by living unto God, Rom. 6:11, 2 Cor. 5:15, Rom. 14:7-8, Col. 3:3-4, Phil. 1:20-21; (3) because it is wholly occupied with man's forming, ordering, and directing his whole life for God, insofar as everything that occurs in Holy Scripture flows together and converges upon this one thing, as upon its center — so that this, as it were, is the most general content of it, according to which it may best be described as a doctrine of living for God through Christ.

XXXVII. First, we presuppose to this end: (1) that a knowable composite (scibile complexum) — that is, a composite of very many conclusions which look to one and the same thing — constitutes a certain science or discipline. (2) That living unto God is just such a knowable matter, according to the preceding paragraph. (3) And that it is nevertheless not comprehended under the subject of any other discipline: for there is no science which teaches how to live unto God through Christ, besides Christian theology — from which it is gathered that this, without doubt, is its true and proper business, and that there is nothing in theology which does not tend to this: that man's life be directed and governed toward God, whether under the aspect of the end, or under the aspect of a means. So it remains beyond doubt that this is its proper and adequate object, and that theology, therefore, is nothing other than a doctrine of living unto God through Christ. We presuppose likewise, secondly: (1) that, since God has created all things for the sake of man, and man for his own sake, so that man is the final and ultimate end of himself and of all human deeds and actions, it is therefore necessary that there be a certain instructive doctrine which directs and governs man, with all that is his, toward that end. (2) That there is no other instructive doctrine which undertakes this matter for its treatment, while all other disciplines remain standing by and resting, each in its own particular end — for example, medicine, in the well-being or health of man's body; ethics, in man's moral happiness for himself alone; politics, in the commonwealth's happiness in civic society; household economy, in that of the family, and so forth with all the rest. From which we then conclude that theology alone directs and governs the particular proper ends of each and every instructive doctrine to one common and supreme end, namely to God — so that God thereby indeed obtains His glory, but we too obtain, in God and in His glory, a perfect blessedness; all of which converges into this one thing, that we live unto God. By which we might, thirdly, further conclude that in this very point converge all the laws and requirements of a proper definition. For to live unto God expresses the very essence of the thing defined, that is, of theology, and is in every respect equal to it, since theology has nothing that does not look to this, nor does anything look to this and belong to it, which does not also belong to theology. From which nothing else can follow, but that a doctrine of living for God through Christ constitutes the most proper and genuine definition of theology.

XXXVIII. Theology is, accordingly, a doctrine — Isa. 51:4 and ch. 2:3 call it teaching and instruction, likewise a pattern of doctrine, Rom. 6:17 — a doctrine according to godliness, 1 Tim. 6:3, cf. John 7:16-17, 1 Tim. 4:6. Now we call it a doctrine, not because we despise and reject the names of philosophical habits — skill, science, wisdom, prudence, and art — for we see that in Holy Scripture it is called, interchangeably, now understanding, Prov. 2:6, Col. 2:3; now science or knowledge, Mal. 2:7, Isa. 53:11, 2 Cor. 8:7; now wisdom, 1 Cor. 1:21 and 2:6, James 3:17; now prudence, Prov. 1:2-3, Eph. 1:8; and that, in place of the name art, as its equivalent, there is used the expression, senses exercised to discern good and evil, Heb. 5:14. Not, I say, that theology is bound to any single one of these habits so as to exclude the rest, but because it contains and combines within itself, preeminently, the perfection and completeness of all the others; for which reason we prefer to use the more comprehensive word doctrine, under which all the others are included. And yet there lurks also another reason beneath this designation: namely, that Holy theology consists, preeminently, in a doctrine or revelation, Isa. 51:4, Matt. 16:17, John 1:18, Gal. 1:11-12 — whereas, on the contrary, all other sciences owe their origin to nature and to human investigation and inquiry, since their basic principles are innate in us, and are stirred up and brought to their perfection by the senses, observation, experience, comparison, and inference; while, meanwhile, the firm and solid principles of saving theology, as such, are not in us by nature, nor can they be acquired or brought to any perfection by exercise or diligence alone, Matt. 16:17. I add to this, as a third reason, that not only systematic theology, or theological lessons and precepts, but also the habitual [theology], or the art of living unto God arising from those precepts and commands, rests and depends upon a divine faith, and thus needs to be taught or revealed by God.

And this doctrine is taught, in part, by God — through an outward revelation, Gal. 1:11-12, and through an inward illumination, Eph. 1:17-18, of which we have spoken above — and in part also by men, who are therefore given the name of teachers, Eph. 4:11.

XXXIX. Further, it is a doctrine of living, of living unto God — and indeed of living unto God through Christ. I say, of living, which we have already proved from Holy Scripture, from Rom. 6:11, John 6:68, Acts 5:20; now we confirm this with reasons. Because (1) there is no instructive doctrine which forms and orders life in general, whether morally or spiritually, and therefore this must be left to theology. (2) The Word of God, and the Holy Spirit together with the Word, forms and orders by theological precepts not this or that single act of our life, but in general all of them, 1 Thess. 5:23, 2 Tim. 3:16-17. (3) The most noble instructive doctrine must necessarily be occupied with the most noble object; but nothing is more noble than life, Job 2:4, since life is a most general act, which is laid down as a foundation for all the rest, so that nothing at all subsists without life.

XL. Yet we say that it is not only a doctrine of living, but of living unto God, according to what we have already noted above, §XI, from Holy Scripture. For since our life must necessarily be directed and governed Godward, as toward its supreme and ultimate end, 1 Cor. 10:31, Phil. 1:21, without which all its acts would wander from the right course; and since it is nevertheless not governed thereto by any other doctrine — it is therefore absolutely necessary that this be accomplished through theology.

XLI. The life which theology directs and governs Godward is of three kinds: (1) of nature, Gen. 2:7, springing from the union of soul and body, whereby man is able to move himself in a natural manner; (2) of grace, Gal. 2:20, flowing from the union of original righteousness with the soul, whereby he is able to move himself in a spiritual or moral manner; (3) of glory, John 17:3, arising from the union and communion of the whole man with God, whereby he lives blessedly. The life of nature, although, as regards its first act, it is not properly subject to any theological precepts, is nevertheless, in respect of its second acts, according to the nature of the case, either raised up and rewarded, or punished, or prolonged, for good or evil deeds, 1 Tim. 4:8, Exod. 20:12; and yet the second acts — namely, the vegetative, sensitive, and rational — are directed and governed Godward by theological rules. The life of grace stands, both as regards its first act and as regards its second acts, more directly under the laws of theology, insofar as spiritual life and spiritual death are taken away and restored through sin and through faith, Eph. 4:18 and 2:5-6; and insofar as, likewise, good works must necessarily (1) flow forth from the life of grace, or from faith brought about through regeneration, John 3:5-6, Rom. 14:23, Heb. 11:6; (2) be directed to the honor of God, Gal. 2:19-20, 1 Cor. 10:31, Phil. 1:20-21; and (3) be arranged according to the prescript of God's will, 1 Pet. 4:2,6. The life of glory depends wholly upon the direction of theology, John 17:3, 1 Pet. 1:9, so that it is begun here through the life of grace, and completed hereafter in the heavens, John 3:36 and 5:24, 1 John 3:15, nor does it differ or vary from that life at all, save only in degree.

XLII. Yet even this is not enough for Christian theology, that we live unto God, unless this take place through Christ, Rom. 6:11. For thereby (1) our theology differs from that of the first-created human beings, when they were newly made; likewise from natural theology, and from every falsely so-called theology, which does not have the sound words of Christ. Moreover, (2) we cannot, without and apart from Christ, live unto God, Gal. 2:20, John 15:5. And (3), even if we could, it would not be acceptable to God apart from Christ, Eph. 1:6.

But we live unto God through Christ, in so far as (1) in Christ, who is our life, our life can first become pleasing to God, Eph. 1:6 — namely, in Him in whom the Father has taken good pleasure, Matt. 3:17; (2) because Christ, by His merit, has obtained for us the Spirit, John 16:7, by whose working and power we are made alive, Rom. 8:2,11, led and driven, v. 14 — whereas otherwise we would be dead in sins, that is, unfit and incapable of any good work, and inclined, on the contrary, to all evil; (3) since Christ, being united to us by faith, (a) makes us alive, whereas we were dead, Eph. 2:4-7; (b) imparts to us power to live, as the root to the branch, the head to the members, John 15:4; (c) sets the imparted powers to work, and carries them through to the very act, and makes them fruitful, John 15:4; (d) prescribes the laws of living unto God, Matt. 5:2; (e) goes before us with His own example, Matt. 11:29, Phil. 2:5; and finally (f) lives in us Himself, Gal. 2:20, and so occupies and takes possession of all our powers, that in everything, continually and everywhere, there may bloom and shine through Christ's lowliness, obedience, holiness, and righteousness, and that, in all these ways, the life of Christ be made manifest in us, 2 Cor. 4:11.

XLIII. From what has been said it appears, first, that since living unto God comprises two things — living well and living happily, of which the first regards God's honor and glory, and the latter our own salvation — it is therefore the duty of every man, in settling the ends of theology, to hold that the highest end is God's honor and glory, 1 Cor. 10:31, Prov. 16:4, Rom. 11:36, and the second, subordinate end, our own salvation, 1 Pet. 1:9; although these two ends differ not so much in the matter itself as in our conception of it, since our salvation consists in nothing else than the glorification of God — inasmuch as, through our union and communion with God, and our enjoyment of Him, wherein our salvation lies, God is thereby in very deed acknowledged and praised as our highest good and our ultimate end. From which the answer to the following questions is easy. (1) May one do something for the sake of one's own salvation, as one's highest end? Answer: this is entirely lawful, since it is beyond all doubt lawful to do or perform something for and on account of God, or to hold God, in the very act, as one's highest end. Likewise, (2) ought we not rather and sooner to seek God's honor and glory than our own life — indeed, than our own salvation? Answer: while we seek our own salvation, we thereby also seek God's honor and glory; yet insofar as these two differ in our conception, it must take precedence in our regard that we consider the matter of God, rather than our own comfort and advantage. But (3) will it not seem all too mercenary and hireling-like to live unto God for the sake of a reward? Answer: certainly, when it is done for the sake of a reward properly so called, whether of fitness or of strict equivalence, or for a reward distinct from God Himself; yet it is by no means hireling work when we, in the very act, hold God to be our highest end and our very great reward, Gen. 15:1.

XLIV. Secondly, the object with which the theological precepts are occupied, in forming and ordering it, is, first of all, the understanding, that our worship might be a reasonable worship, Rom. 12:1; then also the will, or the heart, Matt. 15:19, Prov. 4:4,23, Ezek. 33:26; and finally, the whole life, and each and every particular reasonable act thereof, insofar as those acts can be directed toward God. For the workmanship of theology is the disposition of the whole man, whereby he is driven to have and enjoy God, and to act and do according to His will and unto His glory — whence the whole man, and all his parts, are said to be sanctified, 1 Thess. 5:23; the will especially, however, as being the commanding principle of all spiritual acts.

XLV. Thirdly, how great is the excellence and pre-eminence of Christian theology. For although, in respect of the order of teaching, according to our manner of proceeding and advancing, it comes last, yet in the order of nature and of worth it readily occupies the first place, and, with respect to the supreme end, it is the directress and architect of all the rest — proceeding singularly from God, treating of God and divine things, tending toward God, and leading and bringing man to Him. For which reasons it is called, with no less right, theozōia, a God-life, or theourgia, a God-working, than theologia, a God-word — to which may be added what we have already said above concerning this matter, §XXXIII.

The Polemical Part

XLVI. That theology is indeed a doctrine of living unto God through Christ, I think there is no one among Christians who would deny — although it is described by one and another in a somewhat different manner, differing more in words than in substance, a matter with which we shall not now further concern ourselves. Wherefore, in place of controversies, we shall touch more lightly than expound at length one or another question, such as is wont to be raised and examined, in such prefatory matters of instruction, among the orthodox themselves.

First, then, the question is: whether, concerning theology, one may use a certain habit drawn from the intellectual habits of Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. VI — that is, whether theology ought rather to be called a wisdom, or ought rather to be called a prudence, etc.? There are some who regard it as a wisdom — namely, a most perfect manner of teaching, through a most perfect habit — thus it pleases those who hold that theology is a speculative teaching. There are some who would rather describe it as a prudence — namely, those who hold that theology is practical. There are some who allow neither, because it is a habit which is not natural, but supernatural. There are some who hold that all the habits of Aristotle apply to it: because theology is an understanding, insofar as it is brought to its principles through a mere apprehension; a science, insofar as it draws out its conclusions from first principles by reasoning through them; a wisdom, insofar as it binds and joins together its principles with its conclusions in a most perfect manner; a prudence, insofar as it directs its doctrines to an immanent act; and an art, insofar as it directs them to a transient act. We shall most safely say the middle course — namely, formally, so to speak, none of these in particular, since it includes the perfections of all of them together, so as by way of excellence to exclude none of the others. For this reason we have most precisely described it as a doctrine, which involves and includes all the others, and confines itself to none of them.

XLVII. Secondly, what sort of object befits theology? There are some who hold that it is God, to be contemplated, from whom theology takes its subject; there are others who would rather hold that it is God and His works; there are others who judge that it is the service of God that must be treated of. The matter could be settled by making a distinction between the first and principal object, and thus it would be God; and the adequate object, and thus it would by no means be God alone. It seems to us that those speak most fittingly who, with us, put forward living unto God through Christ as the adequate object: because this, on the one hand, has nothing which does not properly belong to theology; nor, on the other hand, does it omit anything which does belong to theology. For in order that we may live unto God, there is first required a knowledge of God and of His works; and it is not enough for theology that we know God and His works, unless there be added to this the honoring and serving of God, or the living for God through Christ.

XLVIII. Thirdly, is it a speculative habit, or a practical one? Or rather a speculative-practical one? We say here that it is practical — not that it does not work at all, for to every instructive discipline, whatever it be, its own well-doing and well-acting properly belongs — but because it does not, by its own nature, proceed to action, as metaphysics does; it is, on the contrary, an exercising habit — not because it is not occupied with contemplation, but because, by and through its nature, it does not rest or remain standing in contemplation, as logic and ethics do. Furthermore, we here distinguish to praktikon, the practical, from to poiētikon, that which must be made — since to poiētikon, what must be made, brings forth its object, whereas to praktikon, what must be practiced, requires only an act with respect to its object. Thus, although God cannot be brought forth by us through poiēsis, a making, there can nevertheless be drawn forth and elicited concerning Him an act of love and reverence, in which practice consists. There are some here who hold that theology is purely speculative, as Aquinas with his followers, because in the most perfect contemplation of God consists our salvation, John 17:3, 1 Cor. 13:13. But wrongly: for salvation does not consist in knowledge alone, but in a knowledge that involves love, 1 Cor. 13:13. Nor, indeed, is that called knowledge in Holy Scripture which consists in bare speculative knowing alone, but also such as includes love, Ps. 1:6, Matt. 7:23. There are others, on the contrary, who would rather hold that it is purely practical, as Scotus with his followers — which we too, in a sound sense, shall accept. Further, there are some who say that it is neither speculative nor practical, but affective and passionate — very strange people indeed, since, without doubt, to love and to have one's affections stirred are themselves exercising, or practical, things. Finally, there are some who describe it as both speculative and practical: because, with respect to one part of it — namely, with respect to what must be believed concerning God, the Trinity, and the personal union of the two natures in Christ — it is purely speculative; but with respect to what must be done, it is purely practical. But this is less exact, since to consist and rest, by its very nature, in contemplation, and yet, by its very nature, to require practice as well, involves a contradiction. We do not indeed deny that there are things in theology which cannot be brought forth or made — for example, God, the Holy Trinity, the union of the natures in Christ, and other such matters, which are for that very reason not poiētika, things that must be made — yet there is nothing concerning which some act might not be elicited, of which it could be said to be practical. We, therefore, while denying that theology has everywhere an actual and operative bearing, likewise deny that it is purely speculative, since all its doctrines, by their very nature, require some working with respect to the object known. Indeed, we also deny that it is, properly and in itself, speculative-practical — although we have so named it according to the manner of treatment — but we say that it is practical, and, above all, eminently practical: (1) because it is called a doctrine which is according to godliness; (2) because knowledge without practice is everywhere said to be vain, 1 Cor. 13:1-2 and 8:1-3, indeed even dead, James 2:17; (3) because there is nothing in theology which does not have its bearing, whether upon the end or upon the means, of which kind are all practical things; (4) because to every and each particular chapter of theology its own practice is assigned in Holy Scripture — for example, to Scripture, 2 Tim. 3:16-17; to the preaching of the gospel, 1 Tim. 1:5; to the hearing of the Word, Matt. 13:23, James 1:22-23; to belief, 1 Pet. 1:9, Rom. 1:5; to the sacraments — to the Supper, with which stands, do this, 1 Cor. 11:24; to holy Baptism, with which is charged, teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, Matt. 28:19-20; and finally, since living unto God is, by far, the most perfect practice there is for us.

The Practical Part

XLIX. There is, therefore, first, no true theology, nor a true theologian, and thus no genuine and true Christian either, in the one who (1), whether in word or in deed, makes Christian theology and religion into an art of knowing and disputing, while meanwhile not knowing, or at least neglecting, the experience and skill of living — which, as Bernard says elsewhere, has the words of the saints, but not their life. This is the very thing Seneca elsewhere calls a deadly mange of the mind: that men would rather dispute than live. (2) He who gives himself out as a theologian or as a Christian, and yet meanwhile does not live unto God through Christ, but either for the world, or for the flesh, or for idleness — or at the very least, for himself alone. Or (3), even if he perhaps does try to live unto God, yet not so much through Christ as by his own powers. Such a one indeed — though he might be called a very learned and very sharp-witted teacher, and a most zealous champion of the Christian cause — is nevertheless no more truly a theologian and a Christian than one is an orator who cannot deliver an oration, or a physician who cannot heal; upon whom that wholly ugly Jewish brand of the Apostle fits very well, Rom. 2:17ff. Indeed, he is rather (2) a liar, who says and does not, Matt. 23:3 and 7:21, who confesses with the mouth what he denies by his works, Titus 1:16. And also (3) a vain man, James 1:26, and a hypocrite, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, 2 Tim. 3:5. Indeed, he is (4) spiritually dead, as one who does not know how to live, Eph. 2:1, Matt. 8:22. And thus (5) he brings about, with all his theology, nothing for himself but ruin, Matt. 7:21. For he who does not will to live unto God here will not live hereafter either: for godliness alone has the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4:8.

L. It is therefore required, secondly, that we diligently test and examine both our theology and the theologians. Our theology, or religion: (1) whether it be a doctrine that has proceeded and been revealed from God, Isa. 51:4; (2) whether it tends to a Christian practice; (3) whether it directs and governs our life to no other end than toward God — or to the praise and glory of God, which shall be perfected and completed in our eternal salvation; (4) whether it lays the foundation of that whole life in Christ alone, John 15:4 — which are the chief marks of a true and genuine theology, taken together with those we set forth above, §XXXVII. But let us also examine the theologians and the Christians, and let each one test and examine himself: (1) whether he has been taught, not merely by men, or from books, but rather from God Himself, Gal. 1:1; (2) whether he has been taught, not to dispute and wrangle, but to live; (3) to live, not for himself, not for the world, not for all men, but for God; and this (4) through Christ, or through the power of Christ alone. These are the chief marks of a genuine and true theologian or Christian, flowing from the very definition of theology. For indeed, the nature and character of a thing is nowhere more perfectly grasped and understood than from a precise definition of it.

LI. But thirdly — and this is the chief thing — since we are theologians and Christians, indeed expressly devoted to theology in keeping with our profession, let us aim and strive at this: that we may live unto God alone through Christ. Concerning which we must speak somewhat more distinctly under four heads. First, what living for God requires. Although this indeed extends throughout the whole system of theology, which we shall, with God's help, expound chapter by chapter, nevertheless, set forth and displayed here as in a summary, it consists, in general, in this: (1) that we set God as the sole object of this spiritual life, Ps. 16:8 — that is, that with our whole life we seek only to serve God and to please Him, Gal. 1:10, 2 Cor. 5:9, which in Holy Scripture amounts to the same thing as living unto God; (2) that we make God's will the sole rule of our life, 1 Pet. 4:2,6, and this is living according to God; (3) that we set God before us as the goal and aim of our whole life, Phil. 1:20-21, 2 Cor. 5:9; and finally (4), that we strive after all this, and also do it, in the power of God. Therefore, as we have exhorted above, living unto God, in general, is nothing else than directing all the acts of natural, civic, and spiritual life according to the prescript of God's Word, unto the honor and glory of God, through the inward working power of God.

LII. In particular, it requires, for its own part, these points. (1) That we set before ourselves a lawful aim of our life, that we may not, namely, run at random and beat the air, 1 Cor. 9:26, like an archer without a target. For the end governs the use of the means, and takes away, or at least softens and moderates, our reluctance and aversion toward them, when we forget those things which are behind, and reach forth unto those things which are before, Phil. 3:14. Now this lawful aim of life is of three kinds. The highest and supreme is God's honor and glory, for which we were created, Isa. 43:7 — for which too we have been re-created and reborn, 1 Cor. 6:20 — indeed, to which we have also been called through the gospel, Matt. 5:16. Let us, therefore, in all our actions, be driven toward this, 1 Cor. 10:31; let us readily surrender ourselves and all that is ours to it, Phil. 1:20-21. The intermediate end is the salvation of our own soul, 1 Pet. 1:9, in which God is most fully glorified, and which we are therefore, next to and nearest after God's honor, especially bound to pursue and seek. The lowest end is the profit and benefit of our neighbor; for we are not created for ourselves alone, but also for our neighbor. To this Paul directed and ordered himself and all that was his, 1 Cor. 9:19-21; to this also the Savior, Matt. 18:11; to this we too must direct ourselves and our deeds — namely, that we further the welfare and salvation of our neighbor, going before them to this end with a holy pattern of life, and most carefully avoiding all occasions of offense, 1 Cor. 10:32.

LIII. Further, (2) that we direct all our actions to that aim according to the right rule, which is likewise threefold: namely, (1) the Word of God, Ps. 119:17, Gal. 6:16; (2) the life of Christ, after whom we are called Christians, whose life He Himself sets before us as our pattern, Matt. 11:29, and which Paul professes to have followed, 1 Cor. 11:1 — whereby Christ lives in us, Gal. 2:20, and is manifest and shines forth in us, 2 Cor. 4:10, and which is also, for our own life, a most exact example and prescript; (3) our own conscience, well instructed and ordered by the Word of God, Acts 24:16, which is itself both a rule, and also a judge subordinate to God.

LIV. And this not only, but that we also, (3) in all these practices, follow a fitting and proper order, whereby, in general, we prefer and set spiritual things above and before bodily ones — I say, that we prefer spiritual things, yet in such a way that we do not entirely neglect bodily things either, Matt. 6:33, John 6:27. This comes about (1) when bodily and spiritual things happen to us together, so that both cannot be attended to at once, and we then, to God's good pleasure, rather set aside and let go bodily things (that is, all else being equal) than spiritual ones, Heb. 10:34 and 11:26; (2) when, to God's good pleasure and for God's sake, we attend to earthly matters themselves with a spiritual heart and mind — for God, that is, according to the prescript of God, to His honor and glory, for the service and benefit of God's kingdom, and for the growth and advancement of our spiritual life; and finally (3), when we set apart and reserve for God not only each returning seventh day of our life, but also certain portions of our particular days, in which we give ourselves wholly and entirely over to God and divine things — such fixed hours as David appointed for himself, Ps. 55:18, and Daniel, ch. 6:10.

LV. In order that we may live unto God in this way, we must let ourselves be persuaded by these reasons that follow. (1) That we are children of God, who lives — should we, then, not also live, and live for Him, and to His glory, and according to His prescript, who is our Father, Mal. 1:6? (2) That we are Christ's members, united to Him, who lives in His own — shall we, then, not live in Him? Shall we, in Him who is living, be dead? (3) That we have in Christ the Spirit of life, Rom. 8:14 — shall we, then, lie prostrate as dead? (4) That we are, if only we be true Christians, living members, living stones, 1 Pet. 2:4-5, endowed with a living faith, James 2:17,26 — shall we, then, not live by faith? Especially since life is nothing else than a power to work of oneself; and to what end is a power, unless it be for the act? (5) That we have a living and life-giving God, Rom. 9:26, 1 Thess. 1:9: we have the Father, who grants us life, Gen. 2:7, and indeed a spiritual and immortal life; the Son, who by His death has obtained and restored life for us, Eph. 2:5; the Holy Spirit, who, through regeneration, brings the seed of spiritual life, John 3:5-6, and that indeed from a living seed, 1 Pet. 1:23. To what end else, but that we should live for Him, and that we should devote our life to the Triune God? In particular, (6) the Savior Jesus has given Himself and all that is His — His life, death, resurrection, and all — at this cost: that those who live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him who died for them and rose again, 2 Cor. 5:15. Hence none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself; for whether we live, we live unto the Lord, etc.; for to this end He also died and rose again, Rom. 14:7-9. Indeed, (7) to this end He has created us, preserves us, and overwhelms us with all manner of spiritual and bodily benefits, that we should live for Him. To this end He calls and invites us daily by the commands of His Word. Would He have done all this, and still do it, in vain? 2 Cor. 6:1. Surely He would have done it in vain, if we do not surrender our life to God — since He has not given us life and all things merely in vain, still less unto eternal death. And (8), for whom should we rather live, than for our own so exceedingly good Creator, our most faithful Redeemer, our sweetest and most agreeable Guide and Advocate? Add to this (9), that if we have not begun to live unto God here in time, we shall not continue and complete it in eternity: for it is an everlasting life, once begun here, John 3:36, 1 John 3:15.

LVI. Yet we must take care that we pursue this matter of living unto God (1) sincerely and fully, so that we direct all the acts of our life to everything that is well-pleasing to God, Jer. 42:3,5, and restrain ourselves from all evil, Ps. 119:101 — which, with the Apostle, is always to abound in the work of the Lord, 1 Cor. 15:58; (2) diligently, with zeal, adding all diligence, 2 Pet. 1:5, that we bestow our first and foremost care upon it, Matt. 6:33, Luke 10:40; (3) steadfastly — as the Apostle says, 1 Cor. 15:58, steadfast and unmovable — not fitfully, now and then, but always and continually, 1 Chron. 16:11, Matt. 24:13, through hope and fear utterly and in every respect undeterred, Dan. 3:17-18. More matters of this kind will, without difficulty, be gathered together as the case requires.

LVII. Finally, in order that we may indeed be able to live unto God, we must also take to heart and see to the means, among which, first, regeneration excels, John 3:5, whereby, to those who are dead in sin, the first principle of spiritual life is given back and restored, and whereby we are made alive, Eph. 2:1,5-6 — for it is absolutely impossible to produce, by any other means, a single act that is spiritually alive of itself: for that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, John 3:6, Rom. 8:7. The second means is a true and living faith, for by this the righteous shall live, Rom. 1:17, Gal. 2:20. The third, union with Christ, brought about through faith and through the Spirit, so that we may live unto God through Christ, Rom. 6:11, and that Christ may live in us, Gal. 2:20 — for without Christ we can do nothing, John 15:5, just as, with and in Christ, we can do all things, John 15:5, Phil. 4:13. The fourth means is a settled and unmoved purpose and resolve to live and serve God, Ps. 119:44, Heb. 13:18. The fifth, an earnest and continual striving and endeavor to obtain that which we earnestly intend, with the exertion to that end of all our powers, 2 Cor. 5:9, Acts 24:16. The sixth, constant and burning prayers, whereby we importune God and wear Him down, that He would make us alive, create in us a new heart, and preserve and make fruitful the good work He has begun in us, until it come to eternal life, 1 Cor. 15:10, 1 Thess. 5:23-24. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy shall be upon them, Gal. 6:16. More matters of this kind will come up, in their place, in the Exhortatory Part.

Chapter II: Of the Holy Scripture

On 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I. Since this art, of living unto God, is not a natural power into which we are born, but rather an acquired capacity, it absolutely requires a certain fixed rule, whereby and according to which it may be steered and directed; and indeed a rule prescribed by God, as we have already noted above — which rule, besides the life of Christ and our own conscience, we have set, above all, in the Word of God, or Scripture; which, just as it is the rule and guide for living, is likewise a general compendium of the precepts and rules that serve that end — for which reason it is called the foundational principle of theology. The consideration of this we shall build upon the words which we have set out in advance from 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

The Explanatory Part

II. In these words the Apostle, in order to rouse his Timothy to an earnest and diligent study of the Holy Scriptures, sets before him, as an incentive, a most ample commendation of Scripture. In which two things occur: I. The subject commended: all, or the whole Scripture, pasa graphē — where the word pasa, all, is taken for holē, the whole; and the word graphē, scripture, must be qualified by the added epithet hagia, holy — so that from this there arises this sense: the whole holy Scripture, that is, not only the entire canon of Scripture, but also its particular parts.

II. The predicate, or the content of the commendation, which sets forth three things: 1. The Origin, whence its own authority arises: theopneustos, given by God. This must be referred not to the subject, but to the predicate — there being also understood the substantive verb, which, by a Hebraic ellipsis, is omitted and must be supplied — so that from this there arises this sense: the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Theopneustos, given by God, because the holy men of God did not write it by revelations of every sort, Rom. 1:19, but by God's own immediate and infallible inspiration, 2 Pet. 1:20-21. 2. The Usefulness: kai ōphelimos, and is profitable — which signifies not merely a usefulness and a certain fitting agreeableness, whatever that might be, as the Romanists would have it, but also a sufficiency, necessity, and perfection, and so is equivalent to autarkeis, sufficient of itself for all things. Here a fourfold usefulness is distinctly noted. A. Pros didaskalian, unto teaching. This expresses the use of instruction, insofar as Scripture is not only assertive, but also argumentative — so that from one premise it sometimes draws out other teachings, or also confirms other teachings distinct from it. B. Pros elegchon, unto reproof. This can be understood of rebukes and refutations, whether of errors, or of sins and faults. I would rather take the former, since the latter looks to the use that follows. It signifies, then, the polemical use of Scripture, whereby a teacher is empowered to refute gainsayers, Titus 1:9 — that is, to convince them entirely, and also to stop their mouths, Titus 1:11. C. Pros epanorthōsin, unto correction. Now correction presupposes a certain evil; and evil is of two kinds, a grievous one and a shameful one — so there is likewise a twofold epanorthōsis, correction: by the one we are delivered from grievous evil, and this is called consolation; by the other we are delivered from shameful evil, which is rebuke. Epanorthōsis, correction, includes both. D. That which is pros paideian, tēn en, unto instruction in. The Greek word paideia signifies both an instruction and a discipline. The word dikaiosynē, righteousness, here signifies, by way of substitution, whatever is a moral good, whether a virtue or a work. The article tēn seems to have been added there for the sake of distinction, in order that it be distinguished from paideia tē en didaskalia, instruction which is in doctrine, which the Apostle had already expressed, when he said that Scripture is profitable for doctrine. By these words, therefore, the exhortatory use is expressed. And thus the whole exercise of Scripture is described under these four usefulnesses and uses.

3. The End and Aim: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work. By these words a twofold end of Scripture is expressed. A. The end for whom — or the person for whom the aforesaid usefulness of Scripture is appointed and ordained: ho tou Theou anthrōpos, the man of God. The Apostle looks in particular to Timothy, and to the other ministers of the divine Word, who are, by way of excellence, commonly called men, or men of God, 1 Sam. 2:27, 1 Kings 17:18, 2 Kings 4:7, 1 Tim. 6:11 — yet in such a way that he also means every kind of Christian, to whom this fourfold usefulness of Scripture is of service. B. The end unto which — or the good for which the person is fitted, that he may be perfect, etc. — namely, to be formed and fitted for godliness.

Here there comes before us: a. The godliness which Scripture works: pros pan ergon agathon, unto every good work. That is, it furnishes us a capacity to work — and indeed to work that which is good; indeed, not merely this or that good, but all, or every kind of, good: natural, moral, spiritual. b. The forming, or the fitting-out, for godliness, whereby the man of God is not only artios, perfect and complete — and that with an arithmetical completeness, for it is used of even numbers, which are called artioi, perfect, because their parts and members correspond evenly to one another, so that nothing is lacking to them, nor is anything left over — but also exērtismenos, fully furnished and perfected, in every respect perfect and perfectly furnished, with a perfection not only of parts but also of degrees, even if this be not fully attained here in this life — at least it will be hereafter. Thus Alfonso Salmerón wrongly infers from this expression the perfection of good works in this life. For the text does not so much express the perfection of man, as the perfection of Scripture; and even if it does express the perfection of the man of God, he does not thereby possess an actual and absolute perfection, such as he could obtain in this life, but a possible and conditional one — one which Scripture could bring about, and which he himself could obtain, provided he followed Scripture perfectly. And even should you wish to understand an actual and absolute perfection, it must then be understood not as one obtained here, but as one that shall be obtained hereafter.

The Doctrinal Part

III. It appears, therefore, that Holy Scripture is a perfect rule for living unto God. For the fourfold usefulness which the text ascribes to Holy Scripture does not exhaust the whole manner of living unto God; but there is, moreover, added to this, that by its help man can be made perfect and thoroughly furnished unto every good work — whence it is commonly and rightly called perfect. It is also called, for our feet, a lamp, and a light for our path, Ps. 119:105; a sure word, 2 Pet. 1:19; a true rule, Ps. 19; a guide (or however else one might wish to understand that passage); and a rule, kanōn, Gal. 6:16, Phil. 3:16. And moreover it is called perfect, Ps. 19:8, being that which is able to make us wise unto salvation, 2 Tim. 3:15. This too is affirmed by those passages which bind us so precisely to Holy Scripture, Isa. 8:20, that they leave it not to our own choice to turn aside from it, either to the right hand or to the left, Deut. 4:1-2 and 12:28,32, Rev. 22:18-19.

IV. For indeed nature itself presupposes: (1) that there is a God, a certain first and highest Being, from which all else derives, and an outermost and final end, to which everything tends, which is for that very reason above all things; (2) that God must be honored and served, or, what is the same thing, that one must live for Him — for if we have all that is ours from Him, and have it in order to give it back to Him, and render Him thanks in return; and likewise, if He is above all and more perfect than all, then it is surely plain and manifest that all these things must be acknowledged with a due reverence, and thus the service of God is established and proved; (3) that this service of God is not a work of nature, such as seeing, hearing, or walking, which accordingly need no rule by which to be governed, but is a certain art, which must be governed according to certain fixed rules; (4) that this rule is not reason, because reason is corrupted, as all who are endowed with reason acknowledge, and that which is corrupted cannot be the measure of what is right; nor the ordinances of the wise, because these rest only upon reason (which we have already excluded from this) and derive their authority from that same source; nor yet the sayings of the ancient fathers, since these were all, together with us, mere men, and thus not only bound, no less than we, to some fixed rule, but also fallible, and moreover often deceived and mistaken — and therefore they cannot constitute a rule, except a leaden one, that is, one which must bend itself to the matter, whereas a rule ought to be unerring and infallible; nor yet the Jewish Talmud, because it — being derived, by an unwritten tradition, as is claimed, from Moses down to the Jews — is not only of an uncertain truth, but, on account of the fables with which that book teems, of an utterly certain falsehood; nor finally the Muhammadan Quran, because that book, through its unlearned and monstrous trifles, betrays its own folly all too plainly. And so there remains nothing else but our Holy Scripture alone, to which we can and may ascribe this praise.

V. In which we are confirmed all the more, because the nature and the requirements of a rule fit Holy Scripture alone, most exactly. For, first, the rule and guide for living unto God must, without doubt, be prescribed by God alone, Deut. 4:2, Matt. 15:9 — for a rule and guide can be prescribed by no one else than the one to whom the thing regulated and ordered belongs. But now Holy Scripture alone has been prescribed to us by God as a rule, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, just as it also, on account of the sublimity of its subject matter, could have come to be revealed and prescribed by none other than God. Secondly, a rule must be known, clear, and plain — for how else could it bring us to the knowledge of what it is our duty to do? Such is Holy Scripture, as will appear in its proper place. Thirdly, a rule must be steadfast and unchangeable, always and everywhere consistent with itself; otherwise, how could it furnish a firm and certain measure and prescript, according to which one might govern oneself? But such is Holy Scripture, being a prophetic word, more sure, indeed most sure, 2 Pet. 1:19. Fourthly, a rule must be adequately fitted and proportioned to that which is to be regulated by it, and must itself consist in something indivisible, so that it may not, in the least degree, be increased or diminished — for if a rule and guide be not such, it will be unfit for measuring its object. But such is Holy Scripture: for there is nothing which we have to believe or to practice which it does not prescribe to us; nor, on the other hand, does it prescribe to us anything which is not our duty to take upon ourselves, or which does not serve toward living for God, 2 Tim. 3:16, Rom. 15:4. Finally, a rule must be commonly used, generally accepted, and openly manifest — for how else could it settle and remove the disputes that arise, and have arisen, between one brother and another? Such, likewise, is Holy Scripture: for it has been prescribed by the open authority of God, Ps. 147:19-20, Rom. 3:2, and has been received by a general consent, at least of the Christian Church — which is perhaps for this reason called a pillar and ground of the truth, 2 Tim. 3:15. If there be perhaps yet other general requirements of a rule, here left aside for brevity's sake, they will easily be found applicable to Holy Scripture as well, so that it may become the more fully known to us that Scripture — a matter we shall establish below, in confirmation of the authority of Holy Scripture, against the heathen — is a perfect rule for living unto God.

VI. By Holy Scripture, then, we understand nothing else than a doctrine of living unto God, insofar as it is described, contained, and set down in writing. For whereas God, for some ages, through an oral and living tradition, by means of the patriarchs down to Moses, preserved and propagated that doctrine unwritten, it at length seemed good to Him to set it down in writing. This came about (1) on account of the shortness of human life, which, from the time of Moses onward — indeed already before his time — gradually grew ever shorter, Gen. 5, compared with ch. 47:9, Ps. 90:10; (2) on account of the number of men and of the members of the Church, which only gradually increased, Gen. 15:18; (3) on account of the danger and unreliability of preserving the doctrine by tradition alone — for already, at the time when it was handed down by tradition, many corruptions had crept in, Josh. 24:2, Ezek. 20:7, Gen. 35:2, and more were still to be feared; (4) on account of the weakness of human memory, 2 Pet. 1:15; (5) on account of the fixedness proper to a heavenly doctrine, Luke 1:3-4, Phil. 3:1; (6) on account of the perverseness of heretics, who would too readily abuse unwritten traditions to the advantage of their errors. And hence, finally, the doctrine of living unto God comes to be called Scripture. But for what reason is it called holy? Answer: (1) because it draws its origin from the All-Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21; (2) because it carries with it a most holy subject matter, namely the art of living unto God through Christ, John 6:68, Acts 5:30; (3) because it has for its aim the most holy ends and purposes, namely the honor and glory of God, the edification and building up of men, and their eternal salvation, 1 Thess. 2:8-9, Heb. 4:12.

VII. This same book is sometimes also called, simply, by the name of Scripture — namely, by way of excellence, because it is, of all writings whatsoever, by far the most excellent Scripture. More often it is called by the name of the Word of God, 1 Thess. 2:13, Ps. 119:9,11-12; the Words of God, Rom. 3:2, 1 Pet. 4:11, Heb. 5:12; the Word of God, Heb. 4:12 — because it is from God, treats of God, and tends and leads to God; mishpatim, judgments; torah, the Law of the Lord, Ps. 19; mitzvot, commandments; chukkim, statutes; pikkudim, precepts (although these words are frequently used to distinguish the ceremonial, political, and moral laws); and finally, the Law and the Prophets, Matt. 22:40, Luke 16:16; Moses and the Prophets, ibid. vv. 29,31; or simply the Prophets; among the Hebrews, mikdash, the Sanctuary; among the Greeks, biblia, the Bible; and whatever other equivalent names of Holy Scripture there may be.

VIII. We reckon Scripture as belonging to two Testaments, the Old and the New. The Old Testament, which contains within itself the Covenant of Grace under a surety who was still to die, made with the ancient Jewish Church, to whom in that time the oracles of God are said to have been entrusted, Rom. 3:2, comprises no more than thirty-nine books, which the Jews, according to the number of the letters of their alphabet, reckon as twenty-two, and arrange into three orders: namely, torah, the Law; nevi'im, the Prophets — the rishonim, the former, and the acharonim, the latter; and then ketuvim, the Holy Writings, as they call them. To this division the Savior seems to allude, Luke 24:44. Christians divide it into the Law and the Prophets, Acts 28:23, or also into Moses and the Prophets, Luke 16:23,29,31 and 24:27; and then again they distinguish the prophetic books into historical, doctrinal, and prophetic. The New Testament, which contains within itself the Covenant of Grace under a surety already dead, we reckon as twenty-seven books, arranged into historical, doctrinal, and one prophetic book.

IX. Besides these canonical books, there were, in the ancient Church, also Apocryphal books, and indeed of two kinds. (1) Foreign, spurious, bastard books — or also heretical, forbidden ones — of which Baronius makes mention (Annal. ad Ann. Christi 44), of which sort there were, for instance, five bastard books ascribed to Peter, of which Jerome speaks in his work on Peter; others ascribed to John and to the rest of the Apostles separately; others to all the Apostles together; the Gospel of Judas the Betrayer; writings ascribed to Christ Himself concerning sorcery; a letter to Peter and Paul; and other such. These and other writings Gelasius, about the year of Christ 493, in the Council of Rome, by a particular decree (which one finds in his Canon, Dist. XV, c. 3), in which they are called Apocryphal, condemned. Of that same kind are also the letter of Christ to Abgarus, ruler of Edessa, of which Eusebius speaks (Hist. Bk. I, ch. 14); the Canons of the Apostles; the letters of Paul to Seneca; the Shepherd of Hermas; and others. (2) Books which indeed deserve a private reading, and are not without some usefulness, but which nevertheless were not born of a divine inspiration. And these, again, are either such as are acknowledged as such by a general consent of Christians — as, for example, the third and fourth Book of Esdras, the third book of Maccabees, the 151st Psalm, the appendix to the book, or little foreword, before the Lamentations of Jeremiah — or such as the Romanists hold to be canonical, such as the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch with the Letter of Jeremiah, the additions to Esther and to Daniel, the Prayer of Azariah, the History of Susanna, of Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the two Books of Maccabees. All these books the Reformed exclude, by this one proof, from the canon — that is, from the list of divine books: namely, (1) all such books as are not given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:20-21, nor delivered to the Church as canonical, Ps. 147:19-20, Rom. 3:2 and 9:4, nor received by the Jewish Church, nor approved by Christ and the Apostles, John 5:39, Luke 24:27, are not canonical; but these books are not given by God, because they contain many things which strive against the Spirit of truth, who leads into all truth, being false, absurd, fabulous, magical, and contrary to history — as has been shown, of each of these books severally, by John Rainolds, in his work on the Apocryphal Books, William Whitaker, in his work on Holy Scripture, and our own Dutch divines, more briefly and concisely, in their preface before the Apocryphal Books, and others. (2) They were not delivered to the Church as canonical, because they were written in a language foreign and strange to the Jewish Church; nor (3) were they received and acknowledged by the Jewish Church, according to the testimony of Josephus against Apion the Grammarian, and indeed according to the testimony of all the Jews in every age — which even the Papists themselves acknowledge; nor (4) were they approved by Christ and the Apostles, as those who approved no other books than those in which the Jews believed they had eternal life, and which Christ says testify of Him, John 5:39. If you wish now to know the contents, parts, arrangement, and order of the whole holy canon, consult Alsted, in his Praecognita Theologica; or Johann Hülsemann, in his Memoriale Biblicum; or Matthias Flacius, together with Brandmüller, in their Tabulae Analyticae; Ederus, in his Oeconomia Bibliorum; and others.

X. These books, then, of both Testaments, are held to be canonical, and to possess proper authority, only in their original languages. (1) Because they are public documents and writings, which are valid only in those languages in which they were written — just as appears in the bulls of kings, in testaments, and in other writings, where, when a dispute arises, only the original document is acknowledged as authoritative. (2) Because only the Prophets and Apostles, being driven by the immediate and infallible leading of the Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21, were able to publish a Scripture given by inspiration of God and possessing its own proper authority, 2 Tim. 3:16. But what, in the end, are those original and authoritative languages? Answer: that the Old Testament, given especially to the Jewish Church, was written in the Hebrew tongue is acknowledged by all, except that some small portions of it — in Ezra, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah — occur in the Chaldee tongue. The New Testament, written for the general Christian Church, is acknowledged by all to have been written in the Greek tongue. We therefore hold Scripture to be canonical, and to possess proper authority, only in those languages — and that not only in the original manuscripts themselves, which Divine Providence, for many reasons and with a most wise design, has allowed to be lost, but also in the copies. And thus, of old, the Israelite Church acknowledged no language but the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authoritative, nor the Christian Church any but the Greek of the New Testament.

XI. Yet Scripture is not so bound to those languages that it could not, and indeed should not, be translated, for the common benefit of the Church, into other tongues; in which all translations are held authoritative, insofar as they express the original text, to which they must always be brought to the test. For which reason, too, Divine Providence has, at all times, been so illustrious and admirable in preserving the original writings — not only that they might not be entirely lost, but also that they might not, through the loss of any single book, be mutilated, or disfigured by any grave defect or fault — while, meanwhile, of the oldest translations not a single one has come down to us unimpaired. Wherefore, also, from human translations — as Ames says, Medit. Bk. I, ch. 34, §§32-33 — all those things can be understood and grasped which are necessary unto salvation, provided only that they agree with the original text in their essential parts, as all those received by the Church are wont to do, even though they may differ and fall short in not a few minor particulars. And yet one must not rest content with just any translation whatsoever, but must, with all godliness and zeal, take care that a most pure and most carefully corrected translation be set before the Church.

XII. The origin of Holy Scripture, upon which its dignity and authority is built, as regards its human penmen (whom Gregory, in his Preface on Job, therefore calls the hands of the Holy Spirit), was the holy men of God, 2 Pet. 1:21 — the Prophets and Apostles, whence we are said to be built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Eph. 2:20 — and the Evangelists driven by God's Spirit, for example Mark and Luke; likewise, in a broader sense, called Prophets, 1 Cor. 14:29,32, and Apostles, Rom. 16:7, Phil. 2:25. The service of these the Holy Spirit made use of, with a certain variation and difference, as Ames says, Bk. I, ch. 34, §5. For some things which had to be written were entirely unknown beforehand to the writer, as is plain enough from the history of past creation, and from the predictions of things to come; but other things were already and previously known to the writer, as is plain from the history of Christ, which was written by the Apostles. Of these matters they knew some by a natural, and others by a supernatural, knowledge. In hidden and unknown matters, the divine inspiration did everything by itself; but in matters known to the writer, or the knowledge of which could be obtained by ordinary means, there was added also the diligent and godly exercise of the writers — while, meanwhile, God so assisted them with His help that they did not err in the writing. Moreover, the Holy Spirit accompanied them with such a sweet moderation and accommodation, that each writer could and did use those manners of speaking which were most agreeable to his own person and condition. As for the Author and Efficient Cause Himself, this is, in general, God — for which reason Scripture is commonly called the Word of God, and God is said therein to speak; in particular, God the Father, who has spoken therein many times and in various ways, Heb. 1:1. Also the Son, who not only sent out the Apostles to teach, without doubt as occasion offered, but also charged them to write, Rev. 1:19. Likewise the Holy Spirit, who inspired and breathed the Scripture into them, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, and who is for this reason said therein to bear witness and to speak, Heb. 10:15 — to such a degree, indeed, that in the superscriptions of the holy books a deep silence is often maintained by the writers themselves, in order that the authority of those books might be preserved unimpaired for the one and only Author.

XIII. God brought Scripture into being partly through Revelation, which was accomplished (1) by writing it Himself, as may be seen with the Ten Words; (2) by commanding that it be written, Deut. 31:19, Rev. 1:19; (3) by breathing it into, and giving it to, those who wrote it, 2 Tim. 3:16 — that is, by supplying and furnishing to their hand the very matters which had to be written, and by governing the writing itself infallibly, to such a degree that He, in everything, whether concerning matters of right or matters of fact, not only inspired the matters themselves, but also suggested and dictated every single word in particular; and partly through Canonization, whereby Scripture, having been written by divine inspiration, was delivered over to the Church, Deut. 31:9, Ps. 147:19, Rom. 3:2, and sealed, Rev. 22:18-19. For it is not enough, in order to constitute a part of Scripture, that a certain book be written by some otherwise extraordinary servant of God, and out of and through a wholly certain governance of the Spirit, unless it also be given to the Church by divine authority, and hallowed to this end, to be a canon or rule of it — says Ames, Medit. Bk. I, ch. 34, §3 — which is the end, use, and benefit of this divine inspiration and canonization: namely, to furnish the whole Church, and each of its particular members, with a rule and guide for living unto God — that is, for believing, John 20:31, and for doing, Rom. 15:3-4.

XIV. There remains, therefore, that we derive from what has been said the chief properties of Scripture — and indeed the majority of them, which are in dispute between us and the Papists, and thus stand directed against them, and which shall be defended below, each in its own place. Namely: (1) its highest and independent Authority, whereby it, neither in itself nor in relation to us, depends on anything else than on God alone — whence it is called a foundation, Eph. 2:20, as that which supports and upholds the whole structure of the Christian faith and life; moreover, the first thing that is to be believed, 2 Pet. 1:20 — and this indeed because it is of the Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:20, who judges all things, and is judged by no one, 1 Cor. 2:15. Through that authority it has the power and right (a) to decide all theological controversies, Isa. 8:20, Matt. 22:29; (b) to govern life and morals, Deut. 4:1-2 and 12:28,32, Neh. 8:2,14-15, etc.; (c) to judge us ourselves, Heb. 4:12, even as if God Himself were speaking, Heb. 10:15. Wherein, however, a precise distinction must be made between an authoritative power of history, which expresses the bare truth of a history or of a deed, and thus belongs to every sacred narrative, and an authoritative power of rule and guide, which, moreover, directs and governs our faith and life.

XV. (2) Its general Truth, Certainty, and Steadfastness, whereby it (a) in general can neither deceive nor be deceived, 2 Pet. 1:19, Ps. 19:8, Dan. 10:21, John 17; and whereby (b) in particular, its doctrines and histories agree most exactly with the matter and the deeds, Jer. 44:16, and its exhortations to practice agree with the will of God, Ps. 19:8; and its predictions too, its promises, and its threats, agree with their outcome, neither more nor less than if the event were already present, Matt. 5:28, Isa. 34:16. And this because it has the God of truth as its origin; Christ, who is the Truth itself, as a faithful witness; and the Holy Spirit, an undeceiving Inspirer of the truth, as its guide. Wherefore its steadfastness and certainty are so great that it must be set far above and preferred to all other revelations, 2 Pet. 1:19 — even should such a revelation come from one risen from the dead, Luke 16:31; indeed, even from the angels themselves, Gal. 1:8.

XVI. (3) Its Completeness, whereby it, through God's particular providence, is preserved unimpaired and free from all corruption — so that not only has it never, in whole, nor even in a single one of its books, been lost, but also, especially in those matters which pertain to the practice of life, it could not be disfigured or corrupted by any grave or weighty error or defect, Matt. 5:18, Ps. 19:8, 1 Pet. 1:23,25.

XVII. (4) Its Holiness and Purity, Ps. 12:6, 18:30, 119:140, Prov. 30:5, Rom. 1:2, 2 Tim. 3:15, whereby it is not only, in itself and in its narratives, far removed from all uncleanness and defilement, but also, with respect to us, the Author of all purity and holiness, in thought, word, and deed, John 17:17 — and this with reference (a) to its chief Cause, namely God, who is the All-Holy One, Isa. 6:3, Dan. 9:24; (b) to its Writers, who are called holy men of God, 2 Pet. 1:21; (c) to its subject matter, namely the holy will of God, Rom. 12:2; (d) to its end, which is our sanctification, John 17:17, and the sanctifying of all things that pertain to our use, 1 Tim. 4:5.

XVIII. (5) Its Clarity and Distinctness — that is, the clear, plain, and distinct revelation of the truth contained in it. Whence it is many times called a Light, Ps. 119:105, 2 Pet. 1:19, 2 Cor. 4:3-4,6, and manifest, Deut. 30:11, or light-bearing and illuminating — for otherwise it could not be a rule of what we have to believe and to practice. It is, then, in this sense clear and plain: that although the matters of Scripture are very often difficult to grasp, the manner of teaching and explaining them, especially in those things which are necessary, is clear and plain, at least for those who have obtained spiritual eyes. Wherefore, if any obscurity be found in Holy Scripture, this is not so much the fault of Scripture, as of the weakness of our own understanding — just as it arises not so much from an obscurity in its statements themselves, as from the sublimity and majesty of the matters treated; or, if there be some ambiguity in the words themselves, this is nevertheless certainly never found in those things which are absolutely necessary, or else they are taught more clearly elsewhere.

XIX. (6) Its Perfection, whereby it lacks absolutely nothing of what serves for living unto God, or of what is necessary to be believed and done unto salvation. This, now, is of two kinds: either it concerns the Books, whereby Scripture gradually grew, through the addition of books, until at last, through the sealing of the canon (which one finds at Rev. 22:18-19), it obtained its full completeness in every respect — of which we have spoken a little above, §XVI; or it is the essential perfection of the doctrine itself, which is contained in these books, and this properly belongs to this place. The New Testament claims this for itself expressly, 2 Tim. 3:14-17, Ps. 19:8-9, and also by equivalent expressions — as when it most strictly forbids any addition or subtraction, Deut. 4:2, 12:32, 5:32, Gal. 1:8, Rev. 22:18-19; as when it directs us, in matters of faith and obedience, to Scripture alone, Deut. 17:18-19, Isa. 8:20, Luke 16:29, Acts 24:14, 1 Cor. 4:6; and also when it says that we shall, in due time, be judged according to its own sayings, John 12:48, 2 Thess. 1:8. With which reason also agrees. For (1) it could not, as we have shown above, be a rule of faith and morals, if it were not perfect. (2) Because it is the first principle, and the last foundation, of our faith, 2 Pet. 1:20-21, and is therefore perfect: for no true and perfect conclusions and demonstrations can be drawn and derived except from perfect principles, since the cause is never, in every respect, inferior to its effect. (3) Because it is perfect in its essential parts — namely, in matter and in form — and likewise in its component parts, namely the Law and the Gospel: therefore, etc. (4) Because every particular part or book of Scripture has its own proper completeness for its own part, whereby it is abundantly sufficient for its own end, and indeed for its own time — from which nothing else can arise but a certain overall essential perfection. Scripture, then, comprises and contains, in this its perfection, (1) in general, everything necessary unto salvation, John 5:39; (2) in particular, (a) the things one must believe, John 20:31, Rom. 15:4-5, 2 Tim. 3:15; (b) the things one must do, ibid. v. 17; (c) everything necessarily required for instruction, edification, and the building up of the Church — and this to such a degree that, in God's Church, constantly and everywhere, nothing needs to be observed that depends either upon some tradition, or upon some authority that is not written. For thereby the man of God, that is, a minister of the Word, is perfectly furnished unto every good work — namely, that which belongs to the instruction and edification of the Church — although, in the meantime, ecclesiastical matters (customs and ceremonies, such as, being changeable, transitory, and peculiar to particular churches, depend upon the prudent determination of each church, 1 Cor. 14:40) are not thereby fixed. It is not meant, I say, that all things are set down expressly and word for word in Holy Scripture — though this is indeed so in most, and in the most necessary, matters — for it is enough that the rest are contained therein, as regards their sense, with an equivalent force, and by lawful consequence, Matt. 22:31-33, Rom. 4:11.

XX. (7) Its Necessity, whereby the Church and its members neither must, nor can, do without Scripture — not indeed absolutely and unconditionally, but according to, and upon, the supposition of the will of God, who has willed that it should be a means unto salvation, John 5:39, 2 Tim. 3:17. This necessity appears (1) expressly, Jude 3; (2) from the commands — both the general ones, to teach and instruct, Matt. 28:19, under which, beyond doubt, the command to write is also included, that it might be a lasting doctrine, even unto the end of the world, v. 20, likewise 2 Pet. 1:21 — as well as the particular ones, to write, Exod. 17:14 and 34:27, Deut. 31:19, Jer. 30:2 and 36:2, Rev. 1:11; together also with the commands to copy out Scripture, to read it, and to meditate upon it, Deut. 17:18-19, 31:9-13, John 5:39, Ps. 1:2, 19:8,12, 1 Tim. 4:13; (3) from its manifold and absolutely necessary use and usefulness, 2 Tim. 3:15-17, Rom. 15:4, John 20:31, 1 John 1:4; (4) from the very motive which drove God to move His penmen, the Prophets and Apostles, to write, which we have mentioned above, §VI.

XXI. (8) Its Power and Effectual Working, on account of which a power is ascribed to it, Rom. 1:16, whereby it is said to be able to do something, James 1:21, and to be powerful, Heb. 4:12, and to work, 1 Thess. 2:13. For which reason it is compared, in respect of various things that excel in their powerful workings, to water, for example, Isa. 55:10, Deut. 32:2, Heb. 6:7; to fire, Jer. 5:14, Luke 24:32; to a hammer, Jer. 23:29; to a two-edged sword that pierces through, Heb. 4:12; to a sharp two-edged sword, Rev. 1:16; to thunder, Ps. 68:34. This power, however, with reference to spiritual things, is not so much a natural and principal cause working of itself, as the Lutherans would have it, as it is a moral and instrumental one, flowing from the Holy Spirit, as the Arm of God, Isa. 53:1 — for which reason Word and Spirit are joined together, or rather subordinated to one another, Isa. 59:21, and the gospel is called a ministration of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 3:8, and is said to be, not in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, 1 Thess. 1:5 — insofar as the Spirit works through the Word. This power (1) penetrates to the very depths of the heart, Heb. 4:12-13; (2) discloses its hidden things and secret recesses, 1 Cor. 14:23-25, which the Samaritan woman experienced, John 4:29; (3) works wonderfully upon man's mind, pierces, strikes, and confounds it, Acts 2:37, Isa. 66:2; (4) enlightens the understanding, Ps. 19:8-9, Acts 26:17-18; (5) regenerates and converts the heart, James 1:18; (6) kindles faith, Rom. 10:17, Gal. 3:5; (7) sanctifies the whole man, John 17:17; (8) strengthens him to overcome the world, 1 John 2:14; (9) comforts, Rom. 15:4, Ps. 119:50,92; (10) makes eternally blessed, Rom. 1:16, James 1:21. Such a wonderful power of God's Word Justin Martyr experienced — who, having long enough been deceived and led astray by philosophers of every kind, when, on the advice of a certain grave man, he began to read the Prophets and Apostles, felt tautēn monēn philosophian, asphalē te kai symferon — that this alone was the safe and profitable philosophy (Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho). Likewise Cyprian, in his conversion, through the reading of the prophet Jonah, which was explained to him by Caecilius, a presbyter at Carthage (Jerome, on ch. 3 of John). So too Augustine, through the reading of the passage Rom. 13:13-14, when a voice — whether heavenly or earthly — cried to him, Take up and read, take up and read (Confessions, Bk. VIII, ch. 6). Likewise Luther, having found a Bible in the monastery at Erfurt, according to the testimony of Melchior Adam, in his account of Luther's life; Franciscus Junius, through the reading of the first chapter of John; and a thousand others besides. Indeed, the whole world has felt the power of the Word, in and through its conversion, which was brought about solely through the preaching of the gospel, Ps. 2:8-9, cf. 2 Cor. 10:4-5. Indeed, even the reprobate have at times felt the power of the Word — whether by being struck dumb, Matt. 22:46; by yielding some measure of obedience, Mark 6:20; by being made afraid, ibid. and Acts 24:25; by turning themselves, at least in outward appearance, Ps. 18:44, 1 Kings 21:27, Acts 26:28; or by hardening and blinding themselves, Isa. 6ff. What further ought to be said concerning the Translation and the Interpretation of Scripture, we defer, each to its own place, whether for polemical or for practical treatment.

The Polemical Part

XXII. Until now we have dealt with our friends in a constructive manner; in what follows we shall have to deal with the opponents of this position in a more destructive manner. These opponents fall into two kinds: unbelievers, and those falsely called Christians. Among the unbelievers, the first place belongs to the heathen, the second to the Muhammadans, and the last to the Jews. The first place, I say, rightly belongs to the heathen. With them, and against them, it is disputed whether there is any written Word of God at all. The heathen, because they attribute the whole government of our life to reason — which, in itself, they say, is unimpaired — deny all necessity of a divine revelation; or, if they allow it to some degree, as with their oracles — for example, of Jupiter Ammon, of Delphi, and others — they set these up in place of a divine revelation. All Christians, on the contrary, although they differ among themselves, in various ways and in various degrees, as to their view of the matter, hold firmly — since they are of the opinion that a divine faith and obedience is necessary in religion — that a divine revelation, in a certain written Word, is necessary. In order, then, to convince the heathen, if possible, we must here fall back upon what we have already urged above, §IV, and must then take care not only to have the unconquerable array of proofs ready, but also to arrange them in a fitting order. And to this end, we must proceed by stages, demonstrating and proving, first, the general truth of Scripture, and afterward its divine authority and dignity.

And we shall prove and obtain that truth, as we desire, by these helps: if (1) we diligently inquire what writings the heathen have, with whom we now have to deal, and which they acknowledge as true, and then investigate for what reasons they believe these to be true — and if there be found among them true reasons, you will easily apply these to our own Scriptures. If (2) you take note yourself, first, of the marks and signs that a certain writing is true, and then apply these to our Holy Scripture. Now the marks are, sufficiently, these that follow: (a) if the writers were honest and upright men; (b) if they did not treat their own affair, from which some worldly advantage might have accrued to them, but another's, and thus a matter foreign to themselves — indeed (c) such a matter as could bring them nothing but dangers, harms, and ruin; (d) if more such writers than one agree so exactly on one and the same set of matters; (e) if their very enemies do not deny the events that occurred, but merely attribute them to other causes; (f) if they relate matters contemporary with themselves. If you can show these and similar marks in our Holy Scriptures — which can be done in an easy manner — you will without doubt thereby obtain this: that Scripture is wholly and truly what it claims to be. (3) If you further take a proof from the contents of Holy Scripture, that it — at least insofar as it stands under the judgment of reason — agrees most exactly with right reason. For, whether it concerns moral matters, Holy Scripture has nothing that is contrary to right reason, the moral writers among the philosophers themselves being judges of this; nor does right reason, in this regard, require anything that Holy Scripture does not require far more perfectly and completely. Or, whether it concerns historical matters, you will find that our Scripture is throughout consistent with the events that occurred, as will readily appear both from the treatment of the particulars, and from the answers to the objections. From which it follows that there is nothing in Holy Scripture that is contrary to reason. (4) If you take up Natural Theology, both in its speculative and in its practical chapters — or, if you wish to be brief, if you take up those chapters which are acknowledged and granted by your opponents — and then show that these very same points are taught, and indeed in a far more perfect manner, by our Holy Scriptures: thus you will the more easily win over belief for the Holy Scriptures in the remaining, or supernatural, matters. For there is, after all, no reason why one should suspect that Scripture, which one has found, in natural and known matters, always and everywhere to be perfectly true, should be false in supernatural and less known matters. Indeed, (5) let even the truth of supernatural doctrines itself be proved and urged, at least as regards their possibility and probability, so far as this is possible, from the principles of nature, before one undertakes to prove the divinity of Scripture. And finally, let there follow upon this (6) the answering of all the objections that are brought against the truth of Scripture.

XXIII. Once you have, by these means, obtained the general truth of Scripture, you will the more easily be able to demonstrate its divinity — namely, (1) by testimonies drawn from Holy Scripture itself concerning its own divinity, which, once its general truth has been asserted and established, will weigh very strongly against one's opponents. Then (2) by reasons, the first of which can be taken from the necessity of a certain infallible rule to govern us in living unto God — a reason which we have above, §IV, asserted and urged with some presuppositions. The second, from the necessity of some divine Word: from which we conclude either that our Scripture is that Word of God, or that there is no Word of God at all to be found anywhere in the wide world; but since the latter is absurd, nothing remains but that the former must be established. This proof rests upon a twofold presupposition, which must be argued: namely, (1) that there must necessarily be a certain written Word of God — which is required as much by the nature of God, who demands a service and obedience which can in no way be rendered unless the manner of serving Him, and the will of God which one must obey, be revealed by God Himself; as also by the nature of man, who, since he consists of an immortal soul, capable either of an eternal blessedness or of an eternal misery and wretchedness, needs to be governed by fixed and certain means, in order to avoid the one and obtain the other — but since these are unknown to us, it is necessary that they be revealed in some certain Word of God. (2) That there is no other Word of God, or can be, than our Scripture — which appears, in part, from the arguments set forth point by point, which we have above, §IV, pointed out with the finger, and shall confirm, each in its own place, in particular: namely, that neither reason, nor the ancient church fathers, nor the enthusiasts, nor the Talmud, nor the Quran, is the Word of God; and in part from the reason that the mysteries which are necessary to be known unto the service of God and the salvation of the soul — such as the Holy Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, the union of the two natures in the Mediator, regeneration, etc. — are not, and cannot be, revealed in any other writings. The third reason is taken from the state and condition of the matters which are taught in Holy Scripture — matters of such a kind that they could not have been taught by the Devil, or by godless men, since the sayings of Scripture are ruinous to such as these; nor by angels, or by godly men, since it is not proper to them to lie, and to arrogate and ascribe a divinity to their own sayings — and therefore, since Holy Scripture everywhere ascribes this to itself, it sufficiently makes known that it did not proceed from angels, nor from godly men. Wherefore nothing else remains but that it draws its origin from God, and is thus of a divine authority and dignity. The fourth reason is taken from the condition of the holy writers, compared with the majesty and sublimity of the truths that are taught in Holy Scripture. For since the mysteries of Scripture are of such a kind that they surpass the grasp of reason, even of the most acute reason, as appears from the articles concerning the Holy Trinity, original sin, the personal union of the two natures in Christ, the redemption of men through the blood of the Son of God, etc. — as also from the roll-call of the most brilliant philosophers, who, every one of them, with the utmost straining of all the powers of their wit, and aided by the resources of so many books, were unable to discover or trace out such things — which things, nevertheless, one finds to have been written, not merely by men, but by men of the lowest sort: shepherds, fishermen, tax-collectors, unlettered, endowed with no learning, logic, or eloquence: thus it is concluded from this, with certainty, indeed with more than mere certainty, that these mysteries were given to them by inspiration from God. The fifth reason is taken from the Divine Providence, which has given its approval, and as it were its applause, both to the Scriptures and to the writers, as likewise to the doctrine set down in writing, through so many, and utterly extraordinary, deeds. For whether you consider the miracles which have been wrought in the service of Scripture, of which more shall be said shortly, or the manner in which the doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures was spread abroad, preserved, and defended by the Apostles, you will everywhere find a singular and extraordinary vigilance of Divine Providence. In particular, and by name, consider (1) the sending forth of the Apostles: does this not plainly show an extraordinary providence of God, that Christ chose men of the lowest and meanest rank, endowed with no gifts either of nature or of learning, and sent them out into the whole world, to proclaim a certain Jesus, who had been crucified in Judea — this under the promise and reward of eternal life, if they received Him, or on pain of eternal ruin, if they rejected Him — and that this undertaking of theirs, by such instruments, in so short a time, made so many and so great advances over the whole world? (2) Does not the preservation of the Apostles also show an extraordinary providence — that He preserved and protected weak and unarmed men, sent out among ravening wolves, and likewise the congregations founded by them, which were indeed small, weak, and few, against the assault of almost the whole world, so powerfully, even down to this present day? If you further consider (3) the utterly dreadful judgments that were executed upon the persecutors of the doctrine taught by the Apostles — for example, upon Herod, Pilate, Julian, and others — will you not acknowledge an extraordinary providence of God? And if you finally consider (4) the punishments executed upon those who despised the scriptural doctrine and commandments, will you not extol an extraordinary providence of God? And since God, through all these things thus taken together, has, as it were, given His assent and approval to Holy Scripture — and since He neither does nor can approve anything but the truth — will you not conclude from this that Scripture is of a divine origin and authority, since it everywhere ascribes this very thing to itself? The sixth reason is taken from the Miracles by which God has so wonderfully confirmed the truth and divinity of Scripture. For since (1) miracles cannot properly be performed by anyone but God, and (2) God cannot work miracles in favor of lies, and since it is nevertheless (3) certain that the most numerous and the greatest miracles were done in favor of Holy Scripture — as is evident both from the testimonies of others concerning Scripture, and from the testimony of Scripture concerning itself. These testimonies of Scripture, however, must here be urged not as divine testimonies, so as not to fall into a circular argument, but as human testimonies, though wholly true ones, according to what we have presupposed in the preceding paragraph. Compare Cameron, On the Word of God, Works, vol. 3, p. 327ff, Salmurian edition. Finally, the seventh reason is taken from the marks and tokens of divinity found within it — namely, from its antiquity, its permanence, its authority, the agreement of its parts, the sublimity and majesty joined to so plain a style, together with so great a power; further, from the manner of its propagation, its prophecies, and other such points, which are generally and commonly set forth by the writers of the commonplaces, as they are called — for example, by Perkins, Cas. Consc., Bk. 2, ch. 3; Cameron, On the Word of God; likewise Grotius, Ludovicus Vives, Marsilius Ficinus, On the Truth of the Christian Religion; and, recently, Huet, in his Evangelical Demonstration; and finally, from the church fathers against the heathen: Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, Lactantius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen against Celsus, together with Eusebius, in his Demonstration and Preparation for the Gospel. Further, the arguments which the heathen bring forward against the truth and divinity of Scripture, drawn from alleged absurdities, contradictions, and falsehoods, are constantly repeated — which various very learned men have gathered, examined, and refuted in thick volumes, such as Franciscus Junius, in his Parallela Sacra; Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevukhim; Manasseh ben Israel, in his Conciliator; Spanheim, in his Dubia Evangelica; Walther, in his Harmonia Scripturae; and others — to whom, for brevity's sake, we refer the reader.

XXIV. We have been somewhat more thorough with the heathen, because the writers of the systematic theologies are more sparing and brief in dealing with them. The Muhammadans shall have the next place after these. The question, then, is: whether our Holy Scripture is so corrupted that, alongside it, or indeed in its place, the Quran ought to be set? Muhammad — Desiderius, a name derived from the word ḥamad — a Meccan Arab, who from a merchant became a prophet, in order to found a new religion and a new sect: when he perceived that the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles could not, and even less, support and sustain him — no, rather, that his own following would thereby collapse and fall — he did indeed acknowledge Scripture, both of the Old Testament and of the New; yet he increased the number of its books beyond what is right, counting a hundred and forty, of which, he claimed, ten were sent to Adam, fifty to Seth, thirty to Enoch, ten to Abraham, the Law to Moses, the Psalter to David, the Gospel to Jesus, and the Qur'an to Muhammad. But he added to this, that our Scripture had been thoroughly corrupted, whether by the Jews or by the Christians; and thus he judged it necessary either to put his own Quran in its place, or at least to add it alongside it. Our whole controversy with the Muhammadans will, in the end, turn upon these three points: I. That we show and prove that our Scripture is not corrupted — and once that has been established, his remaining errors will be driven off with the very least trouble. II. That we teach that Muhammad is by no means to be held a true Prophet, by which his Quran will collapse in ruin. And finally, III. That we show, and thereby prove, that the Quran is not a divine, but a trifling and worthless, writing.

We say, then, (1), that our Scripture is not corrupted — to begin with the first point — which shall stand firm until they have proved the opposite, and no further effort is required of us. Yet, over and above what is required, we shall add, from the Law, from the Psalms, and from the Gospel — writings which the Muhammadans themselves prefer above all others — that our Scripture has remained complete: because the Law forbids taking anything away from it, Deut. 4:2 and 12:32; because the Psalter declares that the Law of God is perfect, Ps. 19:8, and elsewhere; and because the Gospel likewise condemns all additions, as being merely human teachings, Matt. 15:9. If they maintain the contrary, that it has not so remained, it is their task to prove it: for a man remains a good man until the contrary is proved. Furthermore, if Scripture had been corrupted, this would have had to be done either by Jews — but how could they have done this, with the Christians opposing them? — or by Christians — but how could they have done this, when copies had been spread almost infinitely over the whole world, so that, given the various sects standing opposed to one another, this would in no way have been possible? Copies, too, would have had to be produced from among our own party which are purer than ours. Let me add this, moreover: if the Christians had intended to corrupt their Holy Scripture, why would they not have struck out precisely those things which condemn, word for word, the Muhammadan heresy? They cast up against us, in particular, two matters. (1) That the Jews removed from the Law the name of the Apostle of God, Muhammad; and that the Christians erased from the Gospel these words of Christ: I announce to you a good tidings, that after me shall come an Apostle and Prophet, whose name is Muhammad. Answer: let them say when, where, and by whom — whether Jew or Christian — this was done. Let them point to a single book, or a single passage, either of the Law or of the Gospel, which has been corrupted. Let them produce a single ancient copy which had it so. (2) That our Scripture has many contradictory, false, and irresolvable difficulties, as is related by Ahmad al-Din, a Persian, in a book which he calls Polytor Speculi, that is, A Polisher of the Mirror — but all these matters have been resolved by Philippus Guadagnolus, in his Apologia for the Christian Religion, ch. 17.

XXV. That Muhammad was not a true prophet — much less that he ought to be esteemed above Moses and above Jesus — is plain: (1) because this cannot be proved by those who assert it. (2) Because he has accomplished nothing by which it might appear that he was a prophet, and indeed such a prophet as he claims to have been. For what hidden thing has he ever disclosed? What predictions has he made? What miracles has he performed? (3) He has taught things which directly contradict Moses and the Prophets, who are beyond doubt and infallibly true, as appears from a comparison of Scripture with the Quran — indeed, he contradicts even himself, when at one time he says that the Quran was given to him by God in heaven; at another, that it was brought to him by the angel Gabriel; and yet again, that it is of God, and that it was composed by men. (4) He was a monster of lust, keeping eleven — or, as others hold, seventeen — wives, besides his concubines; indeed, he was a most shameful adulterer (cf. Johannes Andreas Maurus, Confusion of the Sect of Muhammad, ch. 7); likewise a most notorious robber, and, moreover, an instigator and inciter of his own sons to acts of plunder, Surah 19 and 71. Indeed, his own followers, while he yet lived, generally held him for a madman, one possessed by a spirit, one seized by the Devil — over which he himself very often complains, Surah 31, 35, 38, etc. — a most shameless deceiver, feigning visions and conversations with angels, and the like. But what of it? Suppose his followers should nevertheless plead, on his behalf, that he did indeed have a familiar intercourse with God, just as Moses did, and with the blessed angels, and with Gabriel, and that he was thus honored with revelations, which is peculiarly proper to prophets? We answer: (1) that it will again be thrown back upon them, that they must prove what they assert. (2) What of it, if his own wife Khadija rebuked him for this very thing — as we have long since heard — having done more than merely this: namely, declared that these were nothing other than diabolical suggestions and deceptions, fits of melancholy, disorders of mind, and a black bile? What, if here too the common people come to his aid, as he himself complains, in many places in the Quran, that this happened to him, Surah 21, 35, 38, 41, and elsewhere? What, if the Christians should join together against him — in what way shall they thoroughly and soundly refute the objections? Since, above all, the doctrine of Muhammad, set against Moses and Christ — who are, beyond doubt, true Prophets — stands, in most of the evangelical mysteries, directly...

...is at variance with itself, as we shall hear more fully in its own place. And who, in the end, could believe that such a man as we have described could have had any communion with God, the Most Holy Supreme Being, with the blessed angels, and with divine revelations?

§ XXVI. The Alkoran Is Not Divine Scripture

But we must also (III) pass on to the Alkoran itself. Here the question is whether that writing is divine, and even surpasses in authority the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. Alkoran, ‫אלקוראן‬, where ‫אל‬ is the article (this) or τό (the), from which that book is also called Koran, means and signifies a reading, or a collection—namely of commandments; or, as others prefer, an amendment, namely of the Old and New Testament. Among the Muhammedans it is called Alforkan, from ‫פרק, "he divided, separated," as though one said "a book of distinctions." It consists of 114 chapters and of 124 commentaries, which they call Suratas. In it he has, as commonly happens, mixed good things with bad. He acknowledges God, His worship, the creation, providence; he abhors idolatry, and so forth. He has added to this circumcision, the fasts of the month of Ramadan, prayers, pilgrimages to the Temple of Mecca; he forbids the eating of blood, of what has died of itself, and of swine's flesh; he gives himself out to be a prophet and apostle greater than Moses and than the Son of Mary (see Hottinger, Historia Orientalis, Lib. II, Cap. 3). In very many, indeed in most points, he differs from the Christians: concerning Holy Scripture, the Trinity, Christ as God's Son; concerning various created things, the world, angels, heaven, washings, oath-taking, polygamy and the putting away of wives, the prohibition of wine, and so on.

Thus it is disputed concerning this Alkoran, whether that writing is of divine origin and authority. The Christians deny it; the Muhammedans maintain it. Therefore (1) they are obliged to prove it. (2) That book has for its author one of the most disreputable of all men, and lacks the marks of a divine origin which we pointed out above in § XXIII. (3) It runs throughout contrary to the Law, the Psalms, and the Gospel. And there is nothing that the Muhammedans can say for the Alkoran except that it originally came from God through the ministry of Gabriel; but that they only assert, they do not prove it. If anyone wishes to see more concerning Muhammedanism, let him consult Hoornbeek, Summa Controversiarum, chapter on Muhammedanism; Johannes Andreas Maurus, Confusio Sectae Muhammedanae; Philippus Guadagnolus, Defensio fidei Christianae adversus politorem seculi Achmedis, and others.

§ XXVII. With the Jews: The Question of the Oral Law

We now pass to the Jews, with whom we have a fourfold difference. The first concerns the oral law, ‫תורה שבעל פה‬. The question here is whether Moses, on Mount Sinai, alongside the written Law, or the Law that was to be written, also received a further law, which was to be handed down only by the living voice? Among the Jews the Pharisees, since they found no support for their endless superstitions in the written Law, sought after a second law, a so-called oral one. The Sadducees indeed set themselves against this by rejecting those traditions, as did likewise the Essenes and the Samaritans—though these latter, in like manner, rejected all Scripture as well, the Law of Moses perhaps excepted. But the Karaites, or "Scripturalists," among them denied it outright. To these, at least on this point, the Reformed attach themselves, chiefly for the following reasons.

(1) The Pharisees, who assert this, must bear the burden of proof. (2) Of this supposed second, orally-received law—handed down by tradition until the Talmudists—nothing whatever is to be seen or found in Holy Scripture. (3) The written Law itself having been lost (2 Kings 22 and 23), how much more would the oral law—unwritten and far less securely kept—have been lost as well? Or if the oral law was preserved unharmed, how could the written Law ever have been lost? And even granting some oral law, Moses nevertheless wrote it and was charged to write it (Exod. 34:3, 4, 27; Deut. 31:9, 24). Joshua followed Moses in writing it down (Josh. 8:32), where he also wrote upon stones a ‫משנה תורה‬, a copy of the Law of Moses, which he wrote before the children of Israel—doubtless that Law which God had commanded him, ch. 1:7, 8. Likewise 2 Kings 17:13 with v. 37, and 2 Chron. 17:9. (4) The written Law of Moses is perfect in every part (Ps. 19:8; Deut. 4:1, 2 and 12:32; Prov. 30:5, 6), so that nothing necessary to believe unto salvation is not contained in the written Law; therefore an oral one is wholly superfluous. (5) God requires from us no obedience except to the written Law, and nowhere to an unwritten one. So Deut. 11:32 and 10:12, 13, with ch. 28:1; Josh. 1:7, 8; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4. (6) Add to this, that this oral law, as it is later said to be recorded in the Talmud, conflicts in many things with the written Law of Scripture, as we shall note a little further on, § XXVIII.

Nevertheless they attempt to establish something for their oral law even from the written Law itself, which they otherwise, as being darker, and as needing to be illuminated by the help of the oral law, subordinate to and diminish before the oral law. They allege (1) Exod. 34:27, "Write these words," for ‫על פי‬ ("according to the mouth")—according to the tenor of these words have I made a covenant with you and with Israel. Here they see a twofold law: a written one, ‫כתב‬, and an oral one, ‫על פי‬, "by" or "according to the mouth." From these words they reason thus in Gemara, Gittin, cap. v, and Temurah, cap. xi; Manasseh ben Israel, in Conciliator, on Exod. q. 1. We answer: (a) Let them prove that the expression ‫על פי means the same thing as ‫תורת שבעל פה; and moreover ‫על פי here means nothing other than "according to" or "in keeping with," as in Lev. 27:8, 18; Prov. 22:6, and elsewhere. (b) That the expression "according to the tenor of these words" must be referred to the words that were to be written, and not to some distinct or oral law. (c) It is presupposed here that a divine covenant was made not according to the written but according to the oral law, which Scripture constantly contradicts.

(2) They allege Exod. 24:12, "And I will give you tables of stone, and the law, and the commandments which I have written, that you may teach them"—which in Massecheth Berachoth, fol. 5, they interpret thus: "And I will give you tables of stone"—that is, the ten commandments—that is, the Holy Scripture; "and the commandment"—that is, the Mishnah—"which I have written"—namely the prophetic books and the Holy Writings (as they call them)—"that you may teach them"—that is, in and through the Gemara. From which we are taught that all these things were given to Moses on Mount Sinai. So too the rabbis Solomon Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Maimonides. We answer (a): all these things ought not to be asserted merely as though by oracle, but ought to be demonstrated carefully. For where in the whole Holy Book is "the commandment" to be understood as the Mishnah, and the Gemara as well? It signifies, in general, everything that God commands. (3) One must further prove that here ‫תורה ("the law") and ‫מצוה ("the commandment") signify two different things, whereas the connecting letter ‫ו ("and") might rather here be an explicative letter, as very often happens in Holy Scripture. But (γ) it is expressly said in the text, "the commandment which I have written"—how then shall it mean the oral law? Compare the passage 2 Kings 17:34, 35. Manasseh ben Israel further alleges, in Conciliator, ad Exod. q. 1, (3) the passage of Exod. 17:16 to be compared with Deut. 17:8, 9, 10, 11, and from these passages he concludes that not all the passages of the written Law are always so clear that an interpretation must be made, and that this must be done from the oral law. We answer: that not all passages of the written Law are equally clear, and that sometimes an explanation of the Law is necessary, are not the points in dispute that need to be proven; but that the explanation of the more obscure passages must proceed from and according to some particular oral law—that the texts do not say, and that Manasseh has not proven, since a more obscure passage can be explained from other passages of the written Law which are clearer. And once this is carefully noted, there also falls that further objection which this same Manasseh raises in the same place (4), from the argument that in many written laws there is continually something lacking or something superfluous, and that therefore an oral law is necessary to supply this defect: for these things do not prove that an oral law is necessary, but only that some interpretation is necessary, which can sufficiently be provided from other written laws, compared among themselves.

§ XXVIII. Of the Talmud

The oral law is distinguished and divided into the Talmud and the Kabbalah, each of which we shall treat separately. Concerning the Talmud, the question is whether the Jewish Talmud is of divine origin and authority. The word Talmud, derived from ‫למד, Lamadh, that is, "to learn, to teach," signifies a teaching, or a book of teaching, or a summary of the Jewish teaching, revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, which he was to propagate only by his living voice; but which, because of the hardship and the corruption of the times, the Jews, gradually declining, committed to writing. They now have a twofold Talmud, the Jerusalem and the Babylonian.

The Jerusalem Talmud, which is also known by the other name ‫משנה, Mishnah, arose about the year of Christ 140, through Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh ("the Holy"), who divided it into six Sedarim, or orders and principal chapters. A few years later Rabbi Jochanan considerably enlarged these ‫משניות, and from this arose the Jerusalem Talmud. But because that Talmud was rather obscure and difficult, Rabbi Ashi enlarged it with a great many books and commentaries about the year of Christ 427; and this Talmud was finally brought to its completion in the year 500, since which time it has not been permitted to the Jews either to add to it or take from it. And this Babylonian Talmud was at length completed in two parts, namely the ‫משניות, the Mishnah, in which is, as it were, the text; and the Gemara, in which are the disputations, explanations, and additions. It is divided into six orders, each order into various books, and each book into its chapters.

Concerning this Talmud, then, we ask whether it is of divine origin and authority. The Pharisees with their followers say yes; but against this stand the Sadducees, the Samaritans, and the Essenes, with whom the Christians side, chiefly for these reasons. (1) Because it is the task of the Jews, who assert this, to prove it. (2) Because no oral law, distinct from the written one, was given by God to Moses, as shown in the previous paragraph. (3) Because it shows no shape whatever of a law, still less of a divine law: for it shows merely the varying and differing opinions of the Jewish schools and their masters, Hillel and Shammai, and the disputes concerning them; and therefore they cannot be called laws, still less divine laws. (4) A Jew can bring forward nothing for the authority of the Talmud that a Muhammedan could not equally bring forward for his Alkoran. If a Jew says that the Talmud was given by God to Moses, a Muhammedan will likewise say that the Alkoran was given by Gabriel to their prophet. (5) Because, as the Jews themselves confess, the Talmud arose from their own devising, and not from any particular divine command, or divine impulse and inspiration; and therefore it is not a writing that was inspired by God. (6) It is evident from the record itself, since neither Rabbi Jehudah Hannasi, the author of the Mishnayoth, nor Rabbi Jochanan, the author of the Jerusalem Talmud, nor Rabbi Ashi, the author of the Babylonian Talmud, were men driven by God's Spirit—the Jews themselves testifying to this. (7) That book contains many absurd, false, and godless things, unworthy of God and hateful and unjust toward the truth; fabulous things; and likewise very many things not worthy to be spoken of, as the Christians have shown in full and complete commentaries—such as Galatinus, De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis, Lib. I; Sixtus Senensis, Bibliotheca, Lib. II; Theodoric Hackspan, Ad G. Lipmanni cap. 1, p. 260, etc.; Victor a Carben, a converted Jew, Contra Judaeos, Lib. I, capp. 9, 10; Marquard de Susannis, De Judaeis et Infidelibus, Part III, and others. The objections which the Karaites, Sadducees, and Essenes raise against us in defense of the Talmud fall away together with what we have said above concerning the oral law.

§ XXIX. Of the Kabbalah

The Kabbalah, among the Jews, sometimes means the whole of the oral law; sometimes the mystical sense of Scripture; but ordinarily it means that teaching which chiefly consists of an interchange of letters, through the Temurah, as they call it; or in numerical calculation, through the Gematria; and in the forming of various different words out of each individual letter, through the Notaricon; besides the remaining methods or rules, which the Jews generally count as thirteen, besides those already mentioned—all of which may be seen in detail in Hoornbeek, Contra Judaeos, Lib. I, cap. 2.

As to its origin: there are none among the Jews, according to the testimony of Reuchlin, who do not hold that Adam learned it from Raziel, Abraham from Zadkiel, Isaac from Raphael, Jacob from Peliel—namely from the spirits who were the teachers of these patriarchs. In general they believe that Moses received it from God on Mount Sinai, within the oral law. They divide it into a theoretical and a practical kind. The former they place chiefly in an interchange and a numerical power of the letters: for example, from the fact that in the first verse of Genesis the letter Aleph occurs six times, they conclude that the world will endure six thousand years; the latter they place in magical operations, which they say are now forbidden to them.

Now the question is whether this teaching is of divine origin and authority. The Jews maintain that it is; the Christians deny it, and for these reasons: (1) Because the Jews can in no way prove that it belongs to the Law given to Moses. (2) Because its rules could, in a like manner, be used for the discovery and confirmation of foolish, false, and godless things. (3) Because it must itself, as the Jews concede, be examined and tested by Scripture, and therefore is not itself self-credible.

(4) But let us turn the argument against them. Christians have proven a great many articles of the Christian faith from the Kabbalah, so much so that Pico, Count of Mirandola, has affirmed that no science makes us more certain concerning the Godhead of Christ than the Kabbalah. So too Johannes Capnio, or Reuchlin, and Angelus de Burgo, in a new interpretation of the doctrines of the Kabbalists; Jacob Gaffarel, De Abditis Kabbalae Mysteriis; and Elchanan Paulus, a converted Jew, in a special book entitled The Mystery of the Kabbalah, prove most, if not all, of the chief articles of Christianity from the Kabbalah. The objections raised here agree entirely with those which they urged in favor of the oral law.

§ XXX. Whether the New Testament Is of Divine Authority

The last and most important point of dispute between us and the Jews concerns the Gospel, or the New Testament—namely, whether it is divine and inspired by God's Spirit, of infallible truth and divine authority, even as the Old Testament is. Here indeed the Anabaptists impugn the Old Testament, when they suppose that it has been abolished, on the ground that we are no longer under the Law; and the Socinians, when they diminish its authority and dignity and hold that it is nearly useless to be read, on the ground that the religion of the Old Testament differs in its very essence from the religion of the New Testament. All, however, who confess Christ agree that the Old and the New Testament are of one and the same truth and authority.

On the contrary, the Jews, out of a pure hatred against our Messiah, Jesus, and against the Gospel, set themselves against the New Testament, while they accept neither its truth nor its divine authority. The Reformed hold that the New Testament is of one and the same truth and authority as the Old: on this dispute turns the pivot of all other controversies with the Jews, and at the same time the pillar and foundation of the whole of Christianity. We must therefore proceed here according to a firm and sure order of teaching, so that we first wrest from the Jews the general truth of the Old Testament, and then its divine authority.

First, then, we demonstrate its truth: (1) with the very same proofs by which the Jews themselves can prove the truth of the Old Testament; (2) with the credibility of the writers, inasmuch as (a) they were eyewitnesses of the events which they relate, John 19:35; 1 John 1:1–4; Acts 4:20—just as the writers of the Old Testament were. (3) Here there have been witnesses, not single private persons, not two or three (Deut. 17:6), but twelve, indeed more than five hundred brethren (1 Cor. 15:6–8), whereas the Jews, in the matter of the ascension of Elijah, believe on the word of a single Elisha alone, and rightly so. (γ) They had no reason to lie, whether for honors, or for riches and other advantages—as is evident from the many hardships, losses, persecutions, slanders, poverty, and other things to which they were exposed. (δ) In their accounts they have not concealed their own faults and failings (Matt. 16:22; Luke 22:34, and elsewhere).

(4) There were still living, at the time these things were recorded, persons who had themselves been present at the events narrated, who had seen and heard Jesus, to whom the greater part of these matters concerning Christ were thoroughly known. (5) They add to their narratives the circumstances of places, times, and feasts, when these things happened; nor do they differ among themselves in these matters, even though separated from one another, often by great distances of place. (6) They set forth these things plainly, in the sight of all, while the very thing was still fresh in memory, and while it was being done in the presence of those still living who could have contradicted them. (7) They have sealed their testimony with unbearable torments and with a bitter death—and would such men, in such circumstances, have lied and testified to what was not true?

Compare 2 Cor. 4:8, 9, 11, 24–26; 1 Cor. 4:9–12. (3) With and from the truth of the things written: which appears both from their most exact and universal agreement with the writings of the Old Testament, which are undoubtedly divine, and from the character and condition of the writings themselves. (a) Because they all, though so numerous and so different both in time and place, nevertheless agree together with such exactness. (2) Likewise with the nature and condition of the matters themselves. (3) Likewise with all other true histories, whether Jewish or heathen, as the interpreters will show point by point at each particular passage. (4) Indeed, even with the Jews themselves, as some have shown, and recently Josephus de Voisin, in his preface to the Pugio Fidei of Martini Raymundi, that most of the passages of the Old Testament which are cited in the New Testament were interpreted and understood by the ancient Jews in the very same sense. (4) Furthermore, because it can easily be shown—and indeed has been shown—by comparing hand with hand, that the principal matters of the New Testament are found very clearly in the Old Testament, and are read there. Let me add (5) that the enemies of the Gospel, both those who were present at the time and those who came afterward, have never with sound proofs convicted the New Testament of any falsehood whatever. But every writing remains true so long as it has not been soundly convicted of falsehood.

§ XXXI. Proofs of the Divine Authority of the New Testament

The truth of the New Testament having thus been presupposed, we now pass on to its divine origin and authority, which we shall wrest from the Jews with these and other arguments. (1) With the very testimony of the New Testament concerning its own divinity, 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:19; 2 Tim. 3:16—and lest anyone say that this last testimony refers only to the writings of the Old Testament, let one compare 2 Pet. 3:16, "as also the other Scriptures." This testimony, once the general truth of the New Testament has been presupposed from the preceding arguments, will carry the greatest weight. (II) Through all the same proofs by which a Jew could prove the divinity of the Old Testament. (III) Because God speaks in the New Testament just as He does in the Old: Heb. 1:1—the Father, Matt. 3:17 and 17:5; the Son, John 14:24; Rev. 1:8; the Holy Spirit, Rev. 2:29. For this reason Paul says that he was called, not by man, but by Jesus Christ, Gal. 1:1; 1 Thess. 2:13.

Also (IV) with the doctrine of the New Testament, which is not only in complete agreement with, but even, so far as concerns the main points, one and the same with, the Old Testament. Whence Paul says, when he had declared to all the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), that he had said nothing beyond the Old Testament, Acts 26:22; and Christ and the apostles constantly appeal to the Old Testament, as though in a contest—Luke 4:20, 21; John 1:23 and 5:39; Matt. 22:23, 44; Rom. 9:10, 11; Heb. 1:5, 6, etc. Therefore (V) the doctrine of the New Testament, which is entirely true and as holy as that of the Old Testament, and which enjoins the keeping of all the commandments of the Law, the denial of self, the taking up of one's cross, the mortification of sin, the crucifying of the flesh and of evil desires, a heavenly walk and conduct, the knowledge, acknowledgment, love, and service of God, etc.—such a kind of writing, in the judgment of all, even of the Jews themselves, can be nothing other than divine.

(VI) The miracles by which the New Testament is confirmed are altogether divine, Matt. 10:8; Mark 16:17, 18; Heb. 2:4—and indeed of the very kind that were to be wrought by the Messiah, Isa. 35:4, 5, 6—which under the Old Testament were never done, John 9:32—concerning all sorts of creatures, in heaven and on earth, for the whole human race, never harmful, always beneficial: such as feeding, healing, raising the dead, and so forth. (VII) From the predictions, Matt. 21:45; Luke 19:43 and 21:45; Matt. 24:8; 2 Thess. 2:4, and the entire Book of Revelation throughout—for true predictions are undoubted marks of divinity, Isa. 46:9, 10 and 41:22, 23; Deut. 13. (VIII) From the martyrdoms of the apostles and of every sort of person by which the truth of the doctrine of the New Testament has been confirmed and sealed—2 Cor. 4:8, 9 and 6:4, 5; 1 Cor. 4:9–13—and especially in that first century of Christianity, when thousands of Christians, of every rank, sealed the doctrine of the New Testament with their blood.

And whence could this have come, except that the Holy Spirit wished, through a singular efficacy, to bear witness to the doctrine of the New Testament? And if these things ought not to hold good among the Jews in the case of the martyrdoms of the Christians, then neither should they hold good in the case of the martyrdoms of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes. (IX) The efficacy by which the doctrine of the New Testament, through the apostles and evangelists—who were unlettered men—was, within a short time, propagated over almost the whole world; as we have noted concerning this matter above, § XXII. Besides this (X), the divine providence, whereby God has so powerfully protected the doctrine of the New Testament and its followers against the assault of the mightiest enemies, indeed of nearly the whole world.

The Jews press this same argument for the Old Testament, as happened at the time of the Babylonian destruction, and under the negligence of the Israelites, 2 Kings 22:23. Why then should not we press this argument all the more? For we may consider (1) that the New Testament has been preserved through the cruelest persecutions, lasting three hundred years, such as none of the Jews ever underwent. Especially (2) under Diocletian, who set himself wholly to the task of collecting and burning the books of the Christians. (3) That it has been translated into nearly every language. (4) Notwithstanding so many deceptions and stratagems of the heretics. Finally, let us add to this the great simplicity, and yet the great power, of the style of the New Testament, whereby it can so forcefully penetrate into the hearts of men, and draw and win them to faith and godliness—concerning which one may read 1 Cor. 1:17; 2:1, 4; 1:19, 20—and of which Gerson, having become a Christian from a Jew, bears illustrious witness in himself, in the preface to his book on the Talmud.

Now if they object (1) that most of our proofs rest on nothing but the belief and authority of the New Testament, which is the very point in dispute here, we shall answer (a) that indeed it is on the belief and authority of the New Testament, but on what we have already, at such length, demonstrated by so many proofs to be true and genuine. (2) Since the Jews cannot prove the doctrine and the miracles of the New Testament except through the credibility and authority of the New Testament itself—and we too cannot proceed otherwise in such questions and controversies concerning a fact. Against the miracles of the New Testament they make this evasion, that Simon Magus, and Apollonius, and the Popish monks also boast of many miracles.

We answer: (1) do the apostles then also merely boast? Do the prophets of the Old Testament likewise merely boast? (2) They boast, but for an utterly different reason and manner: the former on a loose and deceptive authority, as has been shown by many; the latter on an authority that is credible, as of true witnesses, as we have set forth at length: the former nearly always in India and other far-off places, at best with a few separated witnesses, elsewhere in some corner; the latter in the presence of the whole people, indeed even of their most bitter enemies, who could say nothing against it. (III) When they object, against the martyrdoms of the Christians for the doctrine of the New Testament, that many are found who, because of their evil deeds, out of weariness of this life, or for some other reason, have desired death—for example Erostratus, Cajanus, and others—we answer (a) that these were indeed most wicked deceivers; were the apostles, then, who were true and godly men, such as these? Were the prophets—Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, and others, who each suffered their own hardships and miseries—such as these? (3) They endured all sorts of things, but they did not endure them for their own private teaching, but for such a teaching as agrees with the writings of the prophets—just as did the apostles and Christians, in so great a number.

Finally (IV) they raise many objections against particular passages of the New Testament, in order to charge it with error, mistake, and falsehood; but to answer these things individually would be utterly endless, and altogether beyond our present purpose. This has been done by the opponents of the Jews and by the commentators on Holy Scripture in general. Nevertheless we say in general (a) that no Jew can bring forward anything against the apostles and against the writing of the New Testament, the like of which—indeed a far weightier difficulty—could not be shown concerning the prophets and the writings of the Old Testament. So that the Jews can charge us with no single difficulty which we could not throw back upon them with equal or even greater force. (b) They will raise no difficulty against the New Testament which has not already, long ago, been raised by others and abundantly answered by the Christians. See Spanheim, Dubia Euangelica; Mullerus, Adversus Judaeos, Lib. I, cap. 28, and Lib. III, cap. 2; and Lyranus, In Responsione ad Objecta Judaeorum, and others.

§ XXXII. Further Objections

Various Jews raise still further objections, among whom especially Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham has published an entire book in which he sets himself wholly to the task of impugning the falsehood and godlessness of the New Testament, and especially the Godhead of Christ, the virginity of Mary, the genealogy of Christ from the house of David; likewise His teaching, miracles, predictions, and holiness of life; as well as to carp at the passages cited in the New Testament from the Old. To all of these things the opponents of the Jews have, in their proper places, given a sound answer. Rabbi Lusitanus, in the Middelburg Dialogue, has soundly and forcefully refuted a great many of these things. Against this kind of thing, in particular, Johannes Mullerus, in his Judaismus, contends most forcefully against the writers of the New Testament: (1) that they were foolish and drunken men, Acts 2; (2) idle and worthless men, who taught the community of goods for this purpose, that they might sustain their life out of the goods of others; (3) that they lied about miracles; (4) that they did not forbid lying; (5) that they had their own errors in doctrine and life, and so forth.

We answer: (1) that all these and similar things are utterly false, and can never be proven. (2) Similar things are laid to the charge of the prophets as well—Jer. 5:13; 2 Kings 9:11; 1 Kings 18:18 and 22:24; Dan. 6:12. And (3) they have indeed been accused, but never convicted. (4) They have vigorously and soundly cleared themselves. We have drawn out this point of controversy a little more fully, because it lays the foundation not only of our disputes with the Jews, but also of the whole Christian faith and of godliness.

§ XXXIII. Of the Enthusiasts, Their Inspirations and Inblowings, and of the Testimony of the Holy Spirit

Let us now enter the lists with those falsely called Christians. Here there first present themselves the Quakers, or enthusiasts, with whom we have this dispute here: whether believers, now that the canon has long since been sealed, still enjoy inblowings of the Holy Spirit, which would be for them the most certain Word of God, and to which one ought to give as much—indeed even more—faith and credit than to Holy Scripture? The Pelagians and Socinians, that nature, reason, and free will might have all the more scope, ascribe less to the Holy Spirit than is right, and hold that no illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary for the understanding of Holy Scripture; while, on the contrary, the enthusiasts—Weigel, Schwenckfeld, David Joris—ascribe far too much to the workings of the Holy Spirit. They indeed acknowledge that Scripture is the Word of God, but hold that it cannot be understood except by means of the inblowings, addresses, or inspirations of His Spirit, taking this to be a certain inward word.

The Reformed likewise acknowledge (a) that there were true divine inspirations in the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; (b) that in ordinary believers there are indeed workings of the Holy Spirit, to enlighten, convert, and sanctify them, but no such "enthusiasms," no such inblowings, as would signify an infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, of which all men are now bereft. The refutation of this error is accomplished by overturning these two false suppositions, namely: (1) that Scripture is not in itself a perfect and in itself sufficient rule of faith and morals—for once this self-sufficient and self-authoritative power of Scripture is established, enthusiasm collapses of itself; but this power stands firm, according to what we have said above, § XIX, concerning the perfection of Scripture, and what we shall say below against the Papists concerning the same. (2) That there are, even now, still enthusiasms, or infallible inspirations of the Holy Spirit, distinct from the inspiration by which Scripture was given, by means of which the Scriptures would have to be interpreted.

Of such (1) Holy Scripture knows nothing; (2) it even rejects the idea, since it is perfect and in itself sufficient in all things. And since (3) Holy Scripture declares that such a thing is bound up with the gravest danger of deception, 2 Cor. 11:14; 2 Thess. 2:2; 1 John 4:1, 2. The passages that might be brought forward for such an "enthusiasm" come down substantially to this: (1) that Scripture is called a dead letter, 2 Cor. 3:6—namely without the interpretation given by one's own particular spirit. We answer that this is not said of Scripture, but of the covenant of works, in contrast to the covenant of grace. (2) The passages which speak of a revelation and illumination of the Holy Spirit. Answer: but these do not speak of such "enthusiasms" as would infallibly govern and would disclose to us other objects, different from—indeed contrary to—those which Scripture contains; rather, Holy Scripture speaks of such illuminations of the Holy Spirit as bring light to the understanding, so that we may know, distinguish, and understand those things which are revealed in the Scriptures. So Eph. 1:17, 18. (Cf. Spanheim, Disputationes Miscellaneae, Part I, Disp. XVI through XX; Marnix, Contra Enthusiastas; Calvin, against the same.)

§ XXXIV. Whether Human Reason Is an Infallible Rule for Interpreting Scripture

Let the enthusiasts, in the rank of the falsely-called Christians, be followed by the Socinians. The question is whether human reason is an infallible rule and standard by which to interpret the Scriptures. Here the Papists sin by defect, when, in order to exalt the authority of the Pope, they ascribe this partly to the Church or to the Pope, partly to the fathers, councils, and so forth—which we shall examine and put to the test elsewhere. The Lutherans of old sinned here too, in order that, on the point concerning the communication of properties and the omnipresence of Christ's body, they might stand the firmer against our arguments drawn from reason, which contradict them: sometimes maintaining that reason ought not to be heard in the mysteries of religion, sometimes that reason, in those matters, is contrary to Scripture—points which we shall examine elsewhere.

Here the Socinians sin to excess, who, in order to shield themselves against the mysteries of the Christian faith—concerning the Trinity, the Godhead of Christ, the personal union of the two natures in Christ—against which they have nothing to bring from Holy Scripture, entrench themselves the more strongly in reason; virtually holding that reason is the infallible rule and standard for interpreting the Scriptures. To this same paradoxical view come near also the Cartesians, and those following the presumptions of that new philosophy, who wish to apply their principles to theology and to Scripture, holding that the ideas of all things are innate in us, which would therefore be, as it were, divine oracles; and likewise that a clear and distinct conception is the supreme rule of all knowledge and certainty—here too, the same holds for the interpretation of Scripture. Because the philosophers hold that a clear and distinct conception is an infallible rule of interpretation, some of the rationalist theologians who have recently arisen among us maintain, entirely on this same supposition, that the divine authority of Scripture itself can nowhere else be demonstrated than from reason.

And if there should seem to be any discrepancy between Scripture and reason, that then reason should be consulted rather than Scripture... [some further exposition follows on their notion of reason serving as guide, instrument, or foundation]. They hold that the use of reason is necessary, as an instrument, in every investigation of the truth that is occupied with Scripture; as a demonstrative ground, that its use is beneficial—namely, that the truth which we have drawn from Scripture, as from its first and only principle, we may also come to confirm with natural reasons. But as a standard and first principle of truth, by which one ought to believe, this they by no means allow. And so they hold that if there should seem to be any discrepancy between Scripture and nature, one ought then to yield, not to reason, but rather to Scripture.

The Reformed sufficiently establish their position with these arguments. (1) Because reason is (a) blind, 1 Cor. 2:14, 15, and (b) dark, Rom. 1:21, etc., and estranged from the light of God, Eph. 4:18, compared with 1 Cor. 2:12. All of which things run contrary to the nature of a standard or first principle. (2) Because the chief articles of the faith surpass reason. And this (a) because they are hidden, 1 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 13:11; 1 Cor. 2:7 and 4:1; (b) they appear strange, Luke 5:16; (c) they are spiritual, 1 Cor. 2:14. (3) Because in this way Scripture and the Holy Spirit would be made subject to reason and to man, which conflicts with the dignity of Scripture and of the Holy Spirit, as well as with the saying of Christ, John 5:30, 34. (4) Christ, the prophets, and the apostles never refer us to reason, but always to Scripture, Isa. 8:20; 2 Pet. 1:19; 2 Tim. 3:14. (5) Scripture generally speaks against reason, 2 Cor. 10:5, and 1 Cor. 1:17, 19, 20, 21, 22, and ch. 2:1, 4, 5, 6. (6) Thus the last and final resolution of our faith would not be so much Holy Scripture, as reason—which is contrary to Scripture, Matt. 16:17; 1 Cor. 2:7, 8; John 1:18.

To the objections raised for the opposing view, one may readily answer from what the Reformed have long since granted. For when they object (1) that Scripture cannot be understood without reason, we shall answer (a) that we acknowledge this of reason as an instrument, for irrational beasts and senseless men cannot understand the Scriptures. (b) But it is not hereby proven that reason is a standard or a principle. (2) That the truth of nature is not contrary to that truth which is in Scripture. Answer: it does not follow from this that reason is the standard of Scripture. And so, when there seems to be some discrepancy between reason and Scripture, it is not Scripture that must yield to reason, but reason that must yield to Scripture. (3) That the marks of divinity, from which the divinity of Scripture is proven, belong properly to reason. Answer: those marks are in Scripture itself, so that Scripture is recognized as divine from itself, and not from reason—just as the sun is known by its own light, and not from elsewhere. See Johannes Hoornbeek, Adversus Socinianos, Lib. I, cap. 6; compare also Dedel, Rationalistarum Antagonistes, Exercitatio Paradoxa.

§ XXXV. Whether the Old Testament Is Now Abolished, or Less Necessary and Useful to Read Than the New

The question is whether the Old Testament is now abolished, or at least less necessary and useful to read than the New Testament? Here the Jews sin by defect, who reject the New Testament altogether—a matter we have already dealt with at length above. But the Manicheans sin here to excess, who reject the Old Testament, as though it had arisen from an evil principle; as do also the Mennonites, who hold that the Old Testament is now abolished, because we are said to be no longer under the Law but under grace—thus confusing the New Testament with the Old.

Similarly, the Socinians sin here too, in that they hold that the religion of the Old Testament differs, in its entire essence, from the religion of the New Testament, in so far as under the Old Testament men would have been saved by keeping the Law, whereas we would be saved by keeping the Gospel: they hold that the reading of the Old Testament is not necessary, or at least less useful.

The Reformed, on the contrary, hold that even under the New Testament both Testaments have an equal divine authority and dignity, and that accordingly the Old Testament is just as necessary and useful to read as the New Testament. Our reasons are: (1) that the books of the Old Testament are as much inspired by God as those of the New, 2 Tim. 3:16, "All Scripture," 2 Pet. 1:20, 21, and therefore also of infallible truth and authority. (II) That the Old Testament was given to the Church for a rule of faith and morals just as much as the New—Ps. 147:19, 20; Rom. 3:2 and 9:4. (III) That one nowhere reads that it has been abolished in the Old Testament. No—but rather (IV), on the contrary, it was confirmed and strengthened by Christ, both by His command, John 5:39; Matt. 5:17, 18, and by His own practice, Luke 24:27, when He refers and points to the Old Testament, Luke 16:29; moreover He constantly refutes His opponents from the Old Testament, Matt. 4:7; 19:13; 12:3, 4; 22:29, 43.

The very same is done also by the apostles, by Peter, Acts 3:20; by Paul, Acts 18:28, etc. (V) The entire doctrine of the New Testament is contained in the Old Testament. Paul confesses, Acts 26:22, that he said nothing beyond the Old Testament. So much so that the Bereans examined the doctrine of the New Testament by the Old, Acts 17:11. Indeed, all the prophets are said to bear witness to Jesus, Acts 10:43; Luke 24:27. (VI) Indeed, even some articles of our faith are more clearly and fully described in the Old Testament than in the New—for example, the creation of the world, the fall of man, and so forth. (VII) The Old Testament is called the foundation of the Christian faith and of Christian teaching, Eph. 2:20; Acts 24:14. (VIII) The Old Testament even now, under the New Testament, still has a distinct and powerful usefulness, 2 Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; Rom. 15:4.

§ XXXVI. Objections of the Mennonites, Borrowed from the Socinians

As for the objections which some raise, they are borrowed from the Socinians. When they (1) object that the Old Testament is abolished, that is precisely what they must prove; and they do not make their case good with those passages which say that the Law is abolished, unless they show that the Law and the Old Testament mean the very same thing. That the ceremonial Law is abolished by the death of Christ, we readily grant; but that the books of the Old Testament should therefore be abolished, we deny, until they shall have proven it.

(2) When they say that in the New Testament those things which pertain to religion and to salvation are sufficiently comprehended, let them then prove the further inference, that therefore the books of the Old Testament are abolished; since God has willed that we should be provided for not merely sufficiently, but even abundantly—for He could have shown us all things in a single book. (3) When they say (3) that the New Testament is contrary to the Old, in matters concerning the sword, killing, the punishment of like for like, the swearing of oaths (from Matt. 5), and divorce (from Matt. 19)—we answer that it is the corrupt Pharisaic interpretations that, in Christ's judgment, are contrary to the New Testament, and likewise also to the Old, but not the Law of Moses itself against the New, or against Christ.

When the Socinians (4) say that the religion of the Old Testament differs, in its whole essence and nature, from the religion of the New Testament, we shall deny this from what has already been said, and moreover especially from Acts 15:11. Compare Johannes Hoornbeek, Contra Socinianos, Lib. I, cap. IV; Abraham a Doreslaer, Adversus Anabaptistas, cap. 8; Spanheim, Disputationes Miscellaneae, Part I, Disp. II, III, IV, V.

§ XXXVII. With the Papists: Whether the Authority of Scripture Depends on the Testimony of the Church

Let the Papists close the army, between whom and us there are several points of controversy concerning Holy Scripture, the root and ground of the whole dispute lying either in the supreme authority of the Pope, or in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The question is, first, whether the divine authority of Scripture itself depends on the testimony of the Church? The enthusiasts, who make Scripture depend on the yielding to their own spirit, we have already before this contradicted and rejected; the Socinians and Rationalists, who make it depend on reason, we have likewise long since rejected.

The Papists, in order to exalt the authority of the Pope above Scripture, acknowledge that the authority of Scripture, so far as it is considered in itself, depends on this, that it is inspired by God; but that the authority of Scripture, considered with respect to us, depends on the testimony of the Church, that is, of the Pope. But the Reformed make the authority of Scripture, in every respect, depend absolutely on Scripture itself, and on the divine radiance which shines through and is visible in it. Our proofs are sufficiently these: (1) The authority of Scripture depends only on its giver, since it is a testimony, whose authority is wont to depend on the truthfulness of Him who gives that testimony. (2) Because the authority of Scripture is self-authoritative and self-credible, and the first thing that is believable, 2 Pet. 1:20, "Knowing this first," etc. Wherefore David says that he knew from the testimonies themselves that God has founded them forever, Ps. 119:152.

(3) The authority of Scripture is sufficiently known from the marks of divinity contained within it, as we have taught above, against the heathen. (4) Even the authority of the Church itself, even with respect to us, depends on the testimony of Scripture: wherefore parties are commonly accustomed to prove the authority of the Church from Scripture, and therefore a most absurd and unreasonable circle would be made, were one in any way to make the authority of Scripture depend on the Church. (5) It would also follow that our faith would not rest so much on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Eph. 2:20, as on the testimony of the Church. (6) Experience cries out against this, since thousands, indeed millions of men, are found who acknowledge the authority of Scripture, while nevertheless not acknowledging the authority of the Roman Church.

§ XXXVIII. Objections

They object: (1) that the Church is called a pillar and ground of the truth, 1 Tim. 3:15. Answer: because it is itself built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Eph. 2:20—unless one should rather wish, with Cameron, to say that it is not so much the Church, as the mystery of godliness, which is great, and which is taught in the very next verse, that the apostle means and intends by that foundation and pillar.

They object (2): Without the tradition of the Church, the Scriptures would not have come down to us; nor would we know that the Scriptures were written by those men whose names they bear, etc., except through and by the testimony of the Church. Answer: but this by no means proves that Scripture derives its authority from the Church—just as a royal decree does not in any way receive its authority from the king's messenger who delivers it. (3) They say: the Church existed before the Scripture. Answer: priority in time does not entail a priority in dignity, and still less a dependence in authority. (Compare especially, after Whitaker, De Scriptura, and against Stapleton, William Ames, De Circulo Pontificio; Gisbertus Voetius, Disputatio de Scepticismo Loiolitico, circa principia fidei.)

§ XXXIX. Of the Number of Canonical Books: The Apocrypha

Our second point of controversy with the Papists concerns the number of the books to which divine authority belongs—namely, whether the books which we call Apocryphal, such as Tobit, Judith, and so forth, are to be counted among the canonical books. We deny this, on the strength of those reasons already set forth above, § IX.

The Papists, in order that they might, through their power to canonize books, be able to attribute these books to their Innocent I, who lived at the beginning of the fifth century—as though he were the first to have brought that sacred canon into its present order—and so that they might thereby win support for the supreme authority of the popes in the Church, say, almost for no other reasons than these: (1) that these books are frequently cited by the fathers. Answer: this has likewise happened with books that are undoubtedly Apocryphal. (2) That they are also often called canonical by the fathers, that is, "regular." Answer: but in a strange, different, more general and broader sense, by which all books which are read in the Church for edification are called canonical ("regular"). See Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Lib. XV, c. 23, and XVIII, c. 35; Lib. II, Against the Letter of Gaudentius, c. 20; De Doctrina Christiana, c. 8. Compare Whitaker, Chamier, Ames, Bellarmine, Enervatio.

(3) That they were transferred into the list of canonical books by Pope Innocent I, and that this list has descended and rolled forward from there to the Council of Trent. We answer: (1) the Apostle John sealed our canon, Rev. 22:18, 19. (2) Moreover, the Jewish Church, to whom the canon of the Old Testament was given, never acknowledged these books as canonical. (3) And besides, it was never within the power of Innocent to alter the canon which had been sealed by the apostle.

§ XL. Whether the Editions Other Than the Original Languages Are Self-Authoritative

The question is whether editions of Scripture, not written in Hebrew, with respect to the Old Testament, nor in Greek, with respect to the New Testament, are self-authoritative? Isaac Vossius—whether from an itch for teaching novelties, or because he wrongly persuaded himself that the chronologies of the patriarchs agree more precisely with the truth according to the Septuagint Greek translators than according to the Hebrew edition—has claimed that the Hebrew edition, as it came from the writers themselves, was substantially lost at the time of the Babylonian captivity, or under Antiochus Epiphanes, except that genuine copies were still at hand among the Septuagint translators; at least, that it has been wholly wanting ever since that time.

For these reasons he holds that the Greek edition, as expressed by the Septuagint translators from complete and pure sources, ought to be preferred above the corrupted sources. Johannes Morinus, in his Exercitationes, holds the same. The Papists are divided among themselves here. There are some among them who prefer the original edition to the common Latin translation—such as Arias Montanus, Xantes Pagninus, Simeon de Muis, Franciscus Vatablus—whom they, among their own, call "Hebraizers." Others hold that the common Latin translation is of equal authority with the original editions.

In general, according to the decree of the Council of Trent, which canonized the common Latin translation, that Vulgate is set above the original edition: not only for this reason, that they might more easily be able to say that the original text is corrupted, but also, and far more, in order that, by the use of one and the same common Latin tongue, the learned might the more easily be, as it were, united under one and the same head, and that thus and in this way the Pope might be able to rule the more powerfully.

The Reformed acknowledge Scripture to be self-authoritative only in the original languages. The reasons for our view we have given above, § X. But Bellarmine, De Scriptura, Lib. II, c. 10, counts up these reasons for the Papists. Namely: (1) The common Latin translation has been in use for many centuries. Answer: this indeed proves that it is useful, not that it is authentic. (2) It has the testimony of the ancients. Answer: not that it is authentic, any more than the Hebrew and Greek text. (3) The Hebrews had the authentic Scripture in their own tongue, the Greeks in Greek; therefore also the Latins in Latin. Answer: (a) therefore also the Germans in German, the English in English. (b) The question and the dispute here concerns translations. And thus neither did the Jews have an authentic translation, nor the Greeks, and consequently neither did the Latins.

(4) They say that otherwise the Church would be poorly provided for and cared for, because in the councils there are very few, or sometimes none, who understand the Hebrew tongue. Answer: (a) let them blame this on their own ignorance, and not on divine providence. (b) Such councils are not fit to distinguish the authentic editions. (5) They further allege this, that the heretics forge such various and mutually conflicting translations, that one can have nothing certain from them. Answer: (a) is then the Vulgate authentic? (b) Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. II, cap. 11, teaches that before Jerome there were countless Latin editions.

§ XLI. Whether the Original Hebrew and Greek Texts Have Been Corrupted

From this it is asked, therefore, whether the Hebrew and Greek original texts have been corrupted. The Muhammedans, in order to set their Alkoran the more plausibly alongside Scripture, or rather to put it in Scripture's place, hold that Scripture has been corrupted. The Papists, in order the more easily to put the Vulgate in the place of the original texts, and also in order to gain the point that Scripture is not a perfect canon, and that therefore their traditions are additionally necessary, and that at the same time the supreme authority in and over the Church belongs to the Pope, who could and should judge concerning the sense of Scripture and concerning controversies risen or arising, hold that the original texts have been corrupted.

We deny this. (1) Because it would conflict with God's providence, which watches over us even to a hair of our head; how much more, then, would it not watch over the foundation of our faith and of our salvation? Eph. 1:20. (2) This conflicts with the testimony of Scripture, Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:29. (3) The authority of Scripture would fall to the ground by this very fact, since its authority rests upon the original languages, according to what we have said above, § X.

(4) Neither the Hebrew original text of the Old Testament has been corrupted, nor the Greek text of the New Testament, and therefore neither has been. Not the first, because it (a) has not been kept by the Jews, who were far too superstitious for that—as is clear partly from the Masorah, partly from the testimonies of Philo, De Egressu Filiorum Israelis ex Aegypto; of Josephus, Book I, Against Apion; of Eusebius, Lib. I and Lib. III, Historia Ecclesiastica, cap. 1, and De Praeparatione Evangelica, cap. 11; partly from the completeness of the predictions concerning Christ; but also because Christ and the apostles never reproached them with that crime. And still less (b) would the Christians have wished to do this, being still more devout in this regard; and even had they wished it, they could not have done it, both because of the abundance and multitude of the copies spread abroad, and because of the diversity of the sects, and also because of the Jews, who were present among them in such great numbers.

Consequently, corrupted by no one, and therefore the Hebrew original text is uncorrupted. The Greek text of the New Testament is likewise uncorrupted, for that too would conflict (a) with God's wisdom and goodness, (b) with the vigilance of the godly teachers against every corruption, whereby they most carefully corrected even the corruptions caused by fires.

§ XLII. Objections

The objections direct themselves in various ways: (1) against the completeness of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, for which Bellarmine, De Scriptura, Lib. II, cap. 10, gathers together many passages which he claims to be corrupted—although his opponents deny this, and defend all the individual passages which he brings forward. Compare Ames, Antibellarminus. (II) Against the Greek purity of the New Testament, which they say has been corrupted either by the heretics or by the copyists—which they endeavor to establish: (1) by the corruptions of the books. Answer: some, not all; and therefore, by this reasoning, it should rightly be said not that the New Testament, but rather that particular edition of it, is corrupted. (2) By the variety of readings. Answer: from this too is proven nothing but the corruption of some copies, which can be removed by means of the oldest and best-attested copies. See Lucas of Bruges, in the preface to Variae Lectiones Scripturae. (3) By the effort and design of the heretics in corrupting and falsifying Scripture. Answer: the attempt to corrupt does not always bring about the effect, the godliness namely of the teachers of the Church, and their constant perseverance in maintaining and defending the original texts, withstanding and preventing it. (4) By examples, by which they wish to prove that the Greek text has been corrupted, in Bellarmine, De Scriptura, Lib. III, cap. 7. Answer: let his opponents be set against him, who have been most careful defenders of those passages.

§ XLIII. Whether Scripture Ought to Be Translated into the Vernacular Languages

The question is whether Scripture ought to be translated into the vernacular languages? The Protestants say yes, and that for these reasons: (1) God Himself had Scripture written in those languages which were the mother tongues of the Church—Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek. (2) The reading of Holy Scripture is a duty binding absolutely on all believers, John 5:39, as we shall presently show; therefore it must be translated. (3) The use and usefulness of Scripture—namely, edification, comfort, exhortation, correction, and the glorifying of God, etc., 2 Tim. 3:16, 17—belongs to all and to each; therefore it must be translated. (4) Religious worship must be conducted in commonly understood languages, 1 Cor. 14; therefore Scripture must be translated, since otherwise no service of God could be performed at all.

(5) Scripture has, for the Church of the Old Testament, been translated into the common languages, as the Chaldee paraphrase, as well as the Hexapla and Octapla—that is, the six- and eight-language Bible of Origen—show.

§ XLIV. Counter-Reasons of the Papists

The Papists, in order the more strongly to keep the common people from reading Scripture—lest their errors, idolatries, and superstitions come too plainly under the eyes of the common people, and in order that those of the Roman persuasion, by using the common Latin translation alone, may be the more closely bound together with their head, and that head may in turn rule the more powerfully over its members—deny that Holy Scripture ought to be translated into the mother tongues, and this for scarcely more than these trivial reasons: (1) "It is enough," they say, "that Scripture exist in those three languages in which the inscription on Christ's cross was written," John 19:20. Answer: this is a poor and trifling connection. (2) From the time of Ezra down to Christ, the Old Testament was not in the mother tongue, since by then the use of the Hebrew tongue had already fallen away. Answer: both of these claims are false, for even to this very day the Hebrew tongue is still the most commonly used among the Jews.

(3) The apostles preached over the whole world, and yet they did not translate Scripture into the languages of those nations. Answer: (a) the latter claim is uncertain. (b) They never forbade the former. (γ) They were unable to translate it, for want of leisure time. (δ) They also perhaps did not wish to do so, lest there be more than one self-authoritative edition, and lest disputes should arise in the Church over the authority of the various editions. (4) It serves the unity of the Church, and the mutual fellowship of the Church, that Scripture exist in the most common tongue, that is, in Latin. Answer: (a) provided only that it not be exclusively the Latin, nor self-authoritative. (b) That unity and fellowship of the churches can sufficiently be preserved through one single self-authoritative edition—namely the Hebrew and the Greek.

(5) It would be in vain, even if Scripture were in the common tongues, since it would nevertheless not be understood. Answer: we deny both, Deut. 31:11. Further, (6): in every age the mother tongues change. Answer: (a) not so much that they cannot be understood, especially when kept up by usage. (b) Then let the translations themselves also be a little altered. (7) It conflicts with the majesty of Scripture that it should be...

§ XLV. Whether Scripture Ought to Be Read by the Common People

The question, once it is granted that Holy Scripture is translated into the common tongues, is whether it ought to be read by the common people. The orthodox maintain this, for these reasons: (1) God commands it, Deut. 6:6, 7, 8, and 30:11, 12; Isa. 34:16; John 5:39; Luke 16:29; Col. 3:16 and 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27. (2) The reading of Scripture has been customary in the Israelite Church, Acts 15:21; 8:30, and 17:11. (3) God greatly approves such reading, Ps. 1:2; 119:2; Acts 17:11; 2 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:3. (4) The uses and benefits of Scripture belong indiscriminately to all, Rom. 15:4; John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

The Papists, lest their very evil and worst doctrine become known to the common people, and in order the more easily to keep them dependent on the rule of the Pope, deny this, because (1) some pervert Scripture to their own destruction, 2 Pet. 3:16. Answer: not through the fault of reading, but through their own fault. They say (2) that all sorts of crimes and abominations are commonly related in Holy Scripture, from which offense might arise to the ignorant. Answer: this happens by the accident of the readers, not through the fault of Scripture, or of reading.

§ XLVI. Whether Scripture Is Obscure

The question is whether Scripture is obscure. The Protestants deny this, in a certain sense, and for reasons already given above, § XVIII. The Papists, in order not only the more forcefully to keep the common people from reading Scripture, but also in order to establish the necessity of an interpreter—and indeed of one who is infallible—and thereby to confer that dignity upon the Pope, who by this very means would sit secure from all assaults on Scripture, being a judge in his own case, declare Scripture to be obscure, with these arguments.

(1) With the sayings of Scripture: (a) that David prays for the understanding of Scripture and for the opening of his eyes, etc. Answer: he prays for light for his understanding, not for a greater clarity of Scripture; or for light for himself, not for Scripture. (b) That Christ expounded the Scriptures, Luke 24:27. Answer: that is, that He recounted, applied, and brought them forward—from which obscurity can hardly be inferred. (γ) That the eunuch confessed he could not understand Scripture without an interpreter, Acts 8:30, 31. Answer: he indeed did not understand that particular passage of Scripture; but from this the general obscurity of Scripture is very poorly inferred.

(δ) That Peter says there are in Paul's epistles certain things δυσνόητα, things hard to understand, 2 Pet. 3:16. Answer: some things—but does it follow from this that the whole of Scripture is obscure? By such reasoning all writers would be obscure. Furthermore, the Papists attempt (2) to prove the obscurity of Scripture from the difficulty and obscurity of the matters that are contained in the Scriptures. Answer: even the most difficult and weighty matters are clearly explained in Scripture, especially in those things which pertain to salvation.

(3) That there are many things in Holy Scripture which at first sight appear to be contradictory; some things which are doubtful; also, that there are imperfect, indeed even seemingly perverse, lines of reasoning; as well as expressions peculiar to the Hebrews; and finally, that there are found in it very many figurative and metaphorical modes of speech. Answer: such things as are necessary to know and to understand unto salvation never occur in Holy Scripture without being explained elsewhere; so that, at the very most, it would not be the Scriptures, but certain passages of Scripture, that could on this account be called obscure. See Bellarmine, De Scriptura, Lib. III, capp. 1, 2, and his opponents, Ames, in his book entitled Bellarminus Enervatus, Tom. I, p. 39, where one should note especially the very precise formulation of the state of the controversy, from which and by which all the objections readily fall away.

§ XLVII. Whether Scripture Has More Than One Sense

The question is whether Scripture has more than one sense—a view of which Origen was the chief advocate, because they supposed that the literal sense of Scripture is too simple and too plain, and not such as could commend the wisdom of the Christian religion to the heathen; whence he fell away from the literal sense of Scripture into allegorical and mystical senses. Likewise the Jews, in their Midrashim (commentaries); but especially all the enthusiasts. Nor are far removed from this some who chase after novelties, when, in order to draw everything out of every passage, and to be able to apply the prophecies to their own liking with some show of plausibility, they lay down this general rule: that the words of Scripture signify whatever they can possibly signify—from which a manifold sense is wont to arise.

The Papists, in order to declare Scripture obscure to the common people, who ought not to read it, and who need an infallible interpreter—who is none other, nor can be any other, than the Roman Pope—hold (1) a fourfold sense of Scripture, namely (a) a literal sense, which the letter immediately conveys; (b) an allegorical sense, whereby something is signified and made known figuratively, which in the Old Testament looks to Christ and to the Church; (c) a moral sense, when something is made known which pertains to conduct; and finally (d) an anagogical sense, when eternal life is thereby signified.

(2) The Papists further hold that it is not improbable that there are sometimes more literal senses than one, bound up in one and the same passage. Meanwhile (3), they hold that from the literal sense alone must the arguments against opposing parties be drawn. See Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei, Lib. III, cap. 3. The orthodox allow only one, and that a literal, sense of Scripture—namely the one which the writer intended by his words; meanwhile they acknowledge that this sense is sometimes compound, as happens in figurative and typical modes of speech, where one part of the sense is the proper meaning of the words, and another part is the meaning of the things signified. Indeed, they also call those mystical senses, when it clearly appears that they were intended by the Holy Spirit, literal senses.

The arguments of the orthodox are: (1) Because the sense of Scripture is true, certain, and firm, 2 Pet. 1:19—indeed also pure and most pure, that is, far removed from all admixture, Ps. 12:6 and 119:140; Prov. 30:5. But now, that which is ambiguous and doubtful, or that which admits of more than one sense, is not pure, not certain, and not firm. (2) That which does not signify one definite thing signifies nothing that is certain. (3) The sense is, as it were, the form of the words: therefore, just as the words have but one form, so also they have but one sense.

§ XLVIII. Objections

The arguments of the Papists are: (1) The apostle makes mention, 1 Cor. 10:11, of a certain typical sense, and thus applies, in a spiritual manner, to Christians what happened literally to the Jews. Answer: one must not confuse the sense of Scripture with the various applications of it: the application of one and the same passage can be manifold, 2 Tim. 3:16, while meanwhile there remains but one single sense. (2) They heap up various passages of Scripture whose sense would be allegorical, Gal. 4:24, etc.; likewise anagogical, concerning the rest of the Israelites, Heb. 3 and 4; and also moral, 1 Cor. 9:9, etc.

Answer: the sense of Scripture is one and simple in the historical narratives, doctrines, and prophecies, set forth plainly and nakedly; or it is compound, expressed in typical or figurative words: meanwhile the application can be manifold, Rom. 15:4, and the literal sense, by way of a type, is sometimes applied in the Scriptures for instruction, as happens in Gal. 4, Heb. 3 and 4; and by way of a moral application, for correction, 1 Cor. 10:11, or for teaching, 1 Cor. 9:9. Therefore from this is indeed derived a varied use and benefit of Scripture, but not likewise a varied sense.

§ XLIX. Whether There Is, Besides Scripture, a Certain Infallible Standard for Interpreting It

From the obscurity and difficulty of some parts of Scripture arises the necessity of interpreting it. Concerning this it is disputed, first, over the standard according to which one must render judgment in interpreting Scripture; and then over the judge to whom it belongs to render judgment when a dispute arises over the sense of Scripture. As to the first point: whether, namely, besides and apart from Scripture, there is a certain infallible rule and standard by which to interpret Scripture? The orthodox, although they allow various aids and also rules for interpreting Scripture—such as the analogy of faith and of context, a diligent comparison of passages, or a mutual comparing of statements—nevertheless acknowledge no infallible rule and standard distinct from Scripture itself, as that which explains itself.

The reasons of the orthodox are: (1) Because we do not read that God has conferred that dignity and that power over His Word upon anyone. (2) Nothing outside of Scripture is of infallible truth, Ps. 116:11, as will easily appear from an enumeration—not the fathers, not the councils, etc. (3) It is unreasonable that the Holy Spirit and His sense and meaning should be tested by some other touchstone, 1 Cor. 2:11, 16. Finally (4), Scripture is the rule and standard of all else, Isa. 8:20; Gal. 6:16. Therefore nothing can be a standard for it, without the most shameful circularity.

§ L. The Established Opinion

The enthusiasts ascribe this honor to their own inspirations; the Socinians and Rationalists, as we have said, to reason. The Papists, in order the more securely to escape granting that Scripture is the supreme and infallible standard for interpreting itself, ascribe that honor and that right sometimes (A) to the fathers. But (1) they bring forward no proof texts for this. (2) The fathers could all, to a man, err, and have in fact erred, our own opponents themselves testifying to this. See Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei, Lib. III, c. 10. (3) The fathers themselves reject that dignity. (4) The parties themselves sometimes regard the fathers, even when they agree among themselves, as not worth a hair, as Rivet has shown, Critici Sacri, cap. 7. (5) Their writings have not always existed. (6) Moreover, of those writings that do exist, a great many are falsely counterfeited. (7) Nor do all the things demanded of those whose task and duty it is to interpret the sense of Scripture come to be consulted in those writings. Compare Rivet, Critici Sacri; also Dallaeus, De Usu et Abusu Patrum; Johannes Gerhard, Loci, I, cap. v.

(B) Sometimes they ascribe that honor and that right to the decrees of the Roman popes. So Stapleton says, Controversia 4, Quaest. 1, art. 3: "One ought not to believe God speaking in His written word, except through the mediation of the authoritative judgment of the Pope." Answer: 1. Let the parties prove this. We shall show the contrary in the following point of controversy. (C) Or to the decrees of the councils. Bellarmine, Controversia Generalis 4, Lib. 2; Council of Trent, Sess. 4. But (1) they constantly contradict one another. (2) They can err, and have erred. (3) They depart, through prejudices, quite often from the truth. (D) Or finally they ascribe that honor and that right to traditions, which we shall treat below with express intent and at length. The arguments, for and against, may be seen in Bellarmine, loc. cit., and in his opponent Ames, Bellarminus Enervatus, Tom. 2, cap. 5; Whitaker, Controversia Tertia, Quaest. 2, De Concil.

§ LI. Whether There Is on Earth a Certain Infallible Judge of Controversies

As to the second point: the question is (1) whether there is, among men, a visible judge of those controversies which concern the sense of Scripture and religion, in whose pronouncement and judgment the consciences of all must rest? This the orthodox deny. (1) Because it does not belong to men to have a power to judge, as though it were a royal and authoritative power, over God and divine things. (2) Because the judgment of every single individual, apart from that of Scripture itself, is subject to error, (3) and must therefore be tested and examined at the touchstone of Scripture, 1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:21, compared with Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; and therefore no one can be set up as judge without a shameful circularity.

(4) God alone is the author of Scripture, 2 Tim. 3:16, the supreme, indeed the sole, lawgiver in the Church, James 4:12, the one infallible teacher, Matt. 23:8, 10. (5) In both Testaments God ascribes that honor and that right to Scripture alone, when He continually refers us, in controversies that arise, to Scripture, Isa. 8:20; Luke 16:29; 2 Pet. 1:19; Deut. 17:10, etc.

§ LII. What the Papists Assert

The Jews of old had their high priests, by a divine institution, appointed solely from the family of Aaron, to whom the supreme oversight of religion belonged; who, however, are nowhere called judges of controversies concerning Scripture. And the heathen Romans had their chief priests, who originally derived from Numa Pompilius, according to the testimony of Livy, Lib. I. Festus says of these that they were judges and arbiters of divine and human affairs. The Muhammedans, too, have their Mufti, the chief overseer of their religion, from whom, says Busbequius, Epist. 3, they seek and obtain answers in doubtful matters, as from a Dodonaean oak.

The Papists, in order that their Pope, being the supreme judge in his own case, may sit secure, agree indeed in this, that there is, besides Scripture, on earth, a certain visible and infallible judge of controversies; but they are divided among themselves as to whether it is the Pope, or a general council, or the Pope together with the council? Then the further question arises, whether the mark of infallibility resides in the Pope, or in the council? And from this, further, whether the power of the Pope is spiritual alone, or also temporal? And all this, whether he holds it by himself, or only for the sake of the Church?

At all events, they all make the Pope the judge of controversies and the interpreter of the Scriptures, and this for these petty reasons: (1) Because that privilege formerly belonged to Moses and Aaron, Exod. 18:26; Deut. 17:8ff.; Eccl. 12:11; Hag. 2:12; Mal. 2:7; 2 Chron. 19:11—and, they say, the Pope is their successor. Answer: we deny both of these claims, as the very passages they cite fail to prove any such thing, as their own examination will show. (2) Because Peter formerly was, they say, the supreme judge of controversies, Matt. 16:19; John 21:16; Luke 22:32; Acts 15:7; Gal. 2:9—and, they say, the Pope is, by succession, Peter. Answer: we again deny both of these, nor do the passages cited prove it—let them only be examined.

(3) That the final judgment concerning controversies belongs to the visible Church. Answer: this is precisely the point in dispute; nor is it proven even in the passages cited, Matt. 18:17, 18. For that a certain judgment is ascribed to the Church in Matt. 18:17, we acknowledge; but not a final and infallible judgment, since it must itself be examined from Scripture, Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21. And Christ means the scribes and Pharisees, as sitting on the seat of Moses, to be heard only in so far as, and to the extent that, they teach in accordance with Moses. Compare the opponents of Bellarmine, Ames, and others.

§ LIII–LIV. Of the Public and the Private Judgment Concerning the Controversies

As for the judgment left to the private discretion of each individual, the reformed Church is charged by the Papists, in order to deflect this criticism from themselves, with making all sorts of reckless and private persons—even down to little women—judges of controversies. But this is wrongly and falsely said. For (1) they plainly deny that question, just as much as the Papists do. Therefore (2) the Papists impute this to them only through a shameless slander.

Meanwhile the Reformed do make (a) a distinction between a public and a private judgment; (b) they likewise posit a twofold public judgment: one which is simple and unqualified, self-authoritative and determinative, binding the consciences of men to belief—such a judgment they deny to exist on earth apart from Holy Scripture; or a judgment which is qualified by virtue of a ministerial calling, and which is discerning and declarative, showing what it finds, through a dutiful and proper examination, to be determined in Scripture, not binding further to belief than as it can show that it is indeed the word which sets this forth. (c) Finally, they call a private judgment the judgment of private individuals, for themselves alone, discerning and testing what is set before them, but not declaring anything to others by virtue of some particular calling.

How then, the Papists ask, shall controversies and disputes concerning religion be determined and settled? Answer: just as we deny that there is, for the judging of theological controversies, a certain visible power, royal and commanding, established in the Church, so we also hold that it is laid upon men by God as a duty to search the Scriptures; that likewise the gift of discernment is imparted, both publicly and privately; that it is also laid as a charge upon the pure and the simple, to promote the knowledge and practice of the known truth, according to the demand of their calling; and finally, that to this is attached the promise of guidance and blessing. And all these things, we hold, are, in the end, sufficient for the determining and settling of controversies.

§ LV. Of the Perfection of Scripture

Our next point of controversy with the Papists, therefore, concerns the perfection of Scripture. Here the question is (1) whether Scripture is so perfect that it contains within itself all the doctrines necessary for faith and life? The orthodox say yes, and chiefly for these reasons: (1) Because nothing ought to be added to Scripture, nor anything taken from it, Deut. 4:2; Gal. 1:8. (2) Because it declares the whole counsel of God concerning our salvation, Acts 20:27, compared with ch. 26:22. (3) Because it makes us perfect unto salvation, 2 Tim. 3:15–17. Compare what we brought forward above, § XI.

The Jews, for the sake of their oral law; the Muhammedans, in order to keep their Alkoran safe; the Papists, in order to secure their endless superstitions, which they cannot maintain from Scripture, by seeking help from elsewhere in some way, as well as to confirm the absolute sovereignty of the Pope—which the Pope, in commanding, forbidding, and giving counsel, could not so exercise, if everything necessary to believe and to do unto salvation were bound up within Scripture—deny that Scripture is a perfect standard of faith and morals.

The Papists contend with almost these trivial reasons: (1) They say that many things necessary to know are not contained in Scripture. For example, (a) what remedy there was under the Old Testament for girls against original sin; likewise, what remedy for boy infants who died before the day of circumcision? (b) In what way were some of the heathen saved under the Old Testament? (c) Scripture teaches nothing of the perpetual virginity of Mary. (d) Nothing concerning the observance and celebration of the Passover feast and of the Lord's Day. (e) Nothing, too, of infant baptism, etc.

We answer: either these things are not necessary to know unto salvation, as is the case with the third and fourth of the matters mentioned; or Holy Scripture does contain it—for example (a) Holy Scripture declares the general remedy against original sin to be the blood or the grace of Christ, under both Testaments, 1 John 1:7, compared with Acts 15:11, which was rather sealed than brought about by circumcision, Rom. 4:11. The very same answer can be applied to (b) as well. Also (c) we say that infant baptism appears in the New Testament: for it is expressly said there that baptism belongs to all who partake of the blood and Spirit of Christ, Acts 10:47, and that little children are partakers of the blood and Spirit of Christ, Luke 1:15; Jer. 1:5. We shall bring forward other proofs for this matter in their proper place.

The Papists say: (2) Many books of Scripture, which were truly canonical, are truly lost: from the Old Testament, for example, the books of Nathan and Gad, 1 Chron. 29:29; of Ahijah and Iddo, 2 Chron. 9:29; of Solomon, 1 Kings 4:32; as well as, from the New Testament, the letter to the Laodiceans, Col. 4:16, and one to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5:9. Answer: these were either not canonical, or they are not lost—in accordance with the ground of proof given in Matt. 5:18. The books of Nathan and Gad may possibly be found expressed, under names now omitted, in the histories of Samuel and of the Kings, which Ezra may have set down in his own book. That the writings of Solomon which have been lost were canonical, we deny.

An epistle to the Laodiceans we do not acknowledge: for the apostle mentions, in Col. 4:16, an epistle, not πρὸς Λαοδικεῖς, "to the Laodiceans," but ἐκ Λαοδικείας, "from Laodicea." If any epistle to the Corinthians is indeed lost, then it was not canonical; and that the apostle, in 1 Cor. 5:9, speaks of that very same first epistle, the article τῇ seems to indicate. And suppose there were indeed some canonical books lost (which we still strongly deny), it would nevertheless not rightly follow from this that there is an actual imperfection in Scripture, unless it were first shown that those books contained some doctrine necessary to salvation which the books that still remain to us do not contain.

(3) The parties go on to say further: either the individual books of Scripture are each in themselves perfect, and contain everything necessary to salvation; or they are all, taken together, perfect—not each book by itself, for then why so many? Not all together, since many of them are lost. Answer: the individual books are indeed substantially perfect, so far as they are sufficient for their own end and purpose, and for their own time; and the whole canon is perfect in an integral way—if not otherwise, then so far as it has gradually grown by the acquisition of books; at least, so far as it is now already perfect and complete. Besides, we have already rightly denied that any single canonical book has been lost.

(4) Their last proof is taken from traditions, which we shall treat presently.

§ LVI. Of Traditions, Human and Beside Scripture

The question now is whether there are, apart from and besides Scripture, some traditions of Christ and of the apostles, which would be the Word of God, and have equal authority with the written Word? The Reformed, although they allow tradition, by means of which Scripture itself has come down to us, as necessary, nevertheless allow no traditions which would be doctrines, precepts, and commandments, necessary beside Scripture. (1) Because Scripture is in every respect perfect, according to § XIX. (2) Because traditions are the teachings of men, which are condemned, Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:22, 23. (3) No examples of such traditions are brought forward by our opponents which we cannot readily dispel—for example, the things which we have noted in the preceding paragraph, concerning the remedy for original sin, etc. (4) Because the traditions of the Papists are (a) uncertain, since some maintain, while others deny, of one and the same tradition drawn from the ancients, that it is apostolic. (b) Contrary to the written Word of God. (c) Some of them trifling and laughable. (d) Changeable, since they are found to be read variously and changed, according to the circumstances of times, places, and persons.

§ LVII. Why the Papists Hold Traditions to Be Necessary

The Pharisees, with that same disposition and design which we have shown in the preceding controversy, maintained this firmly; and in like manner, following and alongside the Council of Trent, Sess. 4, the Papists likewise maintain it, with and for these rather weighty reasons. (1) The apostle appeals to tradition, 1 Cor. 15:3. Answer: the word "tradition" sometimes means a doctrine, taught in whatever manner, even though it be expressly contained in Scripture, 1 Cor. 11:23; 2 Thess. 2:15. So too 1 Cor. 15:3, as the doctrine there expressed is affirmed without contradiction.

(2) The apostles handed down some things by tradition; therefore they did not write those things, 1 Cor. 11:34. Answer: (A) this does not follow; that they handed something down, therefore they did not write it—since tradition (according to the immediately preceding answer) happens as much by writing as by the living voice. (B) Nor does it follow that, because the apostle handed down certain things which are not written in that letter, Scripture therefore nowhere teaches them; or, if he himself does not teach them there, that therefore no apostle or prophet has recorded them elsewhere. (C) Suppose he handed down what he did not write; by what reasoning will one maintain that those things are necessary to know unto salvation?

(3) Christ, they say, still had many things to tell the apostles, which they could not then bear, John 16:12. Answer: (a) traditions do not follow from this. (b) Christ made known to His own everything that He had heard from the Father, John 15:15, so that the Holy Spirit needed to do nothing else than to bring to their remembrance all that Christ had told them, John 14:26. (c) Therefore the Savior speaks here not of certain new doctrines still to be received, but of such doctrines as He Himself had often already taught, but which, because of the weakness of His disciples, had not been grasped—which they would afterward grasp, under the guidance of the Spirit who was to come.

(4) They say that Paul often speaks of a deposit entrusted to him, 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14; and likewise he commends to his own those things which had been heard from him, 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2. Answer: certainly not the Popish traditions, but he commends to his Timothy the whole body of sound doctrine, as clearly appears from 1 Tim. 6:20 and 2 Tim. 1:13, 14. (5) They allege that Paul was not willing to write of everything, but says that concerning many things he would give instructions when he should be present—τὰ λοιπά, "the remaining things," etc., 1 Cor. 11:34. Answer: he is not speaking of necessary articles of faith, but of the order which was to be observed in the congregations, of which they could, without loss of salvation, have remained ignorant.

(6) John, it is said, was unwilling to write everything with pen and ink, 2 John v. 12, and 3 John v. 13. Answer: would there then be some things necessary to salvation which are not contained in the whole Bible? (7) The apostle, they further say, has, without doubt, taken the names of the two magicians from tradition, since he neither had nor knew them from any records then at hand, nor by any inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 2 Tim. 3:8. Answer: (a) they were not articles of faith, necessary unto salvation. (8) They say further: we would not have the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and we would not know that the biblical books were written by those whose names they bear, except through the tradition of the Church, whether Jewish or Christian. Answer: we do have the tradition of that which is beside and apart from Scripture: the former we embrace, the latter we reject.

§ LVIII. Whether Scripture Is Now Necessary for the Church

The question is whether Scripture is now necessary for the Church? The enthusiasts deny this, since they claim that the illumination of some particular spirit is now enough for them. And the Papists, in order all the more to uphold the necessity of traditions, and to diminish the reading of Scripture, and to establish above all the necessity of the infallibility of the Pope, deny the necessity of the written Word; and moreover, for this reason too, in order all the more to exalt the necessity of the Roman Pope, on whose mouth we would then have to depend. And this with and for these reasons:

(A) For two thousand years, from Adam to Moses, religion was preserved by tradition alone: therefore Scripture is not simply and absolutely necessary. Answer: (1) We do not say that Scripture is simply and absolutely necessary; but rather, on the supposition of the will of God, who commands and enjoins His Word upon us, we say it has now been necessarily fulfilled; yet it does not follow from this that it is not now necessary, since that living voice of God no longer speaks as it once did. (2) At that time it was not necessary, while the living voice of God still held sway. (3) Religion was preserved, not so much by tradition, as by the living voice of God to and through the fathers.

They further object (B): when Scripture afterward came to exist, it belonged solely to the Jews, while meanwhile others, who did not belong to the Church, made use only of tradition—as Job with his friends; indeed even the Jews themselves made more use of tradition than of Scripture. Answer: (a) Job and his friends lived before the written Law of God, and had the living voice of God, as appears from the Book of Job. (b) With the godly living outside the visible Church of the Jews, God dealt in an extraordinary manner; but to deny, on this account, the ordinary necessity of Scripture would be just as if one wished, from the fact that Moses and Christ were sustained in an extraordinary manner without bread, to deny the necessity of food and drink. (c) We acknowledge that the Jewish Church—though not until the time of Christ, and a little before—through a most grievous corruption, which was very often rebuked by Christ, ascribed as much to the Talmudic traditions of the fathers as to Scripture; but the necessity of Scripture is no more rightly abolished by this than it would follow, from the most corrupt practice of the Papists, who set their traditions above Scripture, that it is therefore lawful for us to abolish the necessity of the Word of God.

The Papists say (C): after the coming of Christ, the Church was, for many years, without Scripture. Answer: (a) it was never, at least from Moses onward, without any Scripture at all, for it always had the Old Testament. (b) That it was for some time without the apostolic writings has come about because they first had to preach the Gospel with their living voice, and only afterward to write it down. (c) The living voice of the apostles, and thus of the Spirit himself, fulfilled that necessity, which, once it ceased, the doctrine of the apostles was immediately set down in writing—from which the necessity of Scripture is most strongly confirmed. On the contrary, the orthodox maintain the necessity of Scripture with many proofs, of which we have brought forward some above, § XX.

§ LIX. Whether Scripture Was Written Only on Occasional Circumstances, Without a Divine Command

The question is whether Scripture was written merely on occasional occasions, without a divine command? The Reformed hold, with the apostle, 2 Pet. 1:21, that the holy men of God spoke not of their own will, but as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. As proofs they bring forward (a) the command to teach all nations, over the whole earth—including those who would only afterward exist—until the consummation of the world, Matt. 28:19, 20; a thing which could scarcely be accomplished without any writing at all. (b) To some, God has, by an express command, laid the necessity of writing—for example, to Moses, Exod. 17:14 and 34:27, and elsewhere; to Isaiah, ch. 8:1; to Jeremiah, ch. 30; to Habakkuk, ch. 2:2; to John, Rev. 1:11.

To all, in place of an express command, there was the inspiration, 2 Tim. 3:16, and the driving of the Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21. (c) They were faithful ambassadors of Christ, 1 Cor. 4:1, 2, whose office and duty it is not to do anything without a command—whence some had a necessity to write, Jude v. 3—namely, all who indeed wrote. The Papists, in order to weaken the necessity of Scripture, but to exalt that of the Pope, and to draw the common people away from Scripture and to the Pope, deny the necessity of Scripture, and that with nearly these arguments.

(A) If it had been the intention of the prophets and apostles to write out the doctrine of religion deliberately and at length, they would, without doubt, have made a catechism, or some similar book; but they did not do this; therefore, etc. Answer: (a) this entails no such consequence at all. (b) The second premise is false; for are not the epistles to the Romans, the Ephesians, etc., catechetical instructions and theological treatises? And likewise the sayings and maxims of Scripture which indicate the catechetical headings, Mark 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:13; Titus 3:8, and especially Heb. 6:1, 2.

(B) Writing was not commanded to the apostles. Answer: we have already, just now, as well as above § XX, abundantly taught the contrary. (C) The apostles wrote out of the necessity of occurring circumstances, but not out of the necessity of a divine command; therefore, etc. Answer: subordinate causes do not conflict; they wrote at the command of Christ, as the principal moving cause, and on occurring occasion, as the lesser moving cause.

§ LX. Whether Scripture Should Rather Be Called a Useful Admonitory Writing than a Perfect Rule of Faith and Life

From this arises another question: whether Scripture ought rather to be called a certain useful admonitory writing, than a perfect rule of faith and morals? The Papists, in order to seek the perfect rule of faith and life, not in Scripture, but with the Pope, and further to lead and draw those whom they have drawn away from Scripture to the Pope, choose the former, for these trivial reasons: (A) Because the proper and chief end of Scripture is to give a certain admonition or exhortation, in order to preserve the faith, Rom. 15:4; 2 Pet. 1:13 and 3:1; and also because the style of Scripture is thoroughly admonitory and comforting. Answer: subordinate and coordinate things do not conflict. Scripture is an admonitory writing; therefore it is not likewise a rule—that does not follow: for it is also called a rule, Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:16.

(B) A rule, they say, must necessarily be commensurate with, and equal to, that which is regulated—that is, it must contain all those things, and only those things, which pertain to salvation. But this by no means fits Scripture, because traditions besides it are still further required; therefore, etc. Answer: that the second premise is false, we have taught above, § V; and that traditions are not necessary, § LVI. (C) A rule, they further allege, is a continuous, sequential work; Scripture is no such work, for it contains various histories, sermons, prophecies, poems, letters. Answer: the first premise is true of a rule properly so called, or a technical, architectural rule and standard; but Scripture is called a rule only in a figurative sense, just as the Church is often called a house, a building, a foundation, and so forth.

The Reformed hold the latter position, for reasons already brought forward above, §§ IV, V; and we shall add nothing further, except only this: that otherwise we would not have any divine rule for living unto God, and consequently neither a divine faith, nor a divine obedience; for where God does not speak, there we cannot believe either; and where God does not command, there we cannot obey either: but God speaks nowhere except in the Scriptures. If you say that what God speaks in an admonitory writing, that He does indeed speak—so, too, I shall answer; but those things which, besides these admonitions, must be believed and practiced, God would not be speaking at all, so that admonitory writing would not be a perfect rule of what one must believe and do. Wherefore the Papists are wretched, and especially their common people, to whom the reading of Scripture is forbidden: since they have no divine rule at all by which one must believe and obey God—while the Pope, after all, is not God.

The Practical Part

§ LXI. Four Practical Uses Concerning Scripture

It stands firm, then, against parties of every kind, that Scripture is an entirely perfect rule and standard for living unto God. Wherefore, for the first practical use, it is altogether the duty of teachers and preachers to impress and urge the divine authority of Scripture upon their own people, often and earnestly, from the pulpit and in preaching—and not, as is nevertheless commonly done, to presuppose it merely as an unquestioned first principle. That is to say, that men may receive Scripture, not as the word of man, but, as it truly is, as the Word of God, 1 Thess. 2:13.

Let them consider: (1) that this is the very first foundational principle of Christianity, the first thing which one must accept and know: "knowing this first," etc., 1 Pet. 1:20—wherefore it also, in most of the prophecies, sufficiently occupies the first place: "The word of the LORD which came unto..." Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jonah 1:1; Micah 1:1; and likewise, "Thus says the LORD," Obad. v. 1, etc. (2) And that Scripture is not only the first principle of religion, but also its only support and foundation, Eph. 2:20, which, before all other things, must be well and firmly and soundly laid by any spiritual builder, 1 Cor. 3:10, "As a wise master builder I have laid the foundation," etc.

(3) Indeed, such a foundation, without which there can be neither faith nor obedience in the hearers. For what is faith, but to assent, because God says it? If you are not persuaded and convinced that God has said what is found only in Scripture, where then shall faith remain? Again: what is obedience, but to do what God has commanded? If, therefore, you are not certain that God has said those things which are commanded in Scripture, how shall you obey? Wherefore Paul says, 1 Thess. 2:13, "You received it, not as the word of men, but, as it truly is, [as] the word of God, which also works effectually in you who believe."

(4) The more vividly this principle is impressed upon the hearers, the more will their whole Christianity, the practice of good works, the fleeing of sin, and so forth, live and grow within them, and so a greater harvest will result from all our labor. (5) Let us consider how great is the number of those who either do not know, or even deny, this authority of the Scriptures—not only outside the enclosure wall of the Christian Church, but even within its very bowels! How great, too, the number of those who cavil at it! How great, finally, the number of those who doubt it! Not to mention that scarcely anyone, however sincere a Christian he may be, is found in whom, at times, some small doubts do not likewise arise.

§ LXII. The Manner and Way of Establishing and Urging the Divine Authority of Scripture

The manner and way, now, of establishing and urging the divine authority of the Scriptures comprises these three points: (A) That teachers and preachers instruct their people by what means the divine authority of Holy Scripture can be known to us—namely (1) by the marks of divinity which have been impressed by God upon Scripture; namely (1) the sublime divinity of the matters described; (2) the most exact agreement of all its parts; (3) the lowly and humble majesty of the writing itself, breathing everywhere and on every side a divine quality—compare §§ IV, XXII, XXIII, XXX, XXXI.

(II) By the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 2:12—yet by no means a Quakerish persuasion, which would, as it were, impart and infuse that truth into our understanding and mind directly; but an illuminating persuasion, whereby the very power of understanding and comprehending is raised up and enlightened, so as to be able to see and perceive those marks of divinity which God has impressed upon Scripture. (III) By the testimony of the Church, as a certain secondary and subordinate means.

(B) That teachers and preachers press the origin and authority of Scripture against the heathen, and against heathenishly-minded false Christians, and confirm it with unshaken and unwavering proofs, whereby the whole congregation of hearers will be exceedingly strengthened in this principle and foundation of Christianity. These arguments we have partly brought forward above, §§ XXII, XXIII. (C) That they carefully remove from those who doubt all their misgivings, of which kind are (1) those which concern the divinity of Scripture itself: namely, whether Scripture is with full certainty the Word of God?

The cause of this doubting is with reason regarded as chiefly the yielding to known sins, or to sins against conscience: for through this it easily and generally happens that, in order to escape the pronouncement and sentence of Scripture against our sins, we call into doubt the authority that belongs to it. The external causes are the apparent contradictions, and the seemingly impossible things, which occur to us in Scripture; from which then their general truth and divine authority begins to waver within and among us. These causes we shall then remove, if we abstain most carefully from all known sins.

But then also, if we (1) call to our aid the commentators, who have untied and resolved the apparent contradictions and other difficulties, etc.—namely Junius, Spanheim, Walaeus, Maimonides, and others. If we (2) consider that, in that age, there were other customs, habits, proverbs, idioms of speech, and so forth, and that it is therefore no wonder if it does not come quite so easily and readily to us to grasp these things. (3) Finally, let us far rather blame the slowness and dullness of our own understanding, than the ingenious subtlety of Scripture, 2 Cor. 10:5.

(II) Teachers and preachers must also remove the difficulties and doubts of their people concerning the testimony of the Holy Spirit, since without it (according to the theologians) no one is assured, or can be persuaded and assured, of the divinity of Scripture; and if, for example, I have never felt that testimony, and still do not feel it—how shall I rightly believe the divinity of Scripture? We answer in a word: that testimony of the Holy Spirit does not consist in some sort of enthusiasm, which would, as it were, whisper and instill into our understanding this proposition and pronouncement, "Scripture is from God"; but in an illumination and elevation of our understanding, whereby we know, discern, and recognize the marks of divinity which have been impressed in Scripture by God—in which way the Spirit, as it were, bears witness together with our spirit, Rom. 8:16.

Therefore, if we acknowledge and grasp the marks of divinity, and, by means of them, the divine authority of Scripture, then we shall likewise, in retrospect, be certain of the testimony of the Holy Spirit—in the same way as we rightly conclude, from the perceiving and judging of objects, that we have the faculty of sight. (III) Concerning the agreement of the translations with their original texts. For although I may indeed be certain of the truth and divinity of the original texts, how shall I be certain of the faithfulness of the translations, since the original languages are inaccessible to me?

Answer: (1) All the translations, although they differ in not a few small particulars, and also in some respects fall short, nevertheless agree with their original texts in the essential matters which properly concern our salvation. (2) This can be clear, even to those who are unacquainted with the original languages, from the testimony of those who are masters of those languages, even though they themselves are utterly estranged from the Christian faith—from the testimony, I say, of Jews, Turks, heretics, and so forth; and although the testimony of these is not divine, it is nevertheless morally certain and infallible: which external testimony the Holy Spirit (3) seals, as it were, inwardly with a seal, leading His own into all truth, John 16:13. For if any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, John 7:17.

Therefore (4), although those who are unacquainted with the original languages do not have a linguistic certainty of this correspondence, and thus not a certainty of knowledge, they nevertheless have a certainty which is spiritual, and of faith.

§ LXIII. The Second Use: Concerning the Love of God's Word

The second practical use, therefore, touches in general all who care to live unto God: that they should (1) love and highly esteem this, His only rule, Ps. 119:127; 2 Thess. 2:10. This love for the Word of God consists (I) in a favorable disposition toward, and affection for, Scripture—an affection so devoted and willing that we reverence Scripture just as we would God Himself, as if He spoke to us with His own mouth; namely, that we honor the commands with such great submission; the prohibitions with such great carefulness and aversion; the promises with such great desire, longing, and yearning; and finally the threats with such great fear and concern, as if we had God Himself present with us, speaking such things, 1 Thess. 2:13.

(II) In a vehement desire and longing after that Word, as of one who is hungry after food (for it is the food of the soul), and that with as constant, persistent, and daily fresh a desire as for eating and for drinking, 1 Pet. 2:2; Job 23:12; Ps. 119, throughout. (III) In an earnest and untiring endeavor to acquire, for oneself, an abundant knowledge of the Word, and to make use of it and enjoy it, as a thing on which the life and the salvation of our soul turns, Col. 3:16; Amos 8:12; Ps. 42:1, 2; John 6:17. (IV) In a delight and sweetness in and from the use of Holy Scripture, Ps. 1:1, 2 and 19:10; 2 Cor. 2:15.

(V) In a hating, fleeing, and abhorring of everything which, in any way, is contrary and hostile to Scripture, or which seeks to take away or diminish its use, enjoyment, and benefit, Ps. 119:104, 113, 128, 136, and 31:7. (VI) Finally, in a godly concern and anxious fear, lest at any time the candlestick of God's Word be removed from us and from our posterity, Rev. 2:5; Amos 8:12.

§ LXIV. Seven Reasons Which Ought to Move Us to Love Scripture

The reasons which can and ought to move us to love and cherish the Word of God are more than one, and are taken (A) from its origin and author, who is not some ordinary man, a wise or great man, or any worldly prince or monarch, but the King of kings, the Lord of lords, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the most mighty and most gracious God, 2 Tim. 3:16—wherefore it is called the oracle, or the words of God, Rom. 3:2; of Christ, Phil. 3:16; of the Holy Spirit, Acts 28:25; 2 Pet. 1:21.

If, then, we love the writings of godly and wise men, why should we not much more love the writings of the wisest and most gracious God? Especially since all human writings are filled with falsehoods, vanity, ignorance, and the like—whereas, on the contrary, the words of God are (a) in every respect perfect and satisfying, far from vanity, Ps. 19:7, 8; (b) most wise, ibid., v. 7, 9; (c) most pure and most refined, Num. 12:3; Ps. 12:6.

(B) From the instruments and writers—men who were, in every way, the best: for example Moses, the meekest of all men, Num. 12:3, with whom God, for this very reason, also dealt and spoke face to face, Exod. 33:11; Solomon, the wisest of kings, 1 Kings 3:12; David, who was a man after God's own heart, Acts 13:22; Paul, that chosen vessel of God to and among the Gentiles, Acts 9:15. In a word, in general, men of God, driven by the Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21.

(C) From the doctrines, or the matters contained, which are exceedingly excellent, and at the same time exceedingly profound: for example concerning God, his attributes, persons, works, his divine counsels and decrees; concerning the fall, redemption, calling, regeneration, justification, adoption to sonship, sanctification, and glorification of man; concerning the covenant of God with man, and its most wise administration through so many centuries; and concerning the duties of man toward God, his neighbor, and himself, in prosperity as in adversity, in living and in dying, and so forth—matters which are truly worthy, and in the highest degree necessary, to be known.

(D) From the form and composition—arranged and interwoven, with the most beautiful variety, among commands and examples, precepts and prohibitions, promises and threats—all of it most fittingly ordered for practice and for salvation. (E) From the end, or the uses, which are likewise most excellent and abundant: wherefore Scripture is also called profitable, not merely for some matters, but for all, so that thereby the man of God may be perfect, and fully equipped for every good work.

(F) From its power and efficacy, whence a strength is ascribed to it, Rom. 1:16; James 1:21, and an efficacy, Heb. 4:12; 1 Thess. 2:13. And this is no common power, but one for the life and salvation of the soul—wherefore Scripture is called a word of grace, Acts 14:3 and 20:32; likewise a word of reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5:19; a word of life, John 6:68; Phil. 2:16; of salvation, Acts 13:26; Heb. 2:3. Nor is this a slight or trifling power, but exceedingly great, wherefore it is compared to the most powerful and mightiest things: for example, to fire, Jer. 5:14; Luke 24:32; to water, Isa. 55:10; Deut. 32:2; to a hammer, Jer. 23:29; to a two-edged sword, Heb. 4:12, and so on.

Indeed, its power and efficacy is also of many kinds and various: (a) it enlightens the understanding, Ps. 19:8, 9; Acts 8:31; Ps. 119:17, 18. (b) It sanctifies the heart, John 17:17. (c) It converts the soul, Ps. 19:8. (d) It regenerates, James 1:18. (e) It kindles faith, Rom. 10:17; Gal. 3:5. (f) It penetrates and discovers the hidden thoughts of the heart, Heb. 4:12, 13; 1 Cor. 14:23, 24, 25. (g) It strengthens and empowers, 1 John 2:14, so that we can overcome all things—the world, the devil, and so forth. (h) It comforts, Rom. 15:4. (i) It guides and directs on the way, Ps. 119:17, and so forth.

(G) From its absolute necessity, on which we have already spoken above, § XX.

§ LXV. The Manner in Which One Must Love the Word

The manner, now, in which one must love and cherish the Word of God. For it is not enough to love it; one must love it rightly. Even hypocrites sometimes love God's Word, in such a way that they hear and receive it with much emotion and affection, indeed even show themselves obedient to it in many things, Matt. 13:20, 21; Mark 6:20; Isa. 58:2; Heb. 6:5. Let this affection and disposition, therefore, be: (a) sincere, deep, and inward, Matt. 13:5, 21—not remaining only on the lips, so that we merely say it, nor only in outward gestures, that we merely go through the motions of hearing, reading, and so forth; but rooted in the heart, such as is generally displayed throughout Psalm 119, and by the travelers to Emmaus, Luke 24:32. (b) Steadfast, constant, and enduring, daily fresh and never growing stale, as happens with hunger and thirst, Ps. 1:2. (c) And rising by an ever-ascending degree, surpassing every other love: namely, that the Word of God be sweeter to us than any honey, more precious and more costly than the purest gold, Ps. 19:10; Ps. 119:14, 72, 111. (d) Universal, extending itself to every part of the Word, Ps. 111:7, and not only to the Gospel and its promises, but also to the Law and its threatenings; and not only to those things which are pleasant and easy for us, but also to those things which are burdensome and hard for us, Jer. 42:5, 6; and most of all to those things which are most contrary to our sins.

Let it likewise be such a love as (1) stirs us up to thankfulness toward God, that He has given us His Word, whereby we (a) acknowledge with the heart the goodness of the Benefactor and the excellence of the benefit, Ps. 147:19, 20; (b) praise both of these with the mouth, in that same place, and throughout the whole of Psalm 119; (c) repay them with deed and with works, namely with faith and obedience to those things which are revealed in the Word, Heb. 4:2; Jer. 42:5, 6, etc. (2) Such a love as also drives us to the exercise of God's Word, Ps. 1:2, which consists in its devout (a) reading, (b) hearing, (c) meditation, (d) obeying—of which more in what follows. (3) Such a love as also kindles in us a love, reverence, maintenance, and support for those who proclaim and expound that Word of God to us, 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 5:17; Gal. 6:6.

§ LXVI. The Means Effective for Kindling This Love

The means which are effective for kindling this love are the following. (1) A frequent and godly consideration of God's Word, whereby its excellence, usefulness, and necessity may become more and more known and apparent to you. For what is unknown is unloved. Let one add to this (2) prayer, that God would enlighten the understanding, to behold the wonders of His Law, Ps. 119:18, and that He would kindle in the will a desire after the Word—which the psalmist, in that same psalm, very often asks of God for himself. (3) A zeal and diligence to advance and grow from the Word of God. For just as the harvest awakens in the farmer a love for the field and for the land, so too does the fruit of God's Word. (4) Finally, a lively and powerful ministry of the Word does much to kindle love for the Word. Let such a ministry, therefore, be sought after, be desired, and so forth.

§ LXVII. What Is Contrary to This Love

Contrary to this love stand: (1) the disdain and low esteem of God's Word, Jer. 6:10; 8:9; Amos 2; Matt. 23:27; 2 Chron. 36:16. (2) Hatred, Job 21:14, whereby we shut our ears against it, Ps. 58:5, 6. (3) Disgust and aversion toward it, Job 21:14; Num. 21:5; Prov. 3:11. (4) The neglect of it, and resistance offered to it. (5) An utter rejection of it, Isa. 5:24. Concerning which abominable sins God threatens and proclaims the severest judgments, Jer. 6:19; 7:13; Zeph. 1:12; Matt. 23:37, 38; Amos 8:11, 12, and so forth.

§ LXVIII. The Fourth Use: The Practice and Exercise of the Word

From this love follows the fourth use, namely, the practice of it. Contained under this are the following matters. (1) Hearing, Neh. 8:1–7; Luke 10:38(?); Rom. 10:17. (2) Reading, Deut. 17:18; Josh. 1:8. (3) The searching out, John 5:39, and the ruminating upon it, Ps. 119:97, 148, compared with Lev. 11:3. (4) The testing and proving of it, Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1. (5) A consulting with, and taking counsel of, those more skilled, in more obscure matters, Deut. 17:8; Matt. 13:36. (6) A mutual conversation and questioning among believers concerning it.

Such an exercise is required (A) by the divine command, both of the Old and of the New Testament. From the Old Testament there serve here very many passages—for example, Deut. 6:6–9; Josh. 1:8, 9; Isa. 8:20; Ps. 1:2; and from the New Testament, John 5:39; Col. 3:16; Jude v. 17. Such an exercise is also urged (B) by examples: both biblical—as of David, Ps. 119; of Job, ch. 23; of the eunuch, Acts 8:28; of the Bereans, Acts 17:11; of Timothy, 2 Tim. 3:14, 15—and ecclesiastical, as of Hilarion (Magdeburg Centuries, IV, cap. 10), of Johannes the Egyptian (apud Baronius, ad Ann. 309), and of the Waldensians, who, for example, knew Job, the Psalms, and the Proverbs by heart with the greatest exactness. Indeed, that even princes have taken delight in reading Holy Scripture is not uncertain from history—for example, Elizabeth, Queen of England, and her sister; likewise Alfonso, King of Aragon.

Such an exercise is also urged (C) by these further considerations: (1) the worthiness and excellence of the matter itself, which we have chiefly set forth, in Book I, § XXXIII, and in this chapter, § LXII. (2) The pleasantness and sweetness of this exercise, Ps. 119:14, 15, 16, 70, 72, 103; Jer. 15:16; Rev. 10:9, 10. (3) Its usefulness above all other exercises, as the passages already cited show. Compare 1 Tim. 4:8, whence it is said in the Talmud, Sanhedrin, that man was created ‫לעמל תורה‬, for the work of the Law. (4) Its necessity, since without this exercise we cannot live unto God, neither here through grace, nor hereafter in glory: for Holy Scripture is, according to our stated principle, the only rule for living unto God; therefore this exercise of it is likewise necessary.

And nature teaches it, when it acknowledges God to be (1) one, along with four other things, and on that account good (for the terms one, being, reason, and good are interchanged among the Philosophers); and indeed a first, and thus also a highest and supreme Being; therefore also a first and supreme good. (2) A perfect Being, and hence desirable and communicable, in which the summit of goodness consists. (3) Through and to all, the Author and origin of all their goodness (since there is nothing which has its goodness of itself), and hence good of Himself; for what you do not have, you cannot communicate to others. (4) That He contains, as it were, all kinds of good or goodness: the useful good, insofar as He spreads His perfection and goodness over all things; the pleasant and delightful good, as one in whose possession, fellowship, and enjoyment consists all the satisfaction of pleasure and joy, Ps. 16:11; 34:9; the honorable good, as one who, by His holiness, is the example, rule, and origin of all holiness. Wherefore Augustine says: God alone is unchangeably good; He alone is the good of all good; He alone is the cause of all goodness, before whatever is good (De natura boni). Likewise (De Trinit. Lib. VIII, c. 3), having mentioned various kinds of goodness in creatures, he continues: Take this and that away; behold the good itself, if you can; thus you shall see God, who is not good by another good, but is the good of all good, etc. There would be no communicable good, if there were not itself an incommunicable good. When therefore you hear of this and that good, which can also otherwise be called not-good, if you, apart from those things, shall be able to grasp those things which, by participation in the good, are good, then you grasp and understand, at the same time, Him also, when you hear of this or that good. If you, therefore, those things being set aside, shall be able to see through the good by itself, then you shall be able to see through and fully comprehend God — and not, as those things are good. Over Ps. 134: The Lord is good; but not as those things are good which He has made: heaven and earth, and all that is in them, He has made good; He Himself is properly that good, from which all other good proceeds, for He Himself has made all things good; He Himself is good, whom no one has made; He is good through His own goodness, not through a good communicated from elsewhere; He has needed no one, by whom He should be made good; but all other things have needed Him, that they might become good. These things I have set forth a little more fully, that you might perceive the great difference between created and uncreated good.

V.

Meanwhile there seem to be objections and contrary arguments against the Divine Goodness: (1) That He is not desired by all; indeed, that He is neglected and shunned by most. Answer: He is nonetheless, by and on account of His nature, desirable, and deserves to be desired by all; but that He is not desired by all is not on account of a lack of goodness, but on account of the abundance of His avenging Righteousness, on account of which they think of Him as a stern avenger of their sins. (2) That He does not communicate His goodness to all — not to the reprobate — though the good is nevertheless of itself communicative. Answer: (1) He communicates to all, though what, and how much, and how great, He wills. (2) Because He is good through His Essence, He cannot fail to have an aversion to evil and to the evil, and hence He cannot communicate Himself to them. Not to mention (3) that He is for Himself alone infinitely good — for otherwise He would necessarily preserve all by His nature. Meanwhile He is (4) good to all in some measure, insofar as He bears with, sustains, feeds, and nourishes them, as long as they exist, and brings to them all that they have, freely, even against some of their merit. But (3) one says that God is said, Ps. 18:26, to be, with the perverse, a wrestler (a perverse one). Answer: The inference is denied: for the intent is to show that God, by His righteousness, adapts Himself in His judgments to the perverse ways of the perverse, without the least perversity Himself.

VI.

Further, the good, in the concept, gives us to understand that which agrees with the inclination of the one who wills — whether it be truly good, or not, as we have seen in the preceding Chapter. But the true good (always, as Aristotle, though less exactly, holds) is that which all desire: better, that which, on account of the perfection of its Nature, is desirable, and deserves to be desired, and which can communicate itself. Thus that in that which is good, three things concur: (1) A certain essential Perfection, on account of which it deserves to be called good. (2) A power to communicate its Perfection, on account of which it is itself called a useful good. (3) A relation of these two to desire, on account of which it is called desirable. Hence one counts a threefold good. (1) A metaphysical or essential good, which each single Being has, insofar as it is a Being — that perfection, namely, which has been brought to it by its cause, on account of which it can be desired. And this perfection has no evil opposed to it. (2) A physical good, which the Being has as such a Being which is fitted for the use and benefit of some other — that perfection, namely, whereby it is fit for its use, whether for a general use and benefit, which thus gives welfare to the Whole; or for a particular use and benefit, which it can bring to this one or to that one in particular. Thus a medicine is called good, which serves and is useful for health. Opposed to this stands the useless and unfit, or also the harmful. (3) A moral good, which has place as something rational, insofar as it conforms to a rule; opposed to which are a defect, a crime, and a sin.

VII.

In particular, God's Goodness is nothing other than that perfection of His by which He can communicate Himself, and deserves to be desired, and also must be desired. It accordingly includes in itself three points: (1) His infinite Perfection, which is made known to us through and by all His attributes, whereby He is אל שדי, God All-sufficient, God Almighty, Gen. 17:1 — sufficient for all, and that indeed unto an infinite blessedness; whereby He is good in Himself, and goodness itself, Ps. 25:8; Exod. 33:19, in whom there is no evil, Deut. 32:4. (2) A Power to communicate Himself when He wills, and insofar as He wills, whence He is called good and doing good, Ps. 119:68, whereby He distributes His goodness, as it were piecemeal, to all sorts of creatures — to the irrational, to men, to the elect, Ps. 36:6, 11; 57:4, 11; 104:24; 119:64. (3) The relation, which rests and leans upon the two preceding points as its foundation, whereby He is desirable, and must in every way be desired or sought, Ps. 42:3; 63:2; 2:12; 34; 69:7, 33; 119:2, 10.

VIII.

God's Goodness may accordingly be considered, either as it is in God, indwelling, and thus it is (1) His very Essence, and essential to Him — whereas the greater part of the goodness of creatures is accidental, coming from outside, and again separable. (2) Independent, whence He is called the fountain of life, Ps. 36:10, thus being good through His own Goodness — whereas all creatures are good through His Goodness, namely by communication, by way of gift, Ps. 144:2. (3) Most simple, whence He is called Goodness itself, Rom. 11:22, a pure sincere Goodness, without any admixture of any imperfection or evil, Ps. 92:15; a Light, in which is no darkness, 1 John 1:5 — whereas in creatures there is no goodness without evil, or at least without imperfection. (4) Infinite and unconditioned, Ps. 57:11, capable of no increase or decrease, above all that we can comprehend or think, Eph. 3:18, 19 — whereas creatures are never so good but that they can become better. (5) Eternal, 1 Chron. 16:34, 41, and throughout the Psalms — without beginning, without flourishing, without end — whereas the goodness of creatures, since it consists of a beginning, and is subject to a flourishing, has an end, or at least can have one. Accordingly (6) great, indeed very great, indeed the highest and greatest, Neh. 9:25; Ps. 31:20 — whereas that of creatures, whatever it be, is but a drop, Isa. 40:15.

IX.

Again, God's Goodness may be considered as it is, going out toward creatures, through beneficence. And so God's Goodness is the cause of all created Goodness, and that indeed (1) as an Exemplary Cause, insofar as He expresses Himself, and displays and represents His infinite perfection, as it were in parts and portions — so that even all the irrational creatures bear some footprint of Him, and the rational are His image, Gen. 1:26. (2) The Efficient Cause, ibid. v. 31, since the creature owes all its Goodness to God, James 1:17. (3) The Final Cause, Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36, insofar as all creatures either strive, desire, and long for Him, Ps. 42:3, or are governed and directed toward Him, Ps. 19:2.

X.

God's Goodness now passes over to creatures in a various and differing manner: (1) In general, to all, by creating, sustaining, governing, adorning them, Ps. 36:7 and 147:9. (2) In common, to men without distinction, elect and reprobate, 1 Tim. 4:10, by heaping upon them various common benefits, Rom. 2:4; 1 Tim. 6:17. (3) In particular, to the elect, Ps. 36:8 and 73:1, by communicating to them saving goods, Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3, 4. In which manner God's Goodness, according to its various relation, takes on various names — of love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, patience, kindness, beneficence — of which more at large in the following Chapter.

The Polemical Part.

XI.

God's Goodness, which fills heaven and earth, is so noble and so renowned that there are found none, not only among Christians, Jews, Muhammedans, but even among the Heathen, however barbarous, who by confession blaspheme it — wherefore, as regards the refutation, we shall be brief.

The question is asked: (1) Whether they are not insane who imagine God as evil? It is said that among the Indians there are found some who worship the Devil, that he may do them no evil or harm, and thus, by worshipping him, make him a god. The Cerdonians, Marcionites, and Manichaeans believed, of old, in a certain independent principle of evil, as of the good; foolishly dreaming that the Author of the Law and the Prophets was not good nor righteous, and they also called that principle of evil, as well as the principle of good, God, according to the testimony of Augustine (Ad Quod vult Deum, Haeres. XXI). The Reformed judge that whoever calls God evil is foolish and mad, because they call something God which is not God. For God is a most perfect Being, and goodness is, without any doubt, a perfection. If you say: but you Christians also acknowledge a principle of evil, namely Satan: I answer, yes, we do indeed acknowledge it, but we do not acknowledge, as the Cerdonians, Marcionites, and Manichaeans did, an independent principle of evil; hence we acknowledge no principle of evil which is God.

XII.

The question is asked: (2) Whether those who do not acknowledge God to be the highest and supreme Good do not thereby deny that He is God? The heathen Philosophers, disputing among themselves with great diversity concerning the highest Good, some placed it in the goods of fortune — riches, offices, pleasures; others in the goods of the body — health, strength, beauty; others in the goods of the soul and mind — wisdom, virtue, courage, tranquility of mind; so that Varro reckoned there were more than two hundred opinions as to what the highest Good was — no one among which acknowledged the highest Good to be God, without doubt because they, being blinded and made foolish by sin, did not confess God alone to be good. And what is this, finally, but with the very deed to deny that God is God? What else than to set up the wretched riches, the empty honors, the vile pleasures, the foolish wisdom, and the barren, unfruitful, cold virtue, upon the throne of God — that our Apostle rightly pronounces of them, that, knowing God, and not glorifying Him as God, they became vain and foolish in their reasonings, and that their darkened heart was made foolish, so that they exchanged and suppressed the truth of God for a lie, Rom. 1:21, 25.

XIII.

The question is asked: (3) Whether those do not very badly abuse the Divine Goodness, who, from the fact that one is said to be good, God, deny that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is good, and hence deny that He is God from eternity? The Socinians — that they might, by His own testimony, cast the Son of God down from the throne of eternal Godhead, and thereby, at the same time, deny the Divinity and the Satisfaction of Christ — twist Christ's own testimony against Christ, asserting that Christ, in the text, rebukes the young man for having called Him good, while He denies that He is God: Therefore, they say, since He denies that He is good — since no one is good, but one, namely God — at least He is not held to be that highest Good, as God is. The Reformed hold this to be a shameful distortion of the meaning of Christ against Himself; that Christ does not deny that He is good, nor that He is the highest good, and that He does not rebuke the young man for that reason, for these reasons: (1) For whether one considers Christ as man, He was so good that He knew no sin, 2 Cor. 5:21; that there was no deceit in His mouth, Isa. 53:9; or as God-man, He was good even more so, and it would imply a contradiction that He not be good — He was that good Shepherd, John 10:11; or as God, He was good in the highest degree, indeed the highest good. (2) His most bitter enemies themselves, though challenged, could not accuse Him of even a single fault, at least not with justice, John 8:46. Indeed, moreover, (3) they extol Him also as good, as truthful, one who taught the way of God in truth... Matt. 22:16. Furthermore (4) He Himself is the one through whom God distributes all good, Eph. 1:4, apart from whom no good, no salvation, can come to us, Acts 4:12. Indeed also (5) He is, as the Socinians themselves acknowledge, the true God and eternal life, 1 John 5:20. And would He, being such, rebuke the young man for calling Him good? Would He deny that He was good? Meanwhile: (1) They say, He rebuked him because he called Him good. Answer: Christ certainly rebukes him, yet not because he called Him good, but because he perhaps called Him so with a flattering and fawning mind; or, which I would rather hold, because he called Him good, as God alone is, while yet he did not believe that He was God. But our opponents say: (2) They do not say that He denied that He was good, but that He is God, because He is not so good, as God is good. Answer: (a) Christ rebukes the young man, not because he called Him God, but because he called Him good, whom he did not hold to be God. And (b) if He rebukes him for this reason, that he held Him for God and the highest Good — while the young man said nothing else than merely, good Master — whence would the Savior have known and understood that he held Him for God, and for the highest good, if He had not been God? Since God alone is the searcher of hearts, Jer. 17:9, 10, just as He alone is good. If He, therefore, were God, and supremely good, as God is, with what right would He have rebuked the young man for calling and praising Him as such? Similar to what we have long since had concerning this matter, in the Explanatory Part.

XIV.

The question is asked: (4) Whether God's Goodness requires that He should will that all men, and each one in particular, be saved, and that, to that end, He should give His Son for all and each alike, to be a Savior? The controversy, whether God wills that all and each one be saved, we have already long since disputed and dealt with in the preceding Chapter; and we now ask nothing other than this: whether His Goodness requires and demands this? The Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, Jesuits, and Remonstrants (being taken with a perverse love for the doctrine of God's general will to save each one alike, the efficacy of which would depend upon man's independent free will) say yes; but the Reformed say no: (1) Because God is indeed so good, and so self-communicating, that He is nonetheless a most free and most wise Being, who, according to His wisdom, distributes His goodness most sovereignly. (2) If He, through His Goodness, necessarily willed that all and each one be saved, then He could not, by and on account of that same goodness, will the demonstration of His avenging righteousness in any just condemnation and damnation. (3) By His infinite Goodness, God has distributed, and still distributes, all that good which all creatures — even the very worst, down to the reprobate and the devils — possess; He is also, by His goodness, not determinately bound to bestow eternal salvation upon all and each one. (4) Nor does it injure the Divine Goodness that He distributes His goodness in various ways, and in various degrees, among His creatures, and does not bring all His goodness to all — that He, for example, does not bring to men the goodness which He has brought to the Angels; and does not throw among the beasts what He has distributed among men. It does not at all injure the Divine Goodness that He does not give the good of His children to or among the dogs, Matt. 15:24. Furthermore (5) notwithstanding that His Goodness, He wills to condemn most eternally, Prov. 1:26, 27; Rom. 9:15, 18. Also I see in the least nothing by which our opponents come to demonstrate, with any plausibility, an inseparable connection between God's Goodness and the Will to save all and each one in particular. Similar to the Chapters, the preceding one on the Will of God, and the following one on His Grace.

XV.

The question is asked: (5) Whether the Reformed, by their doctrine concerning an absolute and independent decree, reprobation, election of a few; concerning also the decree of the fall of the first-created men, etc., diminish and belittle the infinite Goodness of God? We propose this question and controversy chiefly for the sake of the Lutherans, who, that they might the more easily justify the schism made by them, and blacken our Church, have nothing more often on their lips than the contrast between the love of mankind on God's part, and the hatred of mankind on Calvin's part — wherefore they answer this question with yes, the Reformed with no. The pretended and alleged occasion for this slander lies, indeed, (1) in general, in the absolutely independent and unchangeable decree, whereby God would will evil to men. But our opponents ought to note these two things: (1) That the decree of God is an immanent act of Him which does not touch the creature, except by bringing to it, whether good or evil; and that that decree therefore injures no one. (2) If they say, He wills nevertheless evil to man, which conflicts with His goodness — I shall answer, He wills to bring evil to Him only on account of His sin, as the meritorious cause of that evil. The foundation of the slander is (II) in the absolutely independent and unchangeable reprobation, whereby He has fitted man for eternal damnation. But (1) reprobation, being a decree, touches or injures no one. (2) He has decreed to bring damnation upon no one, except on account of and by reason of His unbelief and impenitence, as the meritorious cause of the damnation, Prov. 1:26, 27. Furthermore, they slander us (III) because we hold that God has chosen but few: yet the Savior holds the same with us, Matt. 20:16, whom our opponents, I know, will on that account call no hater of mankind. Moreover, they pretend (IV) that we, by an absolute and independent decree, make God a cause of sin. But (1) the decree does not work outside of God; it is therefore not the cause of the sin, but only of the future occurrence, between which there is a great difference. For the future occurrence of a thing is from eternity — for whatever occurs in time has been, from eternity, future, while it was to occur in time: the future occurrence is from God, through His decree; the future thing is from creatures: the future occurrence is good; the sin is evil. (2) The sin, as such, God has not decreed, but only permitted. Furthermore, they say (V), that we say that God, by His Providence, flows into the sinner and into the sins, and that He thus compels the sinner to sin: to this we answer, (1) the sin consists alone in a ἀνομία, a lawlessness, 1 John 3:4; therein God does not flow in, but only into the subject (substratum) of it, wherein the lawlessness resides; but He does not compel — rather He leaves to man the faculty of determining Himself, by His own free choice, according to previous deliberation, out of a rational good pleasure, in which the true freedom of our will consists. Finally they say, (VI), that we teach that God has decreed, from eternity, the Fall of our first Parents. Answer: He has decreed the future occurrence of the Fall, to be brought about only through the abuse of man's free will — to this end, that occasion might thereby be given Him to display His glory, both of Mercy and of His avenging Righteousness. It shall be enough to have brought this forward here in this place; it shall be said more fully in its own place.

The Practical Part.

XVI.

As for the Practice: Since God is truly good, supremely good, indeed all good, it is accordingly, first, our duty to love Him, proportionately, indeed by way of excellence, and above all, Ps. 18:2, 3 and 116:1, 5 — for that which is good, and that which is lovable, are interchanged among each other, so that that which is not loved is also not held to be good. Wherefore, if you love a small ray of the Divine Goodness in creatures; if you long so eagerly after a little droplet from this fountain — how much more, then, should you not love the Sun itself, and the perpetual Spring of all goodness? Love, says Anselm (in Proslogion, cap. 25), the one good, in which all other goods are contained, and it shall be enough for you. Let us love Him, I say: (1) by desiring, longing, seeking His presence, possession, union, fellowship, enjoyment, Ps. 42:3; 63:2, so that we, as it were, are chained and glued together with Him — ibid. v. 9; 1 Cor. 6:17 — just as He desires and seeks us, Ps. 119:176. (2) By devoting and expending all our goodness upon Him, 2 Cor. 8. (3) By turning away all the evil of sin from before His face, Isa. 1:16, that we may please Him, Rom. 12:1, 2 and 14:18, and that He may make all His goodness pass before our face, Exod. 33:19, and by His goodness avert all evil from us, Ps. 103:3, 2. (4) By resting in His infinite goodness, as in our one, and in every good, Ps. 16:5, 6 and 73:25, 26, so that we neither desire more good, nor less righteous [dealing], from Him — for by either we would deny His infinite goodness, Exod. 34:7. Let us love God in all these points: (1) in truth and in sincerity, with our heart, and not with the mouth, or with outward gestures only, 1 Tim. 1:5, love out of a pure heart, and out of an unfeigned faith, John 1:18 — namely, as God is truly good. (2) In the highest degree, with all our heart, with all our thoughts, with all our powers, Matt. 22:37, above all that is in heaven and on earth, Ps. 73:25 — namely, as He is the highest good, infinitely surpassing all other good. (3) Uniquely and alone, with the setting aside and disdain of all other good — ibid., and Song 8:7 — at least insofar as it is contrary to this one good, Phil. 3:7, 8 — namely, as He alone is good. (4) Independently, for Himself alone, not for the sake of anything else, John 6:26 — namely, as He is an independent good, and has made all things for His own sake, Prov. 16:4; Of whom, through whom, and unto whom are all things, Rom. 11:36. (5) Steadfastly, unchangeably, eternally, 2 Tim. 4:10 — namely, as He Himself is one and the same, unchangeable, and always the same. (6) Efficaciously, not idly, but energetically and actively, Gal. 5:6; Song 8:7, not with word, nor with tongue, but in deed and in truth, 1 John 3:18; Matt. 7:21 — namely, as He Himself is a good communicable of Himself, in and through all things. Now, to kindle and inflame this love, it will be useful: (a) that we strive, with all our endeavor, to become more and more rooted in the faith, and in the persuasion of that infinite goodness of God, Col. 2:7, Rooted and built up in Him, and established in the faith: that we may be able fully to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height, and to know the love of Christ, which passes knowledge, Eph. 3:17, 18, 19. (b) That we strive to be manifoldly and deeply engaged in the contemplation of that infinite goodness and perfection which is indwelling in God, so that we may, as it were, taste and see the same, Ps. 34:9 — just as a miser, by contemplating His gold, is kindled to love for it. In particular (c) that we be continual and persevering in the consideration of that goodness which is outward in God, which the Psalmist extols as wonderful, Ps. 17:7, which fills the earth, Ps. 33:5, and reaches unto the heavens, Ps. 57:11; which goodness of God is visible in the creation, preservation, and government of this Universe, Ps. 36:7, 8, 9, and, by way of excellence, in the matter of man's redemption, in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ, Titus 3:4; 2 Cor. 4:6.

XVII.

Second, that we, in God and in His infinite Goodness, in which and from which all good must come to us, also seek and expect every good. In which goodness, I say, since it is all-sufficient, Gen. 17:1, is a Sun and a Shield, Ps. 84:12, an exceeding great Reward, Gen. 15:1, from whom (as He who is the fountain of life, and in whose light we see light, Ps. 36:10) every good gift and every perfect gift comes, James 1:17, who blesses us with every blessing, Eph. 1:3. If, accordingly, we lack (1) a delightful and pleasant good, He Himself, through His goodness, fills our hearts with food and gladness, Acts 14:17; through His goodness He gives us all things richly to enjoy, 1 Tim. 6:17; crowns us with lovingkindness and mercies, Ps. 103:4 and 84:12. (2) If we lack a useful good, and one necessary for the sustenance of life, He hears the heavens, and the heavens hear the earth, and the earth hears the corn, and Jezreel, Hos. 2:21, 22, and Ps. 104:10, 16; indeed, in whom we live, and move, and have our being, Acts 17:28. (3) If we lack an honorable and saving good — faith, hope, love, godliness, etc. — He is the Father of lights, from whom every good gift and every perfect gift comes down, James 1:17, who blesses us with every spiritual blessing, Eph. 1:3. Only that we (1) not, in the obtaining of every good, dig for ourselves, in creatures, broken cisterns that hold no water, Jer. 2:13, and that we not say: who will show us any good?, Ps. 4:6. (2) That we, by most fervent prayers, extract that highest good, as it were, James 1:5; Matt. 7:7, 8. (3) And this, through faith in His Son Jesus, John 16:23, in whom all His promises are yea and amen, 2 Cor. 1:20. With the addition (4) of a childlike reverence and fear of His name, Ps. 34:10, 11. And also (5) with a pious resting in that good which the highest Good has thought good to bestow upon us, Phil. 4:11, 12, 13; 2 Cor. 12:9. And that we (6) have and hold no earthly goods, except as tools, Matt. 6:33, 34.

XVIII.

Third, there is in the infinite Goodness of God a help and remedy against every sort of evil, whence God is called a Physician or Healer, Exod. 15:26, as one who heals all our infirmities, Ps. 103:3. Let us then press: (1) the evils and miseries of fortune, lack and poverty — He shall, through His goodness, be our portion and our inheritance, Ps. 16:5, 6, and He shall also grant us, out of His treasuries and stores, as much as shall be needful for us, Matt. 6:32; 2 Cor. 9:10; Ps. 23:1, 2. Let us press (2) the cruelties and rages of enemies; He shall, through His goodness, be to us a stronghold, a high retreat, a shield and strength, Ps. 18:2, 3. Let us press (2) the evils and afflictions of the body, for example, sickness and infirmity; He shall, through His goodness, heal all our infirmities, Ps. 103:3; 6:3, 4, 5; 38:9, 10, 23. (3) Let us press the evils of the mind, namely, sins; He forgives all our iniquities, Ps. 103:3, and that according to His goodness, Ps. 51:3, 63; 43:25. Let us (4) press the powerlessness to withstand sin: His grace shall be sufficient, His strength shall be made perfect in our weakness, 2 Cor. 12:9. Let us (5) press spiritual desertions, Ps. 77:9, 10: the LORD, who is good, is slow to anger, great in lovingkindness; He does not retain His anger forever, Ps. 103:9, 10, 23; Isa. 54:7, 8, 9, 10. Indeed (6), in absolutely all our evils, however great and of whatever kind they be, help shall be furnished us from the infinite Goodness of God: for the LORD is good, He is strength in distress, Nah. 1:7, who is also able to procure and bring it about that all evils work together for our good, Rom. 8:28. Only that we (1) seek all help in Him alone, Isa. 55:6, 7. (2) That we set our hope on Him alone: for the LORD is good to those who wait for Him, to the soul that seeks Him, Lam. 3:25; Nah. 1:7 — as one who, according to His goodness, sends all sorts of evils, Heb. 12:6, 7, governs according to His goodness, Ps. 23:4, through His goodness promises His presence and help, Ps. 91:15, through the same also keeps His promises, Heb. 10:23. Only that (3) we turn and avert the evil of sin from His eyes, Isa. 1:16 and 55:7; for these alone make a separation between us and the most good God — ibid., ch. 59:1, 2.

XIX.

Fourth, in God's infinite Goodness we can also recognize the evilness and wickedness of sin — as that which (1) alone and uniquely runs counter to the infinite goodness, and, as far as is in itself, seeks to cast the highest Goodness down from the throne of the Godhead — for which reason sin is called by the Church Fathers deicidium, that is, a God-slaying. (2) Whereby we forsake the highest Good, Jer. 2:13; Deut. 32:15. And whereby we (3) not only forsake the highest Good, Isa. 59:1, 2, but shall also be eternally forsaken by Him who is the highest Good, Matt. 25:41; 2 Thess. 1:9. And (4) because it makes so very evil, and so useless and unfit for any good, our very soul, which was created, so good, by the good God, according to His image. Whereby (5) the true and infinite Goodness of the Creator is set behind and below the imagined goodness of creatures. Whereby we (6) repay nothing but evil to the highest Good, from whom all our good comes, Deut. 32:6. Whereby we (7) despise the riches of the Divine kindness, Rom. 2:4. And that we, in all these points, so recognize the wickedness and evil of sin, that (1) God's Goodness leads us to conversion — ibid.; (2) to a deep sorrow and pain over past sin, Lam. 3:16; (3) to a fleeing and shunning of all future sin, Ps. 97:10; (4) to seek a remedy against it in the Goodness of God alone, which is in Christ Jesus, Ps. 2:9.

XX.

Fifth, there is in God's infinite Goodness something to be imitated by us. The example and precept of this the Psalmist gives us in a short compass, Ps. 119:68: You are good and doing good, טוב ומטיב: Good, through His indwelling and inherent goodness, whereby He is lovable, and beloved of Himself; whereby He is communicable of Himself, and thus amiable and desirable, and must be sought and desired by all: well and doing-good, as He pours out and communicates His goodness to creatures — to all, both good and evil, though in a various manner and in various degree. We must, accordingly, strive and do our best to become an example of the good and of doing good. First, of the good, that is, that we be fit for the use for which we were created; and that use is, that we should know, acknowledge, love, glorify the Creator, and live eternally with Him in blessedness, Isa. 43:7. The fitness and aptitude for this use is in the Image of God, and in its original righteousness, that is, in the wisdom of the Understanding, Col. 3:10, in the holiness and righteousness of the Will, Eph. 4:24. But that original Righteousness having been lost, by sin, we have become unfit for our use, unprofitable servants, Luke 17:10, and, by that very fact, absolutely evil, Gen. 6:5, 12, 13 and 8:21. Accordingly the matter of this imitation requires, before all things, these following points: (1) That we be restored by God to the lost goodness, which happens through regeneration unto life, through conversion to faith in God and Christ, in Sanctification unto the renewal of the image of God, John 3:5; 1 Cor. 6:11. (2) That we, being restored and renewed by God, renew ourselves more and more from day to day, Rom. 12:2, that we wash ourselves, put away more and more the wickedness from before God's face, and learn to do good, Isa. 1:16, 17. Then, second, that we be doing good, according to the use and necessity to which we, by the benefit of Creation, are bound and ordained — that is, toward God, by acknowledging, loving, glorifying, and faithfully serving Him, Rom. 1:9; and toward our neighbor, by pouring out our goodness upon all, even upon the evil and enemies, Rom. 12:17, 19, 20, 21; Matt. 5:45 — though in an unequal manner and in an unequal degree, Gal. 6:9, 10. Through this imitation of the Divine Goodness we shall (1) be made conformable to God in a certain most perfect property of His, and made partakers of the Divine Nature, 2 Pet. 1:4, wherein consists the chief perfection of the rational creature, Matt. 5:48. (2) Thereby shall we show ourselves to be children of God, ibid. v. 45, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven — as those who, by a spiritual birth, have been made partakers of the same His goodness. (3) We shall thereby have within us such a proof, upon which we can ground and build the certainty of our restoration to the Image of God, 2 Thess. 1:11; Eph. 5:9; Gal. 5:22; Col. 3:12.

XXI.

Sixth, there is in God's infinite Goodness that in which we may seek and find our blessedness, Ps. 4:6, Who will show us any good? Lift up upon us the light of your countenance, O LORD! — where the light of the countenance is nothing other than that good which is sought, in which is the fullness of joy at God's presence, Ps. 16:11, in which is the fountain of life, in whose light (goodness) we enjoy light, Ps. 36:10, 11 — so that we taste and see how good the LORD is, Ps. 34:9. It is in particular this wherein we may see, first, our objective goodness, or that good which makes us blessed — namely, not any kind of created good, as the ancient Philosophers foolishly dreamed, but an uncreated, independent, highest, infinite good — which for this reason is called the fountain of life, and also our portion, Ps. 16:5, 6, as that which can avert all evil, as being a firm shield, Ps. 84:12, and bring all good, as being a Sun, unto a perfect satisfaction, and abundantly reward all our labor and endeavor, as being our exceeding great reward, Gen. 15:1. Second, our formal blessedness, namely, in the possession, union, fellowship, enjoyment, and delight of and in this highest and infinite good — that we have and possess Him, Ps. 73:25, Whom have I in heaven besides you? and our God is God, Ps. 33:12, Blessed is the people whose God is Jehovah: that God spends and communicates His Goodness to us, ibid. v. 22, and 36:11 and 42:6; indeed, wherein we enjoy the same, Ps. 119:11, and 17:7; delight ourselves in it, Ps. 63:4 and 69:17; and rejoice and leap for joy in the same, Ps. 31:8 and 36:8. Thus the infinite Goodness of God points out what it is, and where it is — but it does not merely point it out, it also invites us to seek it: for just as the seeking is innate and inborn in all, and just as it is proper to fleshly man to seek it elsewhere — thus that one must seek it in God's Goodness alone — this the following considerations counsel us: (1) that therein is the highest end of our life, Matt. 6:33, apart from which all our doings shall occur fruitlessly and in vain, since it is from a view to this end that all our deeds must be directed; of which those alone are right which, as by a straight line, tend to that end — all the others are crooked and distorted. Whoever, accordingly, lives without care for, and without concern about, this blessedness and this end, shoots, as it were, an arrow without a target, or trusts his ship to no compass. Wherefore such are said in Holy Scripture to wander, to go astray, Isa. 53:6; Ps. 119:176; likewise, to deviate and become useless, and not to do that which is good, Rom. 3:11, 12.

XXII.

Because (III) the highest Good has the highest worth and excellence, and for that reason deserves to have the first and foremost place in our thoughts and in our endeavors, Matt. 6:33; Phil. 3:13, 14. Whoever, accordingly, with contempt of this, occupies themselves with all sorts of other things, are like children, who, valuing nothing of the greatest things, are busy about and with things that are nothing, Ps. 62:11; Prov. 23:5. And yet it is not enough merely to seek, unless we also find. This now shall come to pass: (1) if we seek it in its rightful place, not in the world and worldly things, in wine and corn, Ps. 4:8 and 17:14, but in God alone, Ps. 73:25. (2) If we do it with and through fitting means, namely, the knowledge and faith in God and in the Mediator, John 17:3; Acts 4:12; John 14:6. (3) If we do it also with a lawful zeal and effort, and first of all, Matt. 6:33, with the setting aside of all else, Phil. 3:13, 14. (4) If we add to it the practice of good works, 2 Pet. 1:5, 11. And if we (5) in all these things be pure in heart, Ps. 73:1; Matt. 5:8. More things belonging to this we shall learn elsewhere.

XXIII.

Finally, seventh, there lies in the infinite Goodness of God a ground and motive to glorify Him, according to the continual example of all the saints — in particular of David, Ps. 135:3 and 106:1; of Moses, Exod. 34:46 [sic]; of Asaph and his companions, 2 Chron. 5:13; of the Levites, Ezra 3:11. For God's Goodness is (1) that attribute of His whereby He pours Himself out and communicates Himself the most to creatures. Whence Augustine (on Ps. 135) says: Since God is good, and has made all things good, and since He who has made is far better than those things which He has made, you shall find nothing better which you could say of Him, than: because the Lord is good — if only you properly understand that good, from which all other goods are. It is (2) that attribute which touches us the most, and which therefore obliges and binds us to glorify Him — whence Bernard says: Just as there is not one moment in which we do not enjoy the Goodness of God, so let there be no one moment in which we do not have Him present in our remembrance. And (3) in the glorifying of which the sweetest occupation of the saints consists: I am moved (says Augustine, in the passage cited) with an ineffable sweetness, when I hear, the Lord is good; and, having considered and weighed all other things that are outside of Him, I do not praise and extol them without Him, but I find Him, without them, perfect, not needy, unchangeable, seeking no one's good, that He might thereby be enriched and increased; fearing no one's evil, whereby He might be diminished. If, accordingly, we praise and extol any other thing, we praise it for this reason, because it is good; but no greater or better or firmer cause could be given you, why you should praise and extol God, than that He is good. And, that in this matter of glorifying God we may be the more ready and prepared, three things will be useful: (1) That we know (a) what His goodness is — what the indwelling, what the outgoing? (b) Of what sort and how great — independent, unchangeable, eternal, highest, and infinite. (c) What are its effects or workings — in creation, providence, redemption, glorification: all of which points, considered distinctly, greatly tend and contribute to readiness for the glorifying of God. (2) That we feel, taste, see, and marvel — how great is His good, and how great His beauty is, Zech. 9:17. (3) That we pour out with our mouth that which we feel in and with our heart, and that we stir up others to the same occupation: Praise the LORD, for He is good, for His lovingkindness endures forever, Ps. 106:1. Praise the LORD, for the LORD is good: sing psalms to His Name, for He is pleasant, Ps. 135:3. Praise the LORD, His angels... Praise the LORD, all His hosts... Praise the LORD, all His works... Praise the LORD, my soul, Ps. 103:20, 21, 22.

Chapter XVII: On God's Love, Grace, Mercy, Longsuffering, and Kindness

On Exod. 34:6.

LORD, LORD, God, merciful and gracious; longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

I.

The Goodness of God, which we have called outgoing, works either by giving, or by governing: and this, either by bestowing beforehand, or by rewarding. From the latter points it is called Righteousness; from the former, according to the various character, both of the thing given and of the act of giving, it is called, at one time, Love, which is nothing other than goodness as communicating itself; at another, Grace, which is nothing other than an unmerited love; at another, again, Mercy, being a grace toward some wretched one; at another also, patience or forbearance, being God's mercy toward a sinner; at another, again, longsuffering, being a persevering and enduring patience; and finally, likewise, kindness, being God's longsuffering coupled with beneficence. And these are the dispositions or affections of the gracious and kind God, of whom Moses speaks, Exod. 34:6.

The Explanatory Part.

II.

In these words a certain thankful eulogy is contained, in which — that Moses might repay thanksgiving for the hearing of his prayer, and for the granted liberty to see God's hinder parts — Jehovah Himself instructs him, and, as it were, prescribes him a certain formula, in which two points are marked.

I. He who is extolled and praised: יהוה Jehovah, being, according to the Jewish teachers, a Name of Grace — fitted to, and agreeing with, the present matter of the eulogy, insofar as, by virtue of this Name, the virtues occurring therein — love, grace, mercy... — grow and become the greater in strength and vigor, without limit: while, for example, the love is extolled for this reason, as being truly present, independent of anyone; unchangeable, always the same, always constant, and always alike to itself; most simple, without any pretense or deceit; infinite, without limit or measure; eternal, without end, etc. — since all those things are enclosed and contained in the one Name Jehovah. Compare what we had, in its place, concerning this Name.

II. The Praise or Eulogy itself, displaying itself through a heaping-up of titles:

1. Love and mercy, אל רחום, God merciful. If the words are taken in the nominative or first case, then must be understood, anew, the substantive Verb Is, so that this sense comes out of it: Jehovah is a merciful God: but if in the fifth or vocative case, then it shall be a eulogistic acclamation, from God Himself to Himself, given to Moses as a precept and formula. Further, אל God is the Subject, and must be applied to all the following titles — for example, אל חנון / אל רחום, God merciful, God gracious, etc. אל, God, denotes the strong God, who shall cause His strength to flow forth in all the following attributes, so as to make His love and mercy strong and mighty, against which absolutely nothing can set itself or resist.

The Hebrew רחום, merciful — which word, in the Qal conjugation, occurs only once, namely Ps. 18:1, where David uses it of his love toward God, meaning to express his most intimate and most intense love to God — in the Piel conjugation occurs more often, meaning, besides love, the affection of mercy, or a love toward one who is wretched, coupled with compassion; commonly and often it is used of God's love toward wretched men, never of the love of men toward God; meanwhile it also sometimes means a common love. It comes either from רחם, a womb, to express that love with which a Mother follows the fruit in her belly — compare Isa. 49:15 — or from רחמים, bowels, of which the singular, according to the observation of Piscator on Ps. 18, is not found. Hence in Greek the word σπλάγχνα, bowels, inward movements, Col. 3:12, σπλαγχνίζομαι, to be inwardly moved with compassion, Matt. 15:32. It signifies not a common Love, as the Hebrew אהבה, Ahabhah, but a most intimate and most tender love, arising from the very bowels; moreover, such a one whereby the bowels are stirred and moved. And such a love belongs, in the end, to God alone, toward the wretched — whence He is called in the text not only אל רחום, the strong, the mighty, the powerful God in love, but there is also ascribed to Him a greatness, or a multitude, of mercies, Ps. 51:3, כרב רחמיך, according to the greatness, or according to the multitude, of your mercies.

2. Grace, חנון, Gracious — one supplies אל, strong God, and thus, a gracious strong God. The verb signifies to do a thing gratis, that is, freely, out of a pure and sincere good pleasure. It is set (a) against the payment of a wage, and the repayment of a reward, Gen. 9:15 [sic]; Exod. 21:11; (b) against righteousness, Ps. 35:7, 19; (c) against merit, 1 Sam. 3:5. Thus is Noah said to have found grace with God, Gen. 6:8, and Moses, Exod. 33:13. With this agrees, in the New Testament, the word χαριτόω, to bestow grace, Eph. 1:6.

3. Longsuffering, ארך אפים, long of nostrils. The word ארך (Erech) means long, stretched out; it is used of the Cloud above the Tabernacle, Num. 9:15 [sic], which stretched out far, and covered the Tabernacle on all sides. The word אפים, Appaim, means nostrils, and also anger. Thus ארך אפים, Erech Appaim, means one who is slow to become angry and to punish. For those who are long of nostrils breathe out the breath and spirit of anger, which glows and seethes within, and is extremely hot about the heart, more lightly and easily; but those who are short of nostrils, and of a colder disposition, draw the same together for refreshment and breathing; also the vapors which rise up from the heart are received more sharply, and are breathed out more slowly and gradually, on account of the narrowness and tightness of the passages. Hence the Spaniards say that the nostrils of angry men become inflated. Under Longsuffering is also included Patience or Forbearance, differing from it only in degree of duration. With this agrees, in the New Testament, the word μακροθυμία, Longsuffering, Rom. 2:4.

4. Kindness or Beneficence, רב חסד, much or great in Kindness, or in Beneficence. The word חסד, chesed, means, besides godliness (since beneficence is a work of godliness), also a kindness and a kind deed, Deut. 5:10; Ps. 106:1. It signifies every kind of beneficence which is shown to others — whether to the dead, or to the wretched, or to the not-wretched; whether to such as have deserved it, or have not deserved it; whether it be brought about righteously and godlily, or bountifully and graciously — according to the observation of Serarius on Josh. 2. The word רב, rabh, signifies an excess and the highest degree of a certain thing, of whatever kind that thing may be. Among the Prophets it signifies, for the most part, such a kindness as is exercised toward one to whom one owes absolutely nothing, according to Maimonides, in Moreh Nebuchim. Also Paulus Fagius adds that it signifies not a common kindness, but an excellent, outstanding, rare kindness, which occurs solely gratis, without any view or regard to any repayment. In such a kindness and beneficence God is said to be רב, much or great: whence He is said, πλούσιος χρηστότητος, to be rich in kindness, Rom. 2:4.

The Doctrinal Part.

III.

There is, accordingly, according to the whole Text, in God a certain benevolent and beneficent inclination and disposition toward creatures, which, according to the various kinds of subjects, and according to the various manners of dealing with and about them, is called now Love, now Grace, now Mercy, now Patience and Longsuffering, now Kindness and Beneficence: insofar, namely, as that one inclination includes in itself, by way of excellence, the perfection of all those virtues in men, and, as it were, swallows them up. This is expressed in Holy Scripture, in general, as often as a good pleasure of the will is ascribed to Him, Matt. 11:26; Eph. 1:5; as often also as there is ascribed to Him, in particular, Love, Grace, Mercy — as we shall show separately, and point by point, in their own places.

IV.

The same is affirmed by: (1) God's Will, insofar as this is nothing other than an inclination and disposition toward the good. So also (2) His Goodness, insofar as this is communicative of itself. (3) Also His works display this — as the Creation, whereby He inclined toward the existence of the creature. (4) The Sustaining and Preservation, whereby He is inclined toward its perseverance in its existence. (5) The Governance, whereby He governs the creature toward its own good. (6) The Election, whereby He is inclined to decree and ordain salvation for the wretched. (7) The Redemption, whereby He is disposed to the restoration of the lost sinner, etc. I shall say it in one word: every single benevolent and beneficent working of His proves and demonstrates that inclination which we have mentioned.

V.

That inclining disposition, considered inwardly, is called kind and gracious, and, considered as doing good or beneficent, outwardly. Considered in itself, in general, it is Love; insofar as this is independent, free and unowed and undeserved, it is Grace; insofar as it regards the creature as wretched, it is Mercy; insofar as it looks in particular upon the offending sinner, whom it bears, with Patience and Forbearance, bears and endures for a long time, it is Longsuffering; and, as it also does good to him thereby, it is Kindness and Beneficence. So that, accordingly, so many Divine virtues and powers signify, in creatures, nothing other, in God, than His one inclination and disposition, variously arranged. This I say once, for brevity's sake, so that I not be compelled to repeat the same things in the particular sections, and so that the Reader may be able to repeat it, in the particular parts, as the matter requires.

VI.

The inclination and disposition toward the good, considered in general, is called Love. All those points which we have adduced in §§ III and IV teach this; and also very emphatically, 1 John 4:8, 9, 10: God is Love. In this the Love of God toward us was made manifest, that God sent His only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love — not that we have loved God, but that He has loved us, and has sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins. In which passage the inclining disposition is distinctly marked, as kind and disposed inwardly, and beneficent and doing good outwardly. Add to it the passages, Rom. 5:5; John 3:16; Deut. 33:3.

VII.

Also Love is nothing other than a kind inclination of the will toward a thing, just as hatred is an aversion from a thing. It is an inclination of the will, so that it is not something different from God, but is His very Will; and also not properly an affection or passion, as we have noted above. Although it can be considered as a passion, and thus is, one and uniform, with respect to all creatures, as an effect and product, and thus various according to the variety of the goods which it produces — which we shall note in its place. As an affection or disposition, which is indwelling in God, it includes in itself three admixtures: (1) A desire of union, which is in us the concupiscence, of the kind which the Savior expresses, John 17:24, I will that where I am, they also may be who you have given me — since He, as it were, seeks us, Ps. 119:176, upon which the Apostle looks, Eph. 2:4, For His great love with which He loved us, compare with v. 14, You, who once were far off, are brought near by the blood of Christ. This concupiscence in God does not arise out of neediness, as it does in us, but out of the abundance of His goodness, to communicate Himself to others, Job 22:23. (2) An effort to do good, which is called goodwill, whereby He does good to, or better, loves, the beloved. This love accordingly precedes all goodness of the beloved, as that which He bestows. Whence we clearly come to see, that God has been able to love the elect, while yet sinners, stripped of faith and of all good: (1) through a certain spiritual life of theirs, before faith, and before all corresponding work, Eph. 2:5; John 3:16; Rom. 5:17. (2) Through their natural life, Rom. 9:11. (3) Through the fact that His Son was set forth for the world, John 3:16. Indeed (4) through the creation of the world, already from all eternity, Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9 — that God, namely, through this benevolence, brings life, faith, His Son, and all things. If you say, how could He have loved the workers of unrighteousness? Hab. 1:13; Ps. 5:5, 6 — I shall say, He loved the doers, yet hating their works; He loved them with a love of goodwill, not of good pleasure [i.e., complacency], Ezek. 16:5. (3) A joy of resting, whereby God pleases Himself, and rests in all His creatures, especially in the sinners, for the sake of His Son, when they are apprehended by faith — namely, in that beloved one, Eph. 1:6 — whereby (a) His own are precious and dear to Him, Ps. 116:15; (b) He often praises them, Song 5:2; (c) very often visits them with His grace, Luke 1:68; Rev. 3:20, whereby He (d) discloses and reveals to His own His secrets and hidden things, John 15:15; (e) has compassion with them in their adversities, Isa. 63:9; Heb. 4:15.

VIII.

With His Love, God is, first of all and most principally, active concerning Himself, insofar as He is the highest good, for the sake of which He has wrought, and still works, all things, Prov. 16:4. And the Divine Persons concerning one another: the Father concerning the Son, John 3:35; 5:20; 10:17; Matt. 3:17; 17:1; the Son concerning the Father, John 14:31. Finally, for His own sake, concerning all creatures — because He, namely, has made them fit to promote His glory, Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36 — and among these, most fully and most rationally, concerning the elect, Eph. 1:5, 6, 7. All things, not in themselves, but in Himself; since His love is independent.

IX.

Hence there arises now a threefold Love of God toward creatures: A general one, Ps. 104:31 and 145:9, whereby He has created, sustains, and governs all things, Ps. 36:7 and 147:9. A common one, extending itself indeed particularly to men, not indeed to all and each one, but nevertheless to all sorts without distinction, both reprobate and elect, of whatever kind and generation they be, to whom He distributes His benefits, which are mentioned Heb. 6:4, 5; 1 Cor. 13:1, 2. A particular and proper one, to the elect, whereby He distributes to them saving benefits, things which are joined with salvation, Heb. 6:9; consequently, things which are different from nature and from natural benefits — for nature and grace must not be badly mingled together. This is again called either objective, whereby such goods are communicated as indeed regard and concern man, and are appointed and ordained for him, but which nevertheless carry no admixture with them — such are Election, Redemption and purchase through the satisfaction of Christ, the calling to salvation through the preaching of the Gospel; or accompanying, which enters into man himself — such as Regeneration, Conversion, Sanctification, Union and communion with Christ. These latter are most especially particular, and proper to the elect, Rom. 8:29, 30; John 1:12. Similar to what we shall say a little further on concerning this matter, concerning Grace, §§ XV, XVI, XVII.

X.

And this Love, finally, is: (1) Free, indeed most free, Hos. 14:5, arising from no worthiness of the beloved, whether foreseen or actually present, Ezek. 16:8. (2) Steadfast and unchangeable, Rom. 5:8, 10; 1 John 4:10; John 13:1. (3) Infinite and eternal, never to be changed, John 3:16, never to cease, Ps. 27:10, never to be diminished, Song 8:7, much less altogether broken off, Rom. 8:35. (4) Efficacious, and most abundant and pouring itself out, indeed pouring itself out through all sorts of benefits, Ps. 34:10, 11, both spiritual, Eph. 1:3; 1 John 3:1; 2 Cor. 1:20, and bodily, Matt. 6:32, 33. (5) Absolutely pure and sincere, without any deceit, hatred, or perverse inclination, as one who loves nothing except for His own sake, Deut. 7:6, 7, 8; 1 John 4:8, so that He communicates Himself to them, Isa. 73:5 [sic — Ps. 73:5?], Rev. 3:19, not that He might receive or take back anything from them, Job 22:2. Finally (6) burning hot and fervent, Jer. 31:20; Rom. 5:5, 8; Song 8:6, 7, whereby He thus, in a measure, pours out His love into the hearts of those who are in some manner conformable to Him, and whom He transforms into His image, 2 Cor. 3:18; 2 Pet. 1:4.

XI.

But there is (as we have taught above, Chapter XV) also in God a hatred or aversion, both from sinners, Rom. 9:13, and from sin, Ps. 5:5, 6 — whose disposition is nothing other than God's averse Will, Hab. 1:13; Isa. 1:15, and whose outworking is the separation and repelling, Isa. 59:2, punishing, Ps. 5:6, 7, and all that which is wont to arise from the passion of hatred, in men — without any disturbance or change in God. This accordingly looks upon the sinner, and upon him alone — most of all upon a stubborn sinner, in whose destruction and ruin He is said to rejoice, Deut. 28:63; Prov. 1:26. And that hatred comes forth from sin alone, because it is contrary to His Nature, to His Law, to His Honor, Ps. 45:8. And thus it tends to punish the sinner: (a) in general, with all sorts of judgments, Deut. 28:15, unto the end, Ps. 11:5, 6. In particular (b) with terrors of Conscience, Prov. 17:22; Isa. 66:24. (c) With every kind of death, Gen. 3:3; Rom. 5:14. Indeed also (d) with the accursed death of His own Son, Gal. 3:13; Rom. 8:32. Finally (e) with the eternal damnation of the reprobate sinner himself, Heb. 10:26, 27. But since the hatred in God belongs to His avenging Righteousness, it will be enough here in this place merely to have mentioned it.

XII.

From Love one sees that there is Grace in God, according to which He is called, in the Text, אל חנון, the gracious strong God, likewise רחום, merciful; and nowhere in Holy Scripture is anything spoken of more often than of God's Grace — for example, Ps. 85:11; 111:4 and 112:4; Eph. 1:6; 2 Cor. 13:13 (where it is ascribed to the Mediator), and in a thousand other passages. Nor can it be otherwise, but that Grace must belong to God, since Goodness belongs to Him, and a Will, free and independent, communicable of itself, and hence also Love, or a favorable, kind, and beneficent inclination, which, being free and independent, and thus gratis distributing goods, is called Grace.

XIII.

As for the word Grace: it signifies either that on account of which God is gracious to us, namely, His entire gracious perfection, John 1:14, or that whereby we please God, Eph. 1:6. Again, either the Favor and Kind Disposition in God, of which, among the Greeks, is Χάρις, Favor, Grace — or the fruits thereof in us, Χαρίσματα, the Gifts of Grace, 1 Cor. 12:4, 11. Accordingly it signifies the Grace, or a gratuitous giving grace, Matt. 11:26; Eph. 1:6, or God's gracious favor; or also a grace gratuitously given — all sorts, namely, which fall to a single creature; in particular those common gifts, which even the unbeliever enjoys, although they are, on account of these, not the least more pleasing to God Himself; or also a grace which makes pleasing, Ps. 84:12, namely, the saving Gifts of Grace, Faith, Hope, Love, through which we please God. Accordingly the Divine Favor and Disposition, which distributes such Gifts of Grace among men, is commonly called Grace.

XIV.

Which, if you look to the matter, is nothing other than an unowed Love. When it is called Love, all those things which we have already, long since, said of Love, fit it; insofar as it is unowed, or entirely free, and independent of all worthiness and merit of the creature, it is, in particular, Grace, Rom. 11:6, so that the whole manner of its distribution, according to Holy Scripture, lies in the good pleasure of God's Will, Matt. 11:26; Eph. 1:5 — which accordingly looks upon all creatures, and upon each creature in particular, down even to the holy and blessed Angels, who have all that they have solely and only out of God's Grace: for who has first given to Him, that it might be repaid to Him? Rom. 11:35. Meanwhile, to Grace are ascribed those things which differ from Nature. For Nature must not be mingled with Grace. Because natural gifts, according to God's benevolent ordinance, are, as it were, owed to a single creature, though not to each one in particular, at least with respect to their kind, they are not accustomed to be held for grace — as belonging to nature, being absolutely unowed.

XV.

We shall now not repeat, concerning Grace, those things which we have already before taught concerning Love, unless a manifold, and, at all times, greatly disputed and controverted matter compel us to it. There is, accordingly, (A) a General Grace, whereby God distributes natural benefits to all and each creature, on account of which He is called a preserver of all, 1 Tim. 4:10, who preserves man and beast, Ps. 36:7, and who sees to it that His Sun rises over the field of the righteous and of the unrighteous, Matt. 5:45 — of which above. Which, in particular, brings to man free choice, and gives him all sorts of powers unto natural good, which it stirs up, lifts up, and sets going, by its influence. All these things, although flowing from God's undeserved and gracious Love, are nevertheless, by the usage of Holy Scripture, and also by the whole orthodox Antiquity, seldom and less properly called grace, since this has carefully distinguished the nature of grace, against the Pelagians.

XVI.

There is (B) a common Grace, whereby God distributes moral goods to men in particular, but without distinction between elect and reprobate. Of this kind are the virtues and perfections of the Understanding — ingenuity, wisdom, prudence, Exod. 31:3 — and also of the will, namely the moral, Luke 18:11 — of which kind are all the virtues of the Heathen and Unbelievers. Under which one must reckon those graces which come nearer to the saving ones, such as are mentioned, Heb. 6:4, 5; Isa. 58:2; 1 Cor. 13:1. To which belongs the outward Calling to the fellowship of Christ, through the Preaching of the Word, Ps. 147:19, 20; Matt. 20:16, and also an inward one, through a certain measure of illumination, and all those gifts and graces which are seen in temporary believers, Matt. 13:20, 21.

XVII.

There is (C) a particular Grace, whereby God...

...which salvific goods (of which the grace of God that pertains to salvation — that is, the saving grace of God, Titus 2:11 — is said to consist: things joined with salvation, Heb. 6:9) it bestows only upon the elect, Rom. 8:29-30; which are therefore called the good of the elect, the joy of God's people, the glory of His inheritance, Ps. 106:5. To this in particular belongs: (I) Election, Eph. 1:5, Rom. 11:5, which must therefore be derived neither from works, nor from faith, nor from any foreseen thing whatsoever. For if it is of grace, then it is not of works — otherwise grace is no more grace, as it is said there, v. 6. It is therefore not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, Rom. 9:16. (II) Redemption through the Satisfaction of Christ: which is everywhere and consistently bounded to God's people, Matt. 1:21, to the sheep of Christ, John 10:15, to those who were given to Christ by the Father, John 17:9. For although the blood of the Son of God, 1 John 1:7, is of infinite worth, and His satisfaction might be called a satisfaction of universal sufficiency; nevertheless, because it was never the design and intent, either of the Father or of the Son, to expend that blood and that satisfaction upon all, so that all might be saved through it, it must be reckoned altogether to particular Grace. (III) Effectual Calling, Rom. 8:29, or conversion to faith in Jesus Christ, John 3:3, and faith itself, 2 Thess. 3:2, Acts 13:48. Accordingly, neither conversion nor faith is a fruit of man's free will, 1 Cor. 4:7, but a fruit of the Holy Spirit, Gal. 5:22, who brings it about not merely by way of persuasion, as men do, 1 Cor. 3:6-7, but by working it, Phil. 2:12, by creating it, Ps. 51:12, by taking away the heart of stone and putting a heart of flesh in its place, Ezek. 36:26-27, Jer. 31:33 and 32:39. (IV) Justification, Rom. 3:24, and therefore not of works, Eph. 2:8-9, Gal. 2:16. Finally, (V) eternal Salvation — namely so far as concerns the right thereto: for by grace, says Paul, are ye saved, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, Eph. 2:8. Although the possession of it is, by the grace of God, made to depend upon the pursuit of good works, Matt. 25:21, 34-35.

XVIII. Standing opposed to the Divine Grace — at least so far as concerns the matter of Salvation — are: (I) Nature, inasmuch as by it we are children of wrath, dead in sins, Eph. 2:1, 3, bearing a heart of stone, Ezek. 36:26, and a free will, whereby the natural man does not comprehend the things of the Spirit, indeed counts them foolishness, 1 Cor. 2:14, and does not submit himself to the Law of God — nay, cannot, Rom. 8:7. (II) All manner of Merit and works, in the matter of Justification, Rom. 3:24, Gal. 2:16 — for Grace is an undeserved Love.

XIX. In particular, (III) Wrath, which is everywhere ascribed to God in Scripture: for example, Exod. 4:14, 2 Sam. 24:1, Ps. 90:7, Rom. 1:18 and 2:8-9, etc. — not according to the affection of some agitation, as we have cautioned above, ch. 16, but according to the working of vengeance, namely, that whereby God comports Himself toward the sinner as an offended man comports himself toward the one who has wronged him. Wrath in God, therefore, is nothing other than His avenging justice, or His disposition to punish those who have offended Him by their sins. Which disposition comprises three things in itself: (1) a purpose or desire for vengeance, John 3:36, Rom. 1:18 and 9:22; (2) the declarations of that purpose, by way of threats, Hos. 11:9, Jonah 3:4; (3) the execution of that purpose and of those threats, by all manner of judgments and vengeance, Eph. 5:6, Ps. 6:1, Rom. 3:5, Matt. 3:7. The offense or injury done to God, whereby His wrath is provoked, arises from sin alone, and indeed from every sin, inasmuch as by it is offended and injured (a) His legislative authority, James 4:12, compared with ch. 2:9-10; (b) His own attributes and perfections, as His Holiness, Hab. 1:13, Ps. 5:7, Isa. 1:13, and His Glory, Isa. 42:8; (c) His goods and benefits, Hos. 2:8-9, Rom. 8:20, 22. Yet sin offends God in different ways, namely more heavily and more lightly, John 19:11. Whence also arise the various degrees of Divine wrath, in that it increases and grows, in one degree more than another, unto indignation and even unto fury, Ps. 6:1 — much as a man, in his own manner, increases in the fury and rage of his anger, according to the measure in which he metes out his judgments — like a man who is as it were raving and mad with wrath. Meanwhile, an orderly wrath in God is (a) dreadful, whence God is called ba'al chemah, a Lord of Fury, and thus a Avenger, and that most furiously, Nah. 1:2 — being, as it is infinite with Him, Ps. 90:7, 11, intensively, like a consuming fire, Deut. 4:24, and extensively, stretching out to all manner of evils, bodily and spiritual; unto life, unto death; upon persons, households, families, kingdoms, Jer. 18:9; enduring for eternity, an unquenchable fire, John 3:36. (b) Irresistible, whence it is compared to a whirlwind, Zeph. 1:14-15, Zech. 7:14. The remaining matters that touch on this subject belong to avenging Justice, with which the Wrath of God is truly one and the same.

XX. Just as, from Love, is seen and understood what God's Grace is, so likewise, from Grace, is seen and understood what Mercy is — which is everywhere ascribed to God in the Scriptures, and not in one manner only, nor with one degree of excellence, as when it is said in the text, rav chesed, wide or abounding in mercy — just as elsewhere, the Father of mercies, 2 Cor. 1:3, and rich in mercy, 1 Pet. 1:3, Eph. 2:4, in whom there is a multitude of mercies, Ps. 51:1, who is tender in mercy, Ps. 25:6, Luke 1:58; in whom are the bowels of mercy, Ps. 40:11, whence He, rachum, is called as it were full of bowels, that is, merciful; and in the New Testament σπλάγχνα, bowels, are ascribed to Him, Luke 1:78, whose σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, to be moved inwardly with compassion, is ascribed to Him, Matt. 15:32, Mark 8:2, and likewise ch. 1:41 and 6:34, etc. And since to Him is ascribed goodness, which is that which communicates itself; since love, which is a certain inclination toward a thing; since grace, or an undeserved love, according to what has been said before, is ascribed to Him — who shall dare to say that mercy also does not belong to Him? Mercy, as we shall say, is nothing other than grace toward the wretched; since the wretched have the very greatest need of His goodness, love, and grace. I need not add that mercy, among men, is counted among the perfections, among the virtues, which the nobler spirits generally possess the most; indeed, they possess it by communication from Him, the Father of mercies. Who then would dare to deny and refuse Him compassion, mercy?

XXI. If you say (I) that Mercy (in Latin, misericordia) implies an imperfection, namely a certain sorrow — according to the derivation of the word, as it were miseria cordis, that is, a misery of the heart — arising from a sense of another's wretchedness: I will grant, as regards this affection, that it does not befit God, save only insofar as that affection signifies a certain knowledge — just as is the case with longsuffering — insofar as that affection excludes the effect of deliverance or of comfort, so far it in every respect befits God. Which Anselm, Proslogion, ch. 8, states elegantly and finely: Es misericors, o Deus, &c., that is: Thou art merciful, O God, according to us and according to thyself; according to our sense, and according to thine own; when thou lookest upon us wretches, we feel the effect of thy compassion — thou dost not feel the passionate affection of compassion. If you add (II) that it runs contrary to Justice, insofar as Mercy denotes a certain release from Justice: I will deny it, since Mercy, joined together with Justice, is not opposed to it, Exod. 34:7 — since God is never merciful against His Justice, just as He also never exercises His Justice against His Mercy, nor indeed even without any mercy at all — although by showing mercy He, as it were, surpasses His justice, in which sense mercy is said to glory against judgment, James 2:13; just as one who forgives five hundred guilders to a man who owes him a thousand, or who even grants him just as much again, is not said to act against Justice, but to go beyond it and surpass it.

XXII. Mercy (in Latin, Misericordia) is, as regards the derivation of the word, as it were miseria cordis, that is, a misery of the heart, arising from a sense of another man's wretchedness, joined with readiness and eagerness to come to the help of the wretched: as regards the matter itself, it is in God nothing other than His grace toward the wretched — so that we thereby exclude the angels, both the good, in whom there is no wretchedness, and the wicked, whom God has given over wholly to His Justice and made subject to it, being excluded from all mercy, 2 Pet. 2:4 — and so that we thereby point out the activities by which the Divine Mercy pours itself forth. For, being twofold (speaking here at least of men, that we may not, for brevity's sake, speak of mercy toward the irrational animals, Ps. 36:7) — a shameful wretchedness of sin, and a doleful wretchedness of punishment — the Divine Mercy comes to the aid of both in a particular manner. To sin, God comes to the aid by His mercy, in part (a) by reconciling sinners to Himself, in and through the blood of His Son, 2 Cor. 5:18; (b) by bestowing on them His own and only-begotten Son, John 3:16; (c) by giving over His Son to every wretchedness and to the most accursed death, Rom. 5:6-8; (d) by bestowing on them faith in the Reconciler, Phil. 1:29. In part also, by subduing the tyranny and dominion of sin, Rom. 6:12, that they might overcome it and triumph over it, Rom. 7:25. Again, God comes to the sinner's aid, through His Mercy, so far as concerns the punishment: (1) by bearing with the sinner, Rom. 9:22 and 3:25, Isa. 1:9, Lam. 3:22 — wherein consists the Patience and Longsuffering of God, of which more presently; (2) by not punishing sins according to their worth and guilt, Ps. 103:10; (3) by pointing out a remedy against the punishment hanging over the sinner's head, namely faith and conversion, Matt. 3:7, Jer. 18:7; (4) by inviting, in a heart-touching manner, to embrace that remedy, Jer. 2:14; (5) by receiving into grace those who embrace it, Luke 15:20; (6) by forgiving them all their sins, Ps. 103:3 and 51:3; (7) by comforting and sustaining them, when set under His fatherly chastisements, persecutions, and other adversities, 2 Cor. 12:9-10, Ps. 3, Heb. 12:17-18.

XXIII. Now besides these and yet many other activities, the Divine Mercy receives various titles of honor: when it is called (1) great, 2 Sam. 24:14, Ps. 57:11 and 103:11, Neh. 13:22; (2) incomparable, Jer. 3:1; (3) sure, faithful, and infallible, Isa. 55:3; (4) eternal and unfailing, Ps. 25:6; (5) free and most absolute, Matt. 11:25-26, Eph. 1:11. For although the virtue of Mercy belongs to Him by His very nature, yet its dispensation depends wholly upon His sovereign good pleasure — which must be diligently observed, (a) that we may not, by ascribing mercy to Him, injure His Power and Sovereignty, as though He, on account of His Mercy, could not appoint and ordain a creature in whose righteous condemnation He might reveal the glory of His Justice, against what Paul says, Rom. 9:15-18, 20-22. (b) That we may not, in objection against reprobation, argue as though God, by virtue of His Mercy, could not pass by a sinner according to His good pleasure, deny him the means of salvation, and thus condemn him for his sins — see that passage, and Acts 14:16. Nor even (c) argue against particular redemption, as though He, on account of His Mercy, could not have expended the blood of His Son upon some without being obliged to expend it also upon all, Matt. 1:21, John 17:9. Nor (d) argue against particular Calling, as though it were not in His power to call whom He wills. As for the matters that might arise concerning the division of the Divine Mercy into a general, a common, and one proper to the elect, they appear abundantly enough from what has been said concerning God's Love and Grace.

XXIV. Set over against the Divine Mercy, in its own way, is God's Severity (Rom. 11:22), in the exercise of His judgments against transgressors, James 2:13. Of this there is very frequent mention in the Holy Scriptures — for example, Isa. 26:9 and 5:6, Ezek. 14:21 and 39:21, Rom. 2:3, Rev. 14:7 and 15:4, etc. There are also not a few examples of it at hand: in Satan, Gen. 3; in the first human beings, there also; in the old world, Gen. 7:17, 21; in Pharaoh and the Egyptians, Exod. 14:27; in Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Num. 16:31-35; Achan, Josh. 7:25; Abimelech, Judg. 9:53; Adonibezek, Judg. 1:6; Judas, Matt. 27:5; Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5:5, 10; Herod, Acts 12:23; and in a thousand others. From all which examples it is to be concluded that the judgments of God, which He exercises through His severity, are nothing other than particular punishments, executed for particular sins. So that concerning these judgments five points come into consideration: (1) The meritorious cause, sin — not every sin, but a particular one, which sort is generally determined from the proportionate punishment, Judg. 1:6, 1 Sam. 15:33, 2 Sam. 12:9-10, Isa. 3:24 and 8-13. (2) And the punishment, not a common one, but a particular or notable one, namely one that agrees with, and answers to, the particular sin, there. (3) The reasons or the ends of executing it, namely: (1) The glorification of God, insofar as the judgments show that God is righteous and holy, Exod. 7:5, 17, Lev. 10:3, 1 Sam. 4, Isa. 2:11, 17, Ezek. 7:4, 9, 27. (2) The conversion of men, both of those who are visited by God's judgments, Rev. 2:21-23, and of the onlookers, Rev. 11:13, Job 34:23, 26. (3) The mocking, scorning, and public exposure of the wicked, Job 12:16-19 and 27:23, compared with what precedes, Ezek. 14:18. There are examples in the Jews, 1 Kings 9:8, Jer. 18:16; in the Moabites, Jer. 48:39; in the Babylonians and their king, Isa. 14:4-18. (4) The kinds; for they are either spiritual, Amos 8:11-12, Rev. 2:5, 2 Thess. 2:10-12, or bodily, Deut. 28:15 to the end. Again, either particular punishments upon particular persons — such as sicknesses, want, poverty, disgrace, Rev. 2:21-23 — or public judgments upon lands and peoples, Jer. 18:7 — such as famine, Lev. 26:25, plague, Ps. 91:3, war, Lev. 26:23, drought, floods, storms, Hag. 1:11, Ezek. 14:21 — which are wont to be sent on account of, and for the sake of, notable sins: (1) against God, which are chiefly: (a) ingratitude, Isa. 1:3, 2 Chron. 32:25; (b) contempt of the Word of God, Isa. 42:24, 2 Kings 22:13; (c) belittling of His ministers, 2 Chron. 36:16; (d) breach of covenant, Hos. 8:1, Ezek. 16:59; (e) idolatry, Isa. 2:8, Jer. 2:13; (f) pride, Isa. 2:11, Ezek. 28:2. (2) Against one's neighbor, such as (a) deceits, Jer. 9:5, Hos. 4:1; (b) neglect of widows and orphans, Isa. 1:23, Jer. 5:28; (c) biting usury, Ezek. 22:12; (d) oppression of the poor, Isa. 3:14, Ezek. 45:9; (e) cruelty toward the wretched, Ezek. 16:49; (f) withholding of wages, Jer. 22:13. (3) Against ourselves, such as: i. pride in apparel, Isa. 3:18; ii. excess in feasting, Isa. 5:12, Amos 6:1-4; iii. abuse of the benefits of God, Isa. 5:4; iv. perjuries and cursings, Hos. 4:1-2; v. covetousness, Isa. 5:8; vi. hypocrisy and dissimulation, Isa. 10:6 and 1:16. Whereby, however, one must observe that God's judgments are not sent at once, as soon as these sins are committed, but when they become (a) open and general, Jer. 5:1 and 6:13; (b) shameless, Jer. 3:3; (c) after repeated warnings and rebukes, Ps. 95:10, 2 Chron. 36:15-16; and (d) after the despising of God's judgments executed on others, Jer. 3:8, Isa. 1:5. (5) Their properties and characteristics, whereby they are (1) righteous, Ps. 119:75, 137, Ezek. 7:3, 8, 27, Rev. 15:4, 16:5-7 and 19:2, 11; (2) unsearchable, Rom. 11:33, Prov. 25:2; (3) altogether wonderful and marvelous, Isa. 29:14 — inasmuch as they are poured out not only upon the sinners themselves, but also very often upon their posterity, 2 Kings 10:1, 15, Ps. 109:12-15 and 119:73; inasmuch also as God does not pour them out only upon the wicked, but also brings them upon His own, Ps. 6:1, 2 Sam. 24:12-13; indeed, inasmuch as God, passing over the wicked, at times afflicts and chastises His own, 1 Pet. 4:17; likewise, inasmuch as He at times punishes and plagues the wicked through the wicked, 2 Chron. 33:24-25. (4) Fearful and dreadful, even to the godly, Heb. 10:31, Ps. 119:120, Isa. 6:5, Jer. 4:19. (5) Unchangeable and irrevocable, Jer. 15:1, Ezek. 14:14, Exod. 32:33. These matters, although they properly belong to avenging Justice, it seemed good to me to bring in here, that opposed things, set over against one another, might the more shine forth.

XXV. From Mercy it is, in turn, easy to grasp the nature and origin of Patience or Forbearance, and of Longsuffering, which are frequently ascribed to God, Exod. 34:6, Ps. 103:8, Job 21:7-9, Nah. 1:3, Isa. 30:18, 1 Pet. 3:20, 2 Pet. 3:9, 15, Num. 14:18, Neh. 9:17. Nor will anyone deny them of God, who shall have thoughtfully considered: (1) How great an offense and injury to God there is in every single sin — by which the sinner prefers himself, his own desires, and all manner of creatures, before and above God, and thereby, so far as in him lies, casts God down from the throne of His Godhead; whence sin is by the ancient Fathers sometimes called Deicidium, that is, a God-murder. (2) How great a Holiness there is in God, how great an aversion from, and how great a contrariety against, sin, Ps. 5:5-7, 11 and 7:12. Further, (3) how great a Power there is in Him to take vengeance, whereby He cannot be hindered but that He might crush the offender at once, with but a single word, Ps. 50:22, Amos 9:1-2. Moreover, (4) how great a multitude of sins there are, which are committed every moment; how great an ugliness and shamefulness there is in sin — so that if it were granted even to a man, however longsuffering and gentle he might be, to see and behold them all at once and together, as God does, he would not endure the world for a single hour, Jer. 32:31. Let one add to this, (5) how great is God's effort to call the sinner back to repentance, that his ruin might be averted, 2 Cor. 5:19-20. Finally, (6) how great also are the benefits with which He, without — indeed against — all merit, very often loads even the most godless, Ps. 73:3, 12. Now whoever shall have gathered together all these and other points, will, I well know, acknowledge how great a Patience and Forbearance, how great a Longsuffering, there is in God.

XXVI. Patience or Forbearance, in creatures, differs from Longsuffering, in that by the one we very often cannot, by the other we will not, render evil to the one who offends; but in God, in that God, by this (namely Longsuffering), overlooks greater and heavier offenses, and also more lasting ones. Hence God is called erek appayim and μακρόθυμος, Longsuffering, slow and tardy to wrath. And it is nothing other than His Mercy, insofar as He delays vengeance, or does not requite and repay the evil upon the one who brings it about, Matt. 18:17. Which comes to pass (1) by sparing for a time, or not repaying at once — indeed, sometimes waiting for a long time: for days, Jonah 3:4; for years, Luke 13:6-9; for an age and more, Gen. 6:3. (2) By warning beforehand, and calling and inviting to repentance, that, if possible, the punishments might be averted, Matt. 23:37, Luke 19:41-44, Matt. 3:10. (3) By setting before the eyes, as an example, His judgments executed upon others, Jer. 7:12, 14, Luke 13:4. (4) By giving beforehand a foretaste of the whole ruin through gentler plagues, Ps. 7:12. Let the Sodomites serve here as an example, Gen. 14 compared with ch. 12; and Pharaoh, Exod. 6-25; and the Israelites, Amos 7:1-12. (5) By not punishing according to the proportion of the desert, Ps. 103:9-10, Lam. 3:22, Job 11:6, Ezra 9:13. Nay, even (6) by doing good to those who offend Him, Rom. 2:4, Isa. 5:2. Finally, (7) by preserving a remnant even in the very ruin and destruction, Isa. 1:9 — after the example of Noah, with his household, in the general flood of the world, Gen. 6-7, Matt. 24:37-38, 2 Pet. 2:5; in the destruction of Jerusalem, Ezra 9:8, 13.

XXVII. The causes and reasons of so great a Patience, Forbearance, and Longsuffering of God are: (I) His good and gracious Nature, more inclined to do good than to destroy, Lam. 3:33, Jer. 32. (II) The demonstration and manifestation of His Glory, Rom. 9:22-23; an example of which is Pharaoh, Exod. 9:16. (III) A promise made to the godly seed, Isa. 48:9, compared with 2 Sam. 7:14-15. (IV) The godly mingled among the wicked, Gen. 19:22, 2 Kings 22:19-20, 2 Chron. 25:18. (V) The number of the saints, not yet fulfilled and completed, which must yet be filled up and accomplished, Rev. 6:10-11. (VI) The measure of sin, not yet filled up, Gen. 15:16. (VII) The expected conversion and repentance, 1 Kings 21:29, 2 Chron. 32:26, 2 Kings 20:19. Accordingly, (VIII) the end of the delayed punishments is: (1) that there might be time to amend one's ways, 2 Pet. 3:9, Rom. 2:4; (2) that sinners might become more and more inexcusable, there, v. 20; (3) that those who do not repent might be the more severely punished, Ps. 50:21, Eccl. 8:11-12, Rom. 2:4-5.

XXVIII. Set over against Patience and Longsuffering is the desire for vengeance, according to which God is called a jealous God, an avenger, and that most furiously — who keeps His wrath, and who avenges Himself upon His adversaries, Nah. 1:2, Exod. 20:5; again, 1 Thess. 4:6, an avenger, of whom Ps. 94:1 speaks; Deut. 32:35, Rom. 12:19, Heb. 10:30, that vengeance belongs to Him; likewise, Jer. 51:6, that He comes to take vengeance, Ezek. 25:14; that He puts on the garments of vengeance, Isa. 59:17. And that He may indeed be seen to be both patient and longsuffering: (1) not from want of power and ability, but knowingly and willingly, as one who does not wish that His patience be profaned with impunity, Rom. 2:4. Nor (2) from ignorance and lack of knowledge, as one who suffers things to happen of which he is ignorant, Jer. 32:28. Nor (3) from want or neglect of justice, on account of which it is often joined together with longsuffering, Exod. 20:5-6, Nah. 1:2-3, Jer. 18. Nor (4) from sluggishness and indolence, or from want of purity and holiness, Ps. 10:11-12 and 104:6-7 and 50:21-22. Now God exercises vengeance: (1) when He punishes swiftly, Jer. 18:7 — examples of which are Gen. 7:21-22 and 19:24, Lev. 10:2; (2) when He punishes very heavily and severely, oftentimes for a comparatively light sin, Gen. 2:16-17, Lev. 10:1-3, 1 Sam. 3:13-14 and 6:19, Acts 5:5, 10; (3) when He punishes unbendingly and inexorably, Ps. 1:22, Jer. 15:1, Ezek. 14:14, Exod. 32:33; (4) when He punishes not the sinners alone, but also their children, family, and kindred, Exod. 20:5, Num. 16:31-32, Josh. 7:24-25; (5) when, finally, He punishes eternally, Matt. 25:41, 46, 2 Thess. 1:9. It will suffice merely to have touched, as with a finger, these matters, which, according to the law and nature of opposed things, belong to avenging Justice.

XXIX. There remains, that we speak with a word of God's Kindness or Beneficence, according to which He is called rav chesed, great or abundant in Beneficence, in the text, and likewise Neh. 9:17 — which the Holy Scripture everywhere, and with the most excellent titles, ascribes to Him, when it calls His Χρηστότης and Kindness, Eph. 2:7, Kindness and love toward mankind, Titus 3:4, and says that His kindness and beneficence is excellent, even unto the heavens, Ps. 36:6, and precious, there, v. 8, abounding in kindnesses and in goodness, Isa. 63:7; that His kindness is everlasting, Isa. 54:8, from everlasting to everlasting, Ps. 103:17; that He makes it wonderful, Ps. 31:22; that He is great, Ps. 145:8. Now Kindness is nothing other than God's Mercy, doing good to the sinner; whereby He works (1) in a friendly, sweet, agreeable, and gentle manner with sinners — whence it is called love toward mankind, Titus 3:4, Prov. 8:31; whereby He (2) entices and invites sinners to repentance, Isa. 5:26, Hos. 2:14, Matt. 11:28, Isa. 55:1, Song 2:10, Rev. 3:20; whereby He (3) heaps them with all manner of benefits, Rom. 2:14 — in which respect it is one and the same as God's Goodness, of which we have treated at large and expressly in the preceding chapter. Set over against this, in its own way, is God's σκληρότης, hardness, bitterness, harshness, etc., Matt. 25:24, whereby He (1) deals very severely, hard, and rigorously — indeed, as it were, inhumanly and cruelly — with sinners, especially with those who are impenitent; by bringing shame and disgrace upon them, Deut. 32:19-20, 22-23, etc., Matt. 3:7 and 16:4; by turning His face from them, Isa. 1:15, and, as it were, driving and casting them away from His presence, there, v. 12-13. Indeed, also (2) with His own, by forsaking them, Ps. 13:2-3 and 77:8-10; and (3) by heaping upon them every manner of evil, Ps. 88:4 to the end; (4) by driving sinners away and casting them out from His presence into the utmost and eternal torments, Matt. 18:32, 34 and 22:13 and 25:41, 46.

The Polemical Part

XXX. It is asked: (I) Whether God's Love alone would be sufficient to reconcile the sinner, without any satisfaction of Christ? The Jews maintain that, for the sinner to be reconciled to God, nothing else is required than repentance and contrition, the use of sacrifices; now they require obedience and the observance of the ceremonial and legalistic Law, without any Satisfaction from the Messiah. The Socinians very badly abuse the Love of God, whereby He gave His Son, in order thereby to exclude the Satisfaction and merits of Christ from the mystery of religion — arguing that, by that love, the world has long since been reconciled, and that nothing more is now required of it than obedience to the commandments of Christ; so that the Grace flowing from this Love also strictly excludes all Satisfaction of Christ. The Reformed, although they acknowledge that Love of benevolence, whereby He gave His Son to the world, nevertheless do not grant that, by the Love of good pleasure, the world was reconciled with Him, and that therefore the Satisfaction of Christ was not necessary to this end. Their proofs: (I) Because Scripture expressly says that there are, notwithstanding that Love of God, such as are enemies of God, Rom. 5:10, children of wrath, Eph. 2:3. Because also (II) Scripture expressly says that God hates sinners, abhors them, and has a loathing of them, Ps. 5:6-7. (III) Because the Father, loving His Son, could not, on account of sin committed, be angry with Him, so that He should need to be reconciled with Him — as is shown by the example at hand of David and Absalom, 2 Sam. 13:39, compared with 14:24, 28, 32-33. (IV) Because God, loving the world, has reconciled it to Himself through Jesus Christ, not imputing their sins unto them, and has also made Him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, 2 Cor. 5:18-19, 21. (V) Because we do not wish that Christ's Satisfaction, and the Reconciliation brought about thereby, should look and aim at this, that thereby, as regards affection, one who did not love should become one who loves; but rather, as regards its effect, that it should remove from the sinner that which prevents the affection of love from being poured out upon him unto salvation. So they say: (a) There is meanwhile in God nothing other than an inclining disposition to do good — and love is also efficacious, as that whereby He gave His only-begotten Son to the world: could this proceed from an averse and hostile disposition? Answer: (1) There is in God a general or common Love, whereby He is inclined to do good to all creatures, and therefore also to man, Ps. 36:7, 1 Tim. 4:10, by way of outward and common benefits, Ps. 145:9; there is also in Him a particular or saving Love, whereby He imparts benefits which are joined with salvation, which have an inseparable connection with salvation, Heb. 6:9. But that Love God does not dispense except upon a prior reconciliation through satisfaction. (2) That efficacious Love, whereby He gave His Son to the world, had no other relation to the world than, so to speak, an objective one — a love which, of itself, did not touch man, so that it is no wonder that this Love could have had place before the reconciliation and satisfaction; but the subjective Love, which enters into the beloved object, in order to bring salvation to it, presupposes, by the intervention of other things, the Reconciliation through the Satisfaction of Christ. (3) There is a Love of benevolence, whereby God wills for and toward the beloved objects such things as, by and through which, they shall at some time be able to please Him — whereby, for example, He, having from eternity chosen them, and in time redeemed them, bestows on them from day to day faith and conversion; and this love goes before the reconciliation through a satisfaction: and there is a Love of good pleasure, whereby we are, moreover, pleasing to Him, and whereby He has made us acceptable to Himself, and has graced us in the Beloved, Eph. 1:6; and this Love requires first a Reconciliation, through the Satisfaction of Christ, in order that it might be in that Beloved One. (b) If they say that we are, by the Love of God, freely justified, of His grace, Rom. 3:23-24; likewise, that by that same Love our sins are forgiven and remitted us, and therefore not on account of, and by reason of, a payment or satisfaction. Answer: (†) But it is done διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, through the redemption (that is, such a one as is brought about τῷ λύτρῳ, by a ransom) which is in Christ Jesus, that is, in His blood, and that indeed to the demonstration of His righteousness. (††) Thereby we are freely justified, and our sins are also forgiven and remitted us, insofar as God freely allows and accepts the Satisfaction of Christ on our behalf, and likewise imputes it to us, and not to another, freely. Moreover (†††) freely, insofar as man contributes nothing to his own justification, nothing to the forgiveness of his sins. If they persist, saying that whether it be done by ourselves or by another, satisfaction is made; then it is no forgiveness, no remission — I shall answer: (*) Here there is not a true and properly so-called payment, which excludes all grace; but a Satisfaction, which in many ways includes grace. (**) This would perhaps hold, if we ourselves had appointed for ourselves a surety, and the satisfaction were laid for us, in our place; but not when the Creditor Himself, and that not being asked or entreated, sets a Satisfier in the place of His Debtor, and freely allows and accepts that one's Satisfaction on behalf of His Debtor. More on this matter will come before us below, in the chapter on the Obtaining of Salvation.

XXXI. It is asked: (II) Whether the Love, whereby God has elected us, is grounded and settled upon a foreseen faith — that is, whether God could not have loved the sinner except as already established in Christ by faith? The Remonstrants, Jesuits, and others, in order that they might hold Grace to be equally disposed toward all, which would be determined and made effectual by our free will, make Election depend upon the free will, in that man determines himself, according to his own choice, to believe; and, to obtain this, they lay it down that God, by reason of His righteousness, loves no one so as to save him, except in Christ, in whom no one can be, except by faith. The Reformed acknowledge that the Love of good pleasure, whereby we are pleasing to God in Christ, and therefore also faith itself, whereby we are in Christ, presupposes election; but they deny that the Love of benevolence, whereby He elected us, does so in any way. Because (I) even that faith, whereby we are in Christ, does not arise except from the love of God — as being called a gift of God, Phil. 1:29. Because (II) it flows from and out of the love of election, Acts 13:48, Eph. 1:4. Because (III) that love of benevolence, whereby He has elected us, whereby He bestows on us the Redeemer, calls us to Him, and brings faith in Him to us, is understood as distinguished from the love of good pleasure, whereby He is pleased with us, first, after or through faith, Heb. 11:6 — from which distinction one may answer, with no difficulty at all, the foundation of the opposing opinion. More on this matter will come before us in the chapter on Election.

XXXII. It is asked: (III) Whether the saving Grace of God extends equally to all and to every man alike? The Pelagians, Socinians, Jesuits, Remonstrants, and others, in order to maintain that the indifferent free will — independent of everyone, even of God — determines itself, according to its own choice, to believe and be converted, so long as the duty which is to be pursued is set before it and urged upon it, hold that saving grace extends equally to each and every man, sufficient for him to believe, be converted, etc.; which would nevertheless have to be determined solely by an independent free will. The Dominicans among the Papists agree with the Jesuits in this, that they hold that the free will can, with a sufficient grace, which comes equally to all and to every man, be brought to actual conversion, so that it might do good works, believe, etc., if only it wills; they contend that this grace, not merely a moral one, aided by persuasion, but also a physically operative one, is bestowed on all, which predetermines man's will to believe, etc.; whereas the Jesuits hold that a moral, persuasive grace suffices for this, upon which the free will can determine itself according to its own judgment. The Universalist Reformed make a distinction between an objective and a subjective grace: the former they hold to be general; the other they hold to be proper to the elect alone — of which more, at length, in the following chapter. The Lutherans likewise teach a general grace, which is saving, although (they say) the production of faith, of conversion, etc. does not depend on man's free will, but upon a physically operative working of the Holy Spirit; meanwhile they nonetheless ascribe to the free will the power to come to a merely negative not-resisting of the Spirit, as He is at work to produce faith, etc. — of which likewise, at length, a little further on. The Reformed in general acknowledge a general grace with respect to natural things; a common one with respect to moral things; but they do not admit a saving grace, with respect to those things which are joined with salvation, except that which is proper to the elect alone. They do not admit a saving grace which should extend equally to each in particular — not even that which our Brethren call objective. For these reasons: (I) Because Brethren, especially the Pelagians and those inclined to Pelagianism, are compelled to posit a grace without grace. For what else is grace but a privilege — in Latin, privilegium, as it were private legis, that is, of a particular own law — according to Isidore, in Gratian, dist. 3, cap. 3? And how could that be a privilege which is general, which makes no distinction, 1 Cor. 4:7? (II) Because the Brethren are compelled to mix and confuse nature with grace, when they ascribe to man's free will natural powers, which would, as it were, determine the general grace — such as the remnants of natural light, and the common notions in those who have never so much as heard a single word about Christ — thereby being compelled to bring in that Party's grace unassisted. (III) Because they are compelled to distinguish a sufficient grace, common to all, from an efficacious grace, and yet call it sufficient — grace which cannot produce its effect, that is, which is not sufficient; indeed, what is worse, to derive the efficacy of grace from man's free will. (IV) Because they are compelled, in order to support that general grace, to call in the aid of middle knowledge, whereby God, before His decree, would have foreknown who would be willing and who not; which middle knowledge we have refuted in its proper place. (V) Because they are compelled to posit a Will of God who has decreed that any and every one should be saved, which is not far removed from the general election of Origen, Puccius, and Huber, which we have expressly and at length refuted in the chapter on the Will of God. (VI) Because they are compelled to posit a willing or willingness of God dependent upon a condition, and thus dependent, temporal, powerless, changeable at every hour — which we have rejected above. (VII) Because they are compelled to teach a redemption whereby it might come to pass that not a single one of the redeemed should be saved, and by which by far the greater part of the redeemed would in fact be lost. (VIII) Because they are compelled to make the object of predestination the redeemed and called, and man endowed with sufficient powers. (IX) Because they are compelled to confuse and mix together the proclamation of nature and of the word, in order to maintain that even those are called to salvation who have never had opportunity to hear the word. (X) Because they are compelled to hold that the grace of regeneration is given to those who have never had opportunity to know Christ. And because they are thus (XI) compelled to grant that salvation can be obtained without the knowledge of, and faith in, Christ. Which matters are such that to have merely mentioned them is as good as to have refuted them. The objections we have already answered above, when we were occupied with the Will of God.

XXXIII. It is asked: (IV) Whether at least the objective Grace is general? Those Reformed who acknowledge a general grace (perhaps to that end, and with that design, that, on the one hand, they might not depart too much and too far from the accepted teaching of the Reformed, and, on the other hand, might come nearer to the opinion of the Lutherans and Arminians, and thereby win them the more effectively, and pave the way to a hoped-for Concord and Peace) deny, to some degree, the general grace. To this end they establish a certain distinction, making that grace to which man has a relation only as an object, general — such grace, with them, being the grace of the Satisfaction and Redemption; while yet they add that, by the powers restored by grace, man is able to obey, believe, etc., if only he wills — this grace, they say, is general: whereas a subjective grace — such, with them, is the grace of regeneration, faith, conversion, etc. — this now they do not wish to be general, but proper to the elect. They agree with those inclined to Pelagianism, in that they acknowledge some saving grace to be common to all and to every man alike; but they differ chiefly, and most of all, in these particulars: (I) whereas those teach such a general grace as excludes a particular one, these teach both a general and a particular one. (II) Whereas those extend their general grace equally to particular men, these extend it unequally, insofar as they bring more grace to the elect than to the reprobate. (III) Whereas those bring the powers, whereby one can obey, believe, etc., to the free will — remaining to it, even after sin, either wholly unimpaired, or at least not wholly extinguished — these bring those powers to the grace, whereby that same will, extinguished by sin, is again restored. (IV) Whereas those teach such a general grace, whereby any and every one might be able to obey, believe, be converted, without any limit, these teach such a one whereby each in particular can, if he wills. (V) Whereas those teach a general sufficient grace, whose efficacy depends solely on the free will, these make the efficacy of their general grace depend on an overflowing and additional grace, whereby God brings about not only the ability, if they will; but also the willing itself of that which they are able to do. This it has seemed good to me to set forth and expand a little further, that we might know how much silver differs from tin, and that we might not put these Reformed on the same footing as the Pelagians. The Reformed in general — however much they acknowledge a general grace with respect to natural things, and a common one with respect to moral things — nevertheless acknowledge no general grace with respect to saving things, whether objective or subjective. (1) Because Holy Scripture teaches no saving grace which is general, as will appear from the objections. (2) Because also the grace of election is objective, which nevertheless even our Brethren, who differ from us in this matter, acknowledge to be not general, but altogether particular; and because also, conversely, the powers whereby they come, if they will, belong not to the objective, but to the subjective grace. (3) Because the grace of Redemption, of Satisfaction, of Calling, just as that of Election, is in Holy Scripture a particular grace, proper to the elect — as we shall show, each in its own place, in particular. (4) Because, on the supposition of the Brethren, there is now not a single man who could not be obedient to the calling God, believe in Christ, etc. — which Holy Scripture everywhere contradicts, Jer. 13:23, Rom. 8:7, 1 Cor. 2:14, etc. (5) Because one of these two positions of the Brethren, according to their own supposition, must of necessity be granted: either, that those powers, restored equally to all and to every man, do not spring from the grace of regeneration, conversion, sanctification; or, if they do spring from it, then regeneration, conversion, etc. is general — which of these two is the harder and coarser, I do not know. The reasons on which the Brethren rest their opinion are taken: (a) from the general ransoming of Christ, which Scripture generally teaches — 1 Tim. 2:4, 6, who gave Himself a ransom for all, etc. Answer: Assuredly for all, but not for all and every one, which is required for the reckoning of a universality. For all, that is, for all sorts, Rev. 5:9 — since the Savior plainly excludes the world, John 17:9. (b) from the general calling, which the New Testament teaches, Rom. 1:19-20, Ps. 19:2, 4-5, Acts 14:17. Answer: Those passages do not teach a general calling to Christ, such that any and every one should embrace Him by faith — which is here the point in dispute — but they speak of a calling to God, that they should seek Him, or that they might perhaps, groping after Him, find Him, though He be not far from every one of us, Rom. 1:21, Acts 17:27. (c) from this, that, they say, by grace any and every one is restored to that condition from which they fell, through the sin of the first parents, in which they could obey God, if they had willed. Answer: It has not yet been proven, and cannot be proven, that any and every one is, by grace, restored to that condition from which they fell in the first parents: for then would be restored, in any and every one, the original righteousness, the immortality, the dominion over the earthly creatures, and the paradisal blessedness.

XXXIV. It is asked: (V) Whether anyone, still unregenerate, apart from grace, by the powers of the free will, could, without the Holy Spirit working faith and conversion, at least so much as not-resist positively — that is, before the Holy Spirit, bringing in the light of grace, as it were open the doors and gates, and remove the obstacles: by attending upon religious worship, pouring out prayers, using the Sacraments, and other things of the kind? The Jesuits, for the sake of their independent free will, hold that, when the free will, by its own powers alone, apart from God's predetermining grace, has begun to determine itself to believe, to be converted, etc., God then works together with it by the cooperation of His grace, that faith, etc. might come to actuality. The Synergists among the Lutherans think that the free will, together with the Holy Spirit working faith and conversion, is able to cooperate. The remaining Lutherans, since they wish to distinguish their general sufficient grace — in order, on the one hand, not to depart too far from the man of God, Luther, who, in his treatise on the Bondage of the Will, and elsewhere, has utterly unnerved the powers of the free will in the matter of conversion; and, on the other hand, not to leave the unregenerate man absolutely nothing, which might make the general sufficient grace efficacious — hold that an unregenerate person, by the powers of the free will, can at least positively not resist — that is, by eagerly hearing God's Word, praying, etc. — the Spirit, as He is about to bring in the light of grace, as it were open the doors and gates, and remove the obstacles. The Reformed acknowledge indeed that an unregenerate person, apart from saving grace, can not-resist the Holy Spirit in a negative sense, as happens, for example, in sleep: that he can, in some manner, hear God's Word, pray outwardly, receive the Sacraments, etc. — but they add that these things also come to pass not by the powers of the free will alone, but by that same common grace, by which God works even in the unregenerate whatever moral good is in them, or whatever proceeds from them. For example, whatever there was in Bezalel of his natural skill, Exod. 31:2-3; whatever there was of moral good in those who are said to have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, to have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, Heb. 6:4-5. Thus the Reformed judge and think, chiefly for these reasons: (I) Because Scripture makes every good work, even a good thought, to depend upon some grace of God, 2 Cor. 3:5. (II) Because a ψυχικός, natural or unregenerate man does not comprehend the things of the Spirit, indeed counts them foolishness, and cannot understand them, 1 Cor. 2:14 — how then could he, before the Holy Spirit is about to work saving grace of faith and conversion, and to bring the light of grace into him, turn himself, and, as it were, open the doors and gates for Him? (III) Because the φρόνημα σαρκός, the mind of the flesh, apart from which there is nothing else in the unregenerate, does not submit itself to the Law of God — indeed, cannot — Rom. 8:7. How then could it, before the Holy Spirit is about to work faith, as it were come to meet Him and help Him? (IV) Because, on the contrary, it resists the Holy Spirit and strives against Him, Isa. 63:10, Acts 7:51. And such are we all by nature, before regeneration, Eph. 2:3. How then could we, before the Holy Spirit is about to bring the light of grace into us, as it were open the doors and gates? (V) Because whoever shall open the doors of his heart to the Holy Spirit must at least know that the Holy Spirit is at work to produce faith and conversion — but whence shall an unregenerate man know and understand that, especially since he is by nature darkened in his understanding, and moreover alienated from the life of God, Eph. 4:17-18; indeed, altogether blind, Rev. 3:17? But how could such a one help the Holy Spirit, or cooperate with Him? Finally (VI) because to positively not-resist the Holy Spirit is nothing other than to show oneself willing and obedient, and thus to be obedient to Him — but how could an unregenerate person, by the powers of the free will, bring this about? I also do not see what they can produce for this their Helen — which was utterly unknown to Luther, indeed, sufficiently refuted even by the suppositions of his Bondage of the Will — which the present-day Lutherans, however often they must dispute with us on this point, so greatly embrace and are, as it were, hopelessly enamored of; what, I say, can they bring forward for it, other than that experience itself cries out, that those who are as yet unregenerate, possessing nothing but their own free will, are able to go to church, pour out prayers, use the Sacraments, and do other outward things? However, (1) we do not deny that such things can be performed by the unregenerate; but that this can be done by the powers of the free will — this is precisely what we deny, since these things come to pass by the help of common grace. And then (2) we deny that this comes to pass in the unregenerate to this end, that they might not resist the Holy Spirit. For this is nothing other than to show oneself obedient to the Holy Spirit, to earnestly desire the grace of regeneration, and to plead for it — a thing which cannot proceed from those who are dead in sins.

XXXV. It is asked: (VI) Whether those do not undermine the grace of Election, so many as hold that Election comes to pass either out of a foreseen faith, or out of foreseen good works? The Pelagians and Socinians, who do not acknowledge a certain foreknowledge of future contingent things, hold that Election (at least the personal and finalizing sort) comes to pass, not out of grace, but by virtue of faith and conversion, already present — namely, at the moment of death, or even after death — in order to maintain a free will which is absolutely indifferent, independent, changeable at every hour. The Semi-Pelagians, Jesuits, and Remonstrants, who do allow a certain foreknowledge of future contingent things, in order likewise to maintain an independent free will, by which faith and conversion should not depend upon the grace of Election, but Election upon the faith and conversion — hold that God has elected us not out of pure grace, but for the sake of foreseen faith: the Papists, out of foreseen good works. The Lutherans, although they do not wish to seem to make faith and conversion depend on the powers of the free will, nevertheless, in order that the free will might contribute something, from which the efficacy of the general sufficient grace might be drawn, ascribe to its powers a not-resisting, and thereby make election depend upon foreseen faith. The Reformed are of the judgment that all of these, although in different ways and in different degrees, undermine and render powerless the Grace of Election — at least injure and diminish it: and this they judge for these reasons: (1) Because the Apostle goes before them in this, Rom. 11:6: If it is by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. And if it is of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise the work is no more work. (2) Because the very nature of grace teaches this, since grace is an undeserved — that is, an independent and altogether most free — love, as we have taught above. As much, therefore, as one makes to depend on nature, or on the powers of one's own free will, so much one fails to make depend on grace, since one makes it depend chiefly on an independent free will. What they might urge against this, in favor of the opposing view, they draw from the Scripture passages which seem to make Election depend on faith — which we shall answer, God willing, in the chapter on Election.

XXXVI. It is asked: (VII) Whether those do not undermine the grace of Justification, who make Justification depend on good works? The Socinians, in order not to hold that our Justification depends solely on the Righteousness of Christ, bestowed on us — that is, on His satisfaction and merits, received by faith alone — think that we are justified on account of our good works; not indeed the legal works, but the Evangelical ones, that is, works performed according to the Law of Moses, insofar as it has been improved and augmented. The Remonstrants, that we might not be justified on account of the Righteousness of Christ, freely imputed to us out of grace, but out of works — teach that we are indeed justified by faith, but insofar as it is working through love, in good works; or insofar as, working through faith, in good works, it is held for a complete obedience, which the Law demands, and for a Divine, favorable acceptance and reckoning. The Papists posit a twofold merit: one, which falls upon works done before conversion — something which, according to them, is not according to righteousness, but by virtue of congruity, which would be owed to works that presuppose some generosity of God, yet which nevertheless also merit by congruity; a second, which would belong to good works after conversion, by virtue of righteousness and condignity. In the merit of congruity there enters, according to them, some bountifulness of God, which nevertheless depends on the congruity of the works; the merit of condignity excludes all grace, as involving a payment, of whatever sort it be. The Reformed think that all these, in various ways, undermine the grace of Justification, for the same reasons that we have noted at the preceding topic; and for other reasons, which we shall state in the chapter on Justification — where we shall also, besides, examine and test at large and expressly the proofs for justification by works.

XXXVII. It is asked: (VIII) Whether they do not abuse God's Mercy, who hold that by it not only all men, and each in particular, but even the Devils themselves, shall at some time be saved? We have touched on this topic in the Polemical Part of chapter 15 of Book II, §30. The Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, ancient and modern, Socinians, Jesuits, Remonstrants, hold, out of regard and in favor of the independent free will, that God wills that all men, and each in particular, be saved, under the condition that they be willing to believe and be converted. Origen of old held that, on account of God's Mercy, no punishments whatsoever are appointed absolutely — recompensing or satisfying for sins, however great and of whatever kind, and for whatever creatures, even for the Devils — but only purifying punishments, whereby sinners might be made fit to enter into heaven; that on this account sinners, in proportion to their sins, unto a certain fixed time, both devils and men each in particular, shall be received into grace and purified, and that thereafter all sinners, and each in particular, shall be brought into and admitted to the Kingdom of God — according to the testimony of Augustine, On Heresies, ch. 43, to Quodvultdeus. Franciscus Puccius, an Italian inclined to Socinianism, and Samuel Huber, a Swiss, who from a Reformed minister became a Lutheran, taught that, on account of God's Mercy, at least all men, and each in particular, shall in fact be saved. The Reformed think that all these shamefully abuse the Mercy of God: (I) against the Scriptures, which speak of a merciless judgment, James 2:13, of eternal shame, Matt. 25:41, 46, of a fire that shall never be quenched, of a worm that shall never die, Isa. 66:24. (II) Against God's avenging Justice, 2 Thess. 1:8-9. (III) Against the nature of sin, which, from the offense and injury done to God's infinite Majesty, draws upon itself a guilt of infinite punishment; and since the finite sinner cannot bear the infinite punishment intensively — that is, in its own concentrated weight — it therefore necessarily requires an infinite punishment extensively — that is, in its duration — infinite, or eternal. (IV) Against the Reprobation of which Holy Scripture speaks, which altogether does away with the general salvation of all. (V) Against the Election of which Holy Scripture speaks; for Reprobation being taken away, thereby Election too is taken away: for where there is no Reprobation, there is also no Election. Nor do I see what the opposing Party can, with any semblance of plausibility, urge and bring forward for the general salvation of all, other than this: (1) That it is contrary to God's infinite Mercy to punish eternally a creature which has sinned only for a short time. Answer: (a) The Divine Attributes — namely, Mercy and avenging Justice — do not at all strive against one another: hence, from the fact that, according to the whole of Scripture, there is an avenging Justice, Rom. 1:32, compared with ch. 2:6 and following, 2 Thess. 1:6-11, Gen. 18:25, God's mercy is not thereby done away. (b) Although God's mercy is infinite, and natural to Him, so that He can have mercy on whom He will, Rom. 9:15, nevertheless the dispensation of it depends on His most sovereign good pleasure: He has mercy on whom He will, and He hardens whom He will. (2) That it is also contrary to the Divine Justice, which requires a proportion between the crime and the punishment; and therefore that a finite crime should not be punished with an infinite punishment, and that what has been committed within the compass of a short time should not be requited with a punishment of infinite duration. Answer: (a) Although God's Justice punishes every sin with an eternal punishment, nevertheless God does not neglect or disregard proportion in the degrees of punishments, Luke 12:47. (b) The heaviness of the crime must not be reckoned by its duration alone, but also by its object — just as it is a heavier matter to kill a king than a beggar, 2 Sam. 18:3. Therefore, to slay the infinite God — which a sin, so far as lies in it, attempts to do — incurs a guilt of infinite punishment, by a rightful proportion; and since the finite creature cannot allow or bear an infinite punishment intensively, that is, in its own concentrated weight, there is therefore necessarily required a punishment which is infinite in duration, that is, eternal.

The Practical Part

XXXVIII. In setting forth the practical use, we shall be briefer on this topic than the dignity of this matter would otherwise require — because most of the points which we have already noted concerning God's Goodness can easily, with the necessary changes, be carried over to this place, inasmuch as Goodness, so far as it communicates itself, is one and the same with Love. Meanwhile, the particular practical use of this topic might be the pursuit, the cultivating, and the diligent care: First, in order to obtain, and, as it were, to draw to ourselves, the chief point and the sum of all love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, and kindness — that inclination and disposition of God to incline Himself favorably toward us. (I) Because in it is understood, as in an abyss, all the perfection of all the love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, and kindness of all creatures — for which reason it is compared to the tenderest, or fatherly, inclining affection, Ps. 103:8, 11, 13. Indeed, (II) it surpasses that infinitely many times over, Isa. 49:15-16. (III) Because it is the fountain-source and the chief matter of all the happiness of all creatures, inasmuch as by it God has given His only-begotten Son to the world, John 3:16, and with Him all things, Rom. 8:32. (IV) Because in particular, and among its outgrowths, from it there arise and flow forth to us: Election, Redemption, Calling, Regeneration, Justification, Adoption to sons, Sanctification, Glorification, and all things joined with salvation, as we have taught in the Doctrinal Part, compared with Eph. 1:2-4, 2 Pet. 1:2-3. (V) Because that alone is sufficient for us, 2 Cor. 12:9, is sufficient unto all things, Phil. 4:11-13, and is necessary to such a degree that apart from and without it we are nothing, 1 Cor. 15:10. So that God (VI) is, on account of it, called not only rich in grace and mercy, Eph. 2:4, abundant in mercies, Ps. 51:1, most tender in these, even to the bowels, Ps. 25:6, Luke 1:50 — likewise everlasting, Ps. 25:6, and unchangeable, Isa. 54:10 — but also the Father of mercies, 2 Cor. 1:3. Wherefore (VII) the saints have always been so greatly concerned and anxious as to how they might find grace in the eyes of the Lord, Gen. 18:3, Exod. 33:12-13, 16-17, Num. 11:15, compared with Ps. 119:41 and 90:14. Indeed, (VIII) Grace makes up the beginning and the end of most of the Apostolic epistles, Rom. 1:7 and 16:24, 1 Cor. 1:3 and 16:23, 2 Cor. 1:2 and 13:13, Gal. 1:3 and 6:18, Eph. 1:2 and 6:24, etc. Indeed (IX) herein consists the whole business of the Apostles and of the Gospel — to uncover, lay open, offer, and bring to men God's Grace: whence the Word is called the Word of Grace, Acts 14:3 and 20:32, and a Gospel of Grace, there, v. 24. But by what means shall we obtain and secure for ourselves that gracious and beneficent inclination and disposition of God toward us? Answer: (1) Certainly not by any foolish endeavor to bend or change the unchangeable God, so that from one who does not love He should become one who loves; but (2) by entrusting and committing that matter, however great it be, solely to the Mediator, in whom the Father is well pleased, Matt. 3:17 and 17:5 — who has reconciled us to the Father, Col. 1:20-21, Eph. 2:12-17, 2 Cor. 5:19-21 — not by changing the Father, but by taking away from us that which, as it were, stopped up His Grace, and made us unfit to receive and take in the saving floods and streams of the Divine Grace: there. By paying our debt, and tearing the handwriting as it were in pieces, Col. 2:14 — so that we are now graced in the Beloved, Eph. 1:6, and can draw and receive out of His fullness grace for grace, John 1:16. Whence grace and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, 2 Cor. 13:13, are so joined together, that the first place belongs to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and then the love of God (the Father), and then the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. For this reason it is (3) our duty that we, to obtain the Father's Love toward us, strive and endeavor to become partakers of the Grace of Christ — which shall come to pass through a true and living faith in Him, John 15:23 and 1:12, Rom. 3:24, Eph. 2:8, compared with John 14:6, Acts 4:12. Let us add (4) to this, the Love of God and of the Mediator, whereby we may, at least in a Scripturally-formed love, be confirmed, Deut. 8:9, John 14:23, 1 John 4:10. And also (5) let us diligently order and conduct ourselves according to the prescript of His will and word, Gal. 6:16. Finally, (6) let us put away from before His face all that can turn away His favor from us, Isa. 1:15-16 and 59:2.

XXXIX. Secondly, to guard ourselves and be on our watch, that we do not at any time close ourselves off, or turn ourselves away, from that inclining disposition of love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, and kindness, and, on the contrary, stir up against us His aversion, hatred, wrath, severity, vengeance, and judgments, 2 Sam. 22:23-24, 26. Which comes to pass (1) through every sin, Rom. 1:18, Ps. 5:5-7, Hos. 1:15-16 [?]. In particular (2) through a hatred of God, Deut. 5:9, Exod. 20:5. (3) Through abusing God's grace, forbearance, and longsuffering, Rom. 2:4-5. (4) Through cruelty and hard-heartedness against one's neighbor, James 2:13. (5) Through idolatry, Deut. 6:14-15 and 7:4, Jer. 8:19. (6) Through vanities and lies, Deut. 29:19-20. (7) Through unbelief and disobedience, John 3:36. (8) Through impenitence, Rom. 2:4-5. And (9) through other sins besides, which the Apostle recounts, Eph. 5:5-6, Col. 3:5-6. Now that we might the more carefully avoid and flee these and other such offenses, it will be helpful and of much service that we think often and much: on the one hand, of the weight and importance of the salvation and blessedness which rests upon the love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, and beneficence of God; on the other hand, of the weight of the wretchedness which lies in the hatred, wrath, severity, vengeance, and judgments of God. The proofs and motives for this shall come to us, piece by piece, out of the Doctrinal Part.

XL. Thirdly, to examine and test — whenever we perceive and become aware of God's inclining disposition, love, grace, or mercy toward us — whether it is merely a general good disposition, which extends as much toward beasts as toward men, Ps. 36:7, or whether it is a common one, which extends as much toward the reprobate as toward the elect. For since (I) there is sometimes found so great a nearness and likeness between nature and grace, whereby, in the outward exercise of religion and of the virtues, nature very often surpasses grace — as appears not only in certain heathen, above others, of upright and modest life, such as Plato, Cato, Aristides, Scipio, Seneca, and others, but also in the Church, for example, in the Pharisee and in the Publican, Luke 18:10-14. Since there is also (II) sometimes so great an agreement between common and saving grace, as appears from the examples, Isa. 58:2, 2 Cor. 13:1. Since (III) in these matters so many, and so great, men have deceived themselves, and still daily deceive many thousands of falsely so-called Christians — taking a more decent, modest, and honorable nature for the grace of regeneration, and the common gifts of grace for proofs and evidences of saving grace, James 1:26-27, Luke 18:11, Rev. 3:17. And since (IV) they have not deceived themselves without danger — indeed, without eternal ruin: it is therefore necessary, if anything is, to test here the things that differ, Phil. 1:9-10, and to make our calling and election sure, 2 Pet. 1:10. But by what marks shall we, after all, be able with certainty to recognize and distinguish that disposition of God which is peculiar in particular to the elect, and which allots Election, Redemption, Calling, Union, and fellowship with Christ? Answer: (1) We shall not seek that distinction in the affective disposition itself of God, which is, with respect to all, altogether alike; but in the effects and results, whereby it is distinguished, by things which are in particular called gifts of grace and fruits of the Holy Spirit, and which are joined with salvation. Such are (2) Faith — not every kind, but the saving kind, which we have elsewhere distinguished from the common kind. This indeed is expressly ascribed to the particular grace, Phil. 1:29, John 3:16, and is reckoned among the better gifts, 1 Cor. 12:31, compared with ch. 13:13, and is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, as His fruit, Gal. 5:22 — who is thence called the Spirit of Faith, 2 Cor. 4:13. In particular (3) love toward God gives us an excellent proof of His love toward us, 1 John 4:19, Rom. 5:5 — that love, in particular, which bears to the Divine love, in its own way, such a resemblance that it, as it were, shows forth an image and impression of it, from which one may the more clearly infer and understand the original image, which we shall portray a little further on. Then (4) love toward the brethren, 1 John 4:7-8, 11-12, 20, 1 Cor. 13:1 — not every kind of love, which does not consist in word and in tongue, but in deed and in truth, 1 John 3:18, such as the love of God is toward us, and whereby we love our neighbor for God's sake. Further (5) grace, mercy, forbearance, and longsuffering toward all and each — namely, that we, as elect of God, holy and beloved, are affected with inward stirrings of compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, Col. 3:12-14. Finally (6) all those things whereby Election, Redemption, Regeneration, Conversion, Union, and fellowship with Christ, as fruits and marks of the Divine love, are known and recognized — all which points shall each in their own place be taught in particular.

XLI. Fourthly, for practical use. For to what end does God expend His inclining favor, love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, and kindness — is it that these should lie idle? And if they be idle, shall they not then be received in vain? Of which the Apostle so earnestly warns us, 2 Cor. 6:1: We beseech you that ye receive not the grace of God in vain — if only in vain, Gal. 3:4, and not unto an aggravation of God's hatred, wrath, vengeance, and judgments, Rom. 2:4-5, James 2:13. Now we shall make use of this: (1) in the case of humbling — that we, above other men, possess and hold all the goods that we possess, not by our own power, merit, and worth, but by God's mere inclining disposition, love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, and kindness, 1 Cor. 4:7, Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 3:24, 26-27. Then (2) in the case of comfort — for God is the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort, 2 Cor. 1:3. For, in general, in all manner of adversities, bodily as well as spiritual, what shall be able more powerfully to lift up and sustain us than a godly thought and consideration of the love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, and kindness of God? — which the Saints have so often, and with so great feeling, called to mind and taken to heart, Exod. 20:6 and 34:6, etc., Ps. 103:3-14. In particular (1) in bodily afflictions and sicknesses, Ps. 6:3 [?]. (2) In afflictions of fortune, in poverty, Ps. 39:9-11 and 147:9, 11; in the hatred and persecutions of enemies, Ps. 23:4-5 and 84:12. Especially (3) in afflictions of the mind, in anguish and distresses over sin, Ps. 51:3 [?]; in spiritual desertions, Isa. 54:7-8, Ps. 147:3; in the awareness and sense of our own insignificance, Luke 18:13, Matt. 8:8, Luke 8:44 (for love, after all, is a purely gratuitous grace, altogether free and independent, Rom. 11:36) — in the multitude and continued persistence of sins; that God is great, and infinite in compassions and mercies, as we have shown above. Further (4) in the case of trust, in every sort of condition, both in adversity and in prosperity: for he who trusts in the LORD, mercy shall compass him about, Ps. 32:10 — so that we can calmly hold and cleave to God, never departing from Him a hair's breadth, whether from fear of evil, or in hope of some good — because He, who is a Sun and a Shield, will give grace and glory, and will withhold no good thing from them that walk uprightly, Ps. 84:12. Finally (5) in the very use itself of grace, that we should watch against its contempt and disdain, Rom. 2:4-5, and against a shameful presumptuous carelessness and unconcern, Rom. 6:1, compared with ch. 3:8 — whether it be unto wantonness and licentiousness, Jude v. 4, or unto ...

XLII. Fifthly, to follow after the love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, and kindness of God, Matt. 5:43-45, 48. (I) By love toward God, who has loved us — not only with a general or common love, but with that precious and costly love, whereby we are made drunk with the fatness of His house, and given to drink of the river of His pleasures, Ps. 36:8-9 — and this love John urges upon us, 1st Epistle, ch. 4:19. And not with any love whatsoever, however great it be, but with such a one as, so far as is possible, resembles the Divine love: which (1) is pure, and without dissimulation, 1 Tim. 1:5 — which does not merely hang about in the mouth and on the tongue, 1 John 3:18, but wells up from the heart, and indeed from the whole heart, Matt. 22:37 — such, namely, as God's love is toward us. (2) That it be free and independent, not so much for the sake of His benefits, or something that comes from God, John 6:26, as for His own sake — just as His love or grace toward us did not arise from any pleasingness or worthiness in us. (3) That it not be idle, but efficacious, Gal. 5:6 — just as God's love and grace toward us is. (4) That it be in the highest degree, above all that is dear and precious, Matt. 10:37, 39 — just as God has loved His own above all things; indeed, in His own way, above His own only-begotten Son, Rom. 8:32, 1 Tim. 6:17. Compare what has been said above, ch. 16, §16. (II) By love, favor, and grace toward one's Neighbor, whereby we do him good freely, apart from any regard to worthiness or recompense — just as God does, Matt. 5:45-46. (III) By mercy, whereby we are ready and willing to comfort and come to the aid of all who are set in any wretchedness — just as God does, Lev. 6:26 and 10:30, 37. (IV) By patience, forbearance, and longsuffering, whereby we are disposed to bear long and much with the one who offends us, Matt. 18:17 [?], to forgive offenses, however grievous they may be, Matt. 18:21-22 — just as God does, Matt. 6:12, 14-15 and 18:35 — and to be reconciled after offenses, Matt. 6:24-25 — just as God does, 2 Cor. 5:18. Finally (V) by kindness and beneficence, that we deal gently and kindly, even with our very greatest offenders, Gen. 45:4-5 and 50:19-20, 21, and, moreover, heap our offenders and enemies with benefits — just as God does, Matt. 5:44-46, Rom. 12:20-21. To expand all these things, the grounds thereof will come to hand for us most abundantly out of the Doctrinal Part.

XLIII. Finally, sixthly, to glorify God, and to give Him thanks on account of all these His Attributes. To which end (I) points the frequently-employed heaping up of the Attributes, in the songs of praise, Exod. 34:6, Neh. 9:17, Ps. 103:8. Toward which (II), as toward the last and utmost aim and goal, all grace tends and points: the grace of Election, Eph. 1:6, to the praise of the glory of His grace, Rom. 9:23; of Redemption, Eph. 2:4, 7; of Calling, Eph. 1:9, 12; of Regeneration, Titus 1:1, 4-5, 1 Pet. 1:3; of Justification, Rom. 3:24, 26; of Adoption to sons, 1 John 3:1, Eph. 1:18; of Sanctification, Rom. 11:15, 17; of Glorification and eternal salvation, Eph. 2:6-7; and of all His benefits, Ps. 23:5-6. And that we might be the more ready and prepared for this business of thanksgiving and glorification, it will be helpful to think often and much: (1) that God, in His inclining favor of love, grace, and mercy toward us, is nevertheless entirely self-sufficient for Himself, and seeks or desires no benefit from us — indeed, cannot even receive one, Gen. 17:1, Ps. 16:2 and 50:9, 14. (2) That God inclines in love toward mean and unrighteous men. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? etc., Ps. 8:4; a nothing, a thing that is as nothing, Ps. 39:6-7; a drop in the bucket, and a speck of dust on the scale, nothing, indeed less than nothing, Isa. 40:15, 17 — even toward transgressors, and toward those who are His enemies, Rom. 5:10. (3) The inclining favor itself, whereby the all-sufficient God, with so great a perfection, and in so many ways, pours Himself out in love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, kindness, upon wretched sinners, Exod. 34:6, and even embraces them so tenderly, Jer. 31:20. Finally (4) the benefits of this inclining affection, which are so many and so great — natural, moral, saving — such great riches of kindness, and forbearance, and longsuffering, Rom. 2:4. And let us think on this so long and so earnestly, until we (a) comprehend somewhat with the heart, together with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, and know the love of Christ, which passes knowledge, Eph. 3:18-19; and also (b) break forth with the mouth: Bless the LORD, O my soul. The LORD is merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in kindness, Ps. 103:1, 8; and (c) that we render again, so far as lies in us, in works, Ps. 116:12 — which shall come to pass, in particular and especially, through a diligent following of those Attributes which we have already pointed out.

Chapter XVIII: On God's Righteousness

Over Psalm 119:137.

LORD, thou art righteous, and every one of thy judgments is right.

I. We have said that the Goodness of God may be considered either as it communicates itself, whereby it makes others good; or as it is desirable in itself. In the first way it is, as it were, a natural attribute, insofar as its communication takes place through God's love, grace, mercy, forbearance, longsuffering, kindness — and thus we have thus far noted and considered it. In the second way it is, as it were, a moral attribute. And in this way it may again be considered either as related to a certain rule, with which it agrees most exactly — and thus it is called Righteousness — or absolutely and without qualification, insofar as it has an aversion from all moral impurity, and, on the contrary, is inclined to every moral good — and thus it is called Holiness. Righteousness we shall consider in this chapter; Holiness in the next. By Righteousness, then, God is inclined and disposed to act and to conduct Himself according to the rectitude of His nature, as an eternal rule; this rectitude He prescribes to creatures as a rule, or manner and way of acting and conducting themselves — that is, a Law; He also repays, either good or evil, according to the obedience or disobedience of creatures. This Righteousness the Prophet sets before us, Ps. 119:137.

The Explanatory Part

II. The text contains in itself a certain laudatory acknowledgment and exclamation, with a proof and argument taken from God's Righteousness. Herein two points come before us, namely, (1) The Person: LORD, thou art righteous. Here first the Person praised, YHWH, LORD. To this name is added, by way of excellence, the title of address, righteous — insofar as it is thereby made known that God's Righteousness, according to the nature and force of this name, is independent, unchangeable, most simple, infinite, and eternal. (2) The proof and ground of the address, righteous art thou, tsaddiq attah — according to the usage of the Hebrews, attah, in place of the substantive copulative verb "thou art," so that it is: thou art righteous — although here it is besides emphatic. Thou art righteous, namely, by way of excellence, and independently, thou alone. Which emphasis is also somewhat increased by the word order, whereby the adjective "righteous" is placed before the pronoun "thou": righteous art thou, LORD, and no other, in that manner, but thou alone. Further, the title tsaddiq, righteous, is applied, if it be referred to words, to signify one who is truthful — who acts according to His own words and sayings, as according to a rule, by both promising and threatening at once; or, if it be referred to things and dealings, namely, according to the nature and condition of each — dealing differently with a righteous man than with an ungodly one, namely, either by rewarding the one, or by punishing the other: and thus this word signifies fairness and fittingness.

(2) The Judgments, ve-yashar mishpatecha, and right are thy judgments. The connecting letter (vav) joins together the righteousness of nature with the righteousness of the judgments or workings: because he who is right and righteous also acts rightly and righteously — just as he who does not act rightly is also not right or righteous. The word yashar, translated "right," could be taken either substantively — the right, or rightness itself, are thy judgments, emphatically; they are not merely right, but rightness itself, so that it conveys an excellence of rightness above all that is right; or adjectivally — right, or upright, are thy judgments, namely each one of thy judgments, to convey a universality of rightness in each and every one of thy judgments, proceeding and acting according to the rightness of thy nature, according to the truth of thy sayings and words, whether of thy promises or of thy threats, according to the condition of the objects, whether good or evil, dealing out to each one, individually, various things — either rewards, or punishments. (3) The praised and celebrated matter, mishpatecha, thy judgments. The word mishpat is of manifold meaning; for it signifies (a) a custom, a solemnity, a manner of doing — thus Jer. 30:18, 1 Sam. 8:9 — for thus it would here signify the right or the justice: thus the tyranny of the Kings would signify the "right." (b) The Law, namely the Civil Law, according to which right was pronounced and administered in the Republic of the Israelites — thus Ezek. 20:11 [?]. Further (c) the pronouncement of the sentence, as it were a judicial proceeding, a judge's pronouncement — thus Deut. 1:16, Judg. 16:31, Job 9:15. Moreover (d) the execution of the sentence, by rewarding or by punishing, Num. 20:12 [?], Ps. 2:6 — the same as, among the Greeks, the word κρίνω, I judge, Rom. 3:4, Heb. 10:30, from Deut. 32:36. And since subordinate things do not conflict, all these things can be fitly gathered together. Wherefore also the word stands in the plural, mishpatim, judgments, to signify that all God's customs, solemnities, and manners of doing; all His Laws, legal proceedings, and executions of His sentences, whether by rewarding or by punishing, are right.

The proof and ground of the address: yashar, right, is set over against crookedness, whereby something deviates from its rule — and so it agrees with the word tsaddiq, righteous. In the moral sense, crookedness is the same as sin, or ἀνομία, lawlessness, unrighteousness, John 3:4, compared with Ps. 125:5, whereby a deed deviates from its rule and standard; and yashar, right, that which agrees with the same, Eccl. 7:29. It is therefore made known that God is righteous not only in Himself, but also in all His judgments and workings.

The Doctrinal Part

III. Accordingly, according to the testimony of the Psalmist, God is righteous in Himself, and righteous in all His deeds and works. With which the Holy Scripture consistently, and in many places, agrees elsewhere, when it (1) expressly calls God righteous, right, holy, Ps. 25:8 and 11:7, Deut. 32:4, Exod. 9:27, Jer. 12:1, Dan. 9:14. When it (2) removes from Him all that is contrary — unrighteousness, unfairness, respect of persons, receiving of gifts, and all the causes, workings, and appendages of every sort of unrighteousness, 2 Chron. 19:7, Rom. 3:14 and 9:13-14, Heb. 6:10, Deut. 32:4, Job 8:3. When it (3) ascribes to Him such affections as require righteousness in creatures — hatred, wrath, severity, vengeance, judgments, punishments — just as we have shown in their own places: all which things in God are nothing other than the acts of an unchangeable Righteousness. When it (4) says that He repays each according to his work, and thus gives to each his own, Job 34:11-12. And He can be none other than righteous: because He (1) is absolutely perfect, from whom therefore this perfection, which excludes nothing imperfect, cannot be absent. (2) Because He is the Lord, the Governor and Ruler of the whole Universe, who, if He is not righteous, degenerates into a tyrant. (3) Because He is the Judge of the whole earth, Gen. 18:25 — but how could He, without being righteous, pronounce sentence and judgment? (4) And if God were not righteous, whence would any righteousness come? Accordingly, either there would be no righteousness at all; or such as had not proceeded from God; or it would have proceeded from one in whom it is not: but which of these is more, or less, absurd?

IV. Righteousness now is, in general, a conformity with its right and rule. Wherefore it is one and the same with rectitude, to which crookedness is set in opposition, or the deviation from one's rule and standard, as we have said in the Explanatory Part. Righteousness therefore comprises (1) the right in general — that which is denoted by, and belongs to, each and every one, Rom. 1:32, Luke 20:25 — which is the rule and standard of doing and acting; and (2) a conformity with this right, which is the formal element, or the essence, of Righteousness — just as deviation is the essence of unrighteousness. So that Righteousness belongs to those things which are relational, and differs in just this from Holiness, which consists in a quality. Whence it admits of no degrees, and is either perfect, or is not at all — for it either agrees with its standard, or it does not agree with it — whereas Holiness has its degrees. In this conformity in particular consists also God's Righteousness, no less than that of creatures — except that God is Himself both the right, and the standard of His own doing and acting; whereas creatures acknowledge the right and standard of their doing and acting to have been prescribed to them from elsewhere: whence Divine and human Right are distinguished — although meanwhile the Divine Right, insofar as it is natural, is in fact the same as human and moral right, or that of the Ten Commandments, of which some likeness shows itself in man's original Righteousness. Now insofar as God acts in conformity with this — though not dependently — He is said to act righteously.

V. This Righteousness is accordingly noted and observed distinctly: (1) In the Will of God, according to which it is described as a steadfast will to give each his own — which, since it is one and the same with His Being, on this account calls Him righteous. (2) In His words and sayings, according to which He is called truthful, faithful, and steadfast — because it befits and suits the rectitude of the Divine nature to speak no otherwise: of which above at large. (3) In His deeds: which is again either (1) of Government, or Dominion, whereby He, as Lord, governs all creatures with the highest fairness — that is, in conformity with that rectitude which He has, through original righteousness, in some measure expressed in man — Himself righteously. Whence it stands, Ps. 33:4-5: For the word of the LORD is right; and all His works are done in truth. He loves righteousness and judgment. Against this it does not conflict, that so many perverse, unrighteous, and very evil things happen in the world; since God, according to His right, permits these, does not work them, in order that in these very things He might, at some time, make manifest His righteousness. Or (2) of Jurisdiction, or Judicial rule, whereby He in particular prescribes to rational creatures His right, and, according to that, governs them, in a manner suited to their particular nature. This comes to pass, in part, by giving a Law, consisting of commands and prohibitions — that is, by prescribing to them their duty, under the promise of reward or the threat of punishment, according to His Holiness, or His eternal Law, James 4:12: There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy, Rom. 10, Deut. 27:26, Gal. 3:10; in part, by strengthening and binding the Law with promises and threats, Deut. 30:15.

VI. In part, by fulfilling the obligation of the Law, Jer. 32:19. First, by rewarding the duties, according to His gracious promise, Ps. 18:24-26, Rom. 1:6-7 [?], 2 Thess. 1:5-7 — whose righteousness, however, is nothing but the fruit of a bare and mere covenant, apart from and without any worthiness on our part, Luke 17:10, Rom. 11:35-36 — because He, out of abundance of goodness, does not wish to be served in vain, Isa. 45:19, and, by promising, willingly and freely makes Himself, as it were, a debtor, 2 Tim. 2:13. Secondly, by punishing, or sending evils — indeed on occasion of sin, but not by way of recompense for it — namely, that either (1) sin might be corrected, turned away, and prevented — Heb. 12:5-11, 1 Cor. 11:31 — or curbed and restrained, in the elect who are as yet unregenerate, Acts 9:3-5, 9, and thus the way be paved to their conversion; or that (2) some hidden, lurking good might be brought to light, to which purpose the testing afflictions belong, Deut. 8:2 and 13:3, Judg. 2:22 and 3:4; or that the good, which is already manifest, might be exercised and increased, Ps. 66:10-12 and 26:1-2. Which afflictions and visitations are governed, not by God's Righteousness, but by His fatherly Love, Heb. 12:5-7, Rev. 3:19. Thirdly, by punishing transgressors, requiting and compensating with grievous evils the disgraceful wrongs done to Him. Which righteousness is called by various names, such as hatred, wrath, indignation, severity, vengeance, judgment or sentence, as we have expressly noted at large in the preceding chapter.

VII. But that this avenging Justice truly belongs to God essentially cannot be doubted any the more, seeing that it is one and the same with God's Goodness — for it is nothing other than God's Goodness, setting evil in order; just as Grace is God's Goodness, presenting and furthering virtue. So that the execution of punishing Justice is not equally free, sin being posited, as Grace is, virtue being posited — since God, in respect of the creature, is not made a debtor of any benefit whatsoever except by virtue of His own gracious promise, Luke 17:10, Rom. 11:35, whereas the creature, by virtue of sin, remains, absolutely and of necessity, a debtor to Divine Justice, subject to the punishment, Rom. 1:32. The punishing of sin, therefore, is in many respects inevitable and necessary: (1) By virtue of God's decree, Isa. 14:24, 26-27, Rom. 9:21-22. Then (2) by virtue of the threat, Gen. 2:17 and 3:3. Further (3) by virtue of God's natural hatred against sin and against the sinner, Ps. 5:5-7, which signifies nothing other than His will to punish. (IV) By virtue of the inward desert of sin, Rom. 1:32 and 6:23. Moreover (V) by virtue of the nature of the Law, which prescribes to man his duty under condition of punishment, and which would otherwise not differ from mere counsel, James 2:10, Gal. 3:10. Finally (VI) by virtue of His having punished His own and only-begotten Son, Rom. 8:32. From all these things, taken together, it can flow forth as nothing but indubitable, that sin must necessarily be punished by God — especially since Holy Scripture expressly says so, 2 Thess. 1:7, Hab. 1:13, Ps. 5:5.

VIII. Finally, God's Righteousness is (1) impartial, admitting no acceptance of persons, 2 Cor. 5:10, nor sparing the multitude of those who sin, Jer. 18:7 — nor even the whole first world, nor the worthiness and excellence of the person, not even of kings, Josh. 14:4-5; nor even those who are, in one way or another, joined with Him by covenant, Amos 3:2 — as appears from the examples of Moses, David, and others. It is (2) inexorable, Ezek. 14:14, 18, 20, Jer. 15:1. It is (3) universal, so that no single sin can be passed over that is not strictly punished — either in the sinner, or in the Surety, Gal. 3:10.

The Polemical Part

IX. Concerning God's Righteousness various matters are treated by way of question, or as controversial. It is asked first: Whether, and in what manner, Righteousness can have place in God? The reason for doubting is that He does not have, prescribed to Him by another, any right, as a rule and standard, according to which He should order Himself, in and under His doing — whereas righteousness or rectitude consists in conformity with its rule. Answer: He indeed has no right, or rule and standard, differing from the rectitude of His own nature; nor one such as would have been prescribed to Him from elsewhere; nor one such as He would be compelled to conform Himself to: nevertheless He has a right and standard, namely His own most upright and holy nature, which one is accustomed to call the eternal right, or the eternal law. Indeed, He has that Law of Nature, which He has prescribed, in the Ten Words, to rational creatures, according to which He, of Himself and freely, orders Himself in the governing of creatures. Further, that in God there is a Righteousness, we have abundantly proven from the Holy Scriptures and with reasons, §3.

X. In particular, secondly, it is asked concerning the righteousness of Government: Whether the Divine Righteousness must in every respect be said to be righteous? The reason for doubting is, on the one hand, because (1) so much and so great unrighteousness is observed and perceived in the world, under His governance, which does not seem to agree, or to be able to stand together, with a most righteous Governor who is almighty and all-wise. Because He (2) allots to His own, namely to the godly, the worst and most evil things, 1 Cor. 15:19, and to His enemies, or the ungodly, the very best, Ps. 73:3-9, 14, Jer. 12:1. Because He (3), in the matter of predestination, seems to be a respecter of persons, in that He allots things altogether unequal to those who are equal, forming out of the same lump one vessel unto honor, the other unto dishonor; that He has mercy on some, but hardens others; that He grants grace to these, but denies it to those, without any distinguishing reason in the objects, but solely according to and by His own good pleasure, Rom. 9:11-24. Because He (4) at times punishes the sins of the fathers in the children, Exod. 20:5. Because He (5) punishes an innocent one in place of, and instead of, the guilty — namely, that He has made His Son, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, sinful sinners, 2 Cor. 5:21. On the other hand, because Righteousness is a perfection, and indeed such a one as implies no imperfection whatsoever, and this therefore cannot be absent from a most perfect Being. We answer, accordingly, that God, in the government of this world, is in all things righteous, as we have demonstrated §3. To the first objection we say that God righteously permits unrighteousness, in order to make His avenging Righteousness illustrious in the punishing of the guilty. To the second we answer: (1) That God never sends to His own, or to the godly, anything that is truly evil; nor allots anything that is truly good to His enemies, or the ungodly, Isa. 3:10-11, but only some semblance of good. (2) That the evil which He sends to His own is in fact good; just as the good which He brings to His enemies is in fact evil — since to the godly their evil is profitable, and works together for their good, Rom. 8:28, just as to the ungodly their good is harmful: for the former it is a fatherly chastisement, whereby He keeps and excludes them from sin, as the highest and only evil; or a testing and exercising of patience, prayer, etc. (3) If we should even grant, which however we do not, that what God sends in this life is, in the ungodly, a true good, and in the godly a true evil, God will nevertheless, after this life, requite their evil to the godly infinitely — 2 Cor. 4:16-17 — and their good to the ungodly, Luke 16:19-26. To the third objection we say: (1) That God, in His government, is by no means a respecter of persons — for a respecter of persons is called, and is, one who, being bound to allot to equals, according to their claim, equal things, nevertheless allots them unequally; but God acts neither according to any set prescription, nor is He indebted to anyone for anything: for who has first given to Him, that it should be repaid Him again? For of Him, and through Him, and unto Him, are all things, Rom. 11:36. Then (2) predestination is a Divine decree, which is nothing other than an immanent act of God, which produces nothing outside itself, and consequently allots neither anything good, nor anything evil — although it is the standard, according to which His providence allots all things. And (3) if that providence be considered, which allots salvation and damnation, it does not bring unequal things to equals; but to unequals — namely, to believers and unbelievers — it brings unequal things: to believers, for Christ's sake, salvation; to unbelievers, for their sins' sake, most righteous condemnation. Finally (4) God deals with His creatures as an absolute and unqualified Lord, who orders and disposes them according to His own choice and good pleasure, Matt. 20:15: He has mercy on whom He will, and He hardens whom He will; out of the same lump He makes one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor, Rom. 9:18, 20-21 — using the one for the glorifying of His Mercy, and the other for the glorifying of His avenging Righteousness, in the manner that a Lord makes disposal regarding his servants and slaves, by setting the one to a more honorable, and the other to a less honorable, task, without and apart from any acceptance of persons. To the fourth objection we say that God never punishes the sins of the fathers in innocent children: for as to the first sin of the first-created parents, they committed that in those parents, by virtue of the covenant of nature; and as to the following sins, of the nearer or immediate parents, these are never punished in the children, unless they either incline toward the sins of the parents, or else follow after them. To the fifth we say that He punished His Son, not as simply innocent, but, by virtue of His eternal suretyship voluntarily undertaken, as guilty — although He was in Himself innocent.

XI. Further, thirdly, it is asked concerning legislative righteousness: Whether all righteousness depends solely on the Divine Will? Or, whether a thing is righteous for this reason, that God wills it to be righteous — or, whether, on the contrary, God wills it because it is righteous? From which arises also another controversy: Whether God could have commanded, in place of those things which He has commanded, altogether contrary things? Answer: (1) Certainly God is the first who is righteous of Himself; yet on this account the Will of God, as such, is not therefore straightway the cause of all righteousness — since we understand that some things are righteous prior to the will of God, although they are not such prior to His nature. Accordingly (2) some things are righteous because God so wills — namely, those things which belong to positive right; but some things God wills because they are righteous — namely, those things which belong to natural right, insofar as they agree with the holiness of His nature, or with the nature of man, insofar as it bears the image of God. Accordingly, God (3) could not have commanded contrary things, except insofar as they belong to positive and arbitrary right. For He could not have prescribed, for example, blasphemy, idolatry, disobedience, etc., although in the shadowy service of the Old Testament He was able to abolish it, and set up in its place another form of worship. We have treated this controversial and disputed matter in the chapter on the Will of God, §31.

XII. It is asked fourthly, Whether God, consistently with His Righteousness, can bind man to impossible things? The Papists and other champions of Perfectionism, in order to maintain, against this, that man in this life can be morally perfect — that is, can keep the whole moral Law — hold that God, consistently with His righteousness, cannot bind man to impossible things. The Socinians and Remonstrants, for the sake of the unimpaired free will, in order to hold that man is able to do what is prescribed to him by the Divine Law, hold that God, by virtue of His Righteousness, cannot bind man to impossible things. The Reformed make a distinction between things which are simply impossible for the whole human race, or which surpass the powers of the whole human race, to which it has never received powers from God — for example, to fly — then they acknowledge that man, consistently with the Divine Righteousness, cannot be bound to such impossible things; and between things which are impossible in a certain respect, to which man, in his Creation and in his original righteousness, did receive powers from God, but which he has lost through his own wantonness and willfulness: that God, consistently with His Righteousness, can in every respect bind man to such impossible things — for example, to perfectly obey His Law, although this is impossible for the sinner. Because God, through man's sin, and the powers wasted thereby to do what is prescribed, cannot be deprived of His right, whereby He requires that which is owed to Him. More on this elsewhere.

XIII. It is asked fifthly, concerning the rewarding Righteousness: Whether God, by His Righteousness, is likewise bound and obligated to reward obedience, as He is by it bound to punish disobedience? The Papists, in order the more forcefully to support their Merits — both those which, according to them, arise from congruity, which are due to works done before conversion, which nevertheless would presuppose some bountifulness of God; and those which, from condignity, would belong to works done after conversion — hold that God, by virtue of His Righteousness, according to strict right, owes a reward, no less than He is bound to punish disobedience. The Reformed, although they acknowledge that God, according to His gracious promise, is bound to the promised reward, because every promise creates a debt — nevertheless hold that good works merit absolutely nothing, and that God, by His promise, does not become so much a debtor to the good works, or to those who perform them, as He does to Himself, in so promising: and that therefore He, by virtue of His Righteousness, does not reward good works in the same manner as He punishes evil ones, to which, from their own nature, punishment is owed. Their reasons are chiefly these: (1) Because Scripture brings all reward to grace, or undeserved love, as we have shown in the chapter on Love, Grace, etc., §36. (2) Because our works themselves originate from God, whence the Apostle says: Who has first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to Him again? For of Him, and through Him, and unto Him, are all things, Rom. 11:35-36 — and therefore they are more God's than our own works: how then could He, on their account, owe us anything? (3) Because they do not reach up to God, Ps. 16:2, Job 22:2, ch. 35:7, Ps. 50:9, etc. How then would he, on their account, be indebted to us? (4) Because they proceed from us as from servants, Luke 17:10 — but a Lord owes His servant nothing. If they now object, saying: (1) that a Reward is spoken of — so one must think that there is a Reward which is not according to debt, but out of grace, Rom. 4:4. (2) That a worthiness is ascribed to the works — but which is not by virtue of the value of the works, but by virtue of an agreement with God's gracious promise, Eph. 4:1, Phil. 1:27. (3) That the reward is brought to Righteousness, 2 Thess. 1:7, Heb. 6:10 — yet this does not flow from the merit of the work, but from the gracious promise of him who rewards.

XIV. It is asked sixthly, concerning God's punishing Righteousness: Whether those sorrowful evils, which come upon true believers and the justified in this life, and even their death itself, are sent them from God's avenging Justice? The very renowned Cocceius, in order to have a greater distinction between the Old and New Testament, and to hold that the true believers who lived under the Old Testament did not have the ἄφεσις, the full remission of sins, but were under guilt, until the actual satisfaction of Christ — holds that they were under God's wrath, under the curse, under the fear of death, etc., and that therefore all the evils which came upon them in this life were sent them on account of their guilt of punishment, through God's Righteousness. A certain famous Reformed teacher, because he could not reconcile these temporal evils, with certainty, with his clear and distinct conceptions, which are with Him, as with all the Cartesians, the rule and standard of all truth, to God's fatherly love, chastening His own unto their good and salvation, holds that those evils proceed from God's punishing, or avenging, Righteousness, and that Christ has not made satisfaction for them. The Papists, in order the more forcefully to come to the aid of the self-satisfactions of Believers for the temporal punishment of sins, and likewise of their purgatory and indulgences, hold that Christ has made satisfaction only for the eternal punishments of sins, and that the temporal punishments are therefore sent them from God's avenging Justice. The Reformed indeed acknowledge that he has left to them, in order that they might make satisfaction, the temporal punishment; but they do not concede that those evils are sent without righteousness, or against it — since all that God does is righteous; also, that they are sent on occasion of sins, that these might thereby be prevented and averted, and thus tend to their salvation: but they do not admit that they are sent by God's avenging Righteousness, but by God's fatherly love. Accordingly, that they are not properly so-called punishments, but fatherly chastisements — between which and properly so-called punishments a manifold distinction is to be observed, namely, that punishment is inflicted by a Judge, chastisement by a Father; that punishment proceeds from God's avenging Righteousness, chastisement from God's fatherly love; that punishment tends to the harm of the one punished, chastisement to His benefit; that punishment tends to the recompense of a formerly committed crime, chastisement to the averting of a future sin. Their chief reasons are: (1) That Christ has made most complete and most exact satisfaction for their sins, and has taken away all guilt of punishment — wherefore avenging Righteousness can absolutely demand no punishment for it. That Christ has made the most exact satisfaction for these, Scripture teaches everywhere, John 1:29, 1 John 1:7, 2 Cor. 5:21, Isa. 53:4-5, 11 — so that He, by the one offering of himself, has perfected all believers forever, Heb. 10:14, and that the justified have all their sins forgiven, Rom. 4:7-8, Ps. 103:3. Then (2) because there is now no condemnation (κατάκριμα) for those who are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8:1 — but He who punishes where there is no guilt of punishment, no condemnation, deals unrighteously. Further (3) because the Apostle denies that the Elect of God can be accused, because it is God who justifies, and that they cannot be condemned, because Christ has died, Rom. 8:33-34. Moreover (4) because He does not behold iniquity in Jacob, nor perverseness in Israel, Num. 23:21, and much less, therefore, punishes it. Besides (5) that, if God should punish the justified with temporal punishments, Christ would not then save perfectly (εἰς τὸ παντελές) those who come to God through Him — of which the Apostle teaches the contrary, Heb. 7:25. Also (6) that those evils which are sent to believers are said to proceed from the love of God, Heb. 12:11-12, Rev. 3:19, Ps. 119:71, 1 Cor. 11:32 — and therefore not from God's avenging Righteousness. Finally (7) because they are sent them for their profit and advantage, Rom. 8:28, Ps. 119:71, and are therefore far better called benefits than punishments. I shall not omit (8) that even their death itself is nothing other than a deliverance from sin, Rom. 6:6-7 and 7:25-26, and 8:10, 2 Cor. 4:10, and a passing over unto life — wherefore it is reckoned by believers among their goods, 1 Cor. 3:22, Rom. 14:8. The chief thing that they object is this: that, according to the Scriptures, God, in the case of believers who sin more grievously, has sometimes punished more severely, and that they thus have borne the wrath of God, Micah 7:9 — indeed, that He is said to have avenged their sins, in Moses and Aaron, Ps. 99:8, and that He is thus found to have dealt with David, Solomon, and others. Answer: (a) To hold graver sins to a stricter account is not the same as at once to punish, as appears in David, on whom God, after the forgiveness, nevertheless sent so grievous a punishment, 2 Sam. 12:13-14. (b) God has brought heavier visitations upon heavier misdeeds, not that thereby the misdeed might be atoned for, and satisfaction be made for it to His justice, but that He might thereby make manifest His holiness, His hatred against sin, and His non-acceptance of persons, as an example to others — as appears in the chastised Moses and Aaron, Ps. 99:8: Thou wast a God that forgave them, though thou tookest vengeance of their doings. In this sense also (c) the Church is said to have borne God's wrath and His vengeance, namely materially, not formally, as the saying goes.

XV. Moreover, seventhly, it is asked, concerning that same punishing Righteousness of God: whether God, consistently with His Righteousness, could punish an innocent creature, at least with an eternal punishment? The Arminians, in order that God might not be able to reject a rational creature, not yet fallen, without foreseen sins, hold firmly that it conflicts with God's Righteousness to punish an innocent and guiltless creature. The Socinians indeed say that God can punish an absolutely innocent and guiltless creature, but upon perverse suppositions — namely, in order to maintain that Christ, being absolutely innocent and guiltless, was not punished for our sins, and that He therefore did not make satisfaction through His sufferings and through His death for us, but that He was nevertheless visited and afflicted — they hold that it does not conflict with God's Righteousness to punish an innocent and guiltless creature. Among the Reformed there are some — for example, the very renowned Twisse and others — who think that God can not only visit and punish an innocent and guiltless one, but even with eternal pains; the rest indeed acknowledge that He can do it simply, but that He cannot do it with eternal punishments, such as have place in the eternal punishments of the damned. And that He can simply punish an innocent and guiltless one, they prove: (1) by testimonies of Scripture, for example, Matt. 20:15, Jer. 18:6, Rom. 9:21-22. Then (2) because His power over creatures is infinite, which therefore also extends to and over an innocent one. Further (3) because as much power, at least, belongs to Him over rational creatures as belongs to man over the irrational animals, so that he even puts these to death. Moreover (4) because God, by His power and right, as, I think, all acknowledge, can at least, for example, lightly injure an innocent creature's finger; if this is granted, why then should He not, by that same power, be able to remove the entire finger from him — and why not also his temporal life? Let them add (5) to this the passage of John 9:2-3, where the Savior, to His Disciples, who asked Him for what cause that man's blindness from birth had been brought upon him — whether for the sin of his parents, or for his own — answered that it was neither for the sin of his parents, nor for his own, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him. Christ does not indeed mean to deny that either he or his parents had sinned, but only means to give to understand that, without respect to sin, this blindness was sent upon Him, to the glorifying of God. Let me add (VI) that all those evils which are sent by God upon true believers and the justified are sent them as, in their own way, innocent and guiltless. For although they are in themselves sinners, they can nevertheless in Christ, through Justification, by virtue of the righteousness of their perfect Surety, bestowed on and imputed to them, be called innocent and guiltless, and are also so called by God, Isa. 1:18: Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. And the reason for this is given: because the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanses us from all sin, 1 John 1:7. And yet I would not dare to determine that God could punish an innocent and guiltless creature with eternal punishments: because not only are the eternal pains, for sin's sake, appointed and destined for the damned as punishment, as coming upon them by virtue of God's Righteousness, 2 Thess. 1:6, 9, Matt. 25:41, 46, but chiefly because those eternal pains, which are otherwise destined to the damned for punishment, can contribute nothing to the glorifying of God's Mercy, nor of His avenging Righteousness — and that which does not tend to the glorifying of one of these two, God does not seem able to inflict on such a one. Nor does the objection hold good here, for the opposing view, of the reprobation of creatures as yet to be created and as yet to fall — since that reprobation, being an immanent act, neither visits nor punishes; and God, as it were, according to the prescript thereof, does not punish the damned except after a foregoing sin.

XVI. Finally, eighthly, it is asked concerning God's avenging Justice: whether God, consistently with His Righteousness, could leave sin unpunished? That He can punish, if He wills, is beyond all dispute, according to Rom. 1:32, and according to the constant tenor of Scripture. But that He could not punish, indeed that He even wills not to punish, the Socinians hold, out of hatred against the satisfaction of Christ, and that upon various suppositions: namely, (1) that to punish sins does not belong to God's Righteousness, nor to His nature, so that the punishing Righteousness should be natural to Him; but (2) to His hatred and severity, differing from His Righteousness, and therefore not to Righteousness — but that the punishing must be brought to God's incidental severity, and that therefore, by the not-punishing of sins, His Righteousness is not thereby offended or injured. The very renowned Twisse, with some others — for example, Grotius and others — holds that God can indeed, by His absolutely unlimited power, without regard to any contrary decree, not punish sins; but that He does not will it. Most of the Reformed are of the judgment that God can neither, nor wills to, leave sins unpunished. There are those who take the middle way, and do not judge it advisable enough to make a determination concerning God's unlimited power, whereby He could not let even the very least sin pass by unpunished — because (1) this seems to verge on rashness, that a creature should undertake to determine what the infinite God, by His infinite power, can or cannot do. And that it also (2) is not safe enough — being a thing hateful, and exposed to the slanders of the opposing Parties — to wish to maintain that God cannot, by His unlimited and infinite power, let even the very least sin go unpunished; and that (3) the duty and burden of proving it would be laborious and difficult enough, to show plainly and clearly enough that God cannot do this by His absolute power. They think, therefore, that it is, for the refuting of the opposing Parties, altogether sufficient to hold that God cannot do this — not so much on the ground of His absolute power, but at least on account of, and by reason of, the accumulation of very many reasons and causes: namely, (a) by virtue of God's eternal decree, wherein and whereby He has determined that He will not hold the guilty innocent, Ps. 50:21, Exod. 20:5. Then (b) by virtue of the threat, whereby He has declared to the sinner the punishment, Gen. 2:16-17 — the truth of which threat requires punishment. Further (c) from a natural hatred against the sinner, Ps. 5:5-7, from which they infer and conclude: God cannot fail to hate sin and the sinner, because otherwise He would also come to love him, according to the nature of contrary things, and thus sin would therefore not be sin — for whatever is loved by God is no sin; but now to hate sin and the sinner is, in God, nothing other than to will to punish. Moreover (d) by virtue of the nature of the Law, which prescribes to the rational creature his duty, under either an express or a tacit threat against transgression — which would otherwise degenerate and change into a bare counsel, or a mere and simple guidance, such as, for example, belongs and is proper to physicians toward their patients. Now, if God cannot fail to prescribe a Law to the rational creature — because otherwise He would not be an absolutely sovereign Lord — then He also cannot fail to threaten the transgressor with punishment; and if He cannot fail to threaten, then He also cannot fail to send the threatened punishment, consistently with His truthfulness, whereby it is made worthy of death, Rom. 1:32, 2 Thess. 1:6. Moreover (e) by virtue of the inward desert of sin. Finally (f) from the death of God's own, only-begotten, and most beloved Son, from which they infer and conclude: if God had been able to spare sin and the sinner, He would surely have spared His own only-begotten Son; but He has not spared Him, Rom. 8:32 — therefore He cannot. From all these reasons, taken together, they conclude finally that God cannot let the sinner perish unpunished. By virtue of this, Holy Scripture also says that He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity, Hab. 1:13, and that He hates all workers of iniquity, Ps. 5:6. That middle and more moderate course pleases me best of all. Wherefore we acknowledge, against the Socinians: (*) that the punishing of sin is, by Holy Scripture, brought to God's hatred, wrath, and severity; but which, by virtue of His simplicity, are not accidents in Him, or things differing from His nature, nor properly so-called passions, but His very Will to punish, which is altogether the same as His avenging righteousness. Meanwhile (**), that the exacting of punishments, or the exercise of punishing, is in the Scriptures brought not only to God's hatred, wrath, and severity, but to His Righteousness itself, 2 Thess. 1:6, Neh. 9:33, Ps. 11:6-7 and 129:4, Lam. 1:18, Dan. 9:14, Rev. 16:5 — whence He is moreover called an avenger of righteousness, Ps. 9:5, who has a day of righteous judgment, Rom. 2:4, and exercises a righteous recompense, Heb. 2:2, and a righteous judgment, Rom. 3:6 — indeed, is also a righteous Avenger, 1 Thess. 4:5. If it now be objected against this: (A) that anyone may waive his own right — we shall answer: (†) that not everything the creature can do, the Creator can likewise do at once — for example, divest Himself of His own sovereignty. (††) God is the Judge of the whole earth, who can do nothing but what is right, Gen. 18:25, Rom. 3:4-6, who does not attend to His own right, but that of the whole Republic; wherefore, if He should let sin go unpunished, He would not be giving up His own right, but a right belonging to another. (B) That all God's acts, however many there are, are free. Answer: (†) They are so — namely, those which do not involve, and so far as they do not involve, anything contrary to His holiness and righteousness: and (††) the ordering, as regards the circumstances — what sort of punishment, when, where, and to what degree it is to be executed — belongs to God's sovereign choice and good pleasure, while the essence, or the essential nature, of the punishing belongs to His righteousness and holiness. (C) That He can mitigate, moderate, delay the punishments, and transfer them to another. Answer: Only in the sense that He does not remove them altogether, and, as it were, conspire with the sinner, Ps. 50:21. All these things, moreover, belong to the circumstances of the punishing, in which, as belonging to an absolutely sovereign Lord, the freedom of dispensing them is His. (D) That, at least, sins against the positive Law do not conflict with the Divine Nature (since those Laws proceed only from His own choice), but only against His own indifferent will and good pleasure — and therefore that they too can be taken away only by a free forgiveness and remission. Answer: If it is but sin, and one has thereby violated the righteous Will of God, offended His infinite Majesty, and thereby made oneself guilty of the crime of injured Majesty, then, precisely for that reason, sin must truly be punished according to God's Righteousness. Especially since he who stumbles in any single point, whatever it be, is held guilty of having transgressed the whole Law, James 2:10.

The Practical Part

XVII. In respect of the Practical use, the Divine Righteousness furnishes us, first, matter for the glorification of God. Wherefore one sees that it is so customary with the saints to mingle the Divine Righteousness in and among their songs of praise — for example, Ps. 7:17, 48:10, 71:24, and 145:7, Eph. 2:16, Rev. 19:1, Isa. 26:7, Dan. 4:37. For the LORD of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, and God shall be sanctified in righteousness before the eyes of the holy, Isa. 5:16. Whence the heavens, and those who dwell in the heavens, are said to declare God's Righteousness, Ps. 50:6 and 97:6. Indeed, God Himself is also said to declare His Righteousness before the eyes of the peoples, Ps. 98:2. In particular it furnishes us matter for glory and for glorifying God: (I) His governing and ruling Righteousness, whereby He directs all things so exactly, in conformity with their nature and kind, by giving to each his own, that all His works are said to be pure righteousness, Ps. 119:75 and 111:7, Isa. 9:6. (II) His judicial Righteousness, whereby He, as the Judge of the whole earth, judges the peoples in all uprightness, and the world with righteousness, Ps. 96:10, 13, and righteousness is said to be the stability of His throne, Ps. 89:15 and 97:2. (III) His legislative Righteousness, whereby He prescribes Laws, which in every part are so righteous, Deut. 4:8, Rom. 7:12. (IV) His rewarding Righteousness, whereby He does not will to be served in vain, and even repays a hundredfold, Isa. 45:19, Matt. 19:29 and 25:34-35, every duty, even the very smallest and least, Matt. 10:42. (V) His chastening Righteousness, whereby He so strictly holds even the sins of His own to account, Lam. 1:18, Isa. 42:24. (VI) His avenging Righteousness, whereby He does not let, nor can let, a single sin go unpunished, Hab. 1:13, Jer. 1:15, 28, 2 Thess. 1:6, 8-9 — indeed, holds it to account with so many and so great judgments. And in all these (VII) with so great an exactness of Righteousness, which is unswerving and inexorable — wherefore it is compared to mountains, and to a deep abyss, Ps. 36:7, and is called high, Ps. 71:19, indeed eternal, Ps. 103:17 and 111:3. And that we might be the more ready and prepared for this work of glorying and glorification of God, it will be helpful and of much service: (1) That we gladly and diligently observe the ways and works of God, that we may everywhere acknowledge God's Righteousness, Ps. 119:75. (2) That we...

...call to mind and remembrance (Ps. 71:19; Mic. 6:5). (3) That we never rebuke or find fault with the divine judgments executed upon others, upon ourselves, or upon the Church, but acknowledge their highest righteousness, and rest sweetly and quietly therein (Lam. 1:18; Mic. 7:5; Ps. 39:10; Jer. 12:1; Job 40:3).

XVIII. In the second place, God's righteousness gives us matter for terror, dread, and trembling, for humiliation and contrition. (I) Because God is called great and terrible chiefly on account of His righteousness and judgments (Dan. 9:4; Deut. 7:21; Nah. 1:5; Job 37:22). (II) Because a single broken sin deserves eternal condemnation (Gal. 3:10), and man has committed so great a multitude of such great sins (Ps. 38:5); indeed, because even all the righteousness of all men is as a filthy, menstruous garment (Isa. 64:6), and because God is so strictly righteous that He neither will nor can let even a single sin, however slight, pass unpunished (Hab. 1:13; Ps. 5:4,6). (III) Because God's righteousness, as it were, rages against sin in so many ways: with an irreconcilable hatred (Ps. 5:4,6), with unbounded wrath, indignation, and fury (Ps. 90:11; 2:12; Deut. 32:22), with inescapable vengeance (Nah. 1:2,4,5,6), and with such fierce and terrifying judgments (Heb. 10:27,30,31) as we have already described somewhat more fully, point by point, in the preceding chapter, and which must be carried over here as well. (IV) Because God, who is an omniscient Judge, a searcher of hearts and exceedingly strict, has by His righteousness appointed a fixed day on which He will examine and judge every single person, and all the particular thoughts, words, and deeds of every single person (Rom. 2:5,6,8,9; 2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 12:36). Would not all these and other such considerations, carefully and diligently weighed together, wring from even the hardest heart the cry, "Woe unto us, that we have so sinned!" (Lam. 5:16); likewise, "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me?" (Rom. 7:24); and again, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37)

XIX. From this it follows, in the third place, that God's righteousness is for us a schoolmaster unto Christ — in whom God has willed to show forth and declare His righteousness (Rom. 3:25), whom for this very reason He has given us for righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30; Jer. 23:6), and who has been made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor. 5:21), whose righteousness is from this point also called our righteousness (Rom. 10:3) — driving and impelling us: (I) to be convinced by God's righteousness of the necessity of a satisfaction, since we have no righteousness of our own with which we could stand before God's tribunal (Ps. 130:3; 143:3), and our righteousness, however great, is nothing but a filthy, menstruous garment, and we cannot stand in the judgment except through God's righteousness (Ps. 1:4,5,6; 5:5,6,7); therefore it is immediately necessary either that the satisfaction of another intervene, or that we perish eternally. (II) God's righteousness makes the Redeemer precious to us (1 Pet. 2:7), and the blood of redemption precious (1 Pet. 1:19), so that we may count as loss what was gain to us, in order not to have our own righteousness, but that which is through faith in Christ (Phil. 3:9). (III) It moves us, on whatever terms He is offered, readily and willingly to lay hold by faith of the Christ offered to us (John 1:12), that we may be justified by faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16). (IV) That we rest securely in the Christ we have received (Isa. 10:20), because He has fulfilled the righteousness of the law for us (Rom. 8:3), and was delivered up for our offenses and raised again for our justification (Rom. 4:25). (V) That we deny ourselves all things, that we may not lose Him alone (Matt. 16:24,25).

XX. Meanwhile, in the fourth place, God's strict righteousness rouses us to walk before His face with all reverence and childlike fear, as before a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24), so that (I) we carefully take heed never, not even in the very least, to show ourselves before so righteous a God (Job 37:23,24; Heb. 12:28,29). (II) That we carefully guard against every imagining of a righteousness of our own, and against pride and haughtiness before God — such as the Pharisee betrayed and displayed (Luke 18:11,12), and the church of Laodicea (Rev. 3:17), and the Jews (Rom. 10:3) — (Ps. 130:3; Job 9:3). (III) That we never intrude into the sight and presence of the most righteous God with the guilt of our sins (Isa. 1:12,13), nor even without godly concern and diligence (Judg. 4:17; 5:1; Isa. 8:13; Gen. 28:17). And also (IV) that we never pour out our prayers before the most righteous Sovereign Being with the iniquity and unrighteousness of our sins, since He not only does not hear sinners (John 9:31), but also drives them from His presence and abhors them (Isa. 1:14,15; Prov. 15:8). And finally (V) that we never presume to deal with God at all without the intervention of the Mediator (1 John 2:2), without this Advocate who appears for us before the Father (Heb. 9:24), who covers and makes good the defect of our own righteousness with and through the abundance of His own, that we may be made complete in Him (Col. 2:10), who for this reason is said to have been given to us by God for righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30). Let us therefore never approach our religious duties except in His name (John 16:23; Heb. 4:15,16; compare ch. 9:14).

XXI. Also, in the fifth place, God's most exacting righteousness draws us back, in general, from every sin whatsoever: because God, as Lord, governs with such great righteousness and equity; because, as Lawgiver, He has prescribed such righteous laws — laws agreeing with our own advantage and salvation — and has, moreover, enforced them with righteous promises and threats, so that in every sin it is unrighteousness and iniquity itself to transgress them; and also because God, as Judge, on the day of wrath and of the revelation of His righteous judgment (Rom. 2:5), will demand the strictest reckoning and account of all deeds from all men (2 Cor. 5:10,11); and — what is chief of all — because He, as a righteous and severe Avenger, with His hatred, wrath, severity, vengeance, and judgments, here and hereafter, unto all eternity, will pursue every sin home, so that it is madness itself to provoke so great a Being with sins.

In particular, God's righteousness draws us back: (I) from all unrighteousness, deceit, and fraud in our dealings, contracts, commerce, and partnerships with our neighbors (Jer. 22:13; Prov. 19:5,9), and likewise from all respect of persons and receiving of gifts in judgment (Amos 5:17; Ps. 82:2,5). (II) From all murmuring against God, whereby, under the divine judgments, we call God's righteousness into question, find fault with it, or recoil against it (Job 10:2,3,15,16; compare Matt. 20:11,13,15). (III) From all hypocrisy and pretense, whereby we cloak and disguise the unrighteousness hidden within the heart with an outward show of piety and godliness (Matt. 23:14,25,26,28,29), since a deceitful heart is an abomination to God (Ps. 5:7; 15:2). Finally, (IV) from all Epicurean careless ease, whereby, by putting far from us and wholly setting aside the day of vengeance and of judgment (Amos 5:18), and by giving ourselves over to iniquity of every kind, we treasure up wrath for ourselves against the day of wrath and of the revelation of God's righteous judgment (Rom. 2:5).

XXII. On the other hand, in the sixth place, the righteousness of God invites and urges us to the exercise and pursuit of righteousness, both to obtain it and to practice it — to obtain it, that we may be righteous, and to practice it, that we may act righteously. To obtain the righteousness of imputation, that of Christ, spoken of above (§19), this comes about: (I) by the denial of our own righteousness (Rom. 10:3); (II) by a desire and longing for a foreign righteousness, that is, another's, namely Christ's (Phil. 3:9); (III) by faith in Christ (Rom. 5:1); (IV) by justification from faith (Phil. 3:8,9). As for the inherent righteousness, in particular and specifically: (1) the original righteousness, which we received by creation (Eccl. 7:29), lost by the sin of our first parents (Rom. 5:19; John 3:6), but which we recover again through regeneration, conversion, and sanctification (Eph. 4:24,25); (2) the actual, or rather habitual, righteousness (1 John 3:7; Mic. 6:8; Phil. 1:11), whereby we are in general inclined and disposed to render every man his own, according to God's prescription (Ezek. 18:5,21; Prov. 21:15; 20:7).

The diligence and industry to exercise and practice righteousness looks (a) toward God, that we give to God what is God's (Matt. 22:21), namely ourselves (1 Cor. 6:20), and likewise the love, honor, service, and obedience owed to Him (Deut. 6:5,13; 10:12,13, etc.); (b) toward our neighbor, that we faithfully render and show him all that belongs to him by virtue of the divine law (Rom. 12:7,8). This is done, in one part, by giving to each his own — which is distributive righteousness, whereby we, following a lawful judgment of matters and persons, a proper comparison of thing with thing and of person with person, and observing the most exact proportion, without respect of persons, faithfully give each man what is his due; and in another part, by rendering — either evil to the evil, which is retributive righteousness, entrusted to the magistrate alone (Rom. 13:4), or good to the good, which is remunerative righteousness; and in a third part, by mutual exchange, in obligations, covenants, buying and selling (Luke 3:14; 1 Thess. 4:6), which is called commutative righteousness.

In particular, righteousness is practiced, after God's own example: (a) in the governing of inferiors by superiors (Col. 4:1), without violence or oppression (Isa. 5:8); (b) in the making of laws (Eph. 6:9; Lev. 25:43), demanding nothing unrighteous or impossible (Exod. 1:13,14); (c) in judging (Deut. 25:1); (d) in rewarding (Rom. 13:3,4); and finally (e) in punishing, as above. And that we may be the more ready and prompt in all these duties for the exercise of righteousness, it will serve to reflect: (i) that in this consists a great part of the image of God (Eph. 4:24), whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), and thus perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48); (ii) that in this way we shall become partakers of all those blessings promised to the righteous (Ps. 97:11; 106:3; Prov. 3:33; 10:2; Isa. 3:10; 32:16,17); (iii) that God will then reward us according to our righteousness (Ps. 7:9; 18:21,22); and finally (iv) that the righteous Judge will one day give us the crown of righteousness (2 Tim. 4:7,8), by which the righteous shall shine in the kingdom of their Father (Matt. 13:43).

XXIII. Finally, in the seventh place, the righteousness of God furnishes us matter of comfort: (I) in every kind of visitation and divine judgment, even the heaviest, when we consider (1) that God is righteous, and His judgments too are righteous, and that through the unrighteousness of our sins we have deserved all manner of evils (Mic. 7:9; Neh. 9:33; Dan. 9:7); also (2) that God visits us far beneath our deserving (Lam. 3:22; Isa. 1:9); and (3) that He does not afflict us from His heart (Lam. 3:33), nor out of hatred, but out of a fatherly love (Heb. 12:6-8; Rev. 3:19); nor (4) in order that we should perish, but that we should not be condemned with the world (1 Cor. 11:32). Then, in particular, (II) as often as we are hard pressed by the persecutions of enemies, by lies and slanders, from whatever quarter, and as often as a violent perversion of justice prevails (Hab. 1:2,3,4), let us then reflect that there is a righteous Judge in heaven, to whom we may and can appeal — who is the God of our righteousness (Ps. 4:1; 7:9; 43:1), who will reward and requite us according to our righteousness (Ps. 18:21,25), and who will see to it that our righteousness shall one day break forth like the noonday light (Ps. 37:6,28; Isa. 59:14,16); indeed, that in His own time, according to His righteousness, He will take vengeance on those who unjustly oppress us (2 Thess. 1:5,6,7). Also (III) in the very anguish of our sins themselves, we may lift ourselves up with the thought and consideration of divine righteousness, which — since through the accursed death of the Son enough has already been done to satisfy it — cannot demand anew the penalties of our sins; because He who knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor. 5:21), so that we may now boast, "Who is he that condemns? It is Christ that died" (Rom. 8:33,34). Finally (IV) in the noble and fierce struggle of faith, against the assaults of enemies both spiritual and bodily at once, that we may promise ourselves the crown of righteousness which the righteous Judge will, as surely as anything can be sure, one day give us (2 Tim. 4:7,8), and that on our enemies He will, through His righteousness, take vengeance — so that with a great voice, rejoicing, we may sing: "Your wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that you should give reward to your servants... and destroy them which destroy the earth" (Rev. 11:18); and, "Hallelujah: salvation, and glory, and honor, and power unto the Lord our God; for true and righteous are His judgments" (Rev. 19:1-2).

Chapter XIX: Of the Holiness of God

On Leviticus 19:2

"You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy."

I. Transition to God's Holiness

We have considered God's goodness, as it were, supernaturally — whereby He is desirable — and likewise, as it were, naturally, whereby He is communicable, both by giving what is good, through His love and grace, and by governing and rewarding, through His righteousness. There now remains God's moral goodness, whereby He is above all imitable, and this is called God's holiness. One must, however, note here a further distinction between the righteousness of the preceding chapter and the holiness now before us: righteousness denotes a relative goodness, whereby God acts according to the eternal law as His rule, whereas holiness expresses an absolutely unqualified goodness, whereby God is inclined toward all moral purity and cleanness, and has an aversion to all the uncleanness of sin. Moses is charged to impress this holiness of God upon Israel, both as a motive and as a pattern for the pursuit of holiness (Lev. 19:2).

The Explanatory Part

II. In these words is contained a command, whereby Moses is charged to impress and instill upon Israel the pursuit of holiness, together with a supporting motive drawn from the holiness of the LORD their God. Two things occur in it:

1. The duty commanded: "Be holy." This comprises:

(1) A certain virtue, namely holiness. Qedoshim, "holy ones," from qadash, means, according to common usage, to be set apart, dedicated, holy, clean, unblemished, pure, and undefiled; whence in the Piel conjugation, qiddesh means "he has prepared," "he has enjoined, commanded, or declared something holy," etc. And the word qodesh, "holiness," commonly signifies not a holy thing, nor the sanctuary, nor the Temple, but either the city of Jerusalem, according to the observation of Kimchi, or rather the citadel of Zion, as Bochart holds (Observationes Sacrae, Book 2, ch. 9). Sometimes, however, it signifies the tabernacle or temple (Ps. 30:2; 96:9); sometimes the inner sanctuary (1 Kings 8:8); sometimes the offerings (Num. 10:33); sometimes the angels (Deut. 32:2); sometimes the holy people (Lev. 10:10); sometimes the holy land (Exod. 15:13; Ps. 83:5) — because all these things were, or had to be, set apart for a holy use. In this passage the word qedoshim means not only being separated from all that is common or unholy, but also being inwardly averse to all the uncleanness of sin, and dedicated and given over to all moral purity.

(2) The exercise and pursuit of holiness: "shall be," or "be ye." That is: be diligent, do your utmost, that you (a) may become holy, that you may be sanctified (Exod. 19:10) — whether by an outward holiness, consisting in the washing of garments and other Levitical or ceremonial purifications, or by an inward holiness, through the cleansing or sanctification of the Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2), en hagiasmō tou pneumatos, "in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" — something accomplished through the exercise of faith and repentance, and through the pursuit of holiness; (b) that you may more and more advance and progress in holiness; (c) that you may act in a holy manner, and, all your life long, may sanctify the Holy One of Israel.

The proof and motivating reason, which enforces two points, namely:

1. The attribute of God: "For I am holy." I am holiness itself (Isa. 63:15), the fountain of all holiness, who sanctifies you (Ezek. 20:12), the very expression, pattern, and rule of all holiness. It is therefore in every way fitting that you too should be holy, that you should seek and obtain holiness from me, and that you should conform and direct yourselves wholly according to my holiness, as to a rule.

2. The mutual relation between God and the people, that is, the covenant: "your God" — I who have, as it were, sanctified and pledged myself to you as your God, and to whom you, as my people, have wholly dedicated, separated, and bound yourselves through the covenant of grace. It is therefore absolutely necessary that you be holy. Here, then, we find on the one hand the holiness of the creature, as an image, and on the other the holiness of the Creator, as the pattern to be imitated: since the infinite holiness of the Creator, as it is in itself, is inaccessible and unapproachable to you, you may, from the holiness of the creature, as from an image, infer and conclude the holiness of the Creator so far as is possible.

The Doctrinal Part

III. That God, then, is holy in the highest and most excellent degree, no one can doubt, since He is everywhere in Scripture called holy (Isa. 40:25; Hos. 11:9; Job 6:10; Hab. 3:3), and "the Holy One of Israel" (though I would think this is said especially of the Son) more than thirty times (Isa. 41:20; 43:14), "the Holy One of Jacob" (Isa. 29:23), "the Holy of Holies," or "the Holiness of holinesses" (said of the Messiah), "thrice holy" (Isa. 6:3), in whom a threefold holiness, as it were, flows together — for which reason it is ascribed to Him in the plural, with a pronoun of the singular number: Elohim qedoshim hu, "He is a holy God" (Josh. 24:19), literally as if one said "holy Gods is He." This is doubtless also because in the three Persons there is one and the same essential holiness, which for that reason is also ascribed individually to each of the particular Persons: to the Father (John 17:11), to the Son (Dan. 9:24; Ps. 16:10), to the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:4). So that from this proof, taken from the thrice-holy God (Rev. 4:8), the Trinity of the divine Persons is neither rashly nor foolishly inferred and concluded. From all this He possesses His name from holiness (Luke 1:49); indeed, He is also called the only Holy One (1 Sam. 2:2).

IV. And if He were not holy, how then could He be (1) the most perfect being? Since holiness, as no one doubts, is a perfection which includes and implies nothing imperfect. How could He (2) be perfect in any single perfection at all, when holiness is the foundation of all perfection? For apart from holiness, what would His wisdom be but cunning? His sovereignty but tyranny? His power but violence? His grace but recklessness, neglect, and carelessness? Indeed, (3) apart from holiness, how could He conduct Himself fittingly even toward Himself? How could He conduct Himself fittingly toward His creatures — that is, how could He holily govern and rule them? I add (4): if God were not holy, whence then would any holiness be? And how could God, who is the fountain and wellspring of it, fail to be holy Himself?

V. Now, in order that we may the more fittingly grasp what God's holiness is — since it is in itself inaccessible and unapproachable to us — it is necessary that we consider it as in an image, that is, in the imaged holiness of creatures. Holiness in general, then, is nothing other than the moral goodness of a rational being. For there is a goodness of being, whereby a thing is desirable; there is a goodness of use, whereby a thing is called useful — this twofold goodness is common to all creatures; and finally there is a moral goodness, whereby conduct is fitted to please God, and this belongs particularly to rational creatures.

This is found in creatures in a special or covenantal way, whereby the saints, being set apart, as it were, as God's own possession, for the pursuit of holiness (Num. 15:40; Deut. 7:6), profess holiness, and, according to the judgment of charity, are on the strength of that profession accounted holy. Because of this holiness the whole people of Israel was formerly holy to God; and in just the same way all the little children of Christians are also reckoned to be holy (1 Cor. 7:14).

Or there is a habitual holiness (under which we also include the actual), consisting in an inward purity of will and affections, whereby we are fitted to live in a manner pleasing to God; according to this we are called by the Greeks hosioi and by the Latins sancti (both words meaning "holy").

Or there is a relative holiness, whereby places, times, and other things are called hiera, that is, holy or set apart, because (a) they are appointed to God, (b) they serve and tend to promote and secure habitual holiness, and (c) in their own way they display a fitness suited to God and to divine worship.

In the first two senses, which are most relevant here, holiness comprises in itself: (1) a setting apart for a divine use, in which sense the Mediator is said to have been sanctified (John 10:36), and Paul to have been set apart (Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:15); (2) a dedication, whereby you offer up and consecrate yourself and all that is yours to the honor, glory, will, and cause of God (2 Cor. 8:5; Rom. 12:1; Lev. 21:6); (3) a display of divine holiness, whereby both the inward part of the heart and the outward part of the body show forth, in their own way, the purity of the divine law (Ps. 119:11; 1 Thess. 5:23); and finally (4) an abhorrence and flight from all uncleanness (2 Cor. 7:1).

VI. From this image of holiness it is easy, without much difficulty, to infer the character and nature of divine holiness. Namely, it is His moral excellence, whereby He (1) is separated and distinct from all that is common and unholy — just as the Mediator is said to be "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens" (Heb. 7:26); (2) is dedicated to Himself, doing all things for His own sake (Prov. 16:4), seeking Himself in all things and above all things, and His own glory and good pleasure (Eph. 1:11); (3) in all His thoughts, words, and deeds, precisely conforms to and agrees with that holiness which He has expressed in His law — which is why He continually calls men to imitate His holiness (Lev. 19:2; 11:44; Matt. 5:48), inviting, stirring, and urging them, without doubt, to no other holiness than that set forth in the law; and finally (4) is pure and clean, and utterly estranged from all that is evil, unjust, and shameful which He forbids in His law (Hab. 1:13; Ps. 5:5,6,7), indeed has an entire aversion and horror of it (Deut. 25:16; Rev. 21:27).

VII. Furthermore, God discloses and displays His holiness, first, in His works and workings (Ps. 145:17): (1) in His decrees — predestination, election (Eph. 1:4) — that we should be holy and blameless before Him; (2) in creation, when He made man after His own image, upright, in holiness and righteousness (Eph. 4:24; Eccl. 7:29); (3) in His moral providence, when He prescribes a law to rational creatures by commanding and forbidding, enforces and confirms it by promising and threatening, and carries out that enforcement by rewarding and punishing (Ezek. 20:11,12), and when He established with them the covenant of works (Deut. 30:15,16); (4) in redemption, when He sanctified His Son (John 10:36), who would sanctify Himself for us (John 17:19), that He might sanctify us to God (Eph. 5:26; Heb. 2:11), when He punished His own only-begotten Son with an accursed death, that He might display His holiness, by which He cannot look upon evil (Hab. 1:13; Rom. 3:25); (5) in calling, when He calls with a holy calling (2 Tim. 1:9), not unto uncleanness but unto sanctification (1 Thess. 4:7), that we should be called saints (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2); (6) in sanctification, when He regenerates us, converts us, sanctifies us wholly, that our spirit, soul, and body may be preserved blameless (1 Thess. 5:23); and finally (7) in glorification, when He shall present to Himself a Church having neither spot nor wrinkle nor any such thing, but holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27).

Secondly, God discloses and displays His holiness in His Word — in Scripture, which is for this reason called holy (Rom. 1:2; 2 Tim. 3:15) — in the truth, whereby He sanctifies us (John 17:17); and especially in His law, which is called holy: "The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and just, and good" (Rom. 7:12), because in it is found a certain shadow and image of divine holiness, so far as it is imitable — for which reason it is compared to a mirror (James 1:23,24,25).

Thirdly, God discloses His holiness in His worship — in the rites, sacrifices, sacraments, baptism, and the Lord's Supper, which are commonly called holy, because they serve unto holiness (James 1:27; Rom. 12:1).

Fourthly, God discloses His holiness in His people, in His subjects, who are therefore continually called a holy people (1 Pet. 2:9), in His Church and household, whose chief ornament consists in holiness (Ps. 93:5).

Fifthly, in His servants, who are for this reason called holy men of God (2 Pet. 1:21), who are charged to wear upon their forehead "Holiness to the LORD" (Exod. 28:36), because God wills to be sanctified in those who draw near to Him (Lev. 10:3).

Sixthly, in the company of angels, who are for this reason continually called holy angels (Luke 9:26; Matt. 25:31).

And finally, seventhly, in all those things which bear some relation and regard to God, such as holy places (Ps. 20:3) and holy times (Exod. 20:11). In all these, and in many more besides, God discloses that He is holy, and that He sanctifies what is His own (Lev. 20:8).

VIII. Holiness, then, belongs to God: (1) not as something incidental, but as His very being — for He who is said (Isa. 45:23) to swear by Himself says (Ps. 89:35; Amos 4:2) that He has sworn by His holiness. (2) Not as something received from elsewhere, but as the wellspring of all holiness in all things (Lev. 20:8; 11:44; Ezek. 20:12; 1 Thess. 5:23). (3) Not in some fixed measure, but without measure, in an infinite degree, which therefore can be neither increased nor diminished, since it is His very being — though it can and must be shown forth and declared more and more (Matt. 6:9). (4) Not sketched, formed, or fashioned after the holiness of His law, or of anyone or anything else, whatever it might be, but rather as the very idea, pattern, and rule of all holiness (1 Pet. 1:15; Eph. 4:24). (5) Not as some particular attribute of His, but as a general quality and disposition affecting, as it were, all His other attributes — for which reason even His power, or His arm, is called holy (Isa. 52:10, etc.). (6) Not, finally, some common or lowly quality in Him, but by far the chief one, for which He is proclaimed by the angels themselves not once, but three times, as if in a single breath: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts" (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8) — which is nowhere read of any other of His attributes.

The Polemical Part

IX. What we have said concerning God's holiness is so clear and evident to everyone that no dispute can be raised against it, even by adversaries. Meanwhile the question is asked: (I) Whether these titles — "Most Holy," "His Holiness" — belong and are fitting to any mortal whatsoever? The Roman Pope, in order to have titles befitting his claim to sole headship, wishes to be called "Most Holy Father," indeed "His Holiness" — upon which, not without reason, a certain bishop, indignant at the Council of Trent, wittily remarked: "If God alone is called holy, how then can His Vicar be called Most Holy?" The Reformed hold that these titles in no way belong or are fitting to any mortal, and especially not to the Pope:

(I) Because God Himself, although He is in fact the most holy, indeed holiness itself, is nevertheless rarely or never called "the most holy" or "holiness itself"; rather, before His very name is ascribed to Him the simple title "holy" (Ps. 111:9). (II) Because the Savior Jesus, although He Himself too is the most holy, indeed holiness itself (whose vicar the Pope falsely claims to be), is very often called "the Holy One of Israel" (Ps. 78:41; Isa. 47:4). The name of our Redeemer is "the LORD of hosts, the Holy One of Israel," whom the Father has sanctified — yet rarely or never "the most holy," or "holiness itself." (III) Also, because Peter, whose successor he claims to be, was indeed holy and is called so, and calls himself a fellow-elder (sympresbyteros), but is never called "the most holy," much less "his Holiness" or "holiness itself." (IV) For this very reason he thereby reveals himself to be the Antichrist, as one who exalts himself above all that is called God or is holy. (V) Chiefly because to be "the most holy" and "holiness itself" is one and the same as God's most holy being, and thus God Himself, who is holiness itself; therefore no sinner — such as, by everyone's admission, the Pope himself is — can be, or can be called, "the most holy," indeed (VI) "holiness itself." And (VII) this is especially true of the popes, who are in fact the Antichrist; among whom, moreover, there have been heretics, such as Liberius, and Honorius the Monothelite, and others; even harlots, such as Pope Joan ("Pope Jutte"); and sodomites — who in Scripture are, by way of ironic contradiction, called qadesh, "holy," and qedeshah, "a harlot," or "holy one," by a similarly euphemistic usage (Deut. 23:17; cf. Selden, De Jure Naturali, Book 5, ch. 4, p. 555). I will not even mention (VIII) that for a like arrogant presumption Herod was once eaten by worms (Acts 12:21-23). Nor do I see what even plausible pretext the Pope's flatterers could offer for these blasphemous titles. If they say these are merely political (civil) titles, I answer: either they truly belong to him and are properly his — in which case they involve blasphemy, according to all that has been said above — or they do not, and then they are falsely given and ascribed to him, and are blasphemous besides.

X. The question is asked: (II) Whether papal canonization, whereby, with many ceremonies, certain mortals are declared to be saints, does not derogate from God and His holiness? The Papists, not content with having made their Pope the most holy, indeed holiness itself, in order to exalt him yet further, say that he is not only such a one himself, but that he can, through a solemn ceremony and decree, raise other deceased persons to the rank of saints — so that thereafter (1) they are openly and in a special way held and called saints by all; (2) they are invoked in the public prayers of the Church; (3) temples and altars are consecrated to God in their memory; (4) sacrifices are openly offered to God in their honor; (5) holy days are kept in their memory; (6) their images are painted with a certain special radiance and set up in the churches, in a conspicuous place, for veneration and worship; (7) their relics, enclosed within such images, are publicly honored (see Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Triumphante, Book 1, chs. 7 and 9). They add that one must believe the Pope does not err in such canonization — which, however, others deny, such as Cajetan (Tractatus de Indulgentiis), Aquinas (Quodlibet 9, art. 16), and Melchior Cano (Book 1, ch. 5), who says in these words: that the judgments of the Church, arising from uncertain human testimonies, are weak and powerless to produce a fully certain and approved faith — such a faith, he says, being that whereby the Church believes and judges that a certain saint must be inscribed in the roll of deified men. And the Pope's flatterers call this canonization a deification.

The Reformed, though they readily grant that true saints, according to the testimony of Holy Scripture, must be acknowledged, accepted, and honored even with civil honor, nevertheless call such canonizations ungodly, superstitious, and idolatrous deifications: (I) Because there is neither word nor sign of it in Holy Scripture, and it is for that very reason superstitious, being "a plant which the Father has not planted," and which must consequently be rooted out, according to the Savior's judgment (Matt. 15:13) — a doctrine of men, likewise condemned by Him there (v. 9) and by Paul (Col. 2:18,20,22). (II) Because canonization commands the invocation of creatures, which Christ ascribes to God alone (Matt. 4:10), and God to Himself (Isa. 42:8) — consequently it is idolatrous, and dishonoring to God. (III) Because it ascribes to the Pope an infallibility that belongs to God alone, since all men are liars (Ps. 116:11), and since he cannot show any promise of infallible guidance. On this basis, according to the judgment of Cajetan and Cano, even a damned person could be canonized and invoked as a saint; and, as Cano adds, there is no difference between honoring the Devil and honoring a damned man. (IV) Because that man of sin, that lawless one, could thus sanctify, or declare holy, a man who is perhaps on the roll of the damned, and who in his life was nothing but a thoroughgoing villain — such as, perhaps, a Francis of Assisi, or one like whom the world has perhaps never seen another. (V) I will not even add that most of the elements involved in these canonizations belong to divine holiness alone, which alone can search and try the hearts and reins, and therefore alone can pronounce with certainty who is a true saint.

Nor has Bellarmine anything of any real weight to offer for such canonization; for example: (A) That God willed that the sacred writers should specially record the glorious and renowned life and death of the saints, and that it is therefore credible that God wills the same thing to be done afterward in the same manner. Answer: (1) as though there were no difference between such a record and the canonization now described; (2) nowhere in the whole of Holy Scripture is it recorded that the seven honors of canonization just mentioned were ever intended or assigned to any mortal; (3) the Papists do not, as a rule, render these honors even to those whose illustrious life and death are recorded in Holy Scripture. (B) That if we do not know who are truly saints or not, we cannot honor them as we ought, cannot be stirred up to imitate them, cannot rejoice together with the saints, nor give thanks to God for their glory. Answer: (1) We ought not, in any case, to honor them with religious worship; (2) we know in particular that we are to follow those whom we see following Christ (1 Cor. 11:1); (3) therefore, either the Papists fail to do what they ought, or else they possess a special knowledge of all the saints who are in glory, and are bound to canonize them all.

XI. The question is asked: (III) Whether merits of condignity do not derogate from God's most pure holiness? The Papists, in order that eternal life should not be obtained solely through the merits of Christ, and so that good works — especially works of charity, such as the founding of churches and monasteries — might serve to prop up and exalt papal authority, hold that the good works of believers merit eternal life condignly (out of strict equivalence); they accordingly deny that this derogates from divine holiness. The Reformed, on the contrary, maintain this charge. For since (I) God is too pure of eyes to behold our sinful defects (Hab. 1:13), being thrice holy, the most holy (Isa. 6:3); since (II) Moses is commanded to remove his shoes, because even the place where he stood was holy on account of God's presence; since (III) those who are mindful of God's most strict holiness so anxiously and carefully beg to be spared His tribunal and judgment (Ps. 130:3; 143:2), because no one can stand before it; since (IV) God is so holy that He finds blemishes even in the holy angels (Job 25:4,5); so that (V) even the cherubim, in God's presence, cover their faces and their feet with their wings, crying, "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts" (Isa. 6:2,3) — and since, on the contrary, even the best works of the saints are as a menstruous garment (Isa. 64:6) — does such a one, then, who by his works seeks to merit eternal life, and that condignly, according to the strictness of God's righteousness, does such a one, I ask, sufficiently acknowledge the utmost exactness of divine holiness? To have merely touched on these matters must suffice for now; they will be treated elsewhere, God willing, in the chapter on justification.

XII. The question is asked: (IV) Whether the Reformed religion, by its presuppositions, derogates from God's holiness by holding that He is the author and cause of sin? The enemies of the Reformed religion — Socinians, Remonstrants, Mennonites, Papists, and especially the Lutherans, as many as there are — contend here, slandering as if for a prize, to blacken our religion all the more, and so they raise this question. The Reformed, on the contrary, deny that, according to their presuppositions, God is a cause of sin, because (A) the presuppositions of the Reformed religion agree in every respect with the presuppositions of Holy Scripture; therefore, if Holy Scripture does not injure God's holiness, neither does the Reformed religion — the first premise will appear from the answers to the objections below. (B) Because, on the contrary, the presuppositions of the Reformed religion, agreeing as they do with Holy Scripture, tend in the highest degree to the enlargement and celebration of the wisdom, power, righteousness, and holiness of God: for to decree the futurition of sin, to permit sin, to withdraw grace from the sinner on account of sin, to furnish men, for most holy reasons, with good opportunities which they themselves abuse in order to sin — all this displays God's wisdom, power, righteousness, and holiness, as will appear from our answers to the objections of our adversaries.

For when they allege: (I) that God has decreed future sins, we answer: (a) that Holy Scripture teaches this very thing (Acts 2:23; 4:27; compare ch. 15:18; Eph. 1:11); (b) that He has decreed not to bring them about, but only to permit them (Ps. 81:13; Acts 14:16); (c) that the decree is the cause only of the future coming-to-be, not of the future sin itself, which is committed by the creature through the abuse of its own will, as appears in Pharaoh, Judas, and others; (d) that He has decreed it with a most wise counsel and design (Acts 4:28: "Your hand and your counsel determined before to be done"), for indeed the counsel of the all-wise is itself all-wise — namely, to this end, that through permitted and foreordained sin He might have occasion to make glorious both the glory of His mercy, in the gracious deliverance of the sinner (in which His wisdom and goodness likewise appear), and of His righteousness, in the just punishment of the sinner, in which His holiness appears.

The adversaries urge (II) that God has thus ordained and appointed man to sin. Answer: (a) This too Holy Scripture teaches (Exod. 9:16; Rom. 9:17; compare Jude v. 4; 1 Pet. 2:8; Rom. 9:21,22); (b) He has ordained and determined to leave man to himself and to his own free will (Acts 4:26; Rom. 1:24), in order to make known His avenging righteousness (Rom. 9:22), in which His holiness appears.

But then (III) they object that God thereby compels and forces man. Answer: He does not compel or force; rather, He has decreed that the sinner, by his own deliberation and rational free choice (in which properly consists the freedom of our own will), should commit the sin; and thus He does no more than this, that the future occurrence and outcome should, by virtue of His decree, be certain and infallible.

A fourth objection (IV) is that God wills sin. Answer: (1) This too Scripture says, which nowhere makes God a cause of sin (Acts 4:27); (2) He does not will sin by His legislative will, or will of precept, but only by the will of His decree does He will that the future occurrence and outcome of that sin, which the sinner willingly commits, be infallible.

It is said (V) that, according to the Reformed view, God commands sins, incites men to them, hardens and blinds men, and gives them over to a reprobate mind. Answer: (a) In the same sense in which Holy Scripture says that the LORD commanded Shimei to curse David (2 Sam. 16:10; ch. 24:1); that He stirred up David against them (Exod. 9:12): "He hardened Pharaoh's heart" (also ch. 14:17); (Isa. 6:10): "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes," etc.; (Rom. 1:28): "God gave them over to a reprobate mind"; (2 Thess. 2:11): "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." If, then, Holy Scripture, with all these expressions, does not make God a cause of sin, neither do the Reformed. (b) They do not teach that God commands sins properly — not by His law, in which He forbids them — but by His providence, insofar as He powerfully permits and governs them; nor that He properly incites or drives the unwilling; but that, by withdrawing His grace from them on account of their sins, He gives them over to their own lusts and desires; nor that He hardens or blinds by infusing blindness and hardness, but that He justly punishes them, for their committed crimes and abominations, with blindness and hardness.

The adversaries object still further (VI) that the Reformed ascribe the very same evil deeds to God and to the wicked alike. Answer: (a) In the sense in which Holy Scripture ascribes this (2 Sam. 12:11,12): "You did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun" — see also ch. 24:1, compared with 1 Chron. 21:1; Gen. 45:8. (b) The same deeds indeed, but not in the same manner; according to the well-known saying: when two do one and the same thing, it is nevertheless not the same thing. Compare Gen. 45:8. (c) Nor, properly speaking, do they ascribe one and the same thing to both: for to God they ascribe the future occurrence and outcome of the sin, but to man the sin itself; to God alone the subject in which the unlawfulness or sin resides, to man the unlawfulness or sin itself. On this compare what we have said on this matter in ch. 16, §15, and what we shall perhaps say in the chapters on the decrees, reprobation, providence, and elsewhere.

The Practical Part

XIII. As for the practice: God's holiness urges us, first, to strive with all our efforts to be sanctified by God — a thing which the Savior begs and desires for the elect (John 17:17), and Paul for his hearers (1 Thess. 5:23), with such great earnestness and affection. For since we are all by nature unclean and unholy (Job 14:4), and even our righteousness is unclean (Isa. 64:6), and likewise we are unclean of lips and of heart (Isa. 6:5), it follows that the thrice-holy God, who is holiness itself and the wellspring of all holiness, should sanctify us wholly — that is, that He should bring to us that holiness which we have shown above (§5): (I) through redemption, sprinkling us and, as it were, washing us with the blood of His Son (Ps. 51:7; 1 John 1:7; Heb. 10:22; 1 Pet. 1:2), who sanctified Himself for us to this end (John 17:19); (II) then through regeneration, by the Spirit (John 3:5), taking away from us the heart of stone, putting in its place a heart of flesh, writing His law upon our hearts (Ezek. 36:25,26,27; Jer. 31:33,34), making us alive, who were dead in sins (Eph. 2:5,6); (III) further, through conversion (Jer. 31:18,19), bringing us over to faith in Jesus Christ, whereby we may be united with Him, and by that very union be crucified with Him and rise again (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 6:5); (IV) and finally through renewal (Eph. 4:24; Rom. 12:2), gradually restoring in us the purity of the image of God (2 Cor. 4:16), putting off the old man and putting on the new, that we may become a new creature, in whom old things have passed away and all things have become new (2 Cor. 5:17). This sanctification is a work of God alone, though it comes about through the ministry of the Word (Acts 26:17,18).

And here there is nothing left for us to do but (1) to note and learn the excellence, usefulness, and necessity of sanctification (John 3:5), that thereby our longing and desire for it may increase; (2) to pray humbly to God that He would create in us a clean heart, and renew a steadfast spirit within us (Ps. 51:10); meanwhile (3) diligently and steadily making use of the means which God is accustomed to employ in this sanctification — namely, the reading and hearing of God's Word, together with fellowship with the godly — and by these means to wait and hope (Ps. 27:14), until at last God, who has said that light should shine out of darkness, shall be pleased to shine in our hearts (2 Cor. 4:6).

XIV. Secondly, having been sanctified by God, let us also for our part sanctify God (Exod. 29:43; Lev. 22:32; 11:44; Matt. 6:9; 1 Pet. 3:15) — certainly not by making Him holier, as God sanctifies us, but by (I) acknowledging God's holiness in our heart, marveling at it, and revering it (1 Pet. 3:15; 1 Sam. 6:20; Isa. 8:14); (II) proclaiming it with our mouth (Ps. 71:22; Isa. 6:3); (III) expressing it in deed itself, when we occupy ourselves with divine worship, all its particular parts, and everything dedicated to God or touching Him in any way, not without a special reverence, care, and godliness (Exod. 19:22; Lev. 11:44), as things to which God has in some way imparted His holiness; (IV) by carefully taking heed that God's most holy name or worship not be profaned by us through contempt, recklessness, negligence, laziness, sloth, and other such sins forbidden in the third commandment. For (1) God wills to be sanctified by those who draw near to Him (Lev. 10:3); (2) to this end He has sanctified us for Himself, that we should sanctify Him (1 Pet. 2:9); for (3) if we do not sanctify Him by virtue, He will sanctify Himself upon and in us through punishments and judgments — as appears in Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:2,3), in the Bethshemites (1 Sam. 6:19), in Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:7), and others (Ezek. 28:22; 38:22,23). Compare what is said by the expositors on the third commandment and on the first petition of the Lord's Prayer, and what we have said above, ch. 4, in the Practical Part.

XV. Thirdly, that we, in sanctifying ourselves, hold in dread and abhorrence all unholiness, uncleanness, and ungodliness spoken of (Gal. 5:19,20,21; Eph. 5:3) — whether of the body or of the spirit (2 Cor. 7:1), whether it lurks inwardly in the heart (2 Cor. 4:2; Eph. 5:12), or shows itself outwardly in works (Isa. 3:9), whether in ourselves or in others (Ps. 139:21). Because (I) the most holy God abhors all these things (Hab. 1:13; Ps. 5:5); because they therefore (II) separate us from God (Isa. 59:2; 1:12; Ps. 11:5); because He has sanctified His own Son, that He might destroy the works of the Devil (1 John 3:8); because (III) they will forever separate us from heavenly blessedness, let us earnestly abhor ungodliness (Rom. 12:9; Heb. 12:14; Jude v. 23); (2) let us seek to be cleansed from it, and reconciled to God on account of it, through the blood of Christ (1 John 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18,19); (3) let us wash ourselves from it (Isa. 1:16; Jer. 4:14; 2 Tim. 2:21); (4) let us renounce all ungodliness (Titus 2:11,12).

XVI. On the other hand, fourthly, having been cleansed and purified from all ungodliness, let us also apply ourselves diligently to holiness, that we may be holy, since, or as, our God is holy — that is: first, that we more and more separate and set ourselves apart from all that is common, defiled, and worldly (Rev. 18:4; Rom. 12:2). To this end the Nazirite vow and all the Levitical purifications pointed. Secondly, let us more and more dedicate, consecrate, and wholly surrender ourselves to God (2 Cor. 8:5), namely as a holy sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). Thirdly, let us apply ourselves diligently to the inward purity of our heart and of all our affections (Ps. 51:10; Matt. 5:8; 1 Tim. 1:5). Fourthly, that we devote and apply ourselves to holy works — such as (1) flow from a holy and pure heart (1 Tim. 1:5); (2) tend to the sanctification or glorification of the divine name (1 Pet. 2:9; 2 Tim. 2:21); (3) are conformed to God's most holy will (Rom. 12:1,2).

We are stirred up and urged to all these duties, because (1) God, our Father, is Holy, the Most Holy, holiness itself, who wills that we should be holy. Because (2) God's holiness is His chief and general perfection, for which reason He is called thrice holy, and thus, by the pursuit of holiness, we become conformed to Him in His chief perfection. Because (3) God has, from all ages, been so zealous and diligent to establish holiness and afterward to restore it, through predestination, redemption, calling, etc., as we have taught above, §7, point by point. Indeed, because (4) the individual Persons, in this matter of sanctification, have each taken up His own work in particular, and the Holy Spirit receives from this in particular both His office and his name. And finally (5) because without holiness we shall never see God (Heb. 12:14; Matt. 5:8). To have touched on these things must suffice here; they will be spoken of more fully and abundantly elsewhere, God willing, in the chapters on regeneration, conversion, and sanctification.

XVII. Meanwhile, fifthly, let us in this pursuit of holiness often test and examine ourselves, in order to discern those things that differ from it, that we may be sincere (Phil. 1:10; Heb. 5:14), and that hypocrisy and deceit may not stand in place of truth; a mere form in place of power (2 Tim. 3:5); a contrived motive in place of true religion; a settled, respectable opinion in place of a sanctified conscience; the affected postures and haughty gestures of the Pharisees in place of true piety and godliness; a partisan, schismatic zeal in place of true zeal for holiness; or a ceremonial, formal, and outward holiness in place of a true and substantial one — lest anyone deceive Himself, overwhelming and suppressing what is essential and inward — but that we may be renewed in the holiness of truth (Eph. 4:24). This is something which, from what has already been said, will not be too difficult to discern and distinguish. Namely: (I) it is a holiness of truth, which is not merely partial, confined to this or that point alone, but which wholly separates and sets one apart from the world and things worldly (Rom. 12:2; Titus 2:12); (II) it dedicates and sanctifies the whole man, soul and body, to God (1 Thess. 5:23; 1 Cor. 6:20; Rom. 12:1), by wholly denying oneself (Luke 9:23), withholding nothing from God or keeping anything back for oneself, unlike Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:2) or the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:21,22), but spending everything on and for Him (v. 27), even life and death itself (Rom. 14:7,8; Matt. 16:25,26); (III) it aims far more at an inward than an outward holiness (Ps. 51:6,10), in contrast to Pharisaic holiness (Matt. 23:23-27); (IV) it is exercised far more in the presence of God than of men (Matt. 6:1-6); and (V) it flees not merely this or that uncleanness, as the Pharisees did (Luke 18:11), but all fleshly lust (Titus 2:12), all defilement of the world (2 Pet. 2:20,21; Jude v. 23), hating even the garment spotted by the flesh (v. 23), yes, avoiding every appearance of evil (1 Thess. 5:22); (VI) on the other hand, it gives itself not merely to one or another good work, as Pharisaic holiness did (Luke 18:12; Matt. 5:20; Phil. 3:6), nor even merely to many good things, as Herod did (Mark 6:20), but to all things and of every kind, willing to walk honestly in all things (Heb. 13:18; Phil. 4:8); and finally (VII) it does not endure only for a time (Gal. 3:3), but perseveres to the end, indeed grows and advances more and more (Rev. 12:11; 1 Cor. 15:58).

XVIII. Here, sixthly, when we have examined and tested the sincerity of our holiness, however imperfect it be, comfort will arise even in the midst of our uncleanness and imperfection itself — when, feeling it, we must cry out, "Woe is me, for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips" (Isa. 6:5); likewise, "We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away" (Isa. 64:6); and again, "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7:24). What can raise and steady the soul more powerfully than to consider that God is holy, the Most Holy, holiness itself, the fountain of all holiness, who sanctifies us (Ezek. 20:12)? Who blots out our transgressions as a mist, and our sins as a cloud (Isa. 44:22)? Who sanctified His own Son, that He might sanctify us, who gave Him to us for sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30)? Who gave Himself for us, that He might sanctify and cleanse us with the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26)? Who has promised us in a covenant that He would write His laws in our understanding and in our heart, take away the heart of stone, and give in its place a heart of flesh (Heb. 8:10; Jer. 31:33)? That He will sprinkle clean water upon us, that we may be cleansed from all our uncleanness; that He will give us a new heart and a new spirit, that we may walk in His commandments and statutes; that He will cleanse us from all our iniquities (Ezek. 36:25,26,27,33)? This too will comfort us in all our adversities and afflictions: that God will be good to those who are pure in heart (Ps. 73:1); that they shall one day see God (Matt. 5:8); and that those whom He has sanctified He will also most certainly and perfectly glorify. And finally, that the Holy One will bring us into His sanctuary, there forever to sing and shout to Him: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts!" (Isa. 6:3).

XIX. And in this consists, finally, seventhly, the last and highest use and practice of divine holiness: that we, after the example of the holy angels (Isa. 6:3) and of the holy inhabitants of heaven, accustom ourselves in this present time to praise and glorify God for and on account of His holiness — that He is not only the Most Holy, indeed holiness itself, but that He has also shown Himself holy from all eternity, still shows Himself so, and will show Himself so — so that it may thus appear that He is that God who sanctifies us, without doubt, that we may see, acknowledge, and praise Him as holy. So that here, rightly, may be placed the end and goal of election, of redemption, and thus of all saving grace.

Chapter XX: Of the Might and Power of God

On Ephesians 3:20-21

"Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us — unto Him be glory in the Church."

I. Having considered the attributes by which God is understood by us to be active — His Life, Understanding, and Will, and the virtues corresponding to these: Truthfulness, Goodness, Love, Grace, Righteousness, and Holiness — we now come to Might and Power, whereby the foregoing active attributes, as it were, immediately touch their work. This the Apostle describes most excellently (Eph. 3:20,21).

The Explanatory Part

II. In these words is contained, most emphatically, an ascription of praise, with a proof drawn from the omnipotence of God, in which the following points occur:

1. Ho dynamenos, "the one who is able," to whom this praise is offered — tō de dynamenō, "now to Him who is able," namely God. Here the definite article tō seems to carry a distinguishing force, distinguishing the mighty God from any other equally mighty being; rather, it celebrates Him alone as mighty, denying almightiness to and from all creatures — as if to say: to Him who alone is able; for the creature can do nothing without God, and God can do everything without the creature — which is why He is called "the only Potentate" (1 Tim. 6:15), and here "able above all things."

2. Dynamis, the power or might whereby He is ho dynamenos, the one who is able; kata dynamin, "according to the power." The Greek word dynamis means might, power, ability, valor, strength; sometimes the power to work miracles (2 Thess. 2:9); sometimes abundance, wealth (Rev. 18:3), such as the Apostle ascribes to divine wisdom (Rom. 11:33): "O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" So too among the Hebrews the word ḥayil. Thus Ruth 4:11 uses it to mean might, valor, and whatever seems to consist in some kind of power, such as armies or riches. Whenever the word dynamis, power or might, is joined to "Spirit," it signifies a certain power greater than the usual. Furthermore, there is a producing power, for which reason even the authorities are sometimes called dynameis, "powers" (Rom. 8:38), just as the angels are called dynameis, "powers" (Eph. 3:10; Col. 1:16), and in this sense perhaps are called dynameis tōn ouranōn, "the powers of the heavens" (Matt. 24:29). Or there is a produced power; thus miracles are called dynameis, "mighty works" (Matt. 7:22; Mark 6:2,5; Luke 10:13; Acts 8:13, and elsewhere), because in them shines forth the divine, absolutely infinite Might and power, without which no true miracles can be performed; or also the power which produces the miracles (Mark 6:14; 1 Cor. 12:10).

But what is most relevant here is that there is a might and power whereby one may rightfully possess exousia, authority, or a moral capacity; and there is a might or power whereby one can actually do something, otherwise called a natural or physical power, strength, or might: this, in a narrower sense, is called dynamis, might or power. These two things are, in creatures, not only distinguished but also separated from one another, so that exousia, authority, may belong to someone to whom dynamis, power, does not belong, and conversely; but in the Creator they coincide, and are one and the same, because He can do nothing by right which He cannot also do in fact, and conversely. Compare Jer. 18:6 with Rom. 9:20,21,22; Matt. 20:15. Hence hē basileia, "the kingdom" — to which exousia, authority, belongs — and dynamis, power, seem to be joined together (Matt. 6:13). Meanwhile we shall treat both distinctly in this chapter.

III. Dynaton, the possible, or rather, the working of divine power. In this regard the following is explained:

1. Energeia, the efficacious activity, or act, in the word poiēsai, "to do," to effect, to bring forth (Ps. 115:3): "He does whatsoever He pleases." This power of effecting may be considered either insofar as God is simply able — even able to do that which He will never in fact effect (Matt. 3:9; 26:53) — which is called God's absolute or unqualified power, whereby He is regarded as autarkēs, self-sufficient, simply capable; or insofar as, beyond what He can do, He also actually does what He wills, which is called God's ordained power, His executive power, whereby He brings into effect that which He knows He can do, and also wills to do (Ps. 135:6).

2. Energoumenon, the effect, or work, brought forth or to be brought forth by God's power — which is commended:

a. By the generality of its object: all things, everything — namely, whatever is not contrary to His nature, nor to the nature of things (Luke 1:37; Phil. 3:21; 2 Chron. 20:6).

b. By the excellence of the power whereby the effect is produced, which is expressed by expressions that are:

α. Absolutely unqualified: hyper ekperissou, "more than abundantly." This is a manner of speaking, an expression that is by nature amplifying and elevating in the highest degree, a manner of speech in which the Apostle habitually indulges (2 Cor. 3:9; 7:15; Phil. 1:9; 1 Thess. 4:1,10, etc.).

β. By comparative expressions: "above all that we can ask or think" — by which is signified a power that is absolutely infinite, beyond which none greater can either exist, or be conceived, or be sought and desired.

The Doctrinal Part

III. From this it appears that unbounded and infinite Might and Power belong to God, for which reason He is called a Lord (Ps. 86:3), a King of kings (Dan. 2:47; 4:35), a great King (Ps. 48:2; Matt. 5:35), to whom belong the kingdom, the power, and the glory (Matt. 6:13). He is commonly called El, strong; Shaddai, Almighty (Gen. 17:1; 49:25, etc.) — from shadad, "to destroy," as if one said "the Destroyer," who, just as He has by His good pleasure brought forth all things out of nothing, can likewise by His will and good pleasure bring them back to nothing; gibbor, mighty, powerful (Deut. 10:17); ammits koach, strong in power (Job 9:4); kabbir, strong (Job 36:5); pantokratōr, the Almighty (2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 1:8); "the only Potentate" (1 Tim. 6:15). And not only is He honored and adorned with these titles, but He is also said to be able to do all things, to have all power, even to raise up children to Abraham out of stones (Matt. 3:9; 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27). Indeed, that there is nothing that He cannot do (Rom. 9:19); that with a strong, outstretched arm and right hand He has stretched out and spread abroad the heavens and the earth (1 Chron. 29:12; Jer. 32:17); so that, on account of all this, not without reason does the Apostle extol the exceeding greatness of God's power (Eph. 1:19).

IV. And who indeed would doubt this? Since (I) a First Being admits of no prior being that could limit its might and power. Since (II) might and power are, without doubt, among the perfections that include nothing imperfect. Since (III) by virtue of God's simplicity, might and power are one and the same as His infinite being, wherefore they must necessarily be absolutely infinite. Since (IV) all things either have their might and power not at all, or have it from a first cause, which can be nothing other than one that must possess, in the highest degree, that which it communicates to others.

V. By and through all these titles and proofs is taught both God's Might and His Power, which in creatures are sometimes separated, so that one may do a thing by power which one may not or cannot do by right and authority; but in God they coincide, and are one and the same, for whatever He can do by His Might or Right, that He can also do by His Power, and conversely. Yet they are distinguished, in that, first, God's Might (exousia) is His general, independent, and most absolute right and dominion over all creatures, to determine and decree concerning them entirely according to His own good pleasure. For to Him belongs the right (Rom. 1:32; 2:20,21; Matt. 20:15), whereby all things are His, both in possession and in use — for example, heaven and earth (1 Chron. 29:11-16), the earth and its fullness (Ps. 24:1), the beasts of the field (Ps. 50:10,11), the gold and the silver (Hag. 2:8), especially man (Rom. 14:8), and most especially His soul and body (1 Cor. 6:20; Ezek. 18:4).

VI. The foundation of this right lies solely in the exalted excellence of His Godhead, whereby He is infinitely raised above all things (Isa. 40:17,22,23), and therefore has all things, as it were, under His feet (Isa. 66:1). For once this exaltation of His Godhead is granted, His right and might likewise extend even to those things which do not yet exist — namely, that they should exist according to His will and good pleasure, and that they should then exist, and be such as they are. Meanwhile, the titles of this right are many and various, namely: (1) Creation, whereby He has right over all things, as a craftsman over His work (Jer. 18:6); (2) Preservation, together with every benefit, whereby He binds the creature to Himself and obligates it to gratitude (Deut. 32:6); further, with regard to rational creatures in particular, (3) Redemption (1 Cor. 6:19,20; Titus 2:14); and (4) Covenant-making, whereby we give ourselves over to God (2 Cor. 8:5; Rom. 12:1; Ps. 116:16); also (5) Sin, whereby He does not so much receive as exercise the right to punish (Rom. 1:32), which is also called the right of the law (Rom. 8:4).

VII. The might of this right extends to all things. (1) To possible things, so that as many of them as He wills also come to pass (Ps. 115:3), indeed come to pass exactly as He wills (Jer. 18:6), while the rest remain merely possible for Him (Lam. 3:37). (2) Over all things which exist (1 Chron. 29:11-16), even to kingdoms and dominions (Dan. 2:21). (3) Over rational creatures, whom God bends, not only by a natural movement, wherever He wills — though they be unaware of it, like other creatures (Prov. 21:1) — but also by a moral movement, prescribing what must be done and left undone, that they may knowingly and willingly obey it (Rom. 6:16). Especially (4) over the elect (John 17:9,10), as it were by an acquired right.

VIII. The right of this might over all these things God exercises, in general, mutually, decreeing concerning them entirely according to His good pleasure (Ps. 115:3; Matt. 20:15) — but His acts nevertheless in various and differing ways. (1) With regard to possible things, so that from them He brings to actuality whichever He wills, and as He wills, making out of one and the same lump a vessel unto honor and a vessel unto dishonor (Rom. 9:21). (2) With regard to existing things, while He preserves them as long as He wills (Ps. 90:3), ordains and appoints them to whatever use He wills (2 Tim. 2:20), transferring kingdoms, treasures, and riches to whom and in whatever manner He wills (Dan. 2:21), fixing and determining the end of life and death (Job 14:5), and lengthening it according to His good pleasure (Isa. 38:5). (3) With regard to rational creatures, while He elects, rejects, redeems, calls, regenerates, converts, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies, and condemns whom He wills (Eph. 1:5; Rom. 9:18,21; Matt. 11:25,26); further, when He prescribes laws to them, enforces and confirms them, and, having confirmed them, establishes and carries them out as He wills; indeed, when He reckons children in their parents, and imputes the sins of parents to their children (Rom. 5:12-14,16-19; Exod. 20:5; Lam. 5:7), just as also when He bestows the righteousness of one upon many (Rom. 5:18). (4) With regard to the elect, distributing His gifts of grace as He wills (1 Cor. 12:8-11).

IX. Finally, this Might is (I) independent and eternal, because it rests upon and is grounded in His Godhead, and God has received nothing from creatures that could be repaid to Him (Rom. 11:35,36) — although the exercise of this might sometimes requires an occasion, such as the punishing of sins, while yet no might is thereby added to God, just as a judge's authority is not increased by evil deeds, which it merely presupposes in the wrongdoer. Indeed, whatever might any being may possess, it has and possesses it from nowhere else than from this fountain of might (Rom. 13:1; James 4:12). For this reason it is also (II) infinite, unbounded, most absolute, and altogether self-authoritative. For who could limit or restrict Him who is absolutely first (Rom. 9:19)? Who could gainsay Him (v. 20; Matt. 20:22,23)? And also (III) it is peculiar and incommunicable to God alone, because it rests upon the surpassing excellence of the Godhead — although God has transferred to His Son the mediatorial and administrative authority relating to the Church (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-23).

X. Secondly, Power, dynamis, or strength, whereby He is able to work what He does not will to work, and works everything that He wills to work. There belongs to Him, then, a might not whereby He would suffer anything (for He would then have to suffer from another, who in that respect would be prior to Him — and He would thereby also become mutable), but whereby He works, or effects and produces something. Nor does this belong to Him insofar as it is distinguished from His act, as if by working He were passing from idleness into activity — for He is a most pure act; but insofar as the creature, which formerly did not undergo God's working, now indeed undergoes it, by His will, without this producing the least change in the one working, but rather in the work. Just as in the sun, which now warms a man whom it did not warm before, no change occurs in the sun, but in the man, who formerly did not experience the sun's rays, but now does experience them.

Nor does there belong to God any power or capacity that is truly distinct from His Will, although it is distinguished from it in our conception: for we conceive of a capacity or power that precedes the Will, whereby God is simply able, and this is one and the same as the sufficiency of His being (Rom. 11:33); and also a power that follows the Will, which, in its own way, comes after the sufficiency of His being, and regards the actual carrying-out, insofar as He brings to effect that which He wills (Ps. 115:3; 135:6). So that under this must be comprehended what we conceive: first, that God is able; then, that He knows that He is able; further, that He wills what He knows He is able to do — which therefore in fact does not differ from His power and capacity. This is what the syllogism of faith teaches (Matt. 8:2,3): "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean" — "I will, be clean" — whereupon it was so done; where the argument proceeds from the will, as coming nearest to the capacity or power.

XI. This Might and Power of God extends to all things, for which reason He is called pantokratōr, the Almighty (2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 1:8), since He can do everything that He wills (Ps. 115:3), indeed more than He wills (Matt. 3:9; 26:53), so that nothing and no one can resist Him (Rom. 9:19); and this He can do without difficulty or weariness (Isa. 40:28); indeed, even those things which are impossible to nature (Matt. 19:26). Yet that which is impossible by and through nature itself, this God cannot do by His omnipotence: for it would be a contradiction that God should be able to bring about that which cannot happen. Now that is impossible by nature which involves a contradiction; for since that cannot be a being (ens) at all, it can no more be a work of power.

Now a contradiction is involved either on God's side, when the work would betray an imperfection in the most perfect of workmen — as if He were said to be able to lie or deceive; or on the side of the thing itself, when the thing would overturn itself, like a triangle that had not three angles. Both kinds of contradiction are impossible to God, because otherwise it would follow that God should deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13), or thereby say that He is no God. For if He lied, for example, He would thereby say that He is not the most perfect being, and therefore no God. This applies not only to the first kind of contradiction, but also to the second: for if God made a triangle which had not three angles, He would then have a different idea of a triangle than He in fact has, and would thus be different from what He truly is, and consequently would be saying that He is not the same as He was — that is, that He is now no God.

Therefore, what is impossible to God is not due to some defect of power, but arises from its very abundance. For if He could do impossible things — lie, sin, for example — He would then also be capable of not being Almighty. Wherefore we say that God, precisely because of His power, or in the fullest exercise of it, cannot do such things — not on account of weakness. And we say more precisely still that the thing cannot happen because it either conflicts with the divine Nature and Perfection, or with His Will and Decree, or with His Majesty, or with itself. God, then, is said by His Might to be able to do whatever is possible — not as though the thing were possible by nature prior to, and independently of, God's ability to do it (for then God's Might would depend upon it), but rather that the thing is possible because God can do it. And conversely, on the other side, God cannot do this or that, not because it is impossible in itself, but it is impossible because God cannot do it. So that the root and ground of possibility and impossibility lies not in the things themselves, but in the Might and Power of God.

XIII. Might and Power, although in themselves but one, and most simple in God, because it is His very Being — yet it is customarily distinguished by us into an absolute power, insofar as we conceive it as preceding His Will (Eph. 3:20; Mark 9:23), and an ordained or ordered power, insofar as we conceive it as following the Will — by which He now not only can, if He wills, but also actually effects what He wills (Ps. 135:6).

XIV. From what has been said, it appears finally that God's Power is: (1) His very Being, the mighty Godhead itself — for in God there is no distinction between one thing and another. For this reason it is (2) infinite, not only in itself, insofar as it is the mighty God Himself (Gen. 17:1), nor only on account of the perfection of His working, since God does all that He does simply by and through His will and command (Ps. 33:9; Isa. 40:28; Eph. 1:19; Phil. 3:21), but also on account of its object (Luke 1:37), insofar as it extends to all possible things (just as the understanding extends to all intelligible things), and since God, by His power, never accomplishes so much that He could not accomplish more (Eph. 3:20). For although all the things He can do cannot exist together at the same time — since otherwise something infinite in actuality would exist besides and outside of Him, and His Might would thereby, as it were, be exhausted, so that He would not be almighty — yet God lacks no power whereby He could bring them forth, provided only that their coexistence were not self-contradictory. (3) Independent, so that He can work through means, without means, or against means (1 Sam. 14:6). And finally (4) eternal (Rom. 1:20). For although He has not been active outside Himself from eternity, yet He has had, from eternity, the might and the power, and He had that very same might and power whereby, when He willed, He made the world. And by this same might and power He could likewise have brought forth the world earlier, had only the world been capable of existing from eternity.

The Polemical Part

XV. The question is asked: (I) Whether the foundation of all divine Might and Authority over men is creation, the covenant, benefit received, or sin? The Remonstrants, in order the more forcefully to reject the eternal reprobation of a man not yet created or fallen, say that all Might and Authority of God over man rests and is grounded either upon creation, whereby He, like a potter, has power over the clay (Jer. 18:6; Rom. 9:21); or upon a covenant-making, whereby man has obligated and bound himself to God; or upon sin, whereby man has made himself guilty; or upon benefit received, by virtue of which man is bound to gratitude — and since none of these things had yet taken place from eternity, God, they say, therefore had no power to reject man.

The Reformed distinguish between the might itself and the exercise of it, so that God has the might by virtue of the excellence of His Godhead, or because He is God, and the supreme Lord of all things — while, meanwhile, the exercise of this Might requires various things: namely, the existence of the object through creation, in order to punish it; the presence of sin, in order to punish; the benefit received, in order to demand gratitude; the covenant, in order to require the fulfillment of the promise. But God's Might flows from nothing and no one else than from His Godhead. This is made evident to them by the following reasons: (I) Because Scripture testifies that God had might and right over Jacob and Esau, though as yet uncreated and non-existent, nor standing with them in any covenant, nor as yet guilty of any sin, before the children were born or had done anything good or evil — that God already then had power over them, both to elect or to reject (Rom. 9:11,12,13), and likewise to show mercy or withhold it, or also to harden (vv. 15,18) — namely, as a potter has power over the clay, to make out of the same lump a vessel unto honor and one unto dishonor (v. 21). (II) If He had received His might and authority from someone else, it would then be neither independent nor infinite, and there would thus be in God something dependent, and something finite, which would grow and increase from day to day. And since (III) God's Might, Authority, and Power are, by virtue of God's supreme simplicity, God Himself, or His mighty and almighty Being, it would follow that the divine Being could increase and grow. Also (IV) from eternity He has had the power to decree, out of infinitely many possible things, this rather than that, which should pass into a future actuality. Finally (V) even in a civil court a judge receives his power to punish a wrongdoer not from the wrongdoer, but only the exercise of that power for which he already had the right beforehand.

Nor does the contrary view hold, namely: (1) that a son, for example, who surpasses his father in learning, wisdom, valor, or strength, does not thereby acquire authority over his father, and that thus God, by virtue of the surpassing loftiness of His Godhead alone, would have power over man without creation, etc. For here the cases are not parallel: a father has authority over his son by virtue of fatherhood, which no advantage the son may have over the father can take from him. In the same way, (2) suppose that in a noble or a popular government there is one who surpasses all his fellow citizens in wisdom, uprightness, and other virtues; such a one would nevertheless have no authority or right to rule over his fellow citizens on that account, for the reason for the difference lies in this, that the authority to rule is given and conferred by God (Rom. 13:1,2,3) — though, meanwhile, if it belongs to the people to choose a magistrate, they are bound to choose the best one, most fit for governing (Exod. 18:21). Further, (3) though the angels possess an excellence and eminence above all men, they nevertheless have no authority or power over man, because God has not given that power to the angels. In particular, and point by point, (4) God gains no greater might through creation, as if He would thus have created infinitely more things in order that His Might might become the greater — although He cannot exercise in actual fact the might which He has had from eternity, and possessed by virtue of the excellence of His Godhead, unless an object exists through creation. Nor does (5) the wrongdoing or sin of the creature confer upon the Creator the power and right to punish, in the way it does confer this upon a civil judge, although it is the meritorious cause of the punishment. The same (6) may sufficiently be said of covenant-making, which indeed increases the obligation of the party bound to keep his promises, but does not ground God's Might and Right upon promises. And finally, (7) God does no injustice to the reprobate, not yet existent, by His reprobation, in foreordaining him to display the glory of His avenging righteousness, chiefly because God does not punish him except through the intervening cause of his sin and desert.

XVI. The question is asked: (II) Whether God, by His Might, without incurring the guilt of respect of persons or of unrighteousness, can decree unequal things and outcomes for men who are otherwise alike? The Remonstrants, Lutherans, and others, in order the more easily to make the whole matter of election and reprobation depend upon a foreseen faith and unbelief, and to find in these foreseen things a certain inequality, according to which God allotted them unequal things, deny this. The Reformed, on the contrary, affirm it: (I) Because Scripture affirms it (Rom. 9:11-23; Jer. 18:6). (II) Because those who are, among themselves, alike as well as unlike, are without distinction His own, concerning whom He can and may decree and determine according to His own free will (Matt. 20:15). (III) Because God's Might is infinite and most absolute, and cannot be bounded by either the equality or the inequality of creatures (Rom. 9:20,21). Especially (IV) because He stands under no law, nor under any lawgiver, by which His Might would be limited (James 4:12). (V) For God to decree something, being an immanent act of God, does no wrong to the creature, whether in good or in evil, since the creature does not yet exist from eternity (Rom. 9:11), nor does He allot evil except upon foreseen sin.

They say: (1) that this involves a respect of persons. We answer that a sinful respect of persons is nothing other than bestowing unequal things upon such equals as, according to the precept of a superior, you are obligated to treat equally; but God recognizes no one greater than Himself who might prescribe such a rule to Him, and He Himself is in no way bound to treat all alike (Rom. 11:35,36). They say (2) that this involves unrighteousness, in that you show unequal things to those to whom equal things belong. We answer that it is unrighteousness when you fail to give someone what is his own; but the creature, in relation to the Creator, properly has nothing that is its own (1 Cor. 4:7; James 1:17,18).

XVII. The question is asked: (III) Whether God, by His might and authority, can punish the sins of parents in their children? The Pelagians and those of Pelagian leanings, who do not acknowledge the imputation of the first sin — such as our Socinians — simply deny this. The Reformed distinguish between the first sin of our first-created parents and the subsequent sins committed by nearer or more remote ancestors: they say that God can, and indeed in fact does, punish that first sin in all their descendants, because it was a sin of the whole of human nature; but that the subsequent sins, being personal sins, God does not always punish in the children — though He can do so, chiefly when the children are inclined and disposed toward the same sin of their parents, and approve and commend it, or have in some way made themselves partakers of it. Meanwhile they hold that God never punishes wholly innocent children for the sins of their parents: because (I) Scripture expressly says so (Exod. 20:5): "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" — whether this means bringing that hatred upon the parents or upon their descendants, at the very least the power is ascribed to God to visit, or punish, the sins of parents in their children. The same is said in ch. 34:7. Because (II) the first sin of our first parents is a sin of the whole of human nature, and by it death came into the world (Rom. 5:12). Because (III) God's independent and absolutely unbounded might extends as much to the children as to the parents — especially when they follow, or approve, the sins of their parents, or show themselves inclined and disposed toward them. Because (IV) the children are sinners just as much as the parents, and are thus subject to infinite punishment; from which, even by our adversaries' own admission, God's power to avenge the sins of the parents in them follows. I would add (V) that children, according to the judgment of the jurists, are extensions of their parents, and that thus the parents are punished in the children.

Nor does it help our adversaries (1) that God declares He does not will to punish the sins of the fathers in the children (Ezek. 18:20). For (a) God speaks, throughout that whole chapter, of innocent and guiltless children (vv. 14-18), whom God does not wish to punish for the sins of the father — though He could and might do so by virtue of His most absolute might. (b) God speaks of the personal sins of parents, which God is not accustomed to punish in the children; but not of the first sin, which is a sin of the whole of human nature. (c) There He speaks against and refutes the slander of the Jews, who accused God of unrighteousness, saying that they were punished only for the sins of their parents and not for their own sins; God answers that He had no need to punish them for the sins of others, that there was in themselves a sufficient weight and burden of sins for which they were justly punished; therefore, that He did not wish to punish the sins of the parents in them — but He does not say that He could not, or might not, do so if He wished. Nor does it help our adversaries (2) to say that it seems to savor of unrighteousness to punish the sin of one man in another, since justice gives to each his own. For it savors of unrighteousness only when the one punished is wholly innocent; but not when he is, by his own sins, already long subject to avenging divine justice, and a debtor to it, and that indeed unto infinite punishment.

Other disputed and controverted points relating to the Might of God we have already treated at length in the eighteenth chapter, concerning the justice or righteousness of God, to which the might of God, insofar as might is nothing other than a capacity to act and do according to right, is at the very least closely akin, if not one and the same.

XVIII. Concerning God's Might, the question is asked: (IV) Whether there is in God a passive capacity, or a passive power, whereby He could suffer something, good or evil, from creatures? Conrad Vorstius, along with the Socinians, in order to have a God dependent upon the free will of man and changeable every hour according to its good pleasure, affirms this; but the Reformed deny it. (I) Because Scripture denies that He could receive anything, good or evil, from creatures (Ps. 16:2; Job 22:2; 35:7; Ps. 50:9, etc.; Rom. 11:35). (II) Because He would then have something prior to Himself, from which He would suffer, and would therefore not be an absolutely first Being (Isa. 44:6; Rev. 21:6). (III) Because He would then not be independent, and therefore also not God. Thus He would (IV) not be immutable, for that which suffers is changed. Thus He would (V) be corruptible; for since whatever suffers is changed, either for the better, or into an equal good, or into something worse, whereby it is corrupted; and since there can be nothing better than God, nor anything equally good, nothing would remain but that He should change for the worse, and thereby be corrupted. Nor does the contrary opinion hold, that God is honored and served by virtue, and offended and angered by sin: for neither virtue nor sin touches His Being, so that it should suffer; but rather His Law, and, so far, the Lawgiver. This disputed point, however, properly belongs to the chapter on the Immutability of God, where more such matters occur.

XIX. The question is asked: (V) Whether God's Power and Capacity are infinite in themselves, excluding all bounds and limits, or only relative to us? Vorstius and the Socinians, because they teach that God is finite — that, as to His being, He is not outside heaven, and can be bounded and circumscribed by us — hold that God's Power and Capacity are called infinite not because they have no bounds or limits, but because He has such a Power and Capacity as surpasses the might and understanding of creatures, and whose bounds and limits we cannot trace or discern. The Reformed teach that God's power is in itself absolutely and simply infinite: (I) it can do not only above all that we ask or think (Eph. 3:20,21), but also, simply, all things (Phil. 3:21; Luke 1:37), being the Almighty (2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 1:8; 4:8) — such a one is not one that cannot do something, for which reason He is called the only Potentate (1 Tim. 6:15), the mighty God (Isa. 9:6; compare §3). (II) It is an excellent greatness of might, to which belongs a working of the strength of His power (Eph. 1:19). (III) By reason of the utter simplicity of God, it is one and the same as the Being of God, which we have proven and demonstrated above (ch. 9) to be absolutely infinite. (IV) And if it were in itself simply finite, there would truly be someone who had bounded it, who would then have to be prior to, and mightier than, God Himself. And indeed, (V) it is, by the admission of all, more perfect to be able simply to do all things, than to be able to do so only with respect to something in particular; likewise, to have an absolutely infinite power is more perfect than to have one that is bounded merely with respect to us — wherefore such a power cannot befit a most perfect Being. Not to mention (VI) that if we conceived a power that was not in itself and simply infinite, we could not then say that God has a might and power so infinite that it surpasses our comprehension and understanding.

Nor is the contrary opinion valid, when they object: (1) that God's Might and Power are constrained and bounded by His Will; since (a) it is not the might and power itself, but its exercise with respect to its objects, that is and must be bounded by His most sovereign Will (Ps. 115:3; 33:9), lest there be two infinities, and thereby, in fact, none at all. Therefore (b) it is not the power whereby He is simply able — which is the point in question here — that is bounded by the Will, but rather the might and capacity whereby He actually works, that is, His executive power.

(2) That God's Understanding surpasses His power and capacity, insofar as He comprehends more things than He can effect and bring forth — for example, He comprehends and understands Himself, He comprehends infinite things which He cannot bring forth. Answer: (a) By reason of God's supreme simplicity, Understanding and power are, on God's side, absolutely one and the same, although the Understanding extends to more objects than the Might or power. (b) As the Understanding extends to all knowable things, so also Might and power extend to all possible things, without any difference. (c) Although God's ordained power, being bounded by God's Will, does not extend to all possible things, yet His absolutely unbounded Will extends to all possible things, which are infinite.

They object (3) that God cannot do contradictory things — deny Himself, lie, etc. — and therefore that His power and Might are not simply infinite. Answer: that all these things are not objects of any Might or Power, but rather objects of impotence. For to be able to lie, sin, deny oneself, etc., speaks not of power and perfection, but of weakness and defect. Therefore God's Might and power would in no way be infinite if He could do these things. So too Augustine judges (De Symbolo, Book 1): "God, since He is Almighty, cannot die, cannot be deceived, cannot lie. For if He could die, He would not be Almighty; if He could lie, deceive, be deceived, act unjustly, He would not be Almighty; for if these things were in Him, He would not have been worthy to be called Almighty." Compare the chapter on God's Infinity.

XX. The question is asked: (VI) Whether God wills many things to happen which He does not, by His omnipotence, in fact bring about? The Pelagians and Socinians, because they maintain the independence of free will, together with the claim that its powers remained wholly unimpaired by the first sin, and also in order to establish that God earnestly wills the salvation of all men and of each individually, provided only that men themselves are willing, hold that not everything that God wills actually comes to pass by His omnipotence. The Pelagians, and likewise the Jesuits, Arminians, and others who maintain an antecedent and conditional Will of God, and likewise that the powers of free will were indeed wounded and weakened by the sin of our first parents, but not extinguished, and who wish to establish that God nevertheless earnestly wills that all men and each individually be saved, hold that God wills many things which He never, by His omnipotence, brings to effect. The Lutherans, though they acknowledge that the powers of free will toward spiritual good are wholly extinguished, yet, because they hold that men, through the powers of free will, at least come to be, as it were, laboring to receive the Holy Spirit, faith, and conversion, by attending to religious exercises, by praying, etc., do not positively contradict this, and likewise suppose that God wills many things to happen which He does not, by His omnipotence, bring to effect.

The Reformed, on the contrary, holding that God, by His legislative Will, or Will of precept, wills many things which He does not, according to His decreeing Will, bring about by His omnipotence, hold that whatever God wills to happen by that decreeing will, He actually carries out by His omnipotence — because (I) Holy Scripture everywhere testifies that God does whatever He wills (Ps. 115:3). For this reason Paul says (Rom. 9:18): "He has mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardens" — adding also in verse 19: "Who has resisted His will?" — and likewise verse 22: "God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known... endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." And this (II) is the force of that syllogism of faith found in Matt. 8:2,3: "Lord, if you will, you can" — "I will" — therefore it was done; where the proof proceeds from the antecedent Will to the Might, and from this to the effect. Hence (III) the will, together with the might, is the effecting principle of the created world (Rev. 4:11): "For your pleasure they are and were created"; and (Ps. 33:9): "He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast" — that is, when He wills and commands, then everything that exists comes to be. And (IV) if He did not bring to effect what He earnestly wills, there would truly be something able to resist and hinder Him — something which Holy Scripture denies (2 Chron. 20:6): "In your hand is power and might, so that none is able to withstand you" (Rom. 9:19). And thus (V) whatever resisted and hindered Him would, by an open contradiction, be mightier than the Almighty. Moreover (VI) the Independent One would depend on a dependent being. Also (VII) a dependent being would become independent; and moreover (VIII) an infinite Might would be finite. Likewise (IX) the most blessed Being would not be blessed in every respect, being unable to exercise His Will. And (X) the most perfect Being would not be perfectly and absolutely perfect, since, by the judgment of all, it is more perfect to carry out what one wills than not to carry it out.

For the contrary they offer these objections: (1) "I would have gathered your children together... but you would not" (Matt. 23:37). I answer: (a) the text speaks of the will of Christ as man, not the will of God, or of Christ as God. (b) Even if it is spoken of Christ's divine will, He did indeed gather the children of Jerusalem, against the will and displeasure of the Pharisees and all others. They say (2): God willed that Pharaoh should let Israel go; I answer that He willed to command it — He willed, by virtue of His precept, that it should be Pharaoh's duty — but He did not will that it should actually happen. They say (3): God does not will the death of the sinner, but that he turn and live (Ezek. 33:11). I answer that God has no delight, in general or in the abstract, in the death of the sinner, but rather delights in the sinner's conversion and life. They say further (4): God wills that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), which nevertheless does not happen. I answer: (a) the Apostle does not say "all and every individual," which is the point in question, but "of every sort," as in Luke 11:42; Mark 1:5 — from every rank of men, both kings, for whom He commands us to pray, and subjects. (b) He wills to prescribe and commend to all the knowledge and acknowledgment of the truth, and upon that to promise salvation, by His legislative Will, but not by the Will of His decree that this should come to pass in all — for then no one would be condemned, contrary to the declaration of Christ (Matt. 20:16).

XXI. The question is asked: (VII) Whether God, by virtue of His absolute Might, can do contradictory things? The Socinians, in order to maintain that God's Might is not, in itself and simply, infinite, deny that He can do contradictory things (§19). The Weigelian enthusiasts, on the contrary, say that God, because He is Almighty, can also do things which are contradictory. Descartes and his followers, because they make all possibility and impossibility depend upon the willing of God, distinguish between what is contradictory on God's side and what is contradictory on the side of the thing itself; the former they seem to hold to be absolutely impossible, but concerning the latter they dare determine nothing (Descartes, Responsiones Sextae, §6; Wittich, Theologia Pacifica, §§199-201). The Reformed say plainly that God cannot in any way do contradictory things. For (I) if God, as is granted, cannot do things that are contradictory on His own side, or that conflict with His Nature, then neither can He do those things that are contradictory on the side of the thing itself; since, in that case, God's Understanding, which is one and the same with His Nature, would have contradictory ideas — for example, an idea of a man who would not be a man. Therefore what is contradictory on the side of the thing is likewise so on the side of God. Therefore (II) if He could do contradictory things, He would deny Himself, contrary to the Apostle's words (2 Tim. 2:13), for He would be that which He is not. Also (III) if He could do contradictory things, He could also speak contradictory things. And what, after all, is lying but maintaining contradictory things — words which contradict the mind, or a mind and understanding which contradicts the facts? As the Apostle explains (2 Cor. 1:17-19): "That with me there should be yes and no... But as God is true, our word toward you was not yes and no. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ... was not yes and no." I would add (IV) that on this view contradictory things could be true things, whereby all power of reasoning would cease, since reasoning rests upon this its first principle, that one and the same thing cannot at the same time both be and not be. Not to mention (V) that on this view we would be bound and obligated to believe, with a divine faith, things that are yes and no, or contradictory — contrary to Holy Scripture (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), which says God cannot lie.

For their view the adversaries urge: (1) that the Will of God is the cause of all reality, truth, and goodness; but we have already refuted this, when we made it our particular business, with force, in ch. 18, §11. We add further that there is no reality in contradiction and contradictory things, but rather a denial of all reality; for indeed, nowhere do we more decisively prove the falsity of any statement or opinion than by showing that it involves a contradiction. When the adversaries (2) say that God's infinite Might extends to all reality, we answer (a) that we have already long denied that there is any reality in a contradiction or in contradictory things; (b) if indeed there were, then Weigel and his enthusiasts would have won their case, when they sought to derive from God's infinite Might that God can do contradictory things. When they say (3) that a finite creature cannot and may not determine what God, by His infinite Might, can or cannot do, we answer them: (a) then neither could nor should the adversaries themselves determine that God cannot do things which conflict with God's Nature, or which involve a contradiction on God's side; (b) a finite creature cannot and should not determine what God, by His infinite omnipotence, can or cannot do, except insofar as God and the Nature of God have already determined this beforehand — for example, that He cannot deny Himself, cannot lie, etc. Whoever desires more on this subject may compare our Gangraena Cartesiana ("The Cartesian Cancer"), Book 3, sect. 1, ch. 11, and especially also Voetius, Rationale Theologicum, Book 3, ch. 8.

XXII. The question is asked: (VIII) Whether God, by His infinite Might, can bring forth a body or extended mass which is unbounded in its extension? The Cartesians, in order to maintain that the world is "indefinite" — such that it is uncertain whether it is infinite or not — grant indeed that God can bring forth nothing that is infinite in perfection, but hold that He can, in every respect, bring forth something that is infinite in extension and in number. The Reformed deny that God can, in any way, bring forth anything infinite. (I) Because in that case there would be more than one infinite Being, and thus, in effect, none at all — for either the one would have the very infinity of the other, in which case they would together form but a single infinite Being, or it would not have it, in which case there would be no infinite Being at all. (II) Because in that case infinity would not only be a peculiar attribute of God, but we could also no longer, from that supposed infinity of Christ's flesh, whereby it would be on earth and at the same time in heaven and at God's right hand, conclude the consubstantial Godhead with the Father. (III) Because in that case it might happen that Christ's flesh is infinite and omnipresent, so that the arguments of the Reformed against those who press for the omnipresence of Christ's human nature, who hold the opposite, would be idle and in vain. (IV) Because, on this supposition, God would have created and built something to which He could add nothing further, and thus His omnipotence would be exhausted by a single infinite creature. (V) Because, in the same way and for the same reason — whatever the Cartesians may argue against it — God could then also bring forth a being that is infinite in perfection; for since extension, mass, and body are, without doubt, a certain perfection, it cannot but follow that whatever is infinite in extent must also be infinite in perfection. (VI) Because it is contradictory that something created should nevertheless, in one way or another, be infinite; for while it is being created, it is finited, and therefore that which is not finite is not created. Wherefore, if there could be more than one infinite Being, in whatever manner, there could likewise be more than one uncreated, and thus also more than one independent Being — of which, however, none would be an absolutely first Being, and consequently none would be God.

The grounds of the contrary opinion are, sufficiently, these: (a) that the Will of God, being from eternity equally indifferent to all things, is the cause of all possibility, from which nothing else can follow than that, if God had willed that something infinite in extension or number should actually exist, this would, precisely for that reason, have been possible. This foundation we have already overturned above (ch. 18, §11). We add only this one thing: that, were they to say the same of something infinite in perfection — that if God had willed it possible that, besides Himself, some being infinite in perfection should exist — would that possibility then not have come to pass? And thus there would come to be two, or more, beings infinite in perfection. (b) That this same eternally indifferent Will of God is the cause of all truth, as Descartes says (Responsiones Sextae, §6) — from which it would follow that, however utterly contradictory something might be, or contrary to God's Nature, if only God had willed it, then it would not be contradictory, nor contrary to God's Nature. (c) That God, by His absolutely unbounded might, can do things which conflict with the nature of things, and which are thus contradictory — from which it would follow that, though it be contradictory to be infinite in extension or number, God can nevertheless do this. These suppositions we have long since rejected and refuted. Compare our Cartesian Cancer, ch. 13.

XXIII. The question is asked: (IX) Whether God could deceive, if He willed to? This disputed point could belong in various places: namely, in the chapter on the Truthfulness of God, insofar as deceiving conflicts with that; in the chapter on the Will of God, insofar as it concerns the condition "if He willed"; and in the chapter on God's Might, insofar as it asserts that He could do this under that condition. Since, then, we have already debated and reasoned through this point, back and forth, in the chapter on the Truthfulness of God, it will not be necessary to occupy ourselves with it here; it will suffice to have noted that this disputed point belongs here as well.

XXIV. The question is asked: (X) Whether God's Might, Power, and Capacity can be communicated to the creature? The Ubiquitarians among the Lutherans, in order to maintain that Christ's body is present in the bread of the Holy Supper, hold that, through the union of the two natures in Christ, there was communicated to His human nature, besides omnipresence, also the divine omnipotence and power; and since they acknowledge that Christ's human nature is a creature, they accordingly hold that divine Might, power, and capacity can be communicated to a creature. The Reformed deny that God's Might and power can be communicated to creatures, or were communicated to Christ's human nature. Because (I) God's Might and power are His very Being, which the Lutherans also acknowledge; and consequently, God's very Being would then be communicated to the creature, and to Christ's human nature, whereby a creature — and thus Christ's human nature also — could be God: for that which has the Being of God is God. (II) Because Christ, as man, acknowledges one greater and mightier than Himself, when He asks and prays to be sustained in His sufferings (Ps. 16:8,10,11; 22:2,3; Matt. 26:39,42,53; Heb. 5:7), and likewise, when about to perform miracles, turns in prayer to His Father (John 11:41, and elsewhere). (III) Because He was, according to His human nature, under a passive power, which does not befit one who is Almighty. (IV) Because if an omnipotence had been communicated to Him, it would either be distinct and different from God's, in which case there would be two omnipotences; or it would be the very same omnipotence that God has, in which case Christ, as man, would have been almighty not merely by a borrowed almightiness, but His human nature would also have performed divine operations, insofar as His human actions — eating, drinking, walking — would have been acts of omnipotence. I will not even add (V) that, on this supposition, Christ's human nature would be God: for whoever works with the same power with which the Father works is God, according to the teaching of Christ (John 5:18,19,20).

Nor does the contrary opinion hold: (1) that Christ testifies that all power in heaven and on earth has been given to Him (Matt. 28:18). For He speaks not of true divine omnipotence, but of His Mediatorial power, whereby, with respect to those things which pertain to the Church, He has all authority and capacity in heaven and on earth — which appears from the immediately following words: "All power is given unto me... go therefore, and teach all nations..." (2) That He, as head of the Church, must be almighty according to His human nature, because otherwise He could not defend and protect it against the gates of hell and against the world; for it suffices that the whole person is almighty. (3) That He performed miracles according to His human nature: for it was the whole almighty person who performed the miracles, not the human nature separately.

XXV. The question is asked: (XI) Whether those who deny that God can make a body infinite and omnipresent, or present at once in places far removed from one another, thereby deny or disparage God's omnipotence? Weigel and his enthusiasts or Quakers, because they hold that God, by His infinite Might, can also do contradictory things, when they hear our theologians opposing this, cry out and shout that we deny God's omnipotence, as we have noted above (§21). Descartes, because he, as we said there, makes all possible and impossible things, all truth and falsehood, all goodness and evil, depend upon God's indifferent will, holds that God can do contradictory things; and when he and his followers hear us maintain the opposite, they are compelled, by their own presuppositions, to conclude that we belittle and disparage God's infinite Might. The Papists, in order the more confidently to maintain that the body of Christ, in their Masses, is present in the intervening space of so many separate and distant places at once, and who for this reason take refuge in God's omnipotence, likewise, when they hear our men oppose this on the ground that it involves a contradiction, chatter and cry out that we belittle divine omnipotence. The Ubiquitarians, in order to have Christ's body present in the signs of the Holy Supper, hold that it is, by virtue of the personal union of His two natures, omnipresent; and when they hear that this involves a contradiction, and various absurdities which we shall set forth in Book 7, ch. 5, §§20-21, they likewise take refuge in God's omnipotence, and, straightaway blackening us and our people who deny that God can do this because it involves a contradiction, cry out that we deny or disparage God's omnipotence. And — a sufficiently clear sign of a desperate cause — John Gerhard (in Exegesis Locorum Theologicorum) resorts to this evasion: that those things which, with respect to human power and knowledge, involve a contradiction and cannot happen, do not thereby, with respect to divine Power, involve a contradiction and become impossible.

The Reformed sincerely and forthrightly acknowledge God's infinite Might, and that by it He can do everything that involves no contradiction; while they deny that He can bring it about that a body be omnipresent, or present at once in various widely separated places, because this involves a contradiction — yet they in no way deny or disparage God's omnipotence. This is shown by the fact that our adversaries themselves, both Lutherans and Papists, commonly acknowledge that God cannot do contradictory things — except perhaps, among the Papists, Arnold Vernon, and among the Lutherans, Menzer, Chemnitz, and perhaps some others still, who hold that God can do things which are contradictory, or that things which are contradictory to reason are not always so before God and before Scripture, or that reason has no competence to judge of contradiction in the mysteries of the faith. On all this see Voetius, Rationale Theologicum, Book 3, chs. 7 and 8. One must not, therefore, cry out and shout that we deny or disparage the divine omnipotence; rather, one ought instead to show that an infinite body's coexisting at once in various places involves no contradiction.

The Practical Part

XXVI. The practice of this chapter counsels us, first, that we more and more acknowledge God's Might and power in and over us in particular, and seek to be persuaded of it. For to this end God teaches His Might and power in general over all things (Ps. 24:1), and in particular sets forth His Might over His people for their consideration (Deut. 32:6,9,10), as Paul does to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:20), and the Psalmist to himself (Ps. 116:16). Let us then, I say, strive and endeavor: (I) that we readily and forthrightly confess that God, for no reason whatsoever except only by virtue of His gracious promise, can never be a debtor to us for any benefit, since we, and all that is ours, are His own (Luke 17:10; Rom. 11:35). (II) That, whatever God determines and decrees concerning us, He does us no wrong, nor treats us unfairly, since we, whatever and however great we may be, are wholly His own possession (Jer. 18:6; Matt. 20:13,14). By this we shall be (1) the more ready and prompt for gratitude in prosperity (Rom. 11:35,36; 1 Cor. 15:10); (2) more patient in adversity (Ps. 39:9; 1 Sam. 3:18); (3) more trusting in every future circumstance, whether prosperous or adverse (Ps. 25:7; 130:6), namely by considering that at least as much power, indeed infinitely more, belongs to Him over us, as a potter has over His clay (Jer. 18:6; Isa. 45:9; Rom. 9:20), or as much as belongs to us over our own beasts, etc.

XXVII. Further, secondly, the divine Might and power fashions and forms us to patience, resignation, and rest in and under God: (I) When the general adversity of the Church — a most unjust lot, the multitude, might, arrogance, and oppression of enemies — presses and afflicts us, let us then consider: (1) that God has a most absolute and unbounded right in and over the Church, which is His Kingdom, His people, His own possession and treasure. And that He (2) will never be careless, slothful, or negligent in tending His own affairs (Ps. 121:3,4). Therefore (3) whenever it seems good and fitting to Him, and useful and serviceable both to His own glory and to that of the Church, He can, by His omnipotence, easily and without the least effort come to her aid, change her lot, and scatter her enemies, however many, great, and mighty they be (Ps. 68:14,15). At the very least, (4) that by His omnipotence He will never allow His own possession and treasure to be brought entirely to the utmost extremity, or wholly brought under the yoke of the enemy, even though the gates of hell themselves should assault and attack it (Matt. 16:18; Ps. 46:1; 110:1,2).

(II) When some particular misfortune, misery, sickness, want, poverty, or persecution presses and afflicts us, what can serve more powerfully for our calm and comfort than to consider (1) that God is our Lord, in whose might we are, as clay is in the hand of a potter (Jer. 18:6), who, concerning us as His own possession, can determine and decree entirely according to His own good pleasure (Ps. 39:9); (2) that He is also an Almighty Father, who can change our condition and lot whenever He wills (Matt. 8:2,3), and that He will, without doubt, be willing to do so, when His hour has come, and when it will be useful and serviceable both to His honor and glory and to our welfare (John 2:4; Ps. 27:14). (III) When we lack the necessary strength and ability, whether in bodily or in spiritual matters, what can raise and comfort us more powerfully than to consider that God, who is our Father, is Almighty, whose grace is sufficient for us (2 Cor. 12:9,10; Phil. 4:12,13)? When, specifically, (IV) the might of spiritual enemies afflicts, presses, and torments us, compared with our own weakness and powerlessness, what can more powerfully sustain and uphold us than the omnipotence of our heavenly Father, whose own possession and treasure we are (John 10:28,29; Eph. 6:10)? If, finally, (V) our situation and condition seems in every way to have come entirely to the last extremity, and to the point of despair, what can comfort us more powerfully than to consider that God, whose treasure we are, is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think (Eph. 3:20; 1:19; Rom. 4:20,21)?

XXVIII. Thirdly, it directs and disposes us to self-denial, in considering that, on account of God's most absolute Might and power, (I) there is on earth absolutely no unbounded dominion, no absolute ownership, because we all ourselves depend upon God, and we have not brought forth even the smallest thing, according to its whole, out of nothing (Ps. 24:1; Hag. 2:8). And (II) that whatever dominion and ownership we may have is nothing other than a delegated dominion, such as that of stewards and managers, communicated to us by God (John 19:11). And (III) it is truly communicated to us not that we might enjoy it according to our own pleasure, as our own property, but that we might use it as instruments, for God and for His causes, just as day laborers and household managers use the tools entrusted to them, and must render account of them to God. We must therefore (1), above all other offenses, take care never to believe that we belong to ourselves (1 Cor. 6:19), or are absolute lords of our own affairs. We must also (2) take care never to spend ourselves and our possessions, whatever and however great they may be, upon ourselves, for our own honor, pleasure, delight, or comfort — which, according to Holy Scripture, is to live unto oneself (2 Cor. 5:15; Rom. 14:7). Moreover, we must (3) take care that, however rich we may be, we do not waste or squander even the least of our goods, or misuse them, because they are God's goods, not our own (Hos. 2:8,9). On the contrary, (4) let us deny ourselves (Luke 9:23), and crucify the flesh with its lusts (Gal. 5:24; Col. 3:5).

XXIX. On the other hand, fourthly, God's infinite Power and Might urges us readily and willingly to give ourselves wholly, and all that is ours, over to God, to whom all things belong, and to offer and dedicate ourselves to Him (2 Cor. 8:5) — not that this in the least adds to God's right, or establishes our own; but because it serves our own advantage and comfort, to acknowledge that right of God through our own free consent. All men, even the wickedest (John 1:11), indeed even the unclean spirits, do indeed bow their knees to God (Phil. 2:10), but unwillingly; only believers acknowledge this of their own accord, readily and willingly (Song 2:16; 6:3; Ps. 116:16), and, having entered into covenant with God, receive, as it were, His very name (Ezek. 16:8; Mal. 3:17). In particular, and point by point, let us dedicate to God (I) our body (Rom. 12:1); (II) our soul (Prov. 23:26); (III) both our essential parts together (1 Cor. 6:20), all the faculties of both, our life and our death — let us devote all this to the honor and glory of God: that, whether we live, we may live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we may die unto the Lord; and thus, whether we live or die, we may be the Lord's (Rom. 14:7,8). And not only ourselves, but let us also (IV) submit to God all that is ours — our intellect and understanding, our power and authority, our households, our subjects, our entire estate and condition (Matt. 21:2,3,7,8,9) — and use it for His glorification. Yet not all in one and the same way: we ought not to spend everything on the poor, nor everything on the commonwealth, nor everything on the Church and its ministry; but let us nevertheless spend all of it, in one way or another, for God, and apply it to those uses which He has prescribed to us, so that we possess nothing of these things solely and only for ourselves. Indeed, (V) let us also spend all our efforts, undertakings, studies, and labors not for ourselves, but for God (Ps. 115:1), so that we are always occupied and engaged with the things of our Lord, and, whenever asked at any time whose work it is that we are doing, may freely and forthrightly answer: it is the work of my Lord that I do and perform (Rom. 1:9; 1 Cor. 10:31). Indeed, let us also (VI) spend all these things for our Lord in such a way that we withhold absolutely nothing from Him, like Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:2) or the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:21), nor limit or restrict it in any way — whether we live or die (Rom. 14:7; Phil. 1:20,21) — nor make it depend on any condition (Matt. 8:21,22), nor bargain for any reward for ourselves apart from and beyond communion with God Himself (Matt. 19:27,28; Gen. 15:1; Ps. 73:25).

And that we may practice all these things the more readily, it will be useful and of much help that we often and devoutly consider: (1) that most absolute right which we have above ascribed and assigned to God, by virtue of His Godhead, of creation, of redemption, etc., and how great a sacrilege it would therefore be to withhold from God those things which in so many ways are His own; (2) that He, in creation, marked us as His own possession and treasure with His image, and, that image being lost, has restored it through sanctification (Eph. 4:24), indeed has, as it were, sealed us with the blood of His Son (Rev. 7:3; 9:4; 14:1; Ezek. 9:4) — to what end but that we should give to God, indeed give back to Him, what is God's (Matt. 22:20,21)? (3) That we have, by a solemn covenant-making, dedicated ourselves repeatedly to God, in baptism, in the Holy Supper, in sicknesses, in judgments, etc. (Josh. 24:15,21,22; Ps. 22:11). I will not even add (4) that He has, by so many and so great benefits, bound, obligated, and appropriated us to Himself (Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 6:20).

XXX. Moreover, fifthly, God's might, whereby He can prescribe laws to us according to His good pleasure, and confirm what He has prescribed with promises and threats, and His power and capacity, whereby He can carry out and execute His promises and threats, compels us: (I) to submit ourselves readily under His mighty hand (1 Pet. 5:6), that is, to become, with a spontaneous and willing consent, His subjects and servants (Ps. 116:16), whereby we renounce even the innermost of our soul, understanding, and reason (2 Cor. 10:5), and likewise our will, passions, and affections (Matt. 26:39,42), that we may be ready and prompt to receive and accept all of God's commands, without exception (1 Sam. 3:9; Jer. 42:5), and to avoid every device of the flesh that rises up against them (Gal. 1:16). (II) That we, having made this general submission, promptly carry out the things prescribed to us by Him (Ps. 40:8; 143:10; 1 Thess. 4:3; 1 Pet. 4:1,2; Col. 4:12). (III) Doing this faithfully, that we may then, above all that is certain, promise ourselves a rich store of promises (Heb. 10:36), because He who has promised them is faithful and almighty (Rom. 4:21). Just as, on the contrary, (IV) if we set ourselves against this, we may, by virtue of this same omnipotence of His, more surely than anything can be sure, expect all those curses which He has pronounced upon the rebellious (Deut. 28:15; 27:16). For since God, as Augustine says elsewhere, is of an immeasurable and infinite might and power, there is therefore no place where anyone can hide himself; no time in which He can escape Him; and no power that can withstand Him.

XXXI. Therefore, sixthly, let the consideration of God's Might and power stir up in us a reverence and fear (Mal. 1:6; Isa. 8:13), because He is the only Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy (James 4:12); also a fear, not whereby we flee from Him as His enemies, but whereby we revere Him as a Father (Heb. 12:28), that we may carefully take heed never to anger or offend Him by any sin (Gen. 39:9) — especially by that sin which, as it were deliberately, sets itself in particular against God's might and power. Such a sin is (I) pride and arrogance, whereby we despise God's legislative power (Exod. 5:2), and show it to Him with an uplifted hand (Num. 15:30; Ps. 19:13), and, as it were, despise His might, authority, and power alike (Jer. 44:16,17), exalting ourselves against the LORD, breaking His yoke and bursting His bonds (Ps. 2:2,3), and provoking Him to wrath, as if we were stronger than He (1 Cor. 10:22). (II) The tempting of God, whereby we attempt, as it were, to set bounds and limits to His might and power (Ps. 78:18,19,41). (III) Despair, whereby, being brought to the last extremity, we imagine that the hand of the Lord is shortened (Isa. 59:1; Num. 11:21,22,23). (IV) Carnal ease and carelessness, or the presumption of immunity from punishment (Ps. 10:5,6,11; 50:20,21), as if God were powerless and could not avenge the wrong done to Him, like an idol (Zeph. 1:12).

XXXII. Seventhly, a devout thought and consideration of God's Might and power gives us a firm and steadfast trust, whereby we calmly commend and entrust ourselves, all that is ours, all our happiness, and all our undertakings and endeavors to God. Because we (I) are, by virtue of His might and dominion, His own possession, whom He has acquired for Himself through creation and redemption (1 Cor. 6:20), to whom we have pledged and bound ourselves and all that is ours, with our whole will (2 Cor. 8:5); who has openly received us as His own possession and treasure, and who will therefore take upon Himself the care of His own possession and treasure — in which we shall come to rest, as David did (Ps. 119:94): "I am yours, save me" — who also had experienced this Himself (Ps. 116:16).

(II) Because to Him, by His might and power, not only is absolutely nothing impossible, but also nothing bur—

...heavy, Ps. 78:19,20; Isa. 40:28. (iii) Because none of His enemies can overpower Him, John 10:29; 1 John 4:4; Rom. 9:19 — indeed, even a confluence of enemies, and what is still more, not even the gates of hell, Matth. 16:18; Rev. 3:7,8 and 18:1,2, since our almighty God is the LORD of Sabaoth, of hosts, Ps. 46:11 and 89:9. (iv) Because by His omnipotence He can do all things — through means, however weak they may be; without means; and against means, 1 Sam. 14:6; Rom. 4:17; Dan. 3:17. Finally, (v) because He alone can do it, Ps. 62:11, without whom we can do nothing at all, John 15:5, as the one who works all things in all, Rom. 11:36.

XXXIII. Finally, in the eighth place, the divine power and might furnish us with material for glorifying God, Eph. 3:20; Matth. 6:13, so that we may, together with Him, glorify Him: (1) by wondering inwardly at the greatness of that power and might, Eph. 1:19, at the vastness of His kingdom, Ps. 24:1, and at the might of His governance, Jer. 32:17-19; (2) by extolling and openly praising the same, Neh. 9:32; Ps. 147:5 and 99:2; Rev. 15:3 and 1:8; and (3) by imitating, in our own way, (1) His independent power — subjecting ourselves, with respect to that right which God has given us over all things, 1 Cor. 3:21,22 (see v.23), to God alone, and letting ourselves be brought under no man's power, so far as conscience is concerned, by suffering, 1 Cor. 6:12, by standing fast in that liberty (or right) which Christ has obtained for us by His blood, Gal. 5:1, and being anxious about nothing else so much as that we not abuse that power, 1 Cor. 10:23, nor use it to give offense, 1 Cor. 8:9; and (2) His strength, whereby we too may be strong and mighty, 1 Cor. 16:13, mighty in the strength of God's power, Eph. 6:10 — indeed, in our own way, almighty, Phil. 4:13: I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Chapter XXI: On the All-Sufficiency or Perfection of God

On Genesis 17:1.

I am the almighty God, who is all-sufficient. Walk before my face, and be perfect [upright]. And I will establish my covenant, etc.

The Explanatory Part

I. From the divine attributes which are, as it were, original, and which we have thus far set forth, there arise three attributes that are as it were derivative: the All-sufficiency and Perfection, whereby He is, for Himself and for all, in the most perfect way sufficient and self-sufficing; the Majesty and Glory, whereby He is such that He is supremely worthy to be extolled and praised; and the Blessedness, whereby He knows Himself to be the most blessed of all — Gen. 17:1.

II. The content of the text is a most forceful exhortation, built upon the all-sufficiency of God, to walk with God and to be upright, together with a promise of mutual covenant-making. To this end there is set forth:

1. The foundation of the exhortation, in the all-sufficiency of God: אני אל שדי, "I am the mighty God, the All-sufficient One." Here we must consider —

1. The All-sufficient One, אני, "I," namely Jehovah, named in the immediately preceding words. For indeed in this name — or rather in the one now to be named — lies the foundation of all all-sufficiency; for by it He is, and truly exists; by it He is independent of Himself, unchangeable, always the same; by it He is the simplest goodness and perfection; by it He is an infinite being and goodness, or all goodness and perfection; by it He is an eternal and unceasing being and perfection, etc. — I, such a one.

2. The All-sufficiency, אל שדי, "El Shaddai": understand under it "I am," by an ellipsis customary among the Hebrews. God's all-sufficiency is expressed by and under two titles, namely that He is:

a. אל, "El," that is, the mighty God, derived from איל, "eyal," that is, strength, valor, Ps. 80:5. The word properly means one who is strong, valiant, Ezek. 31:11, and by an antonomasia, that is, by substitution, it signifies God, the mightiest of all, Gen. 14:22 and 21:33; wherefore it is commonly rendered by Junius and Tremellius as "the mighty God," and by the LXX translators, Ps. 7:12, by ἰσχυρόν, mighty, powerful, strong. From this comes אלי, "Eli," Matth. 27:46, and "Eloi," that is, "my God," or "my mighty God," Mark 15:34 — unless you would rather have it that "Eloi" comes from אלוהי, "Elohi." So that here is signified the second pillar of the divine all-sufficiency, namely that He is not only God, but the mighty God, whom nothing and no one can withstand: I, who can bring to pass the vastest and most glorious goods that I shall promise — for which reason those are the most blessed who stand with me in covenant, and are thus my covenant people.

b. שדי, "Shaddai," a word which has a threefold or fourfold derivation: (1) as it were from שדד, "Shadad," that is, to lay waste — as if God said, I am He who, just as I have created all things, so also can lay waste all things, who can lay waste all your fortresses. (2) From שד, "Shad," that is, a breast, as if God said, I am He who nourishes all, who can nourish you and provide and care for you in all that is necessary for your sustenance. Some also (3) derive it from the Arabic שרד, which means to strengthen, to bind together, as if one said πάντα κρατῶν, holding all things, upholding, sustaining. Sanchuniathon, the writer of the history of the Phoenicians, tells of a certain god whom his interpreter Philo of Byblos calls ἀγρόν, "a field," or land, and ἀγρότην, "a husbandman," as though He had in mind that this name Shaddai derived from שדה, "sadeh," that is, a field, a land. Aquila rendered it by ἱκανὸς πάντων, sufficient, abundant, and elsewhere by Ἄλκιμος, strong, mighty, valiant. So Drusius. Elias Levita (in his Tishbi) says that most translate this word as "strong" and as "a conqueror," as if God said: I who am able and willing to shelter, cover, and secure you, so that one need not boast of a sufficiency He keeps hidden and secret within Himself, but which I declare and show toward my own. (4) Yet — which seems to be the truest derivation — the word is composed of the letter Shin, that is, "Sch," being a demonstrative pronoun standing for אשר, "asher," that is, "who" or "which," and די, "dai," that is, "sufficient" — in Plato, ἀνενδεής, "needing nothing" — according to Drusius: so that God says that He is the one who is enough and all-sufficient, namely, unto all things, unto a perfect blessedness, and for His own, παναρκής, all-sufficient unto all things, and that indeed of Himself — that is, αὐτάρκης, self-sufficient of and from Himself — as if He said, I who am sufficient for you unto all things. Thus שדי, "Shaddai," means nothing other than the Perfection of God, whereby He has enough, for Himself and for all — in particular for His own — unto an all-sided blessedness.

II. The duty enjoined by the exhortation: Walk in my presence, and be perfect. This duty consists, as it were, of two parts — or, if you would rather call it a twofold duty, then it is namely:

1. Communion or fellowship with God, התהלך לפני, "Walk in my sight." The word התהלך, "hithhallech," comes from הלך, "halach," that is, "he has walked, he has gone." In the Hithpael conjugation it means "he has walked, conversed, gone about continually and steadfastly." Verbs of this conjugation denote intensity, multiplicity, and continuance, Isa. 38:3. By a figurative manner of speech the word "walking" is used of a man's life, ways, and deeds, Ps. 1:1 and 119:1, and elsewhere. In this place it means nothing other than to converse and have dealings with God, to live for God, to His honor and glory, according to the prescription of His will and law. לפני, "lifnai," that is, "before my face," means before or in the presence, in the sight of God, God being as it were present — so that we, in our walking, might have God continually before our eyes, just as God has us, in our walking, before His eyes. Otherwise it is called walking with God, after God, in the ways of God. The nature and exercise of this walking with God we have expressly and at length explained in our Prodromus Theologicus (Theological Forerunner), Specimen 3, and perhaps we shall also sketch and explain it again in the Practical Part.

2. Uprightness or Perfection, והיה תמים, "and be perfect," or upright. Here the word תמים, "tamim," means upright, Gen. 25:27. It denotes one who is not cunning to deceive, as R. Solomon [says] on this passage. It is used of sacrificial animals, which had to be whole and unblemished; it is also ascribed to the holiest of men, as to Abraham, to Noah, Gen. 6:9, to David, Ps. 101:2, to Job, ch. 1:1. It denotes one who is upright, whole, ἄδολος, without guile — following the common Latin translation, ἁπλοῦν, "a simple one." Aquila also translates it, Gen. 20:5, by ἄπλαστον, "unadorned," that is not embellished, not feigned, not fabricated, not dissembled. Symmachus renders it by ἄμωμον, without fault, without blemish. In Paul it appears to be the same as ἄρτιος, "perfect," and ἐξηρτισμένος, "perfectly furnished," 2 Tim. 3:17 — "that he may be perfectly furnished in all his parts." Wherefore God requires of Abraham not an all-sided perfection of degree, as the Papists would have it, but only that in every part of His law he should strive to walk uprightly, without deceit.

III. The motive of the exhortation, namely the promise of mutual covenant-making. ואתנה בריתי, "And I will give (establish) my covenant between me and between you." בריתי, "my covenant" — assuredly not the covenant of nature which was entered into between God and the first-created man, but the Covenant of Grace in the blessed Seed — meant to signify that the divine all-sufficiency would still be of no advantage to him apart from this covenant, and also that he cannot enter into that covenant except by walking before God, and without uprightness and truth. This covenant we shall treat expressly and at length in its own place.

The Doctrinal Part

III. God, therefore, is that most perfect one who is all-sufficient — namely, not only for Himself but also for us, and that not merely unto this or that, but unto all things. For which reason (1) the name Shaddai, that is, All-sufficient, is applied to His name, whence He is called and is Deus (God), from די, "dai." (ii) He is expressly called perfect, Matth. 5:48, תמים דעים, "perfect in knowledge," Job 37:16. And (iii) it is said that He lacks absolutely nothing, and that He needs no one's counsel, help, power, or beneficence, Job 22:2,3; 35:16; 41:2,28; Isa. 40:14; Rom. 11:34. Indeed, it is said that He gives and imparts all things to all, ibid. v.36; Acts 17:28; Ps. 145:16.

IV. And He can also not be otherwise than perfect and all-sufficient, for the all-sufficiency and perfection which He has can be neither limited nor bounded, (1) because otherwise there would have to be a being prior to this first being; (ii) because He is a being par excellence, the highest Being, ὁ ὤν, "He who is," יהוה, "Jehovah," to whom therefore nothing of being, perfection, or sufficiency can be lacking, or else the being would fall short of what being is — and by whose reason, as (1) an absolutely first being, Rev. 1:5,8, the supreme Being would not be supreme. (iii) [Because He is] an infinite being, which, on account of a lack of any perfection whereby it would not be sufficient either for itself or for others, cannot be limited. (iv) He is most simple in His being, admitting of nothing foreign to Himself by which He might be made perfect, or by which He might become more sufficient for Himself. (v) He is eternal, who, when there was nothing besides Himself which might perfect Him, was for Himself alone all-sufficient — and who even now requires nothing by which He should become more perfect or more all-sufficient. And who (vi) has brought to everything outside Himself all the sufficiency it has, and therefore has had — and possesses par excellence — that same sufficiency Himself, since otherwise He could not have conferred it: Ps. 36:9, With you is the fountain of life, and in your light we see light. Namely — just as the sun is always seen full and never diminishes, unlike the moon — so God is and continually remains ever perfect, full of power, wisdom, immortality, and all other good things, as Theophilus writes ad Autolycum; just as also, according to Damascene (De Orthod. Fid. Lib. 1, cap. 5), He is called not only τέλειος, "perfect," but also ὑπερτελής and προτέλειος, "above-perfect" and "before-perfect."

V. Nor does the following stand against this: (1) that He has created all things, and indeed created them for His own sake, Rom. 11:36; Prov. 16:4 — for He did not create in order to be made more perfect by His creatures, but that He might perfect them, and, as it were, pour and instill His perfection into them, which, once received and taken up, would be acknowledged, extolled, and praised by those who received it. (ii) That He demands duties from His creatures — for this too does not happen so that He, once these duties are performed, should become more perfect, but that those who perform them should become perfect, and, by performing them, obtain eternal blessedness. But, you will insist, He expects from them honor and glory. Answer: that is the acknowledgment and praise of that perfection which He has already possessed from eternity, John 17:3, and this glorification and praise redounds not so much to His own perfecting as to ours. (iii) That the works of instruments tend toward their own end — Answer: not out of necessity, but out of freedom; not from a want of virtue, but from an abundance of goodness, in order to impart to creatures the dignity of some efficacy and efficacious working, and to make His efficacious working more perceptible and palpable in them. (iv) That He does not possess the perfections of creatures, such as sight, hearing, and other things — Answer: insofar as these are perfections, He is not deprived of them; but insofar as they also signify imperfections, which, once abstracted, leave only what belongs to a pure perfection — that remains in Him, in an eminent way, as in the idea representing and depicting it, and as in the cause, Ps. 94:9; Rom. 11:36. For indeed there is nothing in the effect which was not, in some manner, already in the cause.

VI. Now the Perfection and All-sufficiency which we have ascribed to God is not to be understood as limited to some particular species and to some particular fixed use, such as belongs to all creatures and merely excludes a privative imperfection; rather it is universal, comprehending all that is good, in every kind, and sufficient in and for all, unto infinite blessedness itself — which therefore also excludes a negative imperfection. Now on account of this His Perfection, insofar as He has enough in every way, He is called by the Greeks ἐξαρκής, "sufficient"; insofar as He is sufficient for all unto all things, παναρκής, "all-sufficient"; insofar as He is so not from elsewhere but from and in Himself, αὐτάρκης, "self-sufficient." In particular, and point by point: (1) He has enough for Himself, because He desires and can receive nothing more than what He has, because He is infinite, Ps. 50:9-13 and 16:2 — which appears the more abundantly from the fact that the world was not created out of necessity in time, but out of and according to His will from eternity. (ii) And He has enough for all and everything outside Himself, as the one who gives to all life, breath, and all things, Acts 17:25, from whom, in particular, we men live, move, and have our being, ibid. v.28. But especially (iii) He is sufficient for His covenant people, Ps. 2:11 — (1) by warding off from them every evil, whence He is also called their Shield, Rock, Stronghold, and Redeemer, Ps. 18:3 and 84:12; (2) by bringing them every good, both spiritual and bodily, Eph. 1:3, whence He is called a Sun, Ps. 84:12; (3) by abundantly recompensing all their labor, trouble, and misery undertaken for His sake, whence He is called an exceeding great reward, Gen. 15:1. And even if He gave them none of these things — if He only gave Himself to them — He would thereby give them all things, that they might rest in Him alone, justly and rightly, Ps. 16 and 73:25.

VII. This Perfection and All-sufficiency of God, according to the nature of an attribute that is, as it were, derivative, arises in the first place from the attributes of His being which we have thus far set forth and mentioned — so much so that if even a single one of those attributes were lacking to Him, He would deserve to be called neither perfect nor all-sufficient. Thus, for example, by His independence He is perfect, and has enough for Himself and for His own, from Himself, so that in the blessing of His own He is neither hindered nor limited; by His unchangeableness He is perfect, and has enough without any change in Himself, without increase or decrease, so that in this His own have a firm foundation for their blessedness; by His simplicity He is a purely simple perfection and all-sufficiency, of which they need fear the least imperfection, defect, or lack for themselves; by His infinity there belongs to Him an unlimited and illimitable perfection and satisfaction, whereby alone He can satisfy the infinite desire of His own; by His eternity He never was not, but has always been, is, and will be perfect and all-sufficient, and can save His own forever; by His life all His perfection is active and operative within Him, and thereby He is sufficient for His own unto every kind of life — natural, spiritual, and eternal; by His understanding He is conscious to Himself of His own perfection, and knows and discerns the needs and desires of His own, that He may fulfill them; by His will He enjoys His own perfection, and wills to impart to His own, out of His fullness and satisfaction, as much as is sufficient. And thus, with regard to all His other attributes, as we have severally shown in the several considerations of them.

VIII. There is also, secondly, that from which God's Perfection and All-sufficiency flow forth: the subsistence of the three Persons, whence that perfection and all-sufficiency, as it were, reflecting from Person to Person, grows and increases, were that possible — while the Father, in His Son, as in an utterly exact and most perfect image of Himself, in the brightness of His glory, in the express image of His substance, most fully satisfies Himself, Heb. 1:3; Matth. 3:17; Prov. 8:30. The Son likewise, in the glory which He possessed from eternity with the Father, John 17:5, and in their mutual glorifying of one another, ibid. and v.1. The Holy Spirit, in the love and fellowship of these two, 2 Cor. 13:13 (or 3:13). But also the perfection and all-sufficiency of God is derived to us distinctly from the several Persons — when the Father, by His Love, the Son, by His Grace, the Holy Spirit, by His Communion, pour out the perfection and all-sufficiency of God in and upon us. As if the perfection and all-sufficiency of one divine Person were not enough for the blessing of a lowly little man, and there had to be three Persons — each of whom is at once God, perfect and all-sufficient — cooperating together for this purpose! As we shall show more clearly in the Chapter on the Trinity.

The Polemical Part

IX. It is true that hardly anyone will be found who would undertake, deliberately and by set purpose, to attack with arguments the all-sided Perfection and All-sufficiency of God; yet among our own parties one will scarcely be found who does not, by his own presuppositions, nibble away at it obliquely — though by different roads and degrees. Openly, both the Socinians and the Pelagians do this. Our question is therefore: (1) Do not the Socinians, by their presuppositions, secretly and by underground channels — as it were — take away God's all-sided all-sufficiency? Conradus Vorstius (in his Tract. de Deo and notes to the same), as well as the Socinians generally, out of a smothering love for man's independent free will, and out of an implacable hatred against Christ's eternal Godhead, against the Trinity, against the Satisfaction of Christ, against our Justification by the righteousness of Christ alone, are compelled to teach various things which the Reformed thus prove to be intolerable and unbearable with the infinite Perfection and All-sufficiency of God: (1) because they take from Him such things as, by the unanimous consent of all, denote perfection, and must therefore belong to the most perfect God, and without which He cannot be so perfect — such as independence, when they teach that He depends on man's free will; unchangeableness, when they hold that He, according to the changeableness of that same free will, changes His decrees, as it were, every hour; simplicity, when they suppose that He is composed, in more than one way — for example, of subject and accident, of essence and attributes, virtues and perfections, etc.; infinity, insofar as they teach that He is enclosed in heaven; omniscience, when they hold that future contingent things are unknown to Him; omnipotence, when they deny that He can incline and bend the will of man; avenging justice, when they deny that it must necessarily demand punishment from sinners, etc. — as we have shown in their respective places. (11) Because, on the contrary, they ascribe to Him such things as savor of manifest imperfection — for example, passions or sufferings of the mind, longings, willings, repentance, and other such things, which are unworthy of and unbefitting the most perfect Being. (111) Because they reject the Satisfaction of Christ, by which God's holiness and righteousness, wounded as it were by man's sins, receive it back again. (iv) Because they blaspheme the most worthy Holy Trinity, from whose most blessed communion an ineffable Perfection flows forth, as we shall show in its place. More such things we could heap up, were they not already sufficiently adduced, and long since dealt with, at the particular chapters.

X. The question is: (II) Do not the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians also, along with the Socinians, by their presuppositions, injure — or even overturn — God's all-sided Perfection and All-sufficiency? The Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, Socinians, Jesuits, Remonstrants, and others, moved and affected by the same perverse love for an independent free will, and contriving various pretexts to bring about, namely, an agreement and concord between God's Foreknowledge and Providence and the indifferent freedom of the will, of contingent things, and God's Holiness — whereby He is far from any contrivance of sin — set forth such things that it cannot but be that God's all-sided Perfection and All-sufficiency should be undermined and collapse: namely, when they (1) ascribe to God a will which in more than one way depends on man's own will, and on other conditions, through which His will becomes conditional — by which very fact the perfection of Independence also falls, which is the wellspring of all His other perfections and attributes. (ii) When they hold that God, at the caprice of man's own will, is altered and disturbed in His counsels, and made subject to it as to a lord. (iii) When they ascribe to Him a fleeting or imperfect willing, whereby He would earnestly will something He would never obtain — and whereby, for that very reason, He would be powerless, unable to bring forth what He wills, and at the same time miserable, as one who does not have what He desires and longs for. (iv) When they ascribe to Him, specifically, that He earnestly wills that all men, and each one in particular, should actually be saved — from which wish and will, since it commonly fails, it must follow that He is sufficient neither for Himself nor for His own wish, nor for those for whom He wills that salvation. (v) When they take from Him the right and power over man's own will, whereby He could neither obtain His desires, nor convert men, unless they themselves were willing, and thus converting themselves. (vi) When they make Predestination depend on foreseen things in the creature, and thereby take from Him both His Independence and His All-sufficiency. Let this suffice as a sample.

The Practical Part

XL. As for the Practical Part: The Perfection and All-sufficiency of God convince us, in the first place, of the imperfection, insufficiency, and vanity of all creatures, Eccl. 1:2. For if God alone is absolutely and unboundedly perfect and all-sufficient, then truly every creature is of itself imperfect, vain, and empty — because (1) of and by itself it has no perfection by which it is sufficient either for itself or for others, Jer. 2:13; and (ii) whatever it has is that which has been conferred upon it by God — which is itself utterly empty, fruitless, and useless unless stirred up and applied by God as the first Mover, and unless the creature is likewise commanded and enjoined by the all-sufficient God to bring the perfection it has received to bear upon this or that end, 1 Kings 17:6. And if there is in creatures no perfection or sufficiency, then there is also no reason why we should (1) love any creature, of whatever kind, unfittingly and disorderly, 1 John 2:15,16; James 4:4; (2) that we should set our trust upon it, 1 Tim. 6:17; Ps. 62:11,12; (3) that we should fear it too greatly, or take and bear the loss of any earthly thing ill and heavily, Ps. 73:25.

XII. Secondly, they furnish us a ground of consolation. If we are not sufficient for ourselves, nor is the whole world sufficient for us — the soul in its nature being endowed with an absolutely insatiable desire — let us think that God is the most all-sufficient of all, and is for Himself, and for us, Ps. 73:25. In particular and point by point: (1) if we lack every good thing of the mind — for instance, strength of judgment, James 1:5, rightness of will, faith, hope, love, ordering of the passions; or goods of the body, health, strength, good constitution; or goods of fortune, needful riches, honors, favor of men; (ii) if dangers hang over our heads which we are unable to ward off; if (iii) we are pressed and hard-pressed by burdens, whether spiritual — Satan, the world, sin, and the conscience of sin — or bodily, of whatever kind they may be, it can serve for our comfort: (1) that God — El Shaddai, the All-sufficient, indeed the most all-sufficient Shield and Sun, Ps. 84:12; Gen. 15:1 — is sufficient for Himself unto infinite blessedness, and therefore much more for us, who need no such and so great a perfection. And who, moreover, (2) has so solemnly promised, with so many promises, to be to His own all things and in all — a Sun and a Shield, Ps. 91:15; 84:12 and v.12,13; Heb. 13:6. Indeed (3), who has also, in so many ways, always and everywhere, on every occasion, shown by deed that He is the most all-sufficient. Meanwhile, that we may enjoy this All-sufficiency of God the more assuredly, and be the more firmly upheld by it as future occasion requires, it is absolutely necessary: (a) that we be, by faith, covenant partners of God, Gen. 17:1 — I am the mighty God, the All-sufficient, etc. I will establish my covenant. For He is not all-sufficient for all without distinction, but only for His own. (b) That we frequently seek and invoke that sufficiency by prayers and supplications, Ps. 91:15; John 16:23; Ps. 27:8.

XIII. Thirdly, they rebuke all those who, not so much in words deny God's All-sufficiency and Perfection, or at least gnaw at it, as they do by their deeds. This happens (1) in the case of open ungodly men, when, having forsaken and neglected God, they are enslaved to their own worldly riches, honors, pleasures — indeed, abominations — seeing in these all sufficiency, but seeing and perceiving no sufficiency in God at all; (ii) [the marginal apparatus at this point is too corrupted to reconstruct reliably and is omitted]; bringing something, indeed a good deal, to Him, especially in the outward duties of religion, but not everything — for they would not, on this account, cling to Him steadfastly and in all things, Matth. 13:20,21. The reason is plain: because they do not trust that they will have in God everything which they judge necessary or useful for themselves; wherefore they think and judge that they must seek and obtain certain things for themselves from creatures, whether by right or by wrong, Hos. 2:4,5,14. Indeed (III), even true regenerate persons themselves — as is seen in the hesitation of Moses, Exod. 3:11,12, in the lie of Abraham, Gen. 20:2, and in other failings of the saints — namely, not being sufficiently persuaded that God can help and heal their needs and impending dangers as much as is required. In particular respects God's All-sufficiency is taken away, or nibbled and gnawed at: (1) by despair or distrust, Num. 21:21; 2 Kings 7:2; (2) by an empty confidence in creatures, whereby we in effect promise ourselves something from creatures which God either could not or would not grant and impart to us, Ps. 62:9-12; (3) by a disordered love of the creature, whereby we in effect suppose that there is something in creatures which is not in God — for which reason covetousness is called idolatry, Eph. 5:5; (4) by craft and deceit, when by artifice and cunning stratagems we seek to obtain, through unlawful means, that which we distrust obtaining from God, or in God, through lawful means. An example of this is found in Jacob, Gen. 27:6, etc.; compare Ps. 125:5. (5) Finally, by every sin, insofar as there is in it a turning away from God and a turning toward the creature, Jer. 2:13 — which certainly happens only by expecting from creatures that which is not to be found in God. Wherefore accordingly (a) all such sins involve idolatry, and likewise apostasy, insofar as we depart and fall away from God to creatures, because we ascribe to these something which does not belong to them — from which the atrociousness and gravity of such sins becomes evident, Heb. 3:12. (b) They close off from us God's favor and beneficence, so that we can absolutely promise ourselves nothing of that all-sided All-sufficiency of God, in accordance with the divine threatenings, Matth. 17:19,20; 21:22; Mark 6:6; indeed (c) they render us guilty and subject to the severest judgments, as is seen in that centurion who, by distrust, took away from God His All-sufficiency, 2 Kings 7:17; indeed in Moses himself, who, together with Aaron his brother, for that very reason, was most strictly excluded from possessing the land of Canaan, Num. 20:12.

XIV. Fourthly, the contemplation of the divine All-sufficiency can, as the case requires, incite and stir us up to one or another of the following virtues. (1) To the glorification of God, Ps. 96:4 and 145:3. For if every perfection and sufficiency gives us occasion to praise creatures, how much more, then, that highest and infinite Perfection and All-sufficiency, which is sufficient for Himself, and for us, unto an infinite blessedness — which is the foundation of all majesty and glory. (ii) To love, that we might thereby embrace Him above all, as the one who alone is sufficient for us unto all things, Ps. 18:1,2: I will love you dearly, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, etc. Let us long after Him, and seek Him with all zeal and earnestness, Ps. 73:25; let us rest in Him, delighting ourselves in Him alone, Ps. 16:5,6 and 4:7,8,9. (iii) To fix our trust firmly in and upon Him alone, as the one who alone is sufficient for us unto all things — namely, all in all, 1 Cor. 13:10; a perfect light for the understanding, Ps. 36:9(10)? [Ps. 27:1]; goodness for the will; life for the whole soul, Ps. 36:9(10); righteousness for the passions; joy for the heart; health, clarity, immortality for the body: All that is loved shall be, and nothing shall be desired or longed for which shall not be there. Augustine, de Trinitate, Lib. 3, cap. 7. (iv) To lift up our hope and patience amid all manner of adversities, Ps. 27:13,14; 77:11,14,15; 73:25. (v) To render Him obedience, service, and honor, as the one from whom there shall be to us an exceeding great shield and reward, Gen. 15:1; Ps. 84:12. (vi) To our own humbling, that from His highest sufficiency we may know, feel, and confess our own utmost and lowest neediness, and from His all-sided perfection our own imperfection, Gen. 18:31, and Job 4:17-19: We often seem perfect to ourselves in our own eyes, but when we compare ourselves with God's highest perfection and all-sufficiency, as with a rule and pattern, we shall then at last say: Shall a man be more righteous than God? shall a man be purer than his maker? Behold, He puts no trust in His servants, though He has set brightness in His angels — how much less in them that dwell in houses of clay! Our own righteousness itself, when brought to the test of divine righteousness, is unrighteousness; it is squalid and unclean in the description and judgment of the Judge, says Gregory on Job, ch. 7. Yet still, in the enumeration and mention of these several points — inasmuch as each, in preaching, must be set forth according as the matter falls out — there ought to be explained (1) the particular power and efficacious working of the divine All-sufficiency and Perfection, whereby it flows in to form and work these virtues in us, to kindle, increase, strengthen, and confirm them; (2) the motives which, from the consideration of the divine All-sufficiency, can and must incite and move us to the practice of these virtues; and finally (3) either the means by which we may happily attain the habit of these virtues, or the manner in which their exercise may be directed and governed.

XV. Fifthly, the conviction and persuasion of the divine Perfection and All-sufficiency entices us and moves us to walk with God — just as God Himself invites and moves Abraham to this in the text — which, in general, includes all godliness, and especially those virtues which we have pointed out in the preceding sections. But in particular, and point by point, it signifies: (1) always and everywhere to hold God present to oneself, ...and Gen. 26:3, in whom to abide and remain, as it were at His right hand, Ps. 16:8; (ii) to strive after the same thing with God — to aim at the same purpose, the same thing which God seeks and pursues, to will and not to will the same thing that God wills and does not will, Rev. 2:6, and that unto the same end, namely, to God's honor and glory, Rom. 11:36; and (iii) also to walk along the same path, which in Holy Scripture is called walking in the ways of God, Deut. 19:9 and 28:9, etc. And what, then, are these ways of God? Holiness, Ps. 87:14 [77:14]; goodness and truth, Ps. 25:10; so that to walk in the ways of God is nothing other than to walk and go in God's law, Exod. 16:4; Neh. 10:29, in God's commandments, 1 Kings 6:12, in God's statutes and judgments, Lev. 20:8 — to cleave to God constantly in all these, Deut. 4:4, turning aside neither to the right hand nor to the left from Him, Deut. 12:32. Further, (iv) to walk, as it were, holding fast God's hand, Jer. 31:32, never letting it go, Gen. 32:26; Luke 24:29 — namely, just as little children, when they walk with their parents, join hands with them, so that we too join hands with God, that is, depend wholly, entirely, and in all things on Him: and this then is, properly, to walk with God, or after and behind God, Deut. 13:4 — which happens when we, as He walks with us in the ways of His judgments and decrees, follow Him through repentance, humiliation and amendment, prayer and patience, Lam. 3:40,41; but when He walks with us in the ways of His goodness, that we then follow Him with joy, thankfulness, and praise, Ps. 103:1,2,3. Further, (v) in all these things continually holding and conducting ourselves as under the eyes of God, with all simplicity and uprightness of conscience, Gen. 17:1: I am the mighty God, who is all-sufficient; walk before my face, and be perfect, or upright. For seeing that God is all-sufficient, not only for Himself but also for us — to ward off every evil, as a Shield; to bring and pour out every kind of good upon us, as a Sun; to recompense all our labor, trouble, and loss, as our exceeding great reward — in a word, since He alone can be to us all in all, let us therefore also, with our whole heart and mind, be fixed on Him alone, cling to Him inseparably and unshakably, and let ourselves never, whether through fear of any evil or through hope of any good, be drawn or torn away from Him. In this way God shall be, not only for Himself, perfect and all-sufficient, but also for us — by supplying all our defects, healing all our infirmities, Ps. 103:3,4, and fully satisfying all our desires, ibid. v.4,5; 20:5 and 16:11.

XVI. Sixthly, it also kindles us and stirs us up to strive with all power and might to be brought into covenant fellowship with the most perfect and all-sufficient God. And this use and benefit of God's All-sufficiency God Himself points out in the words of our text: I am the mighty God, who is all-sufficient; walk in my presence, and be perfect (or upright); and I will establish my covenant between me and between you. For by this covenant-making, (1) the all-sufficient God becomes our God, Jer. 31:33; (ii) without it, that all-sufficiency, however great it be, will profit us not the least, Isa. 65:13; indeed (iii) it would rather be harmful, ibid., and Ps. 34:16,17. Now this covenant-making comes to pass (1) through Christ, who for this very reason is called the Angel of the Covenant, Mal. 3:1, in whom all the promises of God are yea and amen, 2 Cor. 1:20; (2) through faith, Hos. 2:19, in Christ, who is the way to the Father, John 14:6, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him, Eph. 3:12.

XVII. Finally, seventhly, it gives us a pattern which we are to follow: (A) God's Perfection: Be therefore perfect, Matth. 5:48. And indeed a moral perfection resembling God's own — for example, Independence, that we too, so far as conscience is concerned, may be independent, set free from all men, 1 Cor. 7:23; Unchangeableness, that we too may be such, in the pursuit of what is good, 1 Cor. 15:58; (B) Simplicity, that we too may be simple and upright, Matth. 10:16; 2 Cor. 1:12. And so with respect to all the other attributes, as we have repeatedly noted in the several considerations of them. In particular, however, God's moral perfection sets before us a pattern to be followed, which He has displayed for this very purpose in His law — of which Paul speaks, Phil. 3:15; Col. 4:12; James 3:2. (B) His Sufficiency, whereby we may, in the first place, have enough for ourselves, under God, 2 Cor. 9:8, so that we (1) are far from covetousness, Heb. 13:5, whereby we would seek our sufficiency in treasures and riches; (ii) that we are not overly anxious about the things which belong to this life, Matth. 6:25, etc.; (iii) and that we are not too troubled and too solicitous about an abundance of earthly treasures, 1 Tim. 6:9; (iv) that we are content with whatever lot we have, Phil. 4:12 — and then also readily and freely impart our sufficiency to others, just as God does, 2 Cor. 8:13,14 — being persuaded and convinced (1) that in this way we become, in some measure, conformed to this divine Perfection, Matth. 5:48, wherein our highest Perfection consists; (2) that the divine All-sufficiency will, all the more justly, watch over us and our needs, Matth. 6:26,30.

Chapter XXII: On God's Majesty and Glory

On Isaiah 42:8.

I am Jehovah, this is my name; and my honor [or glory] I will not give to another, nor my praise to graven images.

The inward excellence of God's Perfection and All-sufficiency, which we have now explained, insofar as it spreads abroad from itself, as it were, a certain radiance, that He might thereby be known, extolled, and praised, furnishes us with a second perfection drawn out of it — one which is, as it were, a further derived perfection, namely, His Majesty and Glory, which God Himself, in a most excellent way, ascribes to Himself, Isa. 42:8.

The Explanatory Part

II. The text contains a certain declaration — a solemn and public proclamation and announcement of the divine ordinances, as if to say, "Hear what I speak," which He wishes to belong to Himself alone. Of these —

I. The first consists in His being: אני יהוה, "I, Jehovah." One must supply, by a Hebrew ellipsis, the substantive verb, "I am" — as happens, Isa. 43:12. This is a sign, and, as it were, a familiar and customary subscription with which God is accustomed to seal and confirm His commands, as commonly, Lev. 18:2,30 and 19:2,3,4,10,12,14,16,18,25,28,30,31,32,34,36,37. It can be referred either to what precedes — as a confirmation of the preceding prophecy concerning Christ, taken from the nature of the calling God and from the truth of the preceding promises, v.9 — or to God, that He, having ended the prophecy concerning the Christ, returns to His proposition and purpose, and affirms that Jehovah alone is the true God. Now the name Jehovah is a name of God's Being, in which all God's perfections — His independence, unchangeableness, simplicity, immensity, omnipresence, eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, grace, etc. — are comprehended, as we have taught in its place; in which name, therefore, all His inward glory is grounded. Wherefore this Name is most peculiarly His own, and absolutely incommunicable — for which reason it is also called His memorial name, Exod. 3:15; Ps. 135:13 and 102:13; Hos. 12:6.

II. The second consists in His Name: זה שמי, "This is my name." Here again one must supply the ellipsis with "is." The pronoun הוא, "hu," "this," is, in a certain Kabbalistic sense, according to some Jews, the very name which God would here ascribe to Himself: "my name is Hu." But since this has not thus far been solidly proven — that the word הוה, "hu" (or "hoveh"), is among the names of God — it will more suitably signify "this," and be referred to the preceding "Jehovah," so that it means: this, namely Jehovah, is my name, most peculiarly my own, whereby I am distinguished from the gods of the heathen — a name which in no way, whether in its full or in an abbreviated form (as my other names are), belongs to any creature, at least in the direct case, although in the oblique case, and in composition, it might in some measure be given to it, as it is recorded to have been given by the ancients, in order to append a small part of the name Jehovah — supposed to be a name of grace — to their own names, as appears from the names Jozadak and Jehonathan, and others. This we have taught elsewhere against the Socinians.

III. The third consists in His honor and praise. And my honor (glory) I will not give to another, nor my praise to graven images. Here God wards off —

1. His honor or glory in general, from all: לא אתן וכבודי לאחר, "And my honor (glory) I will not give to another." Here we have —

a. That which is warded off, or that which He keeps back: וכבודי, "and my honor," or glory. Understand either the honor and glory of the name Jehovah in particular — that is, I will not permit that anyone, in heaven or on earth, should arrogate to himself that glorious name, or the Being made known through it — or my glory in general. He does indeed allow creatures a certain honor and glory, but He forbids His own glory, for He says "my honor," or "my glory," that is, a religious honor and glory. The word כבוד, "kabhodh" (honor, glory), comes from כבד, "kabhad," which means to be heavy, or in greatness, or in quality, magnitude or multitude, weight or number, riches, glory — whence the expression βάρος τῆς δόξης, "a weight of glory," 2 Cor. 4:17. It differs from honor and praise in that honor belongs to an ordinary dignity, Rom. 13:7, praise to a greater dignity; but glory belongs to the greatest, and specifically a heroic dignity. Wherefore it belongs, par excellence, to the most high God.

b. The Person from whom it is warded off: לאחר, "another" — for example, from Bel, Nebo, Merodach, or any similar other, who by nature is not God, or who is a foreign and alien one, Mark 16:17; Ps. 16:4.

c. The warding off and denial itself: לא אתן, "I will not give" — I will not permit that my glory be changed, or transferred to another. God means to say, by a figure of speech commonly called litotes, whereby less is said and more is meant, that He will most strictly punish and chastise those who ascribe and assign His name Jehovah, or His glory, to another.

2. His praise, to graven images: ותהלתי לפסילים, "and my praise to graven images" — one must supply the sense: "I will not give." As if He said: And I will not even permit praise, though it is less than my glory, to be given to graven images. Here again there is —

a. The forbidden or prohibited matter, תהלתי, "my praise" — that is, which belongs to me alone. The word תהלה, "tehilla" (praise), comes from the word הלל, "he has shone, glittered, been bright and radiant," Job 29:3, whence הילל, "Helel," Lucifer, the Morning Star, because it is a star that shines brighter and more brilliant than others, Isa. 14:12. In the Piel conjugation it means to praise, to extol, to laud, because one who praises and lauds another, as it were, causes him to shine and glitter, and spreads his light abroad.

b. The object from which it is warded off and denied: לפסילים, "to graven images." The word פסיל, "pasil," or פסל, "pesel," signifies an image, but one which is carved, hewn, engraved, out of wood, stone, etc. The Greeks render it by εἴδωλον, "an idol," and γλυπτόν, "a carved or engraved image." The Chaldeans, "an image." Because the heathen believed that there was in their idols, statues, and other images something divine, or something of deity, and for this reason offered to them a divine praise, or religious honor — just as the Romanists also do. God therefore forbids any religious honor — whether it be called glory, or λατρεία, latreia; or praise, or δουλεία, douleia, or ὑπερδουλεία, hyperdouleia — to be brought and offered, whether to the living and deified, or to the lifeless, idols, statues, and images of whatever kind they may be.

The Doctrinal Part

III. Our God, therefore, has a Majesty and Glory which belongs to Him alone, in every respect properly His own. This the Scripture teaches (1) as often as it calls and extols God "great" — not, indeed, in bulk, but in majesty of perfection, Deut. 7:21 and 10:17; Neh. 1:5 and 4:14 and 9:32; Ps. 46:3, and throughout the Psalms; Isa. 12:6; Jer. 10:6; Dan. 2:45. Compare our Chapter IX, on the Infinity and Greatness of God. (ii) As often as it calls and extols God glorious, wonderful, and marvelous, Deut. 5:24 and 11:2; Ps. 8:2,10 [8:1,9]. (iii) As often as it calls God the Most High, Gen. 14:18; Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; Ps. 7:18 [7:17]; Lam. 3:38. (iv) As often, also, as it makes mention of His great and terrible deeds, as witnesses of His Majesty, Deut. 9:21; 2 Sam. 7:21-23; Ps. 71:19; Acts 2:11. (v) As often as it exalts His excellence above the gods, Ps. 135:5. (vi) As often as it says that God is to be praised, indeed greatly to be praised, Ps. 48:2 [47:1?] and 96:4 and 113:3; Exod. 15:11. (vii) As often as it exalts and elevates God's honor, and shows, both by commands and by examples, Isa. 6:3, that this same honor must be exalted and elevated by us. On account of all these things, therefore, God is extolled as the God of glory, Acts 7:2.

IV. And if Majesty and Glory did not belong to Him, to what end would He (1) have created the world, and sustain and govern it? For indeed neither could the creature itself have moved Him to this, it not yet being in existence, nor any hope of profit or gain, whereby He should at some point be made more perfect by or through the creature which was made; for He has been, from all eternity, sufficient for Himself — and therefore nothing else remains except the acknowledgment, praise, and glory of that infinite perfection which He has had from eternity, wherein His glory consists, Prov. 16:4,5; Rom. 11:36. And to what end would He (ii) rather have created creatures, and made them present in this theater of the world, than that they should declare how great a workman and artificer He was, how great His power, wisdom, and goodness? — to this end the heavens are said to declare the glory of God, Ps. 19:1; compare Ps. 8:4,10 [8:3,9]; Rom. 1:20. And (iii) what could be the ultimate and final end of all things, in which all subordinate ends should rest and terminate, if not the Glory of God? For the end to which the world was created is presupposed to be more excellent than the world itself; and what, finally, is more excellent than the world, except God alone? And how can God be the end, unless it be that He may be glorified? Finally, (iv) He has made very many of His creatures glorious and splendid: the Messiah, Isa. 42:21; the sun and the stars, 1 Cor. 15:41; David, Ps. 21:6 [21:5]; Solomon, Matth. 6:29, etc. Should He, then, not Himself be much more glorious?

V. Now God's Glory is nothing other than the radiance of His infinite loftiness, which must be acknowledged and made manifest — so that four things concur together unto the Glory of God: first, a certain infinite loftiness and excellence — for just as honor and praise belong to one who is good, and to one who is more excellent, so glory belongs to the most excellent of all. This excellent superiority belongs to God — both on account of His Being, insofar as He is Jehovah, Exod. 33:18-20; Isa. 42:8, and on account of His attributes and perfections, as being, as it were, the components from which that excellence of the divine Majesty springs forth — as we have generally shown in the particular consideration of them. This surpassing excellence is the foundation of all divine Glory, on account of which He deserves from us to be honored and glorified, and to be called and extolled the God of glory, Acts 7:2, the King of glory, Ps. 24:8, the Father of glory, Eph. 1:17; and to Him an excellence of glory is ascribed, Eph. 3:14,16.

VI. Here, secondly, concurs the radiance, as it were the outbeaming and shining-forth of that perfection and excellent superiority, Isa. 35:2, whence the Latin word gloria (glory) is, as it were, said to derive from claria (clarity, radiance, splendor) — whence also the Son is called the outshining (or brightness) of God's glory, Heb. 1:3, and the glory of the Lord is said to have shone round about the shepherds, Luke 2:9, just as a light from heaven also shone round about Paul, Acts 9:3; compare Matth. 17:2. Hence He is said to dwell in unapproachable light, 1 Tim. 6:16. This radiance affects and strikes not so much the eyes of the body (as did the glory of Solomon, Matth. 6:29, of the sun, 1 Cor. 15:41, and of the morning star, Isa. 14:12) as it does the soul — although at times an outward radiance also, as a sign, has attended it, as is evident from the passages cited: Luke 2:9; Acts 9:3; Exod. 33:18,19,23; Ezek. 1:26,27,28 and 3:12 and chapters 40 and 43, etc.

VII. From this, thirdly, arises the acknowledgment of that excellent superiority — from which it is called the face of God, Exod. 33:20, the face of glory, Jude v.24,25, and likewise His Name, Matth. 6:9; Exod. 20:7 — because from and out of the face, and from and out of the name, the majesty and excellent superiority of a thing is made known. That knowledge, in as much as it is in every respect absolutely perfect, belongs to God alone — for which reason He is said to dwell in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen, 1 Tim. 6:16; John 1:18. A less perfect discovery of it, however — out of a revelation, out of His attributes, out of His works — is also given to creatures, such as to angels, Isa. 6:1; Matth. 18:10; to Moses, Exod. 33:23; Num. 12:8; to the shepherds, Luke 2:9; to the apostles, John 1:14; to Paul, Acts 9:3; and to others — which, however, is not without degrees, since we here see or know through a mirror in a dark saying, but hereafter, face to face, 1 Cor. 13:12. And these several points — namely, God's excellent superiority, the radiance, and the knowledge and acknowledgment of it — make up the inward, and to God co-eternal, glory.

VIII. Finally, fourthly, there also concurs together unto God's glory the extolling, praising, or publishing of that excellent superiority which is perceived and acknowledged by means of its radiance — which is more properly called glorification than glory. Whereby the inwardly known and acknowledged excellent superiority of God, and the fitting esteem for it, are propagated and spread abroad by others. This happens (1) by God Himself, glorifying Himself, when He makes manifest, in one way or another, in His Being, in His attributes and works, the ineffable superiority and excellence of His nature, Num. 14:21; Ps. 71:19; Lev. 10:3. (ii) By the divine Persons themselves, mutually among one another: thus the Father glorifies the Son, John 17:1; the Son in turn (as the outshining of God's glory, Heb. 1:3) [glorifies] the Father, John 17:4 and 8:49; the Holy Spirit [glorifies] the Son, John 16:14, and the Father, who, on this account, is called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of glory, 1 Pet. 4:14. (iii) By angels and men, when they make manifest and known their knowledge and acknowledgment, their sense and esteem, of the divine glory, and of that excellent superiority of God itself, as much as they can, by singing, extolling, magnifying, and exalting it, Isa. 6:3; Luke 2:14; Ps. 8:1; Rev. 4:10,11. (iv) By and through the Word of God, especially that of the Gospel, which is for this reason called a glorious Gospel, 2 Cor. 3:7,8, because it discloses and reveals to us God's glorious attributes — power, wisdom, grace, righteousness — and His glorious Son, Phil. 2:11. (v) By the works of God, Ps. 90:16 and 111:3, of Creation, Preservation, and Government, Ps. 8 and 104:24,31; in particular, by and through those excellent and surpassing works which are called wonders, in which the glory of the divine Omnipotence shines forth still more, and still more clearly. Most of all, however, (vi) by and through the works of Grace, with which He is occupied concerning His own — that whole Counsel of Peace whereby He has determined to preserve and save the elect, and that wisest Economy which He has unfolded in the direction and governing of them: to what else, indeed, does everything else tend, but to the glorifying of God? Phil. 2:11: that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. For this reason the angels sing, Luke 2:14: Glory to God in the highest. In particular, and by name: (1) The glory of God's Mercy and avenging Justice discloses itself in the article of eternal Predestination, Eph. 1:5,6; Rom. 9:22,23. (2) The glory of God's Wisdom, in the devising of the way of Redemption, fitted and adapted to both righteousness and mercy — as likewise in the dividing of the task, as it were, which each Person should undertake in this work of Redemption — concerning which Paul cries out: O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! Rom. 11:33. And the Savior is for this reason called the Wisdom and the Power of God, 1 Cor. 1:24. Again, (3) the glory of God's Love and Grace toward the world, John 3:16; Rom. 5:8. Further, (4) the glory of God's Holiness, whereby He could not bear even our sins in His own Son, and therefore strictly required an account of them in His Son, Rom. 8:32. Moreover, (5) the glory of His avenging Righteousness, by which He did not even spare His own Son, Rom. 3:25(?) [8:32]. For these and other reasons, therefore, the Gospel is called a glorious Gospel, or the Gospel of the glory of the blessed God, 1 Tim. 1:11, as it is likewise said that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ shines, or radiates, 2 Cor. 4:4.

IX. Meanwhile, this extolling — or making manifest and known and praising — of God's excellent superiority is carried out chiefly by rational creatures in their acts of worship, as appears in the songs of praise of Israel, Ps. 22:4 [22:3], and in the word εὐχαριστία, thanksgiving, Ps. 26:7 and 35:18 and 99:3, as also supplications and prayers of every kind, taken together, 1 Tim. 2:1 — chiefly in the acts of divine worship, in which God's omnipotence, wisdom, and unfathomable goodness are acknowledged, extolled, and praised.

The Polemical Part

X. Since God's infinite Perfection and All-sufficiency are the foundation of all glory and glorification of God, it is clearly evident that all who gnaw at God's Perfection and Sufficiency thereby also injure, harm, obscure, and take away God's Glory. Hence, out of the preceding Chapter, the Socinian and Pelagian controversies return again. The question, therefore, is: (I) Do not the Socinians, through their several presuppositions, in an eminent degree weaken and obscure the Glory of God? The Socinians, as we have said in the preceding Chapter, out of a perverse love for man's independent free will, and out of hatred against the Holy Trinity, and against the eternal Godhead and Satisfaction of Christ, violate and obscure God's Glory in more than one way, when they (1) take from God those perfections — independence, unchangeableness, simplicity, infinity, omnipresence, omniscience — on account of which God deserves to be glorified by us. When they (ii) ascribe to Him such imperfections — a powerless willing, repentance, longings and desires, and disturbances of so many passionate affections — on account of which He deserves to be reckoned by us of little worth, or at least to be praised and glorified by us more coldly and feebly, as we have admonished in the preceding Chapter, §IX. (iii) When they dispute and deny the Glory of the eternal Godhead of the Son of God and of the Spirit — notwithstanding that the Son is expressly called the outshining of the Father's glory, Heb. 1:3, and desires that that divine glory, which He had from eternity with the Father, be brought to Him, John 17:5. (iv) When they take away from the Son of God, as a mere man, the glory of the religious honor which Jehovah, in the text, ascribes to Himself alone — just as the Savior Himself, Matth. 4:10, [ascribed it to God alone]. (v) When they take from Him the glory of God's avenging Righteousness, whereby He is too pure of eyes to behold evil, Hab. 1:13; Exod. 34:7, and thus make Him equal to the sinner, Ps. 50:21. (vi) When they refuse to the Son of God the glory of the Satisfaction, whereby He purchased the human race with His own blood — even though the Father, precisely on account of and because of this, has given to the Son a name which is above every name, that at His name every knee should bow, etc., Phil. 2:7,8,9. When they (vii) take from the Son of God the glory of our Justification, insofar as it comes solely from His righteousness, imputed and given to us — on account of which He nonetheless, having accomplished the cleansing of our sins by Himself, is seated at the right hand of the throne of Majesty in the highest heavens, Heb. 1:3(?),4. (viii) When they, having taken from the Son of God the glory of that Justification, ascribe it to themselves, while they strive to obtain it for themselves by their own works — against the teaching of the Apostle, Eph. 2:8,9, that no one should boast; Rom. 3:27, Where then is boasting? It is excluded... by the law of faith. We shall not heap up more such things here.

XI. The question is: (II) Do not also the Pelagians, old and new, Socinians, Jesuits, Remonstrants, by their teachings, obliquely assail and obscure God's Glory? This we have established and proved in the preceding Chapter, §X, by showing how they, on the one hand, take from God various perfections — Independence, Unchangeableness, Infinity, Omniscience, Omnipotence, infinite Blessedness — according to and by virtue of which He must and should be glorified, and by which He is also continually extolled and glorified throughout Holy Scripture; and how, on the other hand, they load upon Him various imperfections — for example, dependence, ignorance, powerlessness, etc. — by which God's Glory is diminished and obscured. But since we have already dealt with these matters at length in the places cited, we shall add nothing more here.

XII. The question is: (III) Do not the Romanists, contrary to God's own declaration, give His Glory to another, and His Praise to graven images? With the heathen, who by their own conduct stand condemned, who reckon the authority of Holy Scripture, and of God Himself, as nothing, we shall not concern ourselves, as they are guilty of both crimes whereby they give God's Glory to their false gods, Jupiter, Mercury, etc., and God's Praise to their graven images, in which they believed there was something of deity, or something divine. But it is a lesser, though still a kind of, idolatry that the Papists commit, giving to another — namely, to Saints and to their images — a portion of divine honor, and yet acknowledging, in words, the authority of God and of the New Testament Scripture — doing so only that, without God, without Holy Scripture, without any lawgiving power [transferred] from these unto the Pope, they might all the more strongly exalt him above the entire Christian people. Who can endure that? Now they obscure God's Glory in more than one way: (1) obliquely, through various presuppositions — when they (1) enervate and obscure the grace of gracious Justification, through their twofold notion of merit, of congruity and of condignity, against Rom. 3:24, being justified freely by His grace... and v.27, Where is boasting then?... and chap. 4:2,4,16 and chap. 11:6: And if it is by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. And if it is of works, then it is no longer grace; otherwise the work is no longer a work. When they (2) urge, against that same grace, their own satisfactions for venial sins, whereby they injure the glory of Christ — as though He were not a perfect Savior, able to save completely, Heb. 7:25. When they (3) urge, against that same grace, the intercessions and mediations of the holy departed, as if the intercession and mediation of Christ were not enough for them, 1 John 2:1; Isa. 63:16. (4) When, to the detriment of grace, they too greatly exalt the powers of free will, 2 Cor. 3:5,6; compare 1 Cor. 15:10. But (ii) more directly they nibble at and obscure God's Glory when they (1) on the one hand, give God's Glory, or religious honor, to others — namely, to the blessed Virgin, angels, holy departed, the Pope of Rome — against the express declaration of our text: I will not give my glory (honor) to another. (2) When they, on the other hand, give to images and graven images, likewise to the Mass-bread, and to the relics of the Saints, a religious honor — indeed, the very same honor which belongs to what is thereby depicted — against that same declaration, my praise I will not give to graven images; changing likewise the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, Rom. 1:23; serving, moreover, those which by nature are no gods, Gal. 4:8. With far-fetched and contrived distinctions, to cover up their sacrilege — I know not what distinctions — between latreia, douleia, and hyperdouleia, of which Jehovah the Lawgiver, in His Word, knows nothing, or which are abundantly refuted also by their own established contradictory suppositions, as shall be seen at length, God willing, in its own place.

XIII. The question is: (IV) Do not the Lutherans, by their presuppositions, gnaw at and obscure God's Glory? The Lutherans — especially those who, in order the more forcibly to maintain the omnipresence of Christ's flesh, and its presence in the elements of the Holy Supper, and the general redemption, obscure, in more than one way, God's Glory: (1) His infinite power and might, whereby He can, concerning His own, fix and determine as He wills, Matth. 20:15, by appointing and setting apart out of fallen sinners such as He wills, in order to display in them the Glory of His avenging Righteousness, through their just condemnation and damnation on account of and because of their sins, Rom. 9:13,15,17,18,20-23. (ii) His saving grace, whereby He would impart just as much grace to the reprobate as to the elect, by willing that all men, and each one in particular, actually obtain salvation — from which it follows that grace would not be grace, since grace is a privilege and an advantage belonging only to some. (iii) His independence, insofar as He would depend on man's own contrary free will, which, according to its own good pleasure, could... resist the Holy Spirit [text corrupted here]. But especially (iv) when they teach that God's glorious and splendid perfections, in which all glorifying of Him is grounded, are given to another — that is, to Christ, insofar as He is man, or a creature — namely, His immensity, omniscience, omnipotence, quickening power, and others. This is directly against the declaration of our text. See Johann Gerhard (Loc. 11, §364), who, even on the very text objected to him, gives the feeblest of answers — indeed, distorts even the Savior's own request, John 17:5: Glorify me, O Father, with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world was — considering little or nothing: (1) that the Savior does not request and demand for Himself, as man, a new glory, but the manifestation, or that glory, which He had already possessed from eternity, but which, through His humiliation, had been very greatly obscured, Phil. 2:6-9. But (2) that the Savior desires and asks to be glorified by the Father, just as He Himself had glorified the Father, v.1: as you have glorified your Son. Wherefore, just as the Son, by glorifying the Father, did not impart to the Father any new glory, but only made manifest that which He had already long possessed from eternity, so also the Father, by glorifying the Son, did not impart to Him a new glory, but only made manifest that which He had already long possessed from eternity. And consequently (3) that the Savior does not speak of His human nature, as though it were to be made happy by some new glory, but of the person of the God-man, whose divine Glory had to be made manifest.

The Practical Part

XIV. As for the Practical Part: first, the divine Majesty and Glory, as it is forcefully and powerfully set forth, with respect to God's Being, Attributes, and Works, in His word, Isa. 40:15,16,17,21; Jer. 10:6,7,10,12,13; Amos 9:5,6; Micah 1:3,4; Hab. 3:3; Job 26:6...14:13; 35:5; and 40:4... — being devoutly meditated upon, and compared with our own lowliness and nothingness, Isa. 24:23, (1) brings forth in us a humbling of pride, and (ii) compels reverence and fear of God, Gen. 18:27; Job 21:7? [Jer. 10:6,7?]; Ps. 111:9; Isa. 59:19; and (iii) a renouncing of all self-honor and glory, Ps. 115:1.

XV. Secondly, it suppresses and restrains the senseless folly of those who (1) esteem that infinite Majesty of God as small and trifling in their heart, Rom. 2:4; Mal. 2:2; Exod. 5:2; (ii) blaspheme it with the mouth, Isa. 52:5; Ezek. 36:23; 1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:5; (iii) suppress and diminish it by their deeds and works — whether by teaching such things as agree ill with the glory of God's Independence, Grace, Righteousness, Omnipotence (of which elsewhere); or by doing such things through which God's Glory is wounded and violated, Rom. 2:24; Titus 2:5; or by abusing God's Glory as a pretext for wicked deeds, 1 Sam. 15:15; or by setting and seeking their own glory above the divine, John 12:43; or by esteeming God's name and worship lightly, neglecting, treating irreverently, or in any other way profaning it, against the third Commandment of the divine Law. By all of which (1) God's Majesty and Glory are violated; His name is profaned; His face, as it were, spat upon, or at least provoked, Isa. 3:8, and defiled and sullied, Ezek. 13:19. (2) Against all of which God shall most assuredly set His vengeance and the vindication of His Majesty, according to the threatenings, Exod. 20:7, and according to the examples of the divine judgments, Lev. 10:3: I will be sanctified in them that come near me, and before the face of all the people I will be glorified — namely, by my judgments. Compare 2 Sam. 12:14.

XVI. Thirdly, God's Majesty and Glory move us to glorify His name, 1 Cor. 6:20. This is done: (1) with the heart, Ps. 103:1,2; Luke 1:46, by acknowledging, esteeming, and prizing, Mal. 1:14, and revering God's infinite excellence and superiority, which He has displayed and shown in His attributes, in His works, in His Son, and in His Word, 2 Cor. 5:11; Jer. 10:6,7,8; (ii) with the mouth, Ps. 40:17 [40:16?] and 145:5, by proclaiming and extolling to others His virtues and perfections, 1 Pet. 2:9; 1 Chron. 29:11-14 — for which the whole Book of Psalms will give us occasion and matter, which is thence called (in Hebrew) תהלים, "Tehillim," that is, Praisings, Extollings, Laudations — inviting and stirring up all and everyone to join hands with us in this work of praising and glorifying God, since we alone are powerless and unable for it, Ps. 103:20-22; (iii) with our works, John 15:8, and that (1) by renouncing all self-glory, that God's glory may be preserved the more unblemished, Ps. 115:1; Matth. 3:11 [3:15?]; (2) by bravely and courageously bearing and enduring, on account of and for the sake of that glory, all manner of dangers, losses, injuries, reproaches, and torments, even unto death, Phil. 1:20; Luke 9:26; Exod. 32:32; Rom. 9:3; (3) by devoutly and godly abstaining from everything by which God's glory can be wounded, diminished, or blasphemed, Exod. 20:7; Titus 2:5; Rom. 2:25; (4) by steadfastly doing that which tends to God's glory, Matth. 5:16. To which belongs chiefly: (a) thankfulness for all manner of benefits received, both bodily and spiritual, Ps. 50:23; 1 Thess. 5:18; (b) confession of God's name and of evangelical truth, Matth. 10:32; Phil. 1:7,20; (c) the paying of vows made on every occasion, in Baptism, the Lord's Supper, in sicknesses, etc., Ps. 116:18; Ps. 50:14; especially (d) a holy walk, John 15:8; Phil. 1:11; (5) by giving ourselves wholly over, in body and in soul, and as it were enslaving ourselves to the glorifying of God, Acts 15:26; 1 Cor. 6:20; (6) by expressly intending, so far as possible, God's glory in all our undertakings, endeavors, and workings, 1 Cor. 10:31 — at least in general, by directing and ordering all that is ours toward the Glory of God, Rom. 14:7,8, undertaking absolutely nothing which, by its own nature, does not tend to God's glory, or could in any way be prejudicial to it — even though it might otherwise, in itself, be a matter of indifference, 1 Cor. 14:13(?) [10:13?] and 9:15(?). Such a general glorifying of God is recommended to us (a) by the highest equity of the matter itself — namely, that to Him to whom belongs the highest, indeed infinite, excellence and superiority, all glory also should be brought — that is, that we give unto God the things that are God's, Matth. 22:21; (b) by examples of every kind, which instruct us in this: God, glorifying Himself; the Persons of the Holy Trinity, mutually glorifying one another; the angels, doing the same night and day, Isa. 6:1,2,3; the holy departed; all God's works, Rev. 4:8; heaven and earth, as we have shown above separately, each in its place; (c) because it is for this that all things have been created by God, and we, apart from the angels, alone are in a condition for it, Rom. 11:36; Prov. 16:4; Isa. 43:7; (d) because in this consists all our perfection, excellence, and usefulness, whereby we are fit for the use, or for the highest end of our creation, 2 Tim. 2:20,21, and likewise for the highest end of our redemption, 1 Cor. 6:20; 2 Pet. 1:9(?); Titus 2:14 — without which we are called unfit, useless, and worthless, Rom. 3:12; (e) because therein consists our chief honor, and God has, besides, promised that He will honor those who honor Him, 1 Sam. 2:30; Ps. 91:7,8(?) [113:7,8?]; (f) because, on the contrary, He will overwhelm and put to shame, here and hereafter, with all manner of reproach and contempt, those who do not do this, but despise and disdain Him — indeed, will curse them, even in their very blessings, Mal. 2:2; Num. 20:12; finally, (g) because for this we shall be eternally glorified, that we may eternally praise Him together with the blessed angels, and sing to Him, unceasingly, day and night, His thrice-holy name, Isa. 6:3; Titus 2:13. Let one compare what we have already remarked, at length, concerning the hallowing of God's Name, Chapter IV, and concerning the glorifying of God with respect to most of God's attributes.

XVII. Fourthly, God's Majesty and Glory show and point out whence true glory is to be sought, and wherein it must be placed — namely, in God and from God, who is, as it were, the Ocean of Majesty and Glory, Jer. 17:14; Ps. 119:1(?) — and by what means it is to be obtained in God and from God, namely: (1) by disdaining and disregarding worldly honor, John 12:43 — for if you desire to boast, disdain honor and glory, and you shall be more glorious and praiseworthy in the sight of all, says Chrysostom; likewise James 4:16; Heb. 11:25,26; (ii) by humility, 1 Sam. 2:30(?); James 1:9,10; 1 Pet. 5:5,6; (iii) by subjecting and devoting to the honor and glory of God whatever honor, glory, authority, or riches are given to us, Rev. 4:10; Prov. 3:9,10. Further, by those virtues to which God Himself especially ascribes glory, namely: (iv) by the knowledge and acknowledgment of God, Jer. 9:23,24; (v) by patience and martyrdom, Rom. 5:3; Rev. 2:10; (vi) by the exercise and practice of uprightness, 2 Cor. 1:12; (vii) by a glorious and victorious fight of faith, and by a zeal and desire to have and keep a good conscience — for which the righteous Judge shall give the crown of righteousness, 2 Tim. 4:7,8; (viii) by faithfulness and steadfastness in the evangelical work, 1 Thess. 2:19; Dan. 12:3. And there are still other such virtues, occurring throughout Holy Scripture.

XVIII. Fifthly, God's Majesty and Glory kindle our desire to reach forward and strive that we may become partakers of the eternal glory — of which the Apostle speaks, 2 Cor. 3:18: We all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory. This is thence (1) called the glory of God, Rom. 5:2, likewise the glory of Christ, 2 Thess. 2:14; and it (ii) bears the name of a far more exceeding, eternal weight of glory, 2 Cor. 4:17; and (iii) a crown of glory, 2 Tim. 4:7(8); and (iv) a crown of life, Rev. 2:10; 3:11; 4:4(?); an unfading crown of glory, 1 Pet. 5:4. With which (v) the righteous shall shine like the sun, in the kingdom of their Father, Matth. 13:43; Dan. 12:3. Whereby (vi) the bodies of believers shall be changed, so as to be conformed to the glorious body of Christ, Phil. 3:21, so that what is here sown in dishonor shall be raised in glory, 1 Cor. 15:41,42,43. Whereby (vii) the souls of believers, purified from all disgrace and shame — of ignorance, with respect to the understanding, 1 Cor. 13:9-12, of all wicked desire of the will, and of the passions (being made like the angels, Matth. 22:30) — shall be changed after the image of God. Whereby (viii) the whole man shall be made glorious, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, holy and blameless, Eph. 5:27; and that (ix) in a glorious place, in the very dwelling place of the divine Glory itself, the heavenly Jerusalem, whose glory is described, Rev. 21:1(?)... And (x) with a glorious company and fellowship, Heb. 12:22 — which glory (1) God the Father, by His eternal foreordination, has prepared for His own, Matth. 25:34; Rom. 2:23(?)?? [8:23?]; 1 Cor. 2:7; which (2) God the Son has obtained, and shall hereafter bring and bestow, Heb. 2:10; 2 Thess. 2:14; Rom. 8:17(?); John 17:22; unto and according to which (3) the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of glory, 1 Pet. 4:14, shall in His own time transform us, 2 Cor. 3:18. Now we shall prepare ourselves for that glory: (a) by the exercise of regeneration or conversion, 1 Pet. 1:3,4; John 3:5; (b) by a true and living Faith, John 1:12, compared with Rom. 8:17,21; (c) by an upright love of God, 1 Cor. 2:9; (d) by a continual practice of good works, Rom. 2:7,10, especially of works of love, Matth. 25:34,35; (e) by a noble fight of faith and of a good conscience, 2 Tim. 4:7; (f) by a patient endurance of all manner of adversities, for God's and the Mediator's sake, Rom. 8:17,18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Luke 24:26; (g) by a heavenly walk, Phil. 3:20,21, whereby we do not regard the things that are seen, which are temporal, but the things that are not seen, which are eternal, 2 Cor. 4:18; and that (h) we persevere in all these unto the end, Rev. 2:10; 2 Tim. 4:7,8.

XIX. Meanwhile, sixthly, so long as we still dwell away from this glory, God's Majesty and Glory furnish us comfort amid all manner of reproach, especially that which is suffered for God's and Christ's sake, Rom. 15:13[?]; Ps. 69:8; 1 Pet. 4:14; and even in the dishonor of death itself, 1 Cor. 15:43. When we consider and reflect: (1) that to God alone belongs honor and glory, Ps. 115:1, and to us, on account of our sins, nothing but reproach and disgrace, Dan. 9:7,8; (ii) that the reproach of Christ is better, and a greater riches, than all the treasures of Egypt, according to the esteem and choice of Moses, Heb. 11:26; (iii) that we can serve the divine Glory, according to the will of God, not only by honor, splendor, and glory, but also by reproach and disgrace, according to the proportion of place, 2 Tim. 2:20,21; (iv) that it is God's usual manner of dealing, that He first humbles and casts down the one whom He wills to glorify, 1 Sam. 2:7,8; Luke 24:26; Heb. 2:7. Finally, that (v) that far more exceeding eternal weight of glory shall, in an excellent way, one day most abundantly recompense and repay all manner of reproach and dishonor, 2 Cor. 4:17 — when our body, which has been sown in dishonor, shall be raised in glory, 1 Cor. 15:43.

Chapter XXIII: On the Blessedness of God

On Psalm 16:11.

Fullness of joys is with [in] your presence; pleasures are at your right hand forevermore.

I. There yet remains, of the derived perfections of God — as they are called — and of all the last, one further, the third and last attribute of God, whereby He rejoices in Himself and in all His perfections, and enjoys them, and imparts Himself to His own for the enjoyment of joy and gladness — which is called God's Blessedness, and which is described in Ps. 16:11.

The Explanatory Part

II. With these words the Psalm is concluded by a certain graphic description of a twofold divine Blessedness, namely:

1. God's own Blessedness, or that of the divine countenance: Fullness of joys is with your face. I will not disguise the fact that, according to most interpreters, these words can be taken of the Blessedness of creatures, which they enjoy before the face of, and from the beholding of, the face of God; yet there is nothing to prevent us from also understanding these words of God's own Blessedness, since He undoubtedly could not impart to creatures a blessedness which He Himself would not have, par excellence — especially since Blessedness is expressly and in so many words ascribed to Him, 1 Tim. 1:11 and 6:15. Meanwhile there occurs here —

1. The Blessedness which is ascribed: שבע שמחות, "Fullness of joys" — where the word שבע, "fullness," denotes an abundance, a plenitude, indeed a satiety: because Blessedness is not accomplished and made perfect by one single good alone, but by a confluence of all and every kind of good. For which reason the word שמחות, "joys," is added in the plural, by which word is meant both those goods which make one blessed, and also the resting, contentment, and gladness which shall arise from the possession and enjoyment of those goods. By both together it is signified that there is in God so great an abundance of Perfection and Glory, arising from so many and so great attributes, that He has enough — as if He were full, indeed overflowing, and had overflow — not merely unto necessity, but also unto joy and gladness, so that He can have nothing more, and also desires or longs to have nothing more.

2. The Being of God, to which this is ascribed: את פניך, "with your face." The little word את, "et," says Drusius (Observ. Sac. Lib. 9, cap. 7), is not merely a bare sign of the accusative case, but at the same time also points to the most properly own Being and substance of a thing. In this place it could signify "with," "by," "in" — that it denotes that Blessedness which is in God, or in the Being of God; or it could signify "from," that it denotes the Blessedness which flows from God to creatures. Perhaps it includes both the one and the other. Now God's face seems to signify His very Being, Exod. 33:20 — so that the purport of the expression is that there is, in God's very Being, a fullness of perfection, gladness, joy, and blessedness.

II. Then the imparted Blessedness: נעימות בימינך, "Pleasures at your right hand." Here again I will not disguise the fact that these words can be used of God's own Blessedness, but nonetheless also of the imparted blessedness of creatures. Here again there occurs —

1. The Blessedness which is imparted: נעימות, "pleasures," delights — unless you wish to supply from the preceding, "fullness of pleasures," or an overflow and confluence of every honorable and delightful good.

2. The right hand of God, by which it is possessed, and at the same time imparted: בימינך, "at your right hand." The right hand (as opposed to the left, which is commonly, among men, weaker and less honorable) is, among the Hebrews, the hand of faithfulness and love — for which reason many suppose that this word is derived from אמן, "amen," faithfulness, truth, because the first root-letter is expressed, Jer. 30:21; and also because, among them, one especially beloved and dear is called a son of the right hand, Ps. 80:18(17). By this it is signified that a fullness of pleasures, or of blessednesses, shall be imparted, from God's faithful and gracious power, to the elect.

3. The duration of both these Blessednesses: נצח, "forevermore" — unresisted, unconquerable. This is a continual and abiding addition to Blessedness, which would be no Blessedness at all if it were not eternal and unceasing.

The Doctrinal Part

III. From this it is evident that God is not only blessed in Himself, but also the fountain of all blessedness for His own. Whence He is (1) expressly called μακάριος, the blessed, the happy one, 1 Tim. 1:11 and 6:15; and (ii) שדי, the All-sufficient, Gen. 17:1. Perhaps also (iii) εὐλόγητος, "the blessed one," Rom. 9:5; 2 Cor. 11:31 — unless you would rather refer this title to His glory. (iv) That He can receive nothing good from elsewhere, Ps. 16:2 and 50:12. And (v) a Light, in which there is no darkness at all, 1 John 1:5 — inasmuch as the Blessedness of the creature is frequently set forth in Scripture under the figure of Light, Ps. 112:4 [111:4]. Whence He is (vi) said to bring Blessedness to His own, Ps. 16:11 and 27:13, that He is their Light, ibid. v.1, and that they, in His light, first see light, Ps. 36:10 [36:9].

IV. And truly, He who (1) possesses so many and so great perfections as we have already, one by one, mentioned above, and who can neither have nor desire more and greater ones — should not such a one be blessed? He who (ii), on account of all those perfections, is called and is All-sufficient (as we have shown, Chapter XXI) for Himself, and for all His own — should not such a one be blessed? He who (iii) is, for all, the cause of all Blessedness, so that they have nothing which they have not received, and which they have not received from Him — should not He Himself be blessed? Would He Himself not have that which He bestows on others? There is, therefore, no Blessedness at all if every creature — and especially the rational creature, by its own ingrained impulse and desire — cries out against it; or else God is blessed. So Augustine, de Civitate Dei, Lib. 9, cap. 2, says well and rightly: With the true God alone, and in Him alone, and on account of and concerning Him alone, is the human — that is, the rational and understanding — soul blessed. He who (iv) alone is of Himself, is self-sufficient from Himself, and is of Himself good — goodness and perfection itself — should such a one be deprived of the perfection of Blessedness? And (v) He whose perfections are always in operation, indeed are, as it were, a single simple act — should not such a one be blessed?

V. Blessedness, among the Hebrews אשרי, "ashrei," in the plural, denotes a confluence of every good, which is accomplished in the highest good; among the Greeks, μακαρισμός, "makarismos," as if one said μέγα χαίρων, "greatly or exceedingly rejoicing," or ἀπὸ τοῦ μάλιστα χαίρειν, "from being exceedingly glad"; or, according to Favorinus, from μή, "not," and κήρ, "death," as if it were μήκηρ, "one who is not exposed to death and to fate" — and thence, according to Erasmus, called "freedom" or "liberty from destruction." As for the thing itself: it is nothing other than an absence of all evil, and a possession and enjoyment of all good, in the highest good. So that for Blessedness there is required: (1) an absence of all evil; (ii) both a possession and presence of all good, in the highest good, and (iii) the enjoyment thereof — that is, the sense of it, the resting therein, and the joy thereof. From which it is clearly evident that the possession of the highest good is not sufficient for Blessedness — as appears in believers who are spiritually deserted — but there is required, besides, an enjoyment or fruition of that possession, that is, a knowledge of it in the understanding; likewise a resting, contentment, delight, and joy in it, required in the will. From which it appears that objective Blessedness (as it is called), by the possession of which one is made blessed, is a highest and universal good, as we have taught above, Chapter XVI; and that subjective Blessedness, or the act by means of which we enjoy that highest good, is, in part, the understanding, or the seeing of God, John 17:3; Job 19:26, and in part the will, or the resting and delighting in that highest good, Ps. 16:11 — as, in its own place, shall be shown more fully.

VI. This same thing — though in His own way — will also disclose God's Blessedness in itself, namely, an absence of all evil and imperfection; for He is a light in which there is no darkness at all, 1 John 1:5; and a perfect enjoyment of Himself, whence it is said that there is fullness of joys with His face, Ps. 16:11. And in this is comprehended, not only a most exact knowledge of Himself, belonging to Him alone, Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:11, but also a satisfaction, resting, joy, and gladness in Himself, in the communion of the Persons, and in every kind of enjoyment of Himself — a satisfaction which is enough for God, but such a one as is in every respect perfect. That is: (1) such a one as arises in Him not from this or that good alone, coming from elsewhere and thus limited in extent, as is that of creatures — but from every good that can be conceived, or that can exist, whether He possesses it formally, or by way of pre-eminence, Ps. 24:1; Eph. 1:20,21. (ii) Such a one as He possesses not from another, by request or by loan, but of Himself and in Himself, so that it is an essential blessedness, namely, with His own face — for that which comes from elsewhere is both less perfect and depicted from without. (iii) Which He always has, and unchangeably — for whatever blessedness has not existed at some time, or which can cease to be, is transitory and perishable, and consequently not utterly perfect. (iv) Which He does not have by turns, passing from potentiality to act, or by composition, out of a confluence of manifold goods, from formal and objective blessedness — but which He possesses by a single, purest, and simplest act. Which, finally, (v) He has not for Himself alone, but can impart, has promised to impart, and also actually imparts, to His own, according to His will and pleasure, and according to their capacity, Ps. 4:7,8; 76:10 [?]; and 84:12. But who, finally, shall be able to depict and represent God's infinite blessedness? — since even our own, though it be in every way finite, "eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has any understanding ever conceived," 1 Cor. 2:9.

VII. And this Blessedness is not contradicted by the following: (1) that God does not possess all the goods which He has bestowed upon creatures — for these would involve an imperfection, on account of which He, if He possessed them, would be less blessed; and whatever imperfection they do not involve, that He does possess, if not formally, then at least by way of pre-eminence, so that by this His Blessedness cannot in any way be increased. Nor does it stand against this (ii) that not all things come to pass which He wills — indeed, that even by far the greatest part does not come to pass. For whatever He wills to come to pass, that also always comes to pass, and whatever therefore does not come to pass, that He has also not willed to come to pass, Ps. 115:3. But such things as He has willed only by way of commanding, those He has willed only that they should be our duty; and, on the other hand, that they do not come to pass, by this — through punishing — He obtains the glory of His Righteousness, in which He takes pleasure in Himself. No less does it stand against it (iii) that He is offended, provoked, and moved to anger by creatures. For indeed God is not, properly speaking, offended, provoked, and moved to anger by sins; but that is done thereby whereby a creature would be offended and shown [such affections]; and whereby God, were it possible, would be offended and wounded; and whereby His commandment is offended, wounded, and violated. Finally, it does not stand against God's Blessedness (iv) that He is said to await in vain, to wish, to repent. For that is said, as we have explained elsewhere, only in a human manner of speaking, according to the effect and the outcome, but not by any passionate affection. In the explaining of the divine Blessedness one may compare that which we have already, long before, taught concerning God's Goodness, All-sufficiency, and Perfection, as also concerning God's Majesty.

The Polemical Part

VIII. The question is asked: (I) Have the heathen candidly, sincerely, and truly known and acknowledged the divine Blessedness? It is true that they greeted and called their gods μακάρες, "blessed ones." The Epicureans, too, in order that they might have a truly μακάριον, blessed, God, took from Him Providence, that He might not, being wearied and worn out by the cares and troubles of a general sustaining and governing [of the world], cease to be blessed. Perhaps, likewise, they acknowledged in their idols a certain apparent Blessedness — but such as could not truly be divine, since it did not consist in that infinite [perfection] which is proper to the true God — for the following reasons it can be shown that they have not, candidly and truly, acknowledged it: (1) because it cannot coexist with the divine, that is, the infinite, Blessedness: for the infinite cannot be more than one, else it would be [merely] one among many. (ii) Because they nourished human gods, who, on account of their finitude, were subject to many defects. (iii) Because they likewise had lifeless gods — lacking life, sense, and understanding — in their images and statues, of which you have a striking depiction, Ps. 115:4-7. (iv) Because in so great a diversity of opinions concerning the highest Good, there was not one that placed man's highest good in God, as we have already noted above, Chapter XVI, §XII. (v) Because true Blessedness cannot belong to man except from such a Good as is: (1) an absolutely highest Good, in which nothing evil or imperfect is mixed, which would oppress Blessedness; (2) a universal Good, lacking nothing that deserves to be desired, but sufficient unto all things; (3) a good properly one's own, which may truly be called "ours" or "our own" — not so much adhering to us as inhering in us; (4) constant and unmovable, always like itself — indeed, one and the same, everlasting and eternal; (5) an infinite Good, capable of satisfying the insatiable desire of man. Now, if you compare, with these prerequisites of the highest Good — the Good which can truly be called blessed — all those things in which the heathen philosophers, through so many circuitous paths, have sought the highest Good, you will find that in all those things there is nothing which can, with truth, sustain the dignity and the Being of a highest Good, by the possession of which you could be called blessed.

IX. The question is asked: (II) Does one who seeks Blessedness in all manner of things apart from and outside of God acknowledge that God is blessed? Epicurus placed Blessedness either in outward and fleshly pleasures, or in an inward tranquility of mind, or in both together; Muhammad, in all manner of outward pleasures — but neither of them placed it in the possession, communion, enjoyment, and glorification of God, and by that very fact they do not acknowledge God to be sufficient to make them blessed, and consequently do not acknowledge that He Himself is blessed. But since these matters belong to the Chapter on the Glorification [of God], we shall defer them to that place for the present.

X. The question is asked: (III) Do not the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, old and modern, by their presuppositions, disturb in various ways God's infinite Blessedness? We have already noted above, at the two preceding Chapters, that the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, old and modern, Socinians, Jesuits, Remonstrants, and others, by their presuppositions, gnaw and nibble at God's infinite Perfection and All-sufficiency, as well as His Glory, which flows forth from these — when they (1) take away from God certain perfections; (ii) ascribe to Him various imperfections; (iii) attribute to Him a fruitless willing and longing, whereby He would be deprived of His end and purpose. But now, if even a single perfection is lacking in Him, and there is in Him even a single imperfection, He shall not be called infinitely blessed; and if He does not obtain that which He earnestly longs for, wills, and desires, how then could He be, or be called, blessed? To have touched on this shall be enough, that one may know what can be disputed concerning God's Blessedness.

The Practical Part

XI. The Practical Part of this Chapter furnishes us, first, material for the glorifying of God — that God is not only blessed, and the most blessed, on account of which He is extolled, Ps. 16:11; 1 Tim. 1:11 and 6:15 — but also the wellspring of blessedness, at whose right hand is fullness of pleasures, the fountain of life, in whose light we see light, Ps. 36:10 [36:9]. In particular, and point by point: (1) that He, being in and for Himself all-sufficient and most blessed, brings blessedness to wretched men: What am I, that you... etc., 2 Sam. 7:18(19); Ps. 8:5(4). (ii) That the most blessed does this in the most free manner possible, moved and impelled by no hope of any recompense, Rom. 11:36. (iii) That He, in order to bring blessedness to His own, poured out His own Son into the utmost misery, Rom. 8:32. (iv) That He, through the misery of His Son, restores to His own a greater blessedness than they had when they were blessed in their first parents, Rom. 5:17. Indeed (v), even a greater one, in its own way, than the blessedness of the angels, insofar as He has raised and lifted them up to the blessedness of children, John 1:12; 1 John 3:1; compare Heb. 1:5(?). Do we not have abundant material from all this — for which (1) we should thank God from the heart, and rejoice in and over His blessedness, Ps. 103:1,2; for which (2) we should bless the blessed God with the mouth, by praising and extolling Him, Eph. 1:3; and (3) strive to increase His blessedness, so far as is in us, by godly fulfilling His will and desire, Ps. 81:14(13); Isa. 5:2? Likewise (4) that we carefully guard against disturbing His blessedness, so far as is in us, by provoking and embittering Him with our sins, Isa. 63:10, or by grieving Him, Eph. 4:30?

XII. Secondly, it marks the folly of any sin, which not only seeks to rob the most blessed God of His blessedness, by offending, provoking, embittering, and grieving Him, but also, by this very act, wholly strips the sinner himself of all hope of his own blessedness. For if God Himself is not made perfectly blessed by us — He who has made us blessed — and if by our sins we shall attempt, as it were, to rob Him of His blessedness, how and in what manner should He then wish to bring blessedness to us?

XIII. Thirdly, it rebukes the folly of those who, departing from the true source of all blessedness, seek their blessedness in all manner of things — in riches, honors, pleasures, treasures, and pursuits — which are marked out, Ps. 4:7(6). Since all those things (1), however great they may be, or seem to be, make no one even good, much less blessed — for which reason they commonly fall to the lot of the very worst, and thus also of the most wretched, Ps. 73:3(?)... Indeed (ii), because they very often furnish occasion for sin and eternal misery, and shut men out from blessedness, Matth. 19:23-25. Not to mention (iii) that there is in all these things nothing which can bless or satisfy our chief part, namely the soul, Matth. 16:26, and that in order to obtain blessedness we are commanded to deny ourselves, Luke 14:33. Yes, since (iv) in all these things there is scarcely anything which does not also fall to irrational creatures themselves, which are ignorant of blessedness, 1 Pet. 2:12(?); from which (v) it belongs to perfection, glory, and blessedness also to despise and disdain all these things, and that those are held to be the more perfect and the more blessed who esteem these things the least.

XIV. On the contrary, fourthly, (1) it convinces us that the blessedness of the rational creature is possible — because not only is God the most blessed, and can therefore impart blessedness, but He has also implanted and instilled in rational creatures a drive and desire toward blessedness, truly not in vain, Ps. 4:7(6). (ii) It shows where true blessedness is to be found, namely: (1) in union with, or possession of, the most blessed one, Ps. 73:25; 16:5; 33:12; 144:15; (2) in fellowship with God, 1 John 1:3; 2 Cor. 13:13(?)[3:13?], whereby He is with us, in us, over us, and gives Himself, and all His attributes, as our God, to us and toward our blessing, Rom. 8:32; (3) in the enjoyment of God, which comprehends within itself both a perfect knowledge (and, as it were, a seeing) of God, John 17:3; 1 Cor. 13:12; John 19(?):26,27 [1 John 3:2?], and at the same time a knowledge of our own blessedness, in union and fellowship with God, 2 Cor. 3:18 and 4:6, as a perfect rest, joy, and gladness, springing forth from that joy and union, and at the same time from the knowledge of it — namely, a full satisfaction of joy and of pleasures with God's face, and at His right hand, Ps. 16:11; 4:8(7); 84:12; (4) in a most sweet glorifying of God, Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8,10,11 and 5:9... (iii) It entices us to seek blessedness: (1) because it can be obtained and enjoyed, since God, as we have said, is blessed, indeed the most blessed, whom nothing and no one can hinder or prevent, if He wills to bring blessedness [to us]; since the rational nature is capable of blessedness; since very many have already obtained and possess it; since God delights in the blessing of His own, and has, precisely for this purpose, ordained the whole counsel of peace. (2) Because blessedness is exceedingly desirable, just as misery is abhorrent; for there is nothing which can refrain from wishing for and desiring its own blessedness. (3) Because it is so desirable and worthy of desire that it makes all other things desirable and worthy of desire; for there is nothing desirable and worthy of desire except blessedness — indeed, nothing is desired except for and on account of blessedness: for to what end are treasures, honors, pleasures, delights, etc., desired and sought, but for and on account of blessedness? To what end, likewise, do we have an aversion to and a shrinking from all manner of adversities and misfortunes, except because these hinder or disturb blessedness? (4) Because blessedness alone can satisfy human desire, being, as it were, the center point of the soul, which rests nowhere except in blessedness. It is the whole of man, Eccl. 12:13.

[The means:] It furnishes helps for stirring up delight in blessedness: (1) let us acknowledge and feel our utmost misery, so long as we are deprived of God and lack Him — we are enemies of Him who is the fountain of all blessedness, Isa. 59:2; Eph. 2:12. (2) Let us seek and pursue reconciliation with God with all our endeavor, through faith in the blood of the Mediator, 2 Cor. 5:19,20; Col. 1:20, that we may be delivered from every evil, which is the first thing in blessedness. (3) Let us strive with all earnestness after union with Christ, that thereby we may be united with God as well, wherein is the foundation of all blessedness, Phil. 3:9; John 14:6 — which union comes about through faith. (4) Let us strive with all power and earnestness after conformity with God and with His will, Rev. 2:6; Ps. 40:9(8), inasmuch as that most of all, and best of all, produces friendship. (5) Let us enter into the covenant with God, by accepting the conditions of the covenant offered to us, that God may become our God, Gen. 17:1, wherein consists the whole substance and the pinnacle of our blessedness, Ps. 33:12. (6) Let us walk with God in the light, and thus we shall have fellowship with Him, 1 John 1:3. (7) Let us diligently use all those means by which we draw nearer to and toward God — faith, hope, love, conversion, prayers, together with the parts of public and private worship, James 4:8. Compare that which we have already had above, Chapter XVI, §XXI.

XV. Finally, fifthly, God's blessedness serves for comfort: (1) to those who are wavering, stumbling, spiritually forsaken, doubting, and well-nigh despairing of their own blessedness (of whom it is spoken, Isa. 50:10; Ps. 77:8,9,10 and 88:4,5, etc.) — as often as they perceive within themselves nothing but sin, guilt, death, and reprobation, as it were, creeping through every corner of their soul; as often as there appears to them, apart from themselves, nothing but confusion and disturbance, and as it were a dark pit and abyss of darkness, misery, death, and every conceivable evil; as often as everything seems to threaten them with eternal damnation, a forfeited and lost salvation, a shut heaven, and that God has departed from them — to such a point that they wrestle with despair, and are almost minded to hang themselves — what shall more effectually come to their aid and comfort them, than this: that God is blessed, and the fountain of all blessedness, and that therefore their own blessedness is at least possible, especially since so many have already actually obtained it, and there is nothing that can prevent God, on account of which He should not bring it to them as well; and not only possible, but also probable, since the most blessed God is the highest good, and therefore capable of imparting His blessedness — especially since He has done so many and so great things, whereby He has shown and proved His inclination and disposition to make wretched man blessed; has given His own and only-begotten Son to the world for this purpose; has given Him up to death, indeed to an accursed death; and, further, has taken such careful thought that the wretched should be called to a partaking of this blessedness, Matth. 11:27,28; Isa. 55:1,2; 2 Cor. 5:19,20. And if to all this there be added, besides, the certainty of blessedness — how great, then, shall be the comfort! But also (2) how great a joy, how great a comfort, does it afford also to those who are already established in fellowship with God, and assured of their salvation — that God is not only, in Himself, the most blessed, but also, for them, shall most assuredly be a fountain of all blessedness! Let sicknesses and infirmities now come; let poverty, persecution, death, and whatever else may be worst come — still they shall say: If God is for us, who can be against us? Rom. 8:31. Let them strip away the growth, the bloom, and the leaves of blessedness (which they possess in hope, and, in their own way, already in deed and in reality) — they shall never root out the root and the stem; they shall, triumphing with the Apostle, say: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? etc. I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor anything else whatsoever, shall separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, Rom. 8:35,38,39. Only (1) that they be truly and without deceit reconciled with God, Rom. 5:1; (2) that the covenant of grace be truly entered into between them and God, Gen. 17:1,2; (3) that they, according to the formula of this covenant, have truly given themselves back again to God, that there may be a mutual communion between them, Song 2:16; (4) that they have truly and in fact become partakers of the regeneration, renewal, and sanctification of the Holy Spirit, of the divine nature, whereby they are made fit and able for there to be a fellowship and communion between them and God; (5) that they find in themselves a sincere and unfeigned zeal and diligence to walk steadfastly and constantly with God, Gen. 17:1,2. These several points are the chief marks and proofs by which one shall infallibly receive and obtain the blessedness of the blessed God.

Chapter XXIV: On the Holy Trinity

On 2 Corinthians 13:13.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.

I. That the Faith, whereby we rest in God unto eternal life and eternal blessedness, rests upon two foundations, we have already noted above: that God is sufficient thereto, and that He is willing to accomplish it. Now He is sufficient thereto, on the one hand, by His Being and essential Attributes, whereby He is אל שדי, El Shaddai, the All-sufficient and Almighty; and on the other, by His Subsistence, whereby the three Persons of the Godhead each have their own economic task and work in the making blessed of man, as the Apostle teaches, 2 Cor. 13:13.

The Explanatory Part

II. In these words is contained a wish, whereby the Apostle earnestly beseeches the several Persons of the Godhead, each in particular, that they would vouchsafe to impart to his Corinthians, each their own particular benefit. Which wish looks distinctly —

1. To the Son: the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. When he sets the Son before the Father, he looks not so much to the order of subsistence between the Persons as to the order in the bringing of the saving benefits, insofar as this pertains to the execution [of the plan of salvation] — where the first benefit is the Redemption of the Son, although, with respect to the intention, the Election of the Father precedes. By this same fact is also signified the essential equality of the Persons, whereby the Father, though prior in order and manner of subsistence to the Son, is nevertheless not on that account prior or superior in being. Here we find —

1. The benefit for which prayer is made, namely Grace — not that natural grace which is common to the whole Trinity, of which we have treated above, but the Personal [grace], which consists in the Redemption of wretched man, belonging economically, and in particular, to the Son, and in which are comprehended all the benefits which originate from Christ. Now that work of Redemption is called grace, both because He took it upon Himself gratuitously in the Counsel of Peace, and because He dispenses it out of an undeserved love, to whom, and according to what laws and conditions, He wills.

2. The Benefactor is set before us and displayed:

a. By His authority, as Lord. Here a threefold Lordship occurs in Holy Scripture: (1) A lordship of the divine nature, equally common to all the Persons, when God is generally called a Lord. There is (2) a lordship of the Person, which belongs to the Father in particular, insofar as He is the Creator, Lawgiver, Judge, Mal. 1:6. There is (3) a Mediatorial lordship, obtained through the blood of redemption, Rev. 1:5,8; 1 Pet. 1:19. And it is this lordship which the Apostle, in this passage, ascribes in particular to the Son. For although, with respect to His Father, because He took upon Himself our penal debt, He is a Servant, Isa. 53:11, yet with respect to us, whom He would purchase and redeem, and has indeed purchased and redeemed, He is a Lord, Acts 2:36 — to whom, therefore, it belongs in particular to dispense grace, according to His own pure and simple sovereign good pleasure.

b. By His own name, Jesus, whereby the Redeemer is designated according to and by His office. For although the Father, and also the Holy Spirit, also contribute their part to the sinner's redemption, yet not by virtue of office, as does the Son.

c. By His surname, Christ, whereby it is signified that He is anointed and called to the office of Mediator.

2. To the Father, when the Apostle speaks of the Love of God. Here again there occurs to us —

1. The benefit, namely Love, ἀγάπη — by which is understood the Love of Election, which the Apostle derives from προγνώσει, "foreknowledge," Rom. 8:29 — namely, of the pre-loving and giving of the Son, John 3:16, which arises purely and solely from the bare and simple inclining disposition toward the elect, whereby He likewise gave up His Son for them unto death, Rom. 5:5-9(?). Therefore not only that love of benevolence, which in the order of nature precedes the redemption, and faith in the Redeemer, but also the love of complacency, which follows upon Faith, Heb. 11:3(?) — with which love He, being now reconciled, embraces them, on account of the grace of the Son. So that here it is not so much the love of benevolence, whereby He gave His Son to be a Mediator, John 3:16, whereby He receives the price of the [Son's] blood — which love precedes the grace of Christ — as rather the love of complacency, whereby He embraces the redeemed and reconciled, which follows upon the grace of Christ; and thus the whole economic work and benefit of the Father are here signified.

2. The Benefactor, namely God the Father — who is God, not so much by virtue of His nature, which is common to all the Persons, but also, as it were, by virtue of office and duty. For in the economy of Grace, whereby and in which He is the Head, Creator, Lawgiver, and Father of the household, He is commonly called God by a particular appropriation. Now He is God, not only with respect to men, nor only with respect to Christ as man, or as Mediator-God-man; but also with respect to the Son, on account of the order of subsistence, and most of all on account of His office of Redemption, whereby He, in the Counsel of Peace, on behalf of the debt of the elect, became a debtor of the Father, and thus, as it were, made subject to God.

III. To the Holy Spirit; namely, the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Here again it is signified —

1. The benefit, namely κοινωνία, "the Fellowship," the communication — which denotes the whole economic office and benefit of the Holy Spirit, insofar as He, by sanctification and comfort, actually imparts the Grace of Christ and the Love of the Father.

2. The Benefactor, who is called —

a. Spirit — not with respect to His Being, for so also are the Father and the Son a Spirit — but with respect to His manner of subsistence, insofar as He subsists by way of spiration (breathing forth), John 20:22.

b. Holy — because, by virtue of His office, He sanctifies, whence He is called the Spirit of Sanctification, Rom. 1:4.

The Doctrinal Part

III. Since, therefore, as everyone concedes, in this wish is comprehended a worship — which belongs to God alone, Matth. 4:10 — a worship of the one God, and an equal worship of three, and, according to a threefold economic benefit, of three: it cannot be otherwise but that there are, in the one God, three distinct Persons, distinguished also with respect to their economic offices and benefits. This is what Holy Scripture teaches, as often as it (1) makes mention of more than one who is called God — which happens: (1) in all those passages in which God speaks to Himself, or of Himself, in the plural number, Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; compare Isa. 6:8. For here one must not admit the opinion of the later Jews, who hold that here either the angels, or heaven and earth, or the elements, are summoned into and unto a fellowship of Creation; or those who contrive that God here speaks according to the manner of speech of the great, of Himself, in the plural. For neither angels nor any other creature could ever have been called into a fellowship of Creation, this being a work of infinite Omnipotence; nor, moreover, does this manner of speech of modern-day great men agree either with Holy Scripture, or with the character of the Hebrew tongue, or with the customs and manners of the Orientals — for even among us one does not say, "We, the King of France," or "We Louis," as Holy Scripture speaks of God, but rather "I, the King of France." (2) In those passages in which Jehovah is distinguished from Jehovah, Gen. 19:24; Exod. 34:5; 2 Sam. 23:2(?); Ps. 45:8; Hos. 1:7; Ps. 110:1, with Matth. 22:43,44; Dan. 9:17(?); Hos. 1:7. For Jehovah is not distinguished from Jehovah in Being — since there is none but one Jehovah, Deut. 6:4 — nor in accidents, which do not fall in Jehovah; and there remains, therefore, nothing else but that they are distinguished as Persons. (3) In those passages in which the name of God, in one and the same discourse, is repeated several times — which one will not dare to say happens by an idle repetition of words, Num. 6:24,26; Deut. 6:4; Exod. 3:15(?); John 20(?):24 [12:28?]; Ps. 67:6,7,8; Dan. 9:19; Isa. 6:3 and 33:22; Zech. 1:3. (4) One may add here, if not for a mathematical, then at least for a rhetorical proof, those passages in which, alongside the name Elohim, being of the plural number, attributes, either nouns or verbs, of the singular number are joined, Gen. 1:1, etc. — although this is exposed to no small number of evasions and difficulties: because (a) this same conjugation of words is also used of things which are purely singular — of idols, Judges 16:23,24; of a single man, Exod. 4:16; (b) also of only one Person of the Godhead, Ps. 45:8(?); (c) because, by virtue of the construction of the words, either three Beings, or three Persons, could equally be inferred from it; (d) because that manner of speaking is not altogether contrary to the genius of the language, as appears in בעלים, "Baalim," Exod. 21:29(?); Isa. 1:3, and אדונים, "Adonim," Gen. 40:1(?) and 42:33, a name which also belongs to God, according to which He is called, Deut. 10:17, אדני האדנים, "Adonai ha-adonim," Lord of Lords. Compare Mal. 1:6. Wherefore Calvin judged that, in disputations with the Antitrinitarians, this kind of proof ought to be set aside; although I should think that this proof, once the Mystery of the Trinity has been sufficiently established by other testimonies, can not unprofitably be applied for confirmation. The Holy Scriptures also teach this Mystery more clearly when they (ii) expressly mention three in God, Ps. 33:6; Isa. 61:1 and 63:7,9,10; Matth. 3:16,17 (whence that saying of the ancients: "You Arian, go to the Jordan, and there you shall find the Trinity"), and 28:19 (since we cannot be baptized in the name of one who is not God, 1 Cor. 1:13 — just as the Israelites also are not said to have been baptized in the name of Moses, but "in Moses," that is, according to the Syriac and Arabic, "under Moses," 1 Cor. 10:2); 2 Cor. 13:13; 1 John 5:7 (which passage, before the times of Arius, was read by Cyprian and others — indeed, is even set forth by the Socinians themselves, in their own High-German Racovian translation of the year 1630). Add to these the passages John 14:16 and 15:26; 1 Cor. 12:3; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 2:18 and 3:14,16; 1 Pet. 1:2; Titus 3:5,6; Rev. 1:4,5,6.

IV. That same thing is also confirmed by reasons which the Holy Scriptures place in our hand: (1) because in Holy Scripture, to those distinct Persons is ascribed everything that is divine, when to the particular Persons, each in particular, are ascribed divine Names, Attributes, Works, and religious Honor — under which headings is comprehended everything that is divine — which we shall show concerning each Person in particular in the following Chapters. (ii) Because salvation and life cannot be restored to the sinner unless there be, in the one God, more than one Person. Insofar as the Satisfaction (apart from which there can be no Reconciliation), which takes away the evil of sin (which, morally speaking, is infinite), and brings about an infinite good — namely, union with God — cannot come except from the infinite God; nor can one and the same Person render satisfaction to Himself. Other reasons will come to hand from the Economic Office belonging to each Person, in the matter of our salvation, of which in their proper places.

V. Proofs and demonstrations from nature you will here seek in vain, because a Mystery surpasses nature, and here, above all, that saying holds good and applies: τῇ τέχνῃ τὰ τεχνικά, etc. — that is, let us leave matters of art to art, natural things to nature, but divine things let us leave and entrust to God. And yet we do not reject comparisons, that by them the possibility [of the doctrine] might, in some manner, be made clear — provided always that the demonstration proceeds first from Holy Scripture — although we think that in this too one ought not to be too extravagant. And also the testimonies of the heathen say — perhaps drawn from the Holy Scriptures, or from the traditions of believers — not the same thing, but only something resembling it. (Compare Gerhard, de Trinit. §238; Meisner, Philos. Sobr. Part 3, Sect. 4, c.9, q.2, and others.) Wherefore also that reason ought not to be heeded, when it, either from Holy Scripture or from the creature, brings forward anything against the Trinity that goes beyond its comprehension.

VI. And this is, finally, what the ancients, from the very beginning of Christianity, have meant and signified by [the word] Trinity (a word which, indeed, with respect to its syllables, is not scriptural, but in its meaning is most clearly scriptural, 1 John 5:7) — whereby they wished to signify one divine Being, common to three Persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — distinguished in and through three modes of subsistence. Which [Being], indeed, elsewhere the New Testament expresses by other terms belonging here: they wished to call it Being, Substance, Phil. 2:6(?); the nature, Gal. 4:8; the form of God, Phil. 2:6; Godlikeness, Rom. 1:20; Godhead, Col. 2:9. Or that whereby God is God; for that whereby any particular thing is what it is, is called its being. Which, when it already [exists] in and with the act, or apart from its causes, is called existence; and insofar as that existence belongs to accidents, it constitutes an inexistence; insofar as, on the contrary, it belongs to particular substances, it is a subsistence; and insofar as that subsistence exists in rational, complete, absolute, and incommunicable substances, it is called a personality. So that, hence, a person is nothing other than a rational, incommunicable substance. This is the force and import of the words and manners of speech which belong to this place.

VII. The matter signified by these words and manners of speech, we shall then understand, when we shall have explained, part by part: (1) the agreement, or the fellowship, of the three [Persons]; (ii) the distinction between them; and finally (iii) their particular economic work in the matter of man's salvation. The three Persons, therefore, agree: (1) in Being, whence they are called one, 1 John 5:7, and constitute one God in number (not in kind) — otherwise than as happens among created persons, because the divine Being is infinite, and by this very fact communicable to more than one. Hence they also agree (2) in all the essential Attributes — eternity, omniscience, omnipotence — which are one and the same with the Being. In particular, and by name, (3) in essential self-existence (aseity), according to which the Son and the Holy Spirit are just as much of themselves as the Father — although, besides this, there also belongs to the Son, in the Father, a personal self-existence, which is peculiarly His own, John 5:26. Moreover, (4) in religious Honor, which is equal for the several Persons, ibid. v.23. Finally, (5) in a certain ἐμπεριχώρησις (mutual indwelling), whereby the one Person is said to be in the other, John 14:9,10,11 — on account of the oneness of the Being.

VIII. A twofold distinction here presents itself. The first is that whereby the Person is distinguished from the Being: certainly not a real distinction, whereby they would differ as one thing differs from another thing — for God is most simple — nor a distinction by a bare, mere reason or reasoning, or only in our conception; for they are distinguished as one from three: but by a distinction which has its ground and manner of distinguishing in the thing itself. For although the divine Being is equally proper to the three Persons taken together, it is nevertheless, in this respect, more broadly and more extensively distinguished from each Person individually, than one Person is from another, since the Being is common to the three Persons, whereas each Person, taken singly, is narrower [in scope] than the Being. Deshalben (ii) it is something communicable and something incommunicable, while the Being is common to the three Persons. (iii) It is something determined and something determining, for the Person determines, in its own way, the Being. (iv) It is something abstract and something concrete, for the Person signifies at the same time the Being, which the [term] Being does not do. See Mastricht, Syst. Loc. 3, §14-18.

IX. The second distinction is between the Persons among themselves. Here, above all, one must carefully and diligently avoid, on the one side, the Sabellian error, which allows no distinction between the Persons at all, except one of reason and of designation, insofar as one and the same Person, according to His various operations, would now be called Father, now Son, now Holy Spirit; and, on the other side, the tritheism of Valentinus Gentilis, who fancies three eternal Spirits, unequal to one another, of whom the first would be the essence-giver (Essentiator), and the rest the essence-given (Essentiati). To avoid Sabellianism, some say that the Persons differ really; but this seems to incline toward tritheism. Again, to avoid tritheism, others hold that the Persons are distinguished modally (modaliter), as one mode from another mode (modus a modo), not merely by a bare reasoning (ratione rationis), but truly: which distinction they express by the joining of two words, saying that they are distinguished realiter modaliter, that is, really-modally, namely as one mode from another mode, not only by reason or reasoning, but truly. This is, at any rate, the view which most fully satisfies me. There are, however, some to whom none of these formulations is pleasing, but who think one must say that the Persons are distinguished personally: but what is this other than to say that the Persons are distinguished as Persons? — while nothing is thereby said as to how the Person is distinguished from the Person. If, however, anyone cannot go along with these scholastic modes of speech, then let him say that he, being instructed from Holy Scripture, believes that the Persons are distinguished as three, 1 John 5:7, but that he does not know by what kind of distinction, since Holy Scripture does not disclose this — or that they are distinguished in a supernatural, not a natural, manner.

X. Whatever the case may be, they are, at the very least, distinguished: (1) in Personal Properties: to subsist wholly of oneself; to subsist from a certain other one; and to subsist from two. Which Properties cannot fall upon a single Person. But of the Properties which are peculiar to each Person in particular, we shall treat in the particular consideration of each Person. (ii) In the order of subsisting, whereby the Father is the first, as subsisting wholly and entirely of Himself; the Son the second, as being of the Father; the Holy Spirit the third, as proceeding from both — as we shall teach separately, and point by point, in their places. (iii) In the manner of working, which follows the mode of subsistence and the order [just mentioned] — insofar as, outside Himself, the Father works of Himself, through the Son and the Holy Spirit; the Son, from the Father, through the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit, from the Father and the Son, through Himself. Here, indeed, the operative power is but one alone, common to the three Persons; but the order of operation, and likewise its final outcome, is distinct. Whence also, to the first Person, the first work, Creation, is ascribed; to the second, the second — namely, the economic dispensation and the Redemption; to the third and last, the last work, namely the perfecting and Sanctification.

The Practical Part

XI. And thus, upon this fellowship of the three distinct Persons there rest and depend a certain economy, economic offices and duties, economic properties, economic service and honor — indeed, also economic transgressions. But since all these matters are well worth the trouble of being treated the more distinctly, the less they commonly occur in the common places (as they are called), there is, therefore, (1) a certain Economy common to the three Persons; for here is a Father of the household, a Son of the house, and, as it were, a common emissary, the Spirit. There is one who generates, the Father; there is one who is generated, the Son; there is one who proceeds from both, the Holy Spirit. The Father loves the Son, John 5:20 and 15:9(?), has His delight in Him, Prov. 8:30, as in a perfect image of Himself, Col. 1:15, and being the outshining of His glory, and the express image of His substance, Heb. 1:3; rests in Him, and has His good pleasure in Him, Matth. 3:17, and glorifies Him. The Son, in turn, for His part, honors the Father, John 8:49 and 17:4. The Holy Spirit searches the depths of these two, 1 Cor. 2:10, and glorifies them both, John 16:14,15. And all this without any impairment or loss, either of independence, John 5:26, or of equality, ibid. v.23. Unto fellowship with this household, 2 Cor. 13:13; 1 John 1:3, and as unto a society, He has, in time, taken up the Church — which is thence called the House of God, 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:20 (in which God is said to dwell, and to have, as it were, His hearth and home, Isa. 31:9) — likewise the City and the Kingdom of God, Matth. 6:10,13 — whence the members of the Church, sons and daughters,

XII. The administration of this household the [three] Persons have taken upon themselves — entering, as it were, into a Council, Zech. 6:13, or through an intervening covenant, Isa. 53:10,11 — wherein and whereby, according to the order of subsisting which is peculiar to each in particular, the particular Persons have taken upon themselves, as it were, a certain fixed task or household work and duty. Whereby the first Person, as House-father, behaves as Lord and Governor, who has marked out the whole work of the coming government and rule by fore-ordination, Eph. 1:11; Acts 4:28; and who, besides, is Creator, Gen. 1:1,10 and 33:6; Lawgiver and Judge, Gen. 18:25; and also avenger and defender of the Law, Rom. 1:18; Nah. 1:2 — and therefore God, not only Theologically, but also Economically; that is, not only through His nature and Being (which is common to all the Persons), but also, as it were, through His household office and duty — whence commonly the name of God is given to the Father by way of appropriation, as we have seen in the Explanatory Part, from 2 Cor. 13:13 and 1 Tim. 2:5. Again, the second Person, as the middle one, has taken upon Himself the task of Mediator — there of Self-Surety, Heb. 7:22; of Goel, Job 19:25; Isa. 38:14; of Redeemer, who would set Himself for a guilt-offering, Isa. 53:10. Finally, the third, or last, Person has taken up, as it were, the office of Envoy, who, as it were, was sent by breathing forth, John 20:22; 14:26; and who, the work of redemption once accomplished, would perfect it — on His own account, and in His own name — and would be the Sanctifier, Rom. 1:4; the Teacher, John 14:26; the Guide, Ps. 143:10; John 16:13; the Comforter, John 14:16. Which division of household task nevertheless requires a twofold caution: (I) that it be understood and grasped as occurring apart from any dependency or essential inequality — as we have already admonished above, from John 5:23,26; Phil. 2:6,7 — although some sort of economic inequality does seem to flow from it, John 14:28. (II) That each Person have His household office and work, not to the exclusion of the other Persons — whence not only the Father, but also the other Persons, are the Creator, Ps. 33:6, and not only is the Father called Judge, Gen. 18:25, but also the Son, John 5:22,27; 2 Thess. 1:7,8 — since the works ad extra (because they flow from the one Being) are undivided and unseparated, only that they work in a distinct manner and order.

XIII. According to this distinct household task, each Person has had, as it were, His turns of government: so that the turn, and the manner and mode, of the Father's government and rule — in the Creation, the Covenant of Works, the pre-Gospel, appearances and addresses — has been most visible before the giving of the Law at Sinai. Then the administration of the Son (that Angel who bore God's Name in His innermost being, Exod. 23:20,21), leading the Church through the wilderness — there He gave them the Law from the Father, Gal. 3:19, yet not unto a Covenant of Grace (at least not so far as concerns the Law of the Ten Commandments, which contained nothing but the matter and content of the Covenant of Works, though set forth with an Evangelical intent and Evangelical proofs and motives) — except perhaps so far as the Ceremonial Law is concerned, which contained within it the Gospel of the Old Testament, by which Law the Church was governed until the death and ascension of Christ. Finally there began to grow renowned the government and administration of the Holy Spirit, since His solemn outpouring, Acts 2:1, etc.; 13:2, until the end of the ages, John 14:16,17 — by that name choosing men out, qualifying them for their tasks, Acts 2:14; 1 Cor. 12:7-11; working together with them by signs and wonders; causing the Word which was preached by them to prosper, Rom. 15:19; making spiritually dead men alive through regeneration, John 6:63; converting hearts to receive the Mediator by faith, 2 Cor. 4:13; and renewing in them the image of God, by enlightening the understanding, amending the will, ordering the affections, leading into all saving truth, and comforting in adversities. Which variety of household administration shall continue further until the end of the world, when the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and there shall be a common government, wherein God shall be All in all, 1 Cor. 15:24-28. Which points, however, must always be so understood and grasped, that never is the government of any one Person excluded — for the works ad extra are common to the whole Trinity, since they flow from one and the same Being.

XIV. To this economic government and rule correspond, further, economic Properties: (I) to the Father, as Lord, as Head of the household, as the first deviser and sketcher of the whole provision through fore-ordination, is ascribed right and power, Rom. 9:21,22; Matth. 20:15; as Creator, strength and might, Matth. 11:25; John 10:29; Heb. 1:3; as Lawgiver and Judge, righteousness, Gen. 18:25; 2 Thess. 1:6; as House-father, love, 2 Cor. 13:13 — namely a fatherly love, Ps. 103:13, and also a motherly one, Isa. 49:15. Again (II), to the Son, as the Word, regarded as Distributor and Dispenser, is ascribed wisdom, Prov. 8:1; as Surety and Redeemer, grace and mercy, 2 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 5:2. Finally (III), to the Holy Spirit, as the Perfecter, is ascribed power, Luke 1:35; as the Communicator, Sanctifier, Teacher, Comforter, a communicative goodness, Ps. 143:10. There are some who are pleased to ascribe the economic properties thus: power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Spirit — whereby the triune God would be the greatest, the wisest, the best; to which would then correspond understanding, intellect, and will. Which points, since they are, on the side of the object, truly in some manner distinguished, and yet, on God's side, posit one and the same thing, would, if not constitute, then at least persuade and argue for the Trinity — namely, that the Father accordingly is the creating Person, the Son the redeeming Person, and the Holy Spirit the sanctifying Person. Which conception, however, I would not dare embrace and adopt, because other Attributes also [belong] in the same way, and yet differ among themselves, and are one and the same with the Being; and there would thus have to be admitted more than three Persons in God, which is contrary to Holy Scripture.

XV. Moreover, corresponding and consonant with these economic offices of the three Persons is their economic Service and Honor. Whereby (I) from the particular Persons are expected and sought those deeds which correspond with each one's economic office, 2 Cor. 13:13; Isa. 63:7,9,10 — Election, the bestowing of the Redeemer, justification, and the forgiveness of sins, from the Father; the redemption and satisfaction, from the Son; regeneration, conversion, and sanctification, from the Holy Spirit. Yes (II), that we desire each particular benefit, from each particular Person, in that order in which they subsist and work, Eph. 2:18 and 3:14-16 — for example, redemption from the Father, through the Son and through the Holy Spirit, etc. Also (III), that we give thanks for every particular benefit to each particular Person in His own order, and likewise that in our praises and thanksgivings we commonly make mention of the particular Persons, 1 Pet. 1:2,3, likewise vv.17,19,21,22; Rev. 1:4,5 — of which, perhaps, more in their own places.

XVI. Finally, there are also economic sins, which run counter to and clash against the economic offices of the particular Persons in particular, Matth. 12:32; John 8:55(?). Sins against the Father occur everywhere throughout Holy Scripture; the sin against the Son is mentioned Heb. 6:6 and 10:29; against the Holy Spirit, Matth. 12:31; Heb. 10:29; Eph. 4:30; Isa. 63:10. Of the particular economic office, benefits, service, and sins, of and against the particular Persons, however, we shall speak more fully and at greater length in their own particular consideration, God willing.

The Polemical Part

XVII. One asks: (I) Whether one and the same Essence, in number, is common to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? The unbelievers, present-day Jews and Muhammadans, know nothing of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or even hate that doctrine, and therefore allow absolutely no community of Essence among the three. Among the falsely-named Christians — the Simonians, Cerinthians, and others — among whom, while the Apostle John still lived, Antichrist had already crept in, by denying the Godhead of Christ they denied thereby also the sameness of Essence among those three. Macedonius, from whom the Spirit-fighters sprang forth in the course of the fourth century, held that the Holy Spirit is a prince and a head among the created angels, denying that same sameness of Essence. In that same century Arius said that Christ was not ὁμοούσιος (of one substance) with the Father, but only ὁμοιούσιος (of like substance) with the Father. Pothinus, at nearly the same time, by teaching that Christ was a mere bare man, who did not exist before His birth from the blessed Virgin, rejected and denied the community of Essence between Father and Son. The Tritheites, at the beginning of the seventh century, under their leader John Philoponus, an Alexandrian philosopher, according to the testimony of Nicephorus (Lib. 18. Cap. 88), and also the Peratae, held that, according to the number of the three Persons, three Essences also are to be reckoned. Following these, in the preceding century, Valentinus Gentilis, spreading among the Swiss the view that in God there are three eternal Spirits, subordinate to one another, so that the Father is the essence-giver and the Son and the Holy Spirit the essence-given. The Anabaptists, too, seem to admit such essences in God, which, according to the number of the three Persons, would agree in operations, righteousness, holiness, virtues, and benefits. The Socinians hold that Father and Son differ in their whole Essence, and that the Holy Spirit is not a Person at all, but only an accidental power, as of a Creator [and its effect]. The Reformed, against all these, hold that to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit belongs the one and the same Divine Essence, not only specifically, but also undividedly, or numerically the same. (I) Because Holy Scripture teaches this in so many words, 1 John 5:7: There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are One — namely, in Essence. Therefore (II) Jehovah (being indeed a name of the Essence) — "our God," in the plural number — is named "the one Jehovah," or "one only LORD." (III) Because, although Holy Scripture teaches that there is but one, and only one, God, or one only Essence, it nevertheless teaches that the Father is that one God, and the Son whom He has sent, John 17:3. And (IV) because it makes all the Divine Attributes, which are one and the same with the Divine Essence, common to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — as we shall show at the consideration of the particular Persons separately. (V) Because, while it commands that only one God alone be honored and served religiously, Matth. 4:10; Isa. 42:8, it nonetheless also commands that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be worshipped with a religious honor, 2 Cor. 13:13; Rev. 1:4,5 — which we shall show distinctly concerning each of them in its proper place. (VI) Because they are commonly mentioned as equals — for example, in the institution of Baptism, Matth. 28:19; in the heavenly testimony, 1 John 5:7; in the wish for the Corinthian Church, 2 Cor. 13:13; likewise in John's benediction to the seven Asian congregations, Rev. 1:4,5. Since therefore they are mutually joined together, in an equal manner, in such a dignity as belongs to no one but one only Divine Essence, it follows that that one Divine Essence is common to three. Nor is there anything that the [opposing] Parties can allege for the contrary. (1) That each particular person has his own, and indeed his particular, essence — from which they conclude that the same Essence in number cannot be common to those three. To which we answer, that to each particular human person indeed belongs his own particular essence, because their essence is finite, and therefore cannot be common to more than one; but that one must judge otherwise of the Divine Essence, which, on account of its infinity, can be absolutely common to those three. (2) That a person is nothing other than a simple understanding substance, and that therefore, according to the number of the persons, simple understanding essences are required. But we answer, that to constitute a person it is not enough to have a simple understanding essence — such belongs also to a separated soul, which meanwhile is no person — but that, to constitute a person, there is furthermore required that it be incommunicable; and since this does not hold in the Divine Essence, which, on account of its infinity, is common to three, it therefore cannot constitute one person. (3) That, if three Divine Persons agreed in one Essence, they would also agree with one another, and thus constitute only one Person. Answer: they do indeed agree, but only in a third thing, that is, the Essence; but for that very reason they do not agree in one and the same personality, whence they are not "the one" (unus), but only "one" (unum), according to that of John: these three are one, 1 John 5:7.

XVIII. One asks: (II) Whether Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished from one another as Persons? The Triformians, of whom we have spoken above, Ch. IX §VIII, held that they differ as parts of the one Godhead, so that they made God to be composed of three parts, of which the Father has the one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit the third. On this view there would be, in God, not only a composition, but furthermore neither Father, nor Son, nor Holy Spirit, as Persons, would be the whole complete God. The Tritheites, old and new, among whom Valentinus Gentilis, wished them to differ from one another as so many Godheads, so that three Gods would result. To these belong, in their own way, the Socinians, when they say that Father and Son differ as things as different from one another as heaven is from earth — as the Creator and the creature — and the Holy Spirit from both, as a power or accident of its subject. The Sabellians hold that they are distinguished only by bare designations, by which one and the same Person, according to His various modes of working, is called now Father, now Son, now Holy Spirit. The Tritheites did indeed distinguish them as Persons; but they added thereto the Essence, which would make a fourth Person. One may compare what we have said above at the place cited. The Reformed hold that they are distinguished, within the one common Divine Essence, as three Persons. Because (I) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit truly and in fact are Persons, being furnished with all the requisites of a person — for each one of them is a substance, simple, understanding, incommunicable, evident through personal operations, as we shall show for each Person in particular. Because they (II) are counted as three (tres), not as three things (tria), which are one, or one thing, 1 John 5:7. Indeed (III) as another and another, not as something else and something else, John 14:16. (IV) Because the Father and the Son, beyond all doubt, are Persons; and when the Holy Spirit is counted along with them, Matth. 28:19; 1 John 5:7, He too is counted as a Person. Because (V) to each particular Person, in Holy Scripture, is assigned His particular characteristic property — to subsist of oneself, to subsist from one, and to subsist from two — which things cannot fit upon one and the same Person alone, and which properties, moreover, are of such a kind as show and prove that they are Persons — namely, to generate, to be generated, to proceed from two. Moreover (VI), to each one of these are ascribed in Scripture operations proper to one Person alone, which we shall show at the particular Persons in particular. They are, therefore, (VII) not distinguished as parts, because the Essence of God, through its simplicity, admits no parts, as we have taught in its own place; and were it otherwise, according to this supposition, then no Person would have the whole Godhead, and would therefore not be a complete God. Also, they differ (VIII) not as Divine Essences or Godheads, because they are said only to be one, 1 John 5:7, and that one and the same Essence in number is common to them we have demonstrated in the preceding section; but the contrary would present to us three Gods, against the content of Holy Scripture. Likewise (IX), they differ not as Creator and creature, because they, each in particular, are Divine Persons, as we shall show and demonstrate presently in particular concerning the particular Persons. Finally (X), they differ also not in bare designations arising from a diversity of operations, but in characteristic properties, which, without contradiction, fit only in one certain Person alone. These things being thus established, I see not what, even with any semblance of truth, can be objected to the contrary.

XIX. One asks: (III) Whether the doctrine concerning God as one in Essence and three in Persons is a doctrine of Scripture? The Antitrinitarians indeed say that this is false, except that some later Socinians, in order to escape the common hatred of Christians toward the Trinity which the Socinians deny, cry out, hoarse to the point of screaming, that this is slanderously imputed to them by us, since they acknowledge that God is one in Essence, and that, notwithstanding, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are acknowledged by them to be called God — although, if pressed to answer more distinctly whether they acknowledge that one Divine Essence is common to those three, they answer that this is not in Scripture. Some Papists, because the word "Trinity" does not stand [in Scripture], base this doctrine upon traditions. The Reformed hold that this is absolutely a doctrine of Holy Scripture: (I) Because we have already, at length, in the preceding topics, proved and demonstrated from Scripture that one and the same Essence is common to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, and that they, notwithstanding, are distinguished from one another as so many Persons. (II) Because we have also, in the Doctrinal Part §§IV and V, proved from the Scriptures of both Testaments that this doctrine is taught in Holy Scripture. (III) Because upon it is built and grounded the whole faith of Christians, who are therefore baptized in the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — just as also of old they were not admitted into the communion of the Christian Church before they had confessed their faith concerning this doctrine. Now there remains nothing but that we, according to the premises laid down, neatly resolve the common objections of all against the Trinity. (1) They allege that, by virtue of the infinity of the particular Persons, three infinite Essences must be derived and concluded. But wrongly, and quite unjustly, since through the unity of the Essence the one infinity also, being one and the same with the Essence, belongs to the three Persons. (2) That from the threeness of the Persons, joined together with the unity of the Essence, there flows a fourness. Wrongly, since the Essence and the Persons do not differ really, but only by reasoned reason (ratione ratiocinata); for a particular essence cannot differ, in fact, from its own subsistence. (3) That, since only one simple Divine Essence, subsisting of itself, is acknowledged, there is but one only Person, since a Person is nothing other than a simple substance endowed with reason. But a simple substance, though endowed with reason, does not thereby immediately constitute a Person, unless incommunicability be added, as appears in a separated soul. (4) That each Person requires for Himself His own Essence, and that therefore, according to the number of the three Persons, three Essences must be posited. Answer: certainly each Person (in concreto), in the composite, requires an Essence, but not a distinct or particular Essence of His own, since the one Essence, through its infinity, is sufficient for the three Persons. (5) That three Divine Persons constitute three Gods, just as three human persons constitute three men. Answer: by no means, since to three human persons belong distinct essences in number, whereas to these Divine Persons the same Essence in number is common. (6) That, since the three Persons agree in one and the same Essence, they then also agree with one another, and thus constitute only one Person. Answer: they truly agree, but only in their one third thing, which is the Essence, and are therefore one in that sense; but they are not one in one and the same Personality in number, wherefore they are not (unus) one Person, but (unum) one thing. (7) That the Trinity carries with it various absurdities — for example: (a) that the Son is the Father, for, they say, the Divine Essence is the Father; the Divine Essence is the Son; therefore the Son is the Father. Answer: besides that this is a paralogism in a categorical syllogism, since the middle term, the Essence, is indeed something particular but also something common — which the laws of a categorical syllogism do not permit, as in which not only a particular but also an incommunicable middle term is required, since otherwise it will only imitate a universal one — so it is also false that the Divine Essence is either Father or Son, though both Father and Son have the same Essence in number. (b) That, if the Father is the true God, the Son cannot be the true God, which they thus attempt to make out: the Father is the true God; the Son is not the Father; therefore He is not the true God. Answer: the falsity of this categorical paralogism will appear if it be resolved into its proportionate, direct syllogism: All that the Father is, that is not the Son; but the Father is the true God; therefore the Son is not the true God. For the greater, or first, premise is only true with respect to the Personality, not simply, nor with respect to the Essence; and thus it shows only that the Father is not the same Person which the Son is, but not that He is not the true God, on account of the Essence, which is common to both.

XX. One asks: (IV) Whether the doctrine concerning the Trinity is necessary for the Christian Church, indeed for each member of it in particular, to believe? The Antitrinitarians, because they deny its truth, are compelled also to deny its necessity, indeed also its usefulness. The Apologetic Remonstrants, although they do not openly dare deny its truth, lest they be seen openly to have gone over to the Socinian party, nevertheless lay it wide open to secret undermining; they nonetheless openly deny its necessity, and that in order that they may be able to admit and tolerate the Socinians in the fellowship of their churches. The Reformed, although they do not hold a distinct knowledge of it — whereby one should have clearly and distinctly to grasp its nature — to be necessary unto salvation, nevertheless, as to the bare "that it is," which is taught most clearly in Holy Scripture, judge it to be absolutely necessary, at least that those who deny it altogether cannot be saved. (I) Because Scripture expressly teaches that eternal life consists in this, that we know the Father to be the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent — namely, that He too is that one true God. (II) Because such a one cannot acknowledge the Father, who does not acknowledge the Son, 1 John 2:23; indeed, does not honor the Father, who does not honor the Son, John 5:23. (III) Because such a one, who does not know nor acknowledge the Trinity, can neither seek nor obtain salvation from the love of the Father, and from the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and from the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, 2 Cor. 13:13. (IV) Because that one cannot be admitted into the fellowship of the Christian Church who has not openly confessed faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Matth. 28:19. (V) Because such a one cannot seek nor obtain his salvation in the Satisfaction of Christ, who does not acknowledge nor accept His Godhead, since that Satisfaction cannot exist apart from His Godhead, 1 Tim. 2:5. (VI) Because he who does not acknowledge the Trinity cannot believe most of the mysteries of the Christian religion, as being built and grounded upon this mystery. Against these reasons and proofs they will object in vain: (1) That the believers of the Old Testament were saved without the faith of the Trinity. Answer: (a) this the [opposing] Parties must prove; (b) this is soundly refuted by those testimonies of the Old Testament which we have set forth in §III; and (c) if they had not acknowledged the Trinity, then they would not have acknowledged nor served the true God, and would therefore have been idolaters, indeed atheists — for he who does not acknowledge Him who truly is God, and does not honor and serve Him, is an atheist. (2) That the article concerning the Trinity has no use in the practice of godliness. Answer: (a) granting, though not conceding, that it has no particular use, it is nevertheless the foundation and groundwork of all Christian practice and godliness, without which no Christian godliness, at least, can exist; (b) indeed, that this Article also has a particular use in the practice of godliness, the Doctrinal Part has already long taught, in the Economy of the Trinity, and the Practical Part of this chapter will teach abundantly. (3) That most do not comprehend this mystery, who nevertheless are not immediately therefore to be excluded from a share in salvation. Answer: though they do not comprehend the nature of it, how it is, they can nevertheless, from the plainest revelation of Scripture, grasp the truth of it — that God, who is one in Essence, is three in Persons.

XXI. One asks: (V) Whether the doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity can be known and comprehended by the means and help of reason? Theophrastus Paracelsus, with his chemists, has tried to demonstrate it from their three principles of the human body — salt, sulphur, and quicksilver. Some Scholastics have tried to make it out from God as understanding, almost in this manner: reason teaches that God comprehends and understands; from that understanding, they say, is born a concept or image, and, since the thing understood and comprehended is something good, from it arises love. Since now that image, and also that love, in God are not accidents but a substance, it cannot be otherwise, they say, but that it be one and the same in the one understanding, the one understood, and the one beloved: whence they styled the Father the understanding God, the Son the understood God, and the Holy Spirit the beloved God. Others among them, such as Scotus (ad Lib. 1. Sentent. Distinct. 2, 9, & 10), try to demonstrate the Trinity from production, in this manner: to produce is a certain perfection, which includes nothing imperfect; it therefore belongs to a most perfect Being, and that from eternity, before the production of this universe. And since an eternal production requires an eternal thing produced, it must follow, since it involves in its concept nothing imperfect, that then also that eternal thing produced must be admitted and acknowledged; and since to produce, and to be produced, and to produce and be produced at once, also include a perfection without imperfection, that too must be granted in the most perfect Being. Whence it would follow that the Father is the producing God, the Son the producing and produced God at once, and the Holy Spirit only the produced God. That same proof is followed by Gabriel Biel (in I. Sent. Diff. 10, q.1) and Raimundus de Sabunde (in his Theol. Natur., cap. 46 to 55). Among the Ramists, some (though others contend against it) have adopted that same proof, and followed it out at length and with much labor in various Disputations. A certain one of his followers adds other proofs — for example, that the possession of any good without a companion is not pleasant, and since in God there has always been a most pleasant possession of the highest Good, it can, he says, easily be concluded that God has never been without a companion. Thomas Aquinas (Summa, Part I, Quaest. 32, art. 1) sets himself against the Scholastics, holding that this attempt, in more than one way, does the faith a disservice. Others among the Scholastics hold that in all creatures there is a certain mark and vestige of the Trinity, an image — insofar as the soul, being mindful of itself, comprehends and understands itself, and loves itself: if we note and comprehend this, we also, in some measure, note and comprehend the Trinity; yet we do not thereby know and comprehend God, but only an image of God — which they cite from Augustine, de Trinit. Lib. XIV. Cap. 8. Nor are there lacking among our own theologians those who try, if not to demonstrate the Trinity, then at least to elucidate and explain it, from the three principal Attributes of God — power, wisdom, and goodness — so that, as it were, the Father is powerful, the Son wise, and the Holy Spirit good. The common opinion of the Reformed is that the Trinity can neither be traced out nor soundly proved and demonstrated by natural reason; meanwhile, that it can be explained, and, as to its possibility, be shown, by similitudes and reasons drawn a posteriori. (I) Because it is a Mystery, as is acknowledged by all who acknowledge its truth — excepting only those who in fact acknowledge no mystery at all, but only what is clearly and distinctly comprehended — as the matter itself teaches: for if there is any mystery at all in the Christian religion, it is truly this, that a three are one, as the Apostle also clearly enough gives to understand, Col. 2:2: to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ — where the repeated conjunction "and" shows clearly enough that Paul speaks of more than one Person, namely Father and Son, although he, for his own reasons, makes no express mention of the Holy Spirit. Since therefore he calls this a mystery, what then, if not the Trinity, or at least the plurality of Persons in God? (II) Because such an attempt, as Aquinas warns, harms in more than one way the dignity of this doctrine — whereby it is placed above matters unfathomable to reason — and harms the faith itself, insofar as the Antitrinitarians will [scoff to] believe that we build and establish so great a matter upon such trifling reasonings. Add to this, that to seek reasoning in the faith of this Mystery is, as much as it accomplishes, only to hold up a shield and shadow before a weak eye, that it not be struck and darkened by a greater light, as Richard [of St. Victor] (de Trinit. Lib. I, cap. 1) speaks. (III) Because no one philosopher, indeed not even all philosophers together, with all the sharpness of their wit, have attained to the knowledge of it. (IV) Because the doctrine concerning the Trinity is the foundation of the whole Christian faith; therefore, if it is brought under natural reason, nothing will hinder the whole Christian religion from being resolved into reason, and thus degenerating into a mere philosophy. (V) Because there can be set forth no natural reason which soundly concludes: therefore, because God is one in essence, He is also three in Persons — which is plain from the reasonings mentioned. For if you (1), with the Paracelsians, say that in a particular body there are salt, sulphur, and mercury, you will, at most, have that there is in every body some likeness of the Trinity; but you will have nothing that soundly concludes: therefore there are in the one God three Persons. (2) If one says with the Scholastics, that nature teaches that God understands and comprehends, and that from that understanding is born a concept or image, one will likewise have (a) some sort of likeness or vestige of the Trinity, but not a conclusive proof that there is in God a Trinity. Or you will (b) say that to understand is a characteristic act, proper to the Father alone — so then the Son and the Holy Spirit would not understand and comprehend, and would therefore be deprived of that perfection, and consequently not infinitely perfect, and therefore also no God. Or if you (c) say that the Son also, and the Holy Spirit also, understand and comprehend, you will have to say that from that understanding of the Son again is born a certain image and love, and therefore that there are also in the Son three Persons, and likewise in the Holy Spirit — and thus you will have, instead of three, nine Divine Persons. If you (3), with Scotus, the Scotists, and the Cartesians, allege that nature teaches that to produce, to be produced, and to produce and be produced at once are perfections in God, then, mutatis mutandis, there will return the very difficulties raised against the preceding proof. If you (4), with others, try to prove the same from the three principal Attributes of God — power, wisdom, goodness — you will fall into the same difficulty. Nor can any other natural reasons be shown and brought forward which are not subject to the same or similar difficulties, as we have shown abundantly in our Cartesian Cancer (Sect. II, Cap. 17). If you finally (5) object that some Heathen philosophers, such as Mornay (de Verit. Relig. Christianae, Cap. VI), Ludovicus Vives (de Verit. Relig. Christ. Lib. 2, Cap. 2), and others acknowledged it; if you in particular try to prove, with Marsilio Ficino (Super VI Lib. Platonis de Republ.), that Plato knew this mystery by reason — likewise Aristotle, with Scaliger (de Subtil. Exercit. 365, Sect. 3), and with Plotinus (Super Aristotelem de coelo, text. 2) — I will answer, either that they acknowledged only a likeness and vestige of the Trinity; or that they had knowledge of it from the writings of Moses and the Prophets; or from intercourse with the Jews, according to the testimony of Eusebius (de Praeparat. Euangel. Lib. IX, Cap. 3). At any rate, that the old philosophers of the Greeks drew from the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, and Hebrews, for the sake of learning, teach with a general agreement — Diodorus Siculus (Hist. Lib. 2, cap. ult.), Laertius (in Vitis Philosoph.), Eusebius (Lib. X, de Praeparat. Euangel.), Cyril of Alexandria (Lib. I. cont. Julianum), Justin (Apolog. 2), Origen (cont. Celsum, Lib. I), Augustine (de Civit. Dei Lib. 18, Cap. 36), Lactantius (Instit. Lib. IV, Cap. 6,7), etc.

The Practical Part

XXII. The Practical consideration of this chapter discloses to us, first of all, the godlessness and atheism of all those who do not accept the Trinity. Which atheism the Savior marks, when He, from His oneness of essence with the Father, which He had pointed out, John 5:19 (whatever the Father does, that likewise does the Son also), draws the conclusion that the Jews did not honor the Father, because they did not honor the Son, v.23, and 1 John 2:23. Wherefore Paul, from the fact that the Heathen have been without Christ, [concludes them to be] without God, Eph. 2:12. And that they truly were atheists is [plain]: (I) is that not what an atheist is, who withholds religious honor from Him who is the true God? Rom. 1:21. Or (II), if he brings religious honor to one whom he does not believe to be God, is he not an idolater? Gal. 4:8; Matth. 4:10. By (III) which will there be the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, or the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, where the honor of the Godhead, which belongs to them, is sacrilegiously robbed from them? Yes, what will be the love of the Father, where the honor of the Godhead is disputed to His beloved Son, and to the Spirit of His mouth? And what religion, finally, can there be, where the grace of Christ, the love of the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit are banished? Finally (IV), what will be the confidence of forgiveness of sins, without satisfaction? Or satisfaction, without the Godhead of the Satisfier? What will be the regeneration of man, who is dead in sin? What the conversion and sanctification, without the fellowship of the Holy Spirit? Or what fellowship, without the Godhead? And what, finally, will religion be, without confidence of the forgiveness of sins, without regeneration, conversion, sanctification? Among the Antitrinitarians, that is, deniers of the Holy Trinity, therefore, nothing can flourish under the name of religion, but a dreadful atheism, shameful idolatry, an empty presumption of salvation, and a most certain despair.

XXIII. Secondly, the Trinity furnishes us matter for the glorifying of God — wherein the praise of the Seraphim, Isa. 6:3, which is repeated Rev. 4:8, and made known also Rom. 11:36; Rev. 1:4,5, goes before us. Because in the most blessed fellowship and covenant-partnership of the three Persons there shines forth greatly: (I) God's infinite perfection, since infinite power, wisdom, and goodness come together most perfectly in the one God, John 17:23; (II) God's immeasurable blessedness, in the sweetest fellowship and the unanimity of the Persons, through mutually shared counsels, whereby the Persons mutually know, love, and rest in one another most perfectly, and communicate their perfection to one another. To this tend the passages Prov. 8:30; Matth. 3:17 and 17:5; John 17:21,22. Further (III), the mutual glorification, whereby the Father glorifies the Son, the Son the Father, and the Holy Spirit the Father and the Son — as we have shown above from John 17:4,5,22 and 16:14. I add not (IV) that general matter for divine glorification which comes to men from the most wise economy of the Persons in the matter of their salvation, of which in the Doctrinal Part. Nor do I add (V) the groundwork and matter of thankfulness and glorification furnished us by the revelation of so great a mystery, inaccessible to reason and unknown to the most acute philosophers — that wisdom, consisting in mystery, which was hidden, which none of the rulers of this world has known, but which God has revealed to us through His Spirit, 1 Cor. 2:7,8,10. Yes (VI), which is furnished us from and through fellowship with the most holy and blessed Trinity, of which below. For all which reasons nothing has been more customary in the early Church than, in their religious exercises, to sing Hymns and Songs of praise in honor of the Holy Trinity — which Hymns Joh. Clichtoveus (in his Elucidarium Ecclesiasticum), and likewise Georg Cassander (in his Liturgica), have collected. (Cf. the celebrated Voetius, Disput. Part I, p. 483.)

XXIV. Thirdly, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity contributes eminently to the excellence and blessedness of the elect man, to whose blessing not one alone — though infinitely mighty, wise, good — would, as it were, be sufficient; but three, of whom each is such, have joined together for that blessing. In particular, and by points: (I) that each one of these has taken upon Himself, as it were, a certain particular task in the work of this blessing — the first, to determine and prepare that blessing; the second, to obtain it; the third, to apply and bring it about — as will appear in the particular consideration of the Persons. (II) That each also contributes thereto a particular benefit — the first His love, the second His grace, the third His fellowship, 2 Cor. 13:13. (III) That each of these bestows Himself wholly, and all that is His, as great as it is, as it were by virtue of the office and duty He has undertaken, upon this blessing. Yes (IV), that they also receive and admit the sinner within their household, family, and fellowship — that he be not only a servant, a friend, a household-member, but also a Son of the house, on account of that one, natural, indeed firstborn Son, Heb. 12:23. Yet further (V), that they will that, as a token of this admission and reception, Baptism be administered to him, and the name of the whole Trinity be invoked and poured out over him, Matth. 28:19. From all of which things the Holy Trinity presses home man's excellence — to what end? (1) Not, that he be proud and haughty on that account: for what is man, that thou art mindful of him? Ps. 8:5 — as if this happened by reason of his own inborn merit, and not out of the pure grace of the Trinity. But (2) that he acknowledge the grace of the Holy Trinity. And (3) that he, who through the grace of the Trinity has been raised and lifted to so great a dignity, not, by his conduct and walk, lower and cast himself away below the reprobate, indeed below the beasts. Yes, also (4), since the Holy Trinity has freely taken upon itself so great a care for his salvation, that he then not himself carelessly neglect his own salvation.

XXV. Fourthly, this doctrine entices and draws us to seek the fellowship of the Holy Trinity with all our endeavor, John 17:21,22,23. For that there is between [the elect and believing] man and the Holy Trinity a fellowship, appears (I) from many testimonies of Holy Scripture, by which either a common fellowship with the three Persons is taught, 2 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 2:18, or a particular one with the Father and the Son, 1 John 1:3; John 14:23, with the Son alone, 1 Cor. 1:9; Rev. 3:20, with the Holy Spirit, Eph. 3:4[?]. Yes, also (II) from the reasons by which one and the same benefit of God is sought from two — as grace and peace from the Father and the Son, Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; or from three together, Rev. 1:4,5. Or when one and the same benefit, in various Scripture passages, is distinctly ascribed to three Persons. For example, our Teaching or Instruction is distinctly ascribed to the Father, John 6:45; it is ascribed to the Son, Matth. 23:10; it is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, John 14:26; 1 John 2:27. As therefore our Teaching and Instruction is common to three, so too is every saving benefit common to three, although belonging to each in His own particular way — namely, to the Father, through His original authority and dignity; to the Son, through the obtaining; to the Holy Spirit, through the fellowship and communication. To the Father, I say, according to His original authority and dignity, whence it is said that thus has been His good pleasure, and that He makes us alive because He wills it, John 5:21; Jas. 1:18. To the Son, according to right of merit, since He, through His blood, has obtained that we now receive, out of His fullness, grace for grace, John 1:16. To the Holy Spirit, through the immediate efficacy of application, Rom. 8:11. To seek, therefore, that fellowship with all purity and earnestness, the Holy Trinity calls and invites us: (1) Because therein consists our excellence and blessedness, 1 John 1:2,3 — for what could be wished more excellent for a man than fellowship and covenant-partnership with the most blessed Trinity? (2) Because upon it depends all our welfare and salvation. Whence God of old willed that the solemn High-Priestly blessing should be pronounced with an express and distinct naming of the Trinity, Num. 6:23-27, just as also Paul wishes and implores the grace, love, and fellowship of the Trinity. To signify which, we too are dedicated and consecrated to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Baptism. We shall now strive and endeavor after fellowship with the Holy Trinity, and obtain it happily, by these means: (a) By striving after our reconciliation with God — for our sins make a separation between our God and us, and hide His face from us, Isa. 59:2, and estrange us from Him, Eph. 2:12 and 4:18 — so that there can be no greater fellowship between God and us than between light and darkness, 2 Cor. 6:14; Amos 3:3. Then (b) through a true and living faith in the Son of God, that we, thereby united with Him who has likewise become partaker of our flesh and blood, Heb. 2:14, may obtain fellowship with His Father and Spirit, John 20:17, and that He pray His Father that He give us His Spirit, John 14:16, and that we thus may have fellowship with the three. Finally (c), since the fellowship is mutual and reciprocal, that we then, for the benefits communicated to us, or that shall be communicated, by the Holy Trinity, pay and render back our obligations to the Holy Trinity, Rom. 12:1.

XXVI. Therefore the Holy Trinity also, fifthly, presses upon us that we, in turn, from our side, render back the fellowship of service and honor to it. (I) That we sacredly keep the fidelity given to Him in our Baptism, giving ourselves back wholly to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in whose Covenant and Fellowship we, by that solemn Covenant, have been taken up and received, and conducting ourselves faithfully within that Covenant and Fellowship, Matth. 28:19,20. (II) That we expect all benefits and saving blessings from all the Persons, as who, unto our salvation, according to their counsel and as according to their duty, equally join together, Num. 6:24-27 — yet observing the order of each one's contribution, so that we seek this from the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit, Eph. 2:18. Meanwhile (III), that, for that benefit which, according to household duty, is, as it were, particularly proper to a particular Person, we also particularly implore it from that same Person — the Grace from the Son, the Love from the Father, the Fellowship from the Holy Spirit. Likewise (IV), that we faithfully render the economic duty proper to each particular Person in particular — for example, to the Father, reverence and obedience; to the Son, faith and love; to the Holy Spirit, obedience — and that we render to them all thanksgiving and glory, as we shall exhort separately in the particular consideration of the Persons. Finally (V), that we, in all our prayers, hymns, and praises, make a distinct remembrance and mention, according to the custom of the early Church, as much as possible, as we have admonished above, §XXIII. Through all these things we shall, as it were, acquire and obtain for ourselves the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of the Father, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

XXVII. On the contrary, sixthly, let us watch diligently, that we provoke and offend no particular Person by any kind of sin: (I) Because we, in provoking one Person, provoke and offend all three, who are equally God, almighty, good, righteous. (II) Because we, having offended and provoked the one, can experience the favor and grace of none of the three. Indeed (III), because we, having offended and provoked one, stir up all three as most sharp and severe avengers against us, Isa. 63:9,10. But which, and what sort of, sins offend against each particular one of the Divine Persons in particular, we shall show in its own place.

XXVIII. Finally, seventhly, the most blessed unity, agreement, and mutual love of the three Persons invite and stir us up to imitation — that we, namely, who through one Spirit, through one faith with the same Son of God, and through the same [Spirit] with one and the same Father, are united, may strive and endeavor to keep the same body of Christ, the unity of the Spirit, unbroken, Eph. 4:3. Because we hereby: (I) become conformed, in our own manner, to the Holy Trinity, John 17:21 — that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee. In which unity our highest glory consists, v.22: I have given them the glory which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. (II) Because we have no fellowship with the Holy Trinity apart from and without this fellowship with the Saints — that they may be one in us. (III) Because accordingly that mutual fellowship among us furnishes an infallible proof, to convince the world that Christ has been sent to and for us, according to that saying of the Savior: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me, v.21. Finally (IV), because in this unity consists the chief perfection of Christ's mystical Body: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one, v.23. And indeed not without reason. For just as, in the most perfect union and fellowship of the Divine Persons, consists the chief perfection of the Holy Trinity — when the infinite perfection of God, reflecting as it were from Person to Person, immeasurably increases and becomes, as it were, greater — so, from the unity and fellowship of the Saints, since so many and so great gifts not only flow together in one and the same mystical Body, but rebound, as it were, from one member to and upon another (when you communicate your gifts to another, and another communicates his to you; and when you implore from God, for another, the gifts he needs, and another does the same for you, 1 Cor. 12:12,13; Eph. 4:14-16), the perfection of that spiritual Body of Christ becomes infinitely greater. The rest, which belongs to the practice of this topic, will come to hand for us, God willing, from and through the particular consideration of each particular Person. One may also compare here Gijsbertus Voetius (de Trinitate cognoscenda, amanda, laudanda), likewise Lorinus (in Comment. ad Sapient. Cap. VII. 22,23), cited by the very celebrated Voetius (Disp. Part I, p. 485), which authors, however, have not been seen by me.

Chapter XXV: On God the Father

On Ephesians 3:14,15.

I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.

I. From here we descend directly to the particular consideration of the particular Persons, and first indeed to that of God the Father, whose personal description — with respect to His Godhead, His Personality, and His distinction from the other Persons — the Apostle teaches precisely enough in the words set before us.

The Explanatory Part

II. In which words is contained a portion of that wish, or of that prayer, which the Apostle pours out for his Ephesians, from verse 4 to the end of the chapter; so that in the words set before us you have:

1. An Invocation, κάμπτω τὰ γόνατά μου, "I bow my knees" — which corresponds almost fully with the Greek προσκυνεῖν, "to worship" (or, properly, to throw oneself upon the ground like a little dog), and with the Hebrew hishtachaveh, "to bow down, to kneel down." This signifies the custom of those who pray in very anxious and distressing circumstances, Luke 22:41; Acts 7:60; 9:40; and 20:36. But it signifies two things: a religious honor of adoration, which, since according to Matth. 4:10 it belongs to none but God alone, shows and asserts that the Father who is adored is God; and a submission, which is peculiarly proper, in an economic sense, to the Father, as Head and Lord of the household. Although this, meanwhile, is also ascribed to the Son, Phil. 2:10 — namely, as to the Father's Steward, δεσπότῃ, Jude v.4 — by virtue of the will and grant of the Father, that thereby it might be made known that He is God.

2. The One invoked, whom he sets forth under the relation which He bears to the Household — whose household is here marked out as:

1. The Father of the household, πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, "to the Father" — not indeed essentially, as occurs 1 Cor. 8:6, but personally, as commonly occurs whenever He is set over against the Son and distinguished from Him. And yet also economically, insofar as, in the Divine Household, the Father is the Governor, Lawgiver, Judge, Rewarder, and Avenger of the Laws; and moreover, insofar as He is the kind and gracious Provider of the whole household; insofar as He is the Begetter of His own, only-begotten Son; and finally, insofar as He is, for His Son's sake, the adopting Father of believers.

2. The Son of the household, of the Lord, and of our Lord — namely, not through an essential lordship, by virtue of His Godhead, which is common to the three Persons, nor through a personal lordship, which is peculiarly and economically proper to the Father, but through a Mediatorial Lordship, proper to Himself, by virtue of a purchase, 1 Cor. 6:20, and of a redemption, Heb. 2:5. Whom the Apostle designates and names with two names: a. With His own name, Jesus, the Redeemer, the Savior, whereby His economic office is expressed; b. With His surname, Christ, by which His consecration and installation to His economic office, through the anointing accomplished by the Holy Spirit, is made known.

3. The Household, πᾶσα πατριά, "every family," the whole household, Eph. 3:15 — "all," or "the whole." Πατριά, fatherhood, or lineage, or kindred, or household. Among the Hebrews, mishpachah, "the family," 2 Sam. 14:7; Esth. 9:27; or beth avoth, "the house of the fathers," the household, Exod. 6:24 and 12:3. Now, a family or household is a people and lineage which has one and the same house-father, or belongs to the same house: compare Luke 2:4. Concerning that household or lineage are noted and named:

a. The heavenly, ἐν οὐρανοῖς, "in the heavens" — or, as one commonly says, the upper household, in distinction from the lower. Under this now is comprehended the Father of the household, the Son of the household, the Spirit as the one sent by both, John 15:26, the Angels, as ministering spirits, Heb. 1:14, and the blessed inhabitants of heaven, Heb. 12:22,23.

b. The earthly, ἐπὶ γῆς, "on earth." The Apostle means the militant Church on earth, which is called the House of God, 1 Tim. 3:15, and household-members of God, Eph. 2:19, household-members of the faith, Gal. 6:10, the Church spread over the whole earth.

c. The Origin of both: ἐξ οὗ ὀνομάζεται, "from whom it is named." Ὀνομάζεσθαι, "to be named," is the same as "to be" — that is, to have one's essence, Luke 1:32; Rom. 9:26 — likewise, to be called from or after someone's name, 1 John 3:1.

The Doctrinal Part

III. From which it is evident, that in the heavenly household God the Father is the first Person. Since (I) in all households the Father is the first. (II) Namely, in the heavenly household, in πατρὸς πᾶσα πατριά — "from the Father every family" — He is, both with respect to His subsistence and with respect to His Being, of Himself. (III) He is the fountain of the whole Godhead, and of all the Persons. Wherefore He (IV) is commonly (not always), for economic reasons, called the first, Matth. 28:19; 1 John 5:7; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3.

IV. That the Father is God from eternity is, among all, beyond doubt — so much so that even the enemies of the Trinity concede eternal Godhead to Him alone. Meanwhile, that you may not doubt, He is commonly not only called God, John 17:3, but there is also ascribed to Him everything that is divine: (I) Divine Names — for example, God, John 3:16 and 8:54; Jehovah, Ps. 33:6; Isa. 61:1. (II) Divine Attributes — Independence, Eternity, John 5:26; Rev. 1:4; Acts 17:28; Lordship and Power, Matth. 11:25. (III) Divine Works, Acts 4:24,30. (IV) Divine Service and Honor, John 17:1, etc.; Phil. 2:11; Matth. 11:25.

V. That He is likewise a Person is also beyond doubt, because He is not only expressly called a Person (or Substance), Heb. 1:3, but because to Him is also commonly ascribed everything that is personal — life, understanding, will, personal operations — John 5:26 and 6:57; Matth. 11:25-27.

VI. Yes, that He is also a Person distinguished from the others, Holy Scripture teaches openly, John 14:16; Matth. 3:16,17. And this is confirmed by His personal, or characteristic, Properties, which are: (I) Aseity — not the essential aseity, which is common to the other two Persons, but the personal aseity, whereby He has His being of Himself, and without origin from any other; whereby He is said to have life in Himself, and to have given to the Son to have the same in Himself, John 5:26 — wherefore He is called by the ancients ἀγέννητος, "unbegotten." (II) The actual Generation of the Son, Ps. 2:7, whence the Son is commonly called His own, only-begotten Son — by which Generation He has communicated to the Son one and the same being of His own, in an utterly supernatural manner, not to be measured by any laws or rules of a natural generation. (III) The actual spiration of the third Person, common to the Father with the Son, whereby they give a joint principle to the Holy Spirit, who is hence said to be sent by both, John 15:26. Further (IV), the personal priority of order in subsisting, whence from Him the whole family is named, Eph. 3:15. Finally (V), the personal priority in operating — so, inwardly, insofar as He is said to send the Son, John 3:16,17; 10:36; and 16:28, and likewise to send the Spirit of His Son, Gal. 4:6, while the Son is said to send the Spirit from the Father, John 15:26; and outwardly, insofar as He is said to have made the world through the Son, Heb. 1:2; Ps. 33:6, and the Holy Spirit to search the depths of God, 1 Cor. 2:10. By this priority the Father works of Himself, through the Son and through the Holy Spirit.

VII. On account of this order of subsisting and operating, according to His economic office and duty, the Father is (I) the Lord, Matth. 11:25; Eph. 4:5, as the one who has built the house, Heb. 3:4. Hence it has been His work, through eternal fore-ordination, to prepare the government of the future household, to arrange the end and the order of the means, Rom. 9:22,23 (namely, that all things might be carried out according to the counsel of His will, Matth. 11:25; Eph. 1:11), and to elect those who would be received into His family, passing by others, ibid. vv.3,4. He is therefore (II) the Creator of the world, Exod. 20:11, that He might build the house, Heb. 3:3,4, lay the seeds of the household and family, Eph. 3:15, and become the Owner of the household, who, concerning and over all things, could absolutely order the disposition according to His own will and pleasure, Matth. 20:15. He is therefore also (III) the Lawgiver, Jas. 4:12, who has furnished created man with the Law of nature, by creating him upright, after His own image, Eccl. 7:29, and with the positive Law, Gen. 2:17, and has confirmed and enforced it with a threat and a promise, having entered into a certain covenant with man. He is (IV) the Maintainer and Avenger of the Law given, confirmed, and violated, Rom. 12:19, who has announced to fallen man, and to all his descendants, every kind of death, both temporal and eternal, as a punishment to be inflicted, either upon the sinner himself, or upon his Surety. He is, finally (V), a merciful Father, Ps. 103:13, who, in accordance with the eternal Counsel of Peace, has for sinners chosen, sent, anointed, and given a Mediator, Isa. 42:1; John 3:16,17; Isa. 61:1 — who, once given, He has visited with every kind of punishment for their sins, Isa. 43:4-6; 2 Cor. 5:18,19, that He might redeem them; who, moreover, also sends His Holy Spirit, Gal. 4:6, who applies to them by faith the redemption obtained, regenerates, converts, and sanctifies them; who, finally, through the ministry of the Word, calls them to a share in redemption, justifies the called through faith, adopts the justified as children, sanctifies and glorifies them. All of which points occur commonly throughout Holy Scripture, Rom. 8:29,30. On account of, and because of, all these things the Father is particularly called God, 2 Cor. 5:18 — not so much on account of the Divine Essence, which is common to all the Persons, as on account of His economic office and duty.

VIII. By virtue of these economic offices and duties, there are also, in a particular way, certain economic Properties proper to the Father: for example, to Him, as Lord, belongs power (of which sort He has also communicated to the Son, Matth. 28:18), independence, freedom to act according to His good pleasure, Matth. 11:26 and 20:15; Eph. 1:11; as Lawgiver, Judge, and Avenger, righteousness, Gen. 18:25; 2 Thess. 1:6; as Father, love, mercy, John 3:16; Rom. 5:5,8; 2 Cor. 13:13. Wherefore everything that we have said of those Attributes in their own places must not be applied exactly to the Father alone, but must nevertheless be particularly referred to the Father, on account of His economic office and work.

IX. The Father's economic government has been most manifest and visible, both in the state of uprightness, through the establishing of the Covenant of nature, which would be broken, and afterward in the state after the fall, throughout the whole course of the Old Testament — especially, however, under the Patriarchs, in the announcing and spreading of the first pre-Gospel, with the repeated promise of the blessed seed; in the deliverance of His household from the bondage of Egypt; in the Sinaitic legislation — of all of which, in its own place, we shall have to treat deliberately and at length.

The Polemical Part

X. This chapter is not so exposed to the darts and arrows of enemies, since all acknowledge that the Father is a Person, and likewise that He is God, indeed also distinguished, at least, from the Son. That we may nevertheless know what can be brought into dispute regarding this chapter, the question is: (I) Whether it is proper to the Father alone to be φύσει Θεόν, God by nature, the highest God? The Antitrinitarians indeed acknowledge that the Son and the Spirit are God — the true God, the eternal God, who shall endure to eternity — yet they do not acknowledge them as God by nature, but as made; that the Father alone is God by nature; hence they call Him the highest God, by way of distinction, not only with respect to earthly rulers, but also with respect to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Reformed say that not the Father alone is God by nature, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit, and therefore, at least with respect to the Essence, just as much as the Father, the highest God — a thing which we have already more generally demonstrated in the preceding chapter, and which, God willing, we shall demonstrate separately in two chapters concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit, from which it will appear that those three are one and the same God by nature, and indeed the highest God. Here we shall examine and test what can be alleged for the contrary. (I) They allege the passage John 17:3, ἵνα γινώσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν, "that they might know thee, the only true God." However, (1) they fail to add what follows concerning the Savior, καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, "and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" — one must supply, that He too is that one true God, without which addition the sense would be incomplete and broken. (2) They fail to note, that the Father is indeed called "the only true God," but that it is nowhere said that the Father alone is the true God — for that would exclude the Son, whom John, in his First Epistle, 5:20, plainly and expressly calls the true God, just as the [opposing] parties themselves also call Him such. (3) Nor do they note, that, by the exclusive word μόνον, "only," the Persons of one Essence are not excluded, but only all other, alien kinds of beings. They allege (II) the passage 1 Cor. 8:6: we have but one God, the Father, of whom are all things. But we answer: (1) just as Jesus is the one Lord, without excluding the Father, so the Father is the one God, without excluding the Son, whom He has this day begotten, Ps. 2:7, equal with God, Phil. 2:6 — the exclusion applying only to all other things. (2) Namely, as the Son is the one Lord with respect to His Mediatorial office, so the Father is the one God with respect to His economic office. Unless you (3) prefer that the Father here be named, not only as the first Person of the Godhead, but as the whole Trinity, so that one may understand that the one Trinity is the Father of all things — namely, through Creation, through Eternity, etc.

XI. One asks: (II) Whether the Father has begotten the Son from eternity? Some Antitrinitarians, such as the Tritheites, do indeed allow an eternal generation, but not one such as would have communicated to the Son one and the same Essence. The Socinians acknowledge no eternal generation at all, although they do not reject a generation occurring in time — whether with respect to Christ, whom the Father, in the raising up of the Son, as it were, has begotten, or with respect to adopted children, or believers of every sort, whom He, as it were, generates and begets through regeneration — this in order to exclude the eternal existence of the Son. Among the Rationalist Reformed there are not lacking some who cannot reconcile, with their own clear and distinct conceptions, the generation which consists in the communication of one and the same Essence, and who therefore deny it — of which more will be seen in the following chapter. For the rest, the Reformed commonly distinguish between a supernatural generation, which has communicated the same Essence in number to the proper, only-begotten Son from eternity, and a natural [generation], which in some way communicates the nature of God to believers, 2 Pet. 1:4; and finally a common and ordinary one, which takes place in bodily subjects. The last they reject altogether in the Divine; the second they allow in the sense stated; but the first they maintain, and defend it against every sort of Antitrinitarian: (I) Because to Him is expressly ascribed an actual generation, and this is affirmed to have occurred from eternity, Mic. 5:2. Then (II), because Holy Scripture ascribes to the Father such a generation, by which the Son is the ἴδιος, His own Son, Rom. 8:32, the μονογενής, only-begotten Son, John 3:16, who is ἴσος Θεῷ, equal with God, Phil. 2:6 — which can be no other than such a generation as has made His own one and the same Essence common to Him. (III) Because Holy Scripture, through the generation, ascribes to the one begotten such a Godhead, to which belong all the requisites of God — namely, Divine names, attributes, works, honor — as we shall see distinctly in the following chapter. If they now object, that such a generation brings with it and includes (1) a diversity of Essences, (2) a change, both in the one generating and in the one generated, and therefore (3) more than one imperfection in both, further (4) a transition from potency to act, and (5) that the one generating always loses something of his essence — namely, that which he communicates to the one generated — finally (6), that generation could not have occurred from eternity, since one who generates is presupposed not to have existed before his generation: since all these things cannot apply to God, even by our own suppositions, the answer will be easy and simple — that all these things pertain to a natural and bodily generation alone, but by no means to a supernatural generation, such as, according to the Holy Scriptures, is ascribed to the Father, and to the Son and Holy Spirit.

XII. One asks: (III) Whether the Father is distinguished, and really differs, from the Son and Holy Spirit — from the Son, as the Creator differs from the creature, and from the Holy Spirit, as a power differs from the one who has that power, or as a subject from its accident? All the Antitrinitarians hold that the Father really differs from the other Persons, as one essence from another essence, a creating essence from a created one. The Reformed are of the opinion that He differs in no way really, as one essence from another essence, but only personally, as one person from persons. Because (I) there is only one Divine Essence, equally common to those Persons, as we have demonstrated in the preceding chapter. (II) Because, if there were more Essences in God, one would have to acknowledge in God dependency, composition, finitude — things which, since they denote an imperfection, we have excluded from the Divine Essence. (III) Because we shall prove, in the two following chapters, that to the Son and to the Holy Spirit belongs one and the same Essence in number. Nor can they object anything else than the unity of the Divine Essence, which cannot be other than proper to the Father, John 17:3 — to which we have already answered above, §X.

The Practical Part

XIII. The Practical consideration of this chapter consists in the duties owed to Him. Among which, first, to the Father, as Lord, House-father, and Head of the household, belongs Honor — which we also owe to our earthly parents, according to God's Law and Precept, Exod. 20:12, and concerning which God complains that it is refused Him by His own, Mal. 1:6; which His natural Son rendered to Him, John 8:49 and 17:4; which the Father Himself, through the economic Service peculiarly belonging to the Father — the eternal Fore-ordination, most wisely arranging and preparing beforehand the work of our salvation — has of old sought, Rom. 9:23; Eph. 1:5,6. Compare Chapter XXII, on the Glory of God, §§VIII and XVI.

XIV. Secondly, there belongs to Him, as Lord, submission — whereby we ought not only to bear patiently, with a level mind, our whole state and condition, however hard it may be, which He has decreed over us or sent to us, 1 Sam. 3:18, but also with thanksgiving, Job 1:21, as did His natural Son, Matth. 26:39,42 — since it is not uncommon for house-fathers to chastise their children, Heb. 12:6,11. Shall we then not much rather be subject unto, and live [in submission to], the Father of spirits? Compare Chapter XX, on the Power of God, §XXVI.

XV. To Him, as Creator (from whom every family is named, and from whom we have all that we are and have), belongs (I) a humble thankfulness, which the Law requires of us as due to Him as our common Father, 1 Tim. 5:4, and which God laments to be refused Him by His own, Deut. 32:6, and which His natural Son rendered to Him, Matth. 11:25 — namely (1) on account of the natural life given us by Him, Acts 17:25,28; (2) on account of the spiritual life brought about and restored by Him, Eph. 2:1,5; (3) on account of the eternal life which shall one day hereafter be granted, 1 John 3:2. (II) A whole surrender and entire dedication of ourselves, and of all our powers, goods, etc., to the Father, as Creator and Owner, without withholding anything, because all is His, 1 Cor. 6:20; compare Chapter XX, §29. (III) Faithfulness in the using and administering of our affairs, as being not our goods, but our Father's and Creator's. For among the duties of children toward their parents, and of servants toward their masters, is also fidelity, or faithfulness, Prov. 27:24[?]; Titus 2:10; Col. 3:22,23 — by which faithfulness we readily and promptly lay out and spend ourselves and all that is ours in the service of our Father and Creator, and to His honor and glory, and to the welfare and benefit of the common household, 1 Cor. 6:20 and 10:31; 1 Pet. 4:11.

XVI. Fourthly, as He is also, as Lawgiver, Judge, and Avenger, owed (I) a general and most ready obedience — which, according to the will of God, we owe to our earthly parents, Eph. 6:1; Prov. 6:20-22, and servants to their masters, Col. 3:22 — so we owe much more to the heavenly Father, the Lord of those who rule, 1 Pet. 1:14; Acts 5:29; Deut. 5:33. (II) Honor and fear, with which we follow after our earthly parents, Mal. 1:6; Eph. 6:2,3; servants their masters; subjects the judges and avengers of the laws, Gen. 18:25,27; Isa. 66:1,2.

XVII. Fifthly, as Father and Benefactor, there belongs to Him (I) Love, in the highest degree, Matth. 10:37 — with which sort He is occupied toward us, 2 Cor. 13:13; John 3:16; Rom. 5:5,8 — namely, that it be a mutual and reciprocal love, whereby we have fellowship with Him in love; which comes to pass when we follow God our Father not only with a sincere and perfect love, Matth. 22:37, but also with such a love as is, in its own way, proportionate and corresponding to His Fatherly Love toward us. But of what sort, then, is that Fatherly Love of God toward us, which we must imitate? It is (1) free and utterly independent, both of any worthiness of merit on our side, and of any hope of gain or advantage on His side, Rom. 9:12; Titus 3:5; Jas. 1:18 — purely and solely for His own sake; such must also ours be, not for the sake of something advantageous to us from God, nor for some reward that might come to us from God, but purely and solely for His own sake. And as (2) the Love of God toward us is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, always the same and unchangeable, Rom. 11:29, so too must our love toward Him be eternal — if not from the beginning (as one says), at least thereafter, steadfast and unbroken, Rev. 2:10. (3) God's love is discriminating and discriminative; God loves — He watches over and preserves all His works, Ps. 145:9 — but in an unequal manner and degree, Rom. 9:13: He loves them as works of His hands, but not as His sons. So too must our love toward God be discriminating and discriminative: we must love all persons and things on account of, and for the sake of, God, as works of God, as the image of God; but God for His own sake, above all things, Ps. 73:25.

XVIII. But, sixthly, there belongs to us, from God as Father, a childlike and trustful dependence upon Him, with respect to food, clothing, and everything necessary to us in any way, Matth. 6:26,32 and 7:10[?] — because He bears a Fatherly care toward and for us, Ps. 103:11,13, and a Motherly one, Isa. 49:15, to whom we have access and approach with confidence, Heb. 4:16.

XIX. Further we have, seventhly, on account of God the Father, matter and ground for Comfort in every sort of adversity and hardship, because all these things come upon us: (I) from a Father, Ps. 27:10; 1 John 3:1; (II) from an almighty Father, who is able to come to our aid, 2 Tim. 1:12; (III) from a merciful Father, who is willing to do so, Ps. 103:13; Lam. 3:22; Heb. 13:5; (IV) from a most good Father, who can turn even the very worst that befalls us to our good, Rom. 8:28; (V) from a Father, who has already long since shown and proved His Fatherly love and affection toward us in greater things, Rom. 5:8; John 3:16; (VI) from a Father, who by no hardships or adversities shall ever be drawn away or turned from His love toward us, Rom. 8:38,39.

XX. Finally, eighthly, God's Fatherhood invites us to seek, with all our effort, the adoption as children before Him, being stirred up and moved by the excellent privileges and benefits of this sonship, which are: (I) A most noble descent, namely, a heavenly and divine one, John 1:13 and 3:5; 2 Pet. 1:4. (II) A most illustrious lineage — since God is our Father, Matth. 6:9; 2 Cor. 6:18; Christ our Brother and Bridegroom, Matth. 12:50; Heb. 2:11 and 12:22,23. (III) A rich Inheritance, Rom. 8:17 — heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, etc. We shall now obtain the Adoption as children: (1) Through faith in the natural Son of God, John 1:12, whereby we shall be united with Him, and, being united, shall obtain the same God and Father, John 20:17. (2) Through the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of adoption unto children, whom the Father sends, that we may obtain the adoption as children, Gal. 4:5,6. (3) Through faithfully keeping and performing the duties of children toward our heavenly Father, which have thus far been mentioned and enumerated. (4) Through carefully guarding and abstaining ourselves from all the uncleanness of sin, 2 Cor. 6:17,18, especially from those [sins] which are particularly contrary to God's Fatherly dignity and to our filial duty — such as rebelliousness and faithlessness, which wound and offend Him as Lord over us and over all our affairs, Isa. 63:10; Jer. 4:17; Ezek. 2:3 and 20:8; Hos. 5:7 and 6:7; disobedience, 2 Kings 17:14,15,40, which wounds and offends God as Lawgiver; disdain, Deut. 8:11, which is contrary to the fear that belongs to Him as Judge; hatred, Exod. 20:5, which is contrary to Love; distrust, Num. 11:21-23, which runs counter to His Fatherly care; impatience and other sins, Exod. 15:24; 1 Cor. 10:10[?], which are contrary to God's Fatherly chastisements. Having pointed out all this briefly, and as with the finger, let this suffice: the grounds for its fuller expansion shall come to hand for us in the chapters on the mutual duties of Parents and Children, and on the Adoption as children.

Chapter XXVI: On God the Son

On Psalm 2:7,8.

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance.

I. The Father is followed, in the heavenly household, by the Son: for just as the Father, because He subsists of Himself, is the first Person, so the Son, because He subsists from the Father, and has His being from Him, communicated to Him, is the second. Therefore, just as we have considered the Father, so we shall now consider the Son, who declares His own personal description, and His economic office, according to the economic covenant, in the words set before us, from Ps. 2:7,8.

The Explanatory Part

II. In which is contained an open Proclamation of the eternal Covenant which was made from eternity between Father and Son, concerning the Mediatorial Office and duty of the Son. In respect of which the Son sets before us:

1. The economic Covenant between Himself and the Father: I will declare the decree, אֲסַפְּרָה אֶל חֹק. Here the second Person is introduced speaking, as it were abruptly — namely, that same King of whom mention was made in verse 6, such changes of speaker being not uncommon in the Song of Songs and in other poetic Scriptures. The Son, therefore, is introduced speaking, showing and proclaiming to His enemies the very Covenant by, and through, which He was appointed to be King, anointed over Mount Zion — that is, over the whole Church. In the type, the words are to be understood of David, to whom the kingdom (now taken from Saul, and Ishbosheth already removed) is confirmed, together with his posterity, 2 Sam. 5:3; in the antitype, an eternal Covenant is brought and proclaimed to Christ and to His members. The word חֹק, "chok," signifies something established, something fixed, which is fixed and determined in the eternal Counsel of Peace between the Father and Him. Likewise, a command and precept, which He wills to have proclaimed to all as a law; a decree, which must be published abroad; a determination, eternal and unchangeable. The word אֶל, "el" ("unto"), stands here in place of אֵת, "et" ("of"), as Judg. 7:25[?]; Isa. 38:19[?]; Jer. 4:23[?] and 10:2. Some would have this אֶל here to be the same as the Arabic article-particle, which is often a mark of the accusative case. According to others, it means "unto," so that it says: unto a decree, or unto a law, which I will carefully proclaim, so that it may become to me, as it were, a settled custom. According to others it means "of" — I will declare of the decree, as Job 42:7[?], "ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right"; likewise Ps. 69:26[?]; Jer. 27:19[?]; Ezek. 21:28[?], and elsewhere. According to others it means "according to," "in agreement with," namely, the decree — so that it would signify the fitting correspondence of one thing with another, as though He said: my declaration shall be according to the decree. Others join it together with the preceding words, in this sense: I have anointed my King, that He might declare the decree. Nor are there lacking those who, with the Masoretes, point it under the second case-ending, אֵל, so that it reads "the decree of God" — so the LXX translators, the Targum, the Arabic, the Ethiopic, and the common Latin version; yet in that case it would have to stand after the word חֹק, "decree," instead of, as now, before it. Nor could it then well be rendered: I will declare the very decree of my Father, that it shall be firm and inviolable with all. אֲסַפְּרָה, "I will declare," from סָפַר, "to count" — that is, to relate and recount a matter, as it were, by and through numbering, piece by piece and point by point, 2 Sam. 24:10; Ps. 119:18[?]. Whatever the case, what is meant and intended is the economic settlement, decree, and covenant which exists between Father and Son — the very thing set forth expressly, Isa. 53:10, and called by others the Counsel of Peace, from Zech. 6:13. Whereby, just as the Father has taken upon Himself the office of Lord, Lawgiver, Judge, and Avenger in the matter of man's salvation, so the Son has taken the office and post of Surety, Dispenser, and Redeemer. According to the content of which, finally, He has said unto the Son: Thou art my Son.

2. The Person of the Son, as Steward of the House: My Son thou, to be completed with "art." It is an address of the Father to the Son, such an address as Paul notes concerning the Priesthood, Heb. 5:5, and David concerning the Kingdom, Ps. 110:1. It alludes to the custom of men, when they promote, install, and, as it were, consecrate those who are chosen to a certain dignity and office, with words prepared beforehand, by which they signify what is conferred upon them, for what reason, and to what end. Here, then, are distinctly marked:

1. The Speaker, namely Jehovah — יְהוָה אָמַר, "Jehovah hath said." The name Jehovah is here taken personally and economically for the Father, as commonly, Ps. 33:6 — as what is added, "Thou art my Son," plainly confirms. For it is proper to a Father to have a Son, and to design for Him an inheritance. "He hath said" — namely, in the Counsel of Peace. "He hath said," namely, to me, as the LXX translators have it (Matth. 3:17), or at the Transfiguration on the Mountain, chap. 17:5 — though He speaks of time past, not of time to come. When has He said it? Some supply "at the Baptism." Others judge more precisely, that it is not necessary to inquire anxiously after the time of this saying, since the Father has said this, has said it, and shall say it — with respect to the decree, before all time; with respect to the execution, in time.

2. The thing said: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: ask of me, and I shall give thee, etc. Here is marked, of the second Person:

A. His Sonship: בְּנִי אַתָּה, "My Son thou," to be completed with "art." The pronoun אַתָּה, "thou," is not here in place of the vocative — "O my Son," as Grotius, serving his Antitrinitarian suppositions, would have it — but this "thou" is not a bare address and naming, but an assertion of an utterly singular fact. Hence it carries an emphasis that extends beyond mere address: all acknowledge and recognize an emphasis in that word, "my Son thou art" — not by adoption, which is common to all believers, John 1:12; 1 John 3:1, but by nature and generation. From which appears both the Godhead of the Son, and the personal distinction between Father and Son.

B. His eternal Generation, as the ground of His Sonship: This day have I begotten thee. Here we have before us:

a. The One generating, אֲנִי, "I," namely, Jehovah the Father, who spoke in the preceding clause, and Prov. 30:4. "I" is emphatically set down — not another, whoever that might be.

b. The time of the Generation, or, as it were, the time: הַיּוֹם, "this day." This may be taken in two ways: (I) properly, of the eternal Generation: "this day have I begotten thee" — where the word "day," being a word of the present tense, signifies the continuance and perseverance of the Generation, without succession of time; while the verb of the past tense, "I have begotten," [signifies] its completeness and perfection. Generation, too, is brought to a "day," because eternity, together and with all the diversities of times, always co-exists as present. Compare Ps. 90:4 with 2 Pet. 3:8. For indeed the going forth of the Son, which signifies the Generation, is from eternity, Mic. 5:2; compare Prov. 8:22; John 1:1. God is called the Ancient of Days, Dan. 7:9, whose days do not pass away, but abide, Ps. 102:28[?]. Whence, just as eternity is signified in the Divine Scriptures by time, so too is the day of eternity signified by "this day" — in which there is nothing of change or succession of time; with God, in eternity, there is no yesterday, nor tomorrow, but only ever a today. Hence eternity is signified by the word "today," Isa. 43:13 — "also today I am He," that is, from eternity. Hence the LXX translators render it ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, "from the beginning" — a manner of speech by which eternity is also commonly signified, John 1:2[?]. Or (II) less properly, the words are taken of a present manifestation and demonstration of the eternal Generation. Thus there would be signified thereby a manifold and repeated time of that demonstration — namely, as often as God has said to Him, "Thou art my Son, I have begotten thee," that is, I have testified that I have begotten thee. Now this God the Father has testified, both with a living voice, and by the deed and work itself, John 5:36. And He testified this by His voice, partly at the Savior's Baptism, Matth. 3:17, partly also at His Transfiguration on the Mountain, chap. 17:5. Others add, at His Birth, although this is not so clearly read to have occurred. At any rate, it took place at the Resurrection, Acts 13:33; Rom. 1:4. Others, however, extend that Generation to the whole manifestation and disclosure of Christ, which began at the Birth and was completed and perfected at the Resurrection — because it is expressly and deliberately taught that the Son of God was to be the Messiah, this being the eminent and excellent revelation made to the fathers, according to which — it being very clear and open among the Jews — the Apostle refers them, Acts 13:33.

c. The act of generating: יְלִדְתִּיךָ, "I have begotten thee" — which some, with the Socinians, refer only to the Resurrection; others, more correctly and rightly, to the eternal communication of the Essence; others to both — but first and chiefly to the communication of the Essence, and only in a second and lesser way to the manifestation thereof, which occurred partly at the Baptism, partly at the Resurrection, as we have said. Whatever the case, at the very least there is thereby signified His eternal Generation, according to which He is called the Own, the Only-begotten, the First-begotten.

d. The One begotten, "thee." This the Socinians and those of Socinian mind, Grotius, the Jews, and others, would have to be David; others, David as a type of Christ; others, Solomon, 2 Sam. 7:14. But how, and in what way, can God be said to have begotten David and Solomon? Those judge best and most rightly who hold that the Messiah alone is here to be understood: (I) Because this, in the New Testament, is uniquely explained of Christ, Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5 and 5:5. (II) Because here is spoken, not of an adopted son, but of the proper Son, Rom. 8:32, of the only-begotten Son, John 1:14 and 3:16, who is in the bosom of the Father, John 1:18, and is with the Father, and is Himself God, John 1:1,2. (III) Because here is spoken of that Son of God to whom, in the context, are ascribed and attributed Omnipotence, Omniscience, Divine honor, and worship.

C. The Inheritance, springing from the Sonship, yet by virtue of a certain economic agreement: Ask of me, and I shall give thee, etc. Here is:

a. The economic stipulation of the Father: Ask of me. Wherein is contained and comprehended, that the Son must do and perform that which lay upon Him, by mutual covenant, to do — namely, that His soul should make itself a guilt-offering, Isa. 53:10 — and that He then, upon that right, should ask, as a reward by virtue of the covenant, the inheritance of the heathen.

b. The reciprocal Promise: I will give thee the heathen for a possession, which shall, by virtue of the Satisfaction and Redemption, be brought to Him over the heathen — indeed, over this whole universe, according to Matth. 28:18; Phil. 2:9,10,11: "thine inheritance." Here is signified the Savior's Mediatorial [dominion].

The Doctrinal Part

III. Just as, therefore, the Father holds the first place in the heavenly Household, so the Son holds the second. Since (I), in any particular household, especially when the mother is absent, the Son is nearest to the Father — most of all when He is the first and only-begotten, and this by right of firstborn status; and such a one is, in this household, the second Person, who is also here called the firstborn from the dead, Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5, and simply the firstborn, Heb. 1:6. Then (II), because, just as the Father, since He subsists of Himself, is the first, and the Holy Spirit, since He subsists from Father and Son, is the third, so the Son, since He subsists from the Father alone, is rightly reckoned the second. Further (III), just as the Holy Spirit, because He subsists from Father and Son, that is, from two principles, is the third Person, so the Son, being the principle of the Holy Spirit — as Him whom He sends, and who is sent in His name by the Father, John 15:26 and 16:7 — is, for that very reason, without doubt, prior in order, and thus the second Person. (IV) Because He, on account of all this, is commonly reckoned second in Holy Scripture, Matth. 28:19; 1 John 5:7 — although, for economic reasons, and namely in order to ward off from Him any inequality or difference of Essence, He is sometimes reckoned first, as for example, 2 Cor. 13:13.

IV. He is now called Son, in the Old Testament, Ps. 2:7,12; Prov. 30:4; אָמוֹן, "a Nursling," who is in the bosom of the Father, Prov. 8:30, with John 1:18. In the New Testament, with respect to office, [He is] God's Son ἐν δυνάμει, "in power," Rom. 1:4, so that this be His more excellent name, Heb. 1:4. And, as we have shown in the Explanatory Part, not on account of Creation, as Adam and the Angels were called sons, nor through an adoption as children, as believers are, John 1:12; 1 John 3:1, nor by virtue of a temporal birth, which comes about through regeneration, whereby believers, in their own way, become partakers of the divine nature, 2 Pet. 1:4, but through an eternal begetting, Ps. 2:7 — according to which begetting His goings-forth are said to be "of old, from the days of eternity," Mic. 5:2, whereby He has from the Father the same Essence in number. Hence He is called God's own Son, Rom. 8:32, the Firstborn Son, Heb. 1:6, indeed the Only-begotten Son, John 3:16, to whom none of the Angels is equal — for to which of the Angels has He ever said, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" Heb. 1:5. He is, therefore, in respect of us, the Son, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, begotten from eternity of the Father, Mic. 5:2, the personal image of the Father, Heb. 1:3, together with the Father breathing forth the Holy Spirit. Concerning His personal description, the following points come up for our consideration in order:

V. First, His Personality — which all indeed acknowledge with one mouth, but not with one mind and meaning; for all the Antitrinitarians say that He is a created Person, while the orthodox [say He is] an uncreated one. We believe that He is an uncreated Person: (I) because He is called the Son of God; (II) who is said to be born of God; (III) who is charged to ask His inheritance; (IV) who is God's anointed King over Zion, whom kings, and everyone without exception, must kiss, and follow with every kind of religious honor; (V) upon whom one is bound to place his trust, under a promise of blessedness. All these, and other things besides, this second Psalm furnishes us for the Divine Personality of the Son. Add to this (VII[VI]), that He is called the express image of the Father's Substance, Heb. 1:3, likewise the image of the invisible God, namely of the Father, Col. 1:15. And that (VIII) there are ascribed to Him, in Holy Scripture, all the requisites of a person: (1) that He is a substance, ὑπόστασις; (2) endowed with life, John 5:26; (3) with understanding, Matth. 11:23, whence He is also called λόγος, the Word, John 1:1; (4) with will, Matth. 26:39; (5) with personal operations, John 5:17,19.

VI. Secondly, His distinctness from the Father and the Holy Spirit. That they are distinguished, all acknowledge, as many as confess Christ — indeed, with one mouth, but not in one sense and meaning. At any rate, they differ, not as Creator and creature, nor as God and God, but (1) as one Divine Person differs from another — the Son, as the one begotten, being distinguished from the Father, as the one generating; (II) as the second of the three Persons; He is (III) distinguished by His personal or characteristic property — namely, from the Father, by a passive generation, and thus by a going-forth from one principle. Which, since it cannot fall upon the Father, clearly distinguishes Him from the Father, though He be the same in Essence, John 10:30, and, with respect to the manner of subsisting, most like and nearest to Him — whence He is said to be in the form of God, and equal with God, Phil. 2:6; John 5:18; likewise the image of God, 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15, the express image of His (the Father's) substance (person), Heb. 1:3. He is also distinguished from the Holy Spirit by the actual spiration, which He has in common with the Father, whereby, together with Him, He is the principle of the third Person, communicating to Him His own Being — who is therefore called the Spirit of the Son, Gal. 4:6, and the Spirit of Christ, Rom. 8:9 — who sends the Spirit from the Father, John 15:26, and that in such a way that He Himself receives from that which is the Son's, John 16:14 — as a token of which spiration He, about to communicate the Holy Spirit to His disciples, breathed upon them, John 20:22. He is (IV) also distinguished in the order of subsisting, according to which He is the second in the Trinity, Matth. 28:19; 1 John 5:7 — namely, later than the Father, as being from Him, John 5:26. He is (V) distinguished in the order of operating, whereby, just as the Father works of Himself, so the Son works from the Father, John 5:17,19,20,21 — just as the Father works through the Son, ibid. v.22, and chap. 1:3, so the Son works through the Holy Spirit, Rom. 8[?]. Finally (VI), He is distinguished by His outward operation, whereby, just as Creation belongs to the Father, so belongs to the Son the economy, or Redemption, 1 Tim. 2:5,6; Rom. 1:25 — as to the Holy Spirit belong the perfecting and communicating, 2 Cor. 13:13, and Sanctification, 1 Cor. 6:11.

VII. Since, now, among these characteristic properties the Generation holds the chief place, we must treat of it somewhat more distinctly. That there is, in God, an eternal generation, we here presuppose from Eph. 3:14,15 and Ps. 2:7 — passages already long ago explained at length and deliberately. We confirm the point further from Prov. 8:22: The LORD possessed me, namely, by begetting, the beginning of His way, before His works — namely, that I should be the beginning of His workings — of old, from everlasting — מֵעוֹלָם — have I had the dominion, from the beginning, or ever the earth was: while the depths were not yet, I was brought forth, חוֹלָלְתִּי. The LXX translators have γέννησέν με, "He hath begotten me." Aquila and Theodotion render it still more emphatically, by ὠδινήθην, "I was, as it were, brought forth with travail." The word חוֹלָלְתִּי is used Ps. 51:5, where the LXX have συνελήφθην, "I was conceived." And Mic. 5:2 it is said of Christ, as born, according to His human nature, at Bethlehem; and that He has, besides, a higher birth is added there: His goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity. The reason for the plural, "His goings-forth," is given by [a rabbinic source] in the Galera-zara: because there are two goings-forth of the Messiah — the one of His Godhead, the other of His manhood. To this others add the passage Ps. 72:17: His name shall endure forever, before the sun, that is, His name shall, before the sun, "be a son to," יִנּוֹן ("Yinnon"), "shall be established" — and all nations shall be blessed in Him, etc. The whole Psalm speaks of Christ, of whom Solomon was but the type. That eternal generation is further strengthened and confirmed from the titles by which He (I) is called, absolutely and without qualification, the Son of God, Mark 1:1; Matth. 16:16; Mark 14:61,62; 2 Pet. 1:17; Matth. 3:17. (II) A Son, begotten of God, Ps. 2:7, applied to Christ, Acts 4:25,26; Heb. 1:5. (III) God's own Son, Rom. 8:32; compare John 5:18,19. (IV) God's firstborn Son, Heb. 1:6; Col. 1:15, add v.16,17,18. And (V) His only-begotten Son, John 1:14,18 and 3:18. But what is this Generation? Some answer, that it is an eternal producing of the Son out of the Being of the Father. In place of "producing," one might perhaps more precisely say: a communication of the same Essence in number. The manner and mode of that Generation is anxiously investigated by many, but in vain, since it is ἄρρητος, καὶ ὑπὲρ νοῦν, ὑπὲρ λόγον, καὶ ὑπὲρ κατάληψιν — unspeakable, and above understanding, above reason, and above comprehension, as Justin speaks. Whence the ancients expressed and set forth the mystery of this Generation by four terms: (1) ἀκαταλήπτως, incomprehensibly; (2) ἀχρόνως, without succession of time, Prov. 8:22,23; Mic. 5:2; Mal. 1:17[?]; further (3) ἀχωρίστως, inseparably, John 1:1 and 14:11; finally (4) ἀπαθῶς, without passion or any change, whether in the Father or in the Son. The various opinions of the [opposing] Parties you shall have at the Polemical Part.

VIII. Thirdly, His Godhead, whereby He is God, and indeed the true God, 1 John 5:20, and the eternal God, Isa. 9:6 — and that not only a posteriori (as one says), but also a priori, Mic. 5:2; Heb. 7:3 — indeed also of one substance with the Father, whence to Him is ascribed the Godhead, Col. 2:9, and the form of God — without doubt one and the same — so ascribed to Him, that He is thereby, and is, equal with the Father, Phil. 2:6. This His Godhead we may establish immovably by this one general proof: whoever has everything that is divine belongs to him, is without doubt that true, eternal God, of one substance with the Father; and that he to whom belongs everything that is divine should not be God, not even shamelessness itself would dare to say. Now, to the Son belongs everything that is divine, nothing excepted — since Divine Names, Attributes, Works, and Honor, under which headings everything that is divine is comprehended, are ascribed and attributed to Him in Holy Scripture. It cannot, therefore, be otherwise, but that He must be the true, eternal God, of one substance with the Father.

IX. When, therefore, the second premise shall have been proved and demonstrated, the matter will be settled. We now prove and demonstrate it separately, point by point. First, that Divine Names belong to Him appears from this: (I) Because He is called Jehovah, LORD, Hos. 1:7[?]; Jer. 23:5,6; Isa. 6:5, compared with John 12:40,41; Num. 14:2[?] and 21:5,6 — in which last passages that one who is tempted by the Israelites, and who thereupon sends fiery serpents against them, is said to have been Jehovah; that same one is again said to have been the Angel of God's presence, Isa. 63:10, and expressly also Christ, 1 Cor. 10:9. Again, Ps. 102:17,26,27 speaks, beyond doubt, of Jehovah, but there it is spoken of the Son, Heb. 1:10. Likewise, that which is said Ps. 68:18[?] is taught by Paul, Eph. 4:8,9, to be said of the Son. That this Name belongs only to the highest God, we have shown above, Chapter IV. (2) Because He is called Elohim, that is, God, Ps. 45:6,7 and 68:8,9,10,19,20. (3) Also, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, Mighty God, Isa. 9:6. Likewise (4) אֲדֹנָי, Adonai, that Lord, Ps. 110:1; compare Matth. 22:43[?]; Mal. 3:1. (5) Θεός, God, not only appropriatively, Rom. 9:5 and 1:3,4; Titus 2:13; Jude v.4; 1 John 5:20; but also as a subject in itself, John 1:1, compare John 4:24; Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:16; John 20:28. (6) Κύριος, Lord, Luke 1:16,17 and 2:11 — with which corresponds the name Jehovah. (7) A Lord of lords, Rev. 17:14 and 19:16. (8) The Lord of glory, 1 Cor. 2:8, with which agrees the title of King of glory, whose name is Jehovah, Ps. 24:7,9,10. There is, therefore, no Divine Name which is not ascribed to the Son.

X. Secondly, that Divine Attributes belong to Him is taught: (1) [by] His spiritual, most simple, and unchangeable Being, ascribed to Him, Ps. 102:27,28[?], compared with Heb. 1:12. (2) Independence, Rev. 1:8,17 and 22:13. (3) Eternity, Isa. 9:6; Rev. 1:8; Heb. 7:3 and 9:14; Mic. 5:2; John 17:5. (4) Omnipresence, Matth. 18:20 and 28:20; John 3:13. (5) Omnipotence, Rev. 1:8; Phil. 3:21; Heb. 1:3. (6) Omniscience, John 2:24,25 and 21:17; Rev. 2:23. (7) Ἰσότης, Equality with the Father, Phil. 2:6; John 16:15[?]; Col. 2:9. There is, therefore, no Attribute belonging to God which is not ascribed to the Son.

XI. Thirdly, Divine Works, John 5:17,19, with Matth. 28:18 — namely: (1) Creation, John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Ps. 33:6. (2) Providence, Heb. 1:3; John 1:17[?]. (3) Miracle-working, John 5:21; 11:43,44; 2:19,21; 10:17,18; Rom. 1:4. (4) The works of Redemption, such as: Election, Matth. 24:31; John 13:18; Salvation, Matth. 1:21; Justification, Isa. 53:11; the forgiveness of sins, Matth. 9:6; Sanctification, Heb. 10:10; spiritual quickening, Hos. 2:1[?]; the institution of the Sacraments, Matth. 28:18,19; 1 Cor. 11:23; the sending of the Holy Spirit, John 16:7,13,14.

XII. Finally, fourthly, Divine Honor, John 5:23; Phil. 2:10,11; Rom. 14:10,11 — such as: (1) in Adoration, Heb. 1:6; Acts 7:59 and 9:14; 2 Cor. 12:8[?]. (2) In Baptism, instituted as much in His name as in that of the Father, Matth. 28:19; 1 Cor. 1:13; and the Holy Supper, administered in remembrance of Him, 1 Cor. 11:24,25. (3) In that He is called the chief Leader of our salvation, Heb. 2:10, so that salvation is in His name alone, Acts 4:12. (4) In that we are charged to set our faith, hope, and trust upon Him, Heb. 12:2; John 14:1; Ps. 2:12; Rom. 10:9-11,14; 1 Cor. 15:19. Since, therefore, all these things are so, what then is lacking, why you should not be God from eternity, of one substance with the Father?

XIII. For the last point there comes to us, fourthly, for our consideration, the economic Office and work which the Son, of one substance with the Father, by virtue of the economic decree recounted in our text, and which He, by virtue of the Counsel of Peace between the Persons, has taken upon Himself. By this He is appointed, first, to be a Dispenser or Steward of the household, as to whom is given all power, Matth. 28:18 — one who must be found faithful to Him who appointed Him, just as also Moses was faithful in all His house, Heb. 3:2 — through whom He would create the world, John 1:3, and, it being created, sustain it, Heb. 1:3, that His household might have a dwelling-place in the world. Secondly, [He is appointed] to be Surety, and indeed a Self-Surety, Heb. 7:22, an עֲרֵב, Surety, Isa. 38:14, a גֹּאֵל, Goel, a Redeemer, who should take upon Himself the whole matter and the whole penal debt of the sins of His household, and give His soul for them, an אָשָׁם, guilt-offering, Isa. 53:10, who for them would be made sin, that they might become the righteousness of God in Him, 2 Cor. 5:21. Thirdly, to be a Mediator between God and sinners, His household members, 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 2:1 — who, being the middle one in the Household of the Trinity, should go between God and the sinner; who, being God and man together, should attend to the affairs of both; who, being the Son by nature, should make sinners children of the household by adoption, Gal. 4:5,6. Fourthly, to be a λυτρωτής, a Redeemer or Ransomer (such as Moses is called in type, Acts 7:35,36), who, having taken upon Himself the nature of sinners, should redeem His household from sin, Matth. 1:21, and give Himself a ransom for many, Matth. 20:28. Fifthly, to be the Father's Ambassador, an Interpreter, the Word, λόγος, Mal. 3:1; John 1:1 — who should declare the Father, whom no man has seen nor can see, to His own, there, v.18 — through whom the Father would speak to men, Heb. 1:2 — who would declare the Father's decree, Ps. 2:7 — who would show the way of salvation, wherefore He is also called the way, the truth, and the life, John 14:6. Sixthly, to be the Head of the Congregation, Eph. 1:22,23. Seventhly, to be a Judge of the living and the dead, Rom. 14:10[?]; John 5:22,27.

XIV. By virtue of these economic offices and duties, there belong to Him also economic Properties, such as: (I) Wisdom, as is especially required in a Steward, Ambassador, and Interpreter — whence He is also called Wisdom itself, Prov. 8; 1 Cor. 1:24. (II) Faithfulness, which is the chief virtue required of a Steward, 1 Cor. 4:2, which the Apostle commends in Christ, Heb. 3:1,2 — whereby He sought not Himself, or His own things, but the things which are the Father's, John 5:30 and 8:29,49,50. (III) Power and strength, 1 Cor. 1:24, as [He] through whom the Father has made all things, Ps. 33:6, and sustains them, as by the word of His power, Heb. 1:3. Especially (IV), mercy and grace, 2 Cor. 13:13 — whereby He has so loved us, that He gave Himself up for us, Eph. 5:2,25,26; compare Rom. 8[?].

XV. Furnished with these economic properties, the Son has, from the very beginning, discharged His economic Office and Post — insofar as God, through Him, also made τοὺς αἰῶνας, the ages, Heb. 1:2, and, among the Patriarchs, to whom He not infrequently appeared, Gen. 18:1 and 32:29,30 — but especially from the time of Moses onward, when He led His household through the wilderness, out of Egyptian bondage, and brought them over into Canaan, Acts 7:36, as a foreshowing and prefiguring of the future spiritual redemption; when He gave His Law at Sinai, Gal. 3:19 — the moral together with the ceremonial — by which His household was to be governed, until He Himself should come to His Temple, Mal. 3:1; when, finally, having taken on flesh, having become God-man, having announced, obtained, and sealed salvation, about to bring and bestow it through His Spirit, He brought His economic course to completion and perfection, Heb. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:16; Gal. 4:4. The remaining points, which belong to economic service and honor, and to economic sins, we have reserved for the Practical Part.

The Polemical Part

XVI. One asks: (I) Whether Christ is the Son of God by virtue of eternal Generation alone? The ancient Jews, in Christ's time, although greatly corrupted in their faith, nevertheless acknowledged that their Messiah would be the Son of God, and indeed such that He would be the ἴδιος, the proper Son, and hence God, ἴσος, equal — as appears from John 5:18; Matth. 26:63; without doubt from Ps. 2:12. But whether by virtue of a Generation does not appear. The present-day Jews likewise deny that He is God's Son, that they may the more easily deny that He is the true God, of one substance with the Father. Cerinthus and Carpocrates acknowledged indeed, according to the testimony of Irenaeus (Lib. I, Cap. 26; Lib. III, Cap. 26,27), of Eusebius (Hist. Lib. III, Cap. 26,27), and of others, that He was the Son of God by virtue of His temporal birth, but of others [it is said]. Arius, an offshoot of the foregoing, in order to hold more firmly to his ὁμοιούσιον, "like-substance," against the Orthodox, did indeed acknowledge that He is God's Son, but not by Generation, rather by creation — much less by an eternal Generation — but that He is a bare creature, meanwhile endowed and adorned with gifts, powers, and virtues surpassing both human nature and the nature of the Angels; who, on that very account, had deserved and been worthy to be called God's Son; created, meanwhile, ἐκ μὴ ὄντων, out of things that are not, and ἑτερούσιον, of a different Essence from the Father. He was condemned at the Council of Nicaea, in the year 325, by 318 Bishops. Paul of Samosata and Photinus likewise acknowledged Christ to be the Son of God, but by virtue of His birth from the blessed Virgin, before which He did not exist. Muhammad, in his Koran (which he wrote in the year 610, in the time of Heraclius — the spreaders and sellers of it being Sergius, formerly a monk, and John of Antioch, a Jew), denies that He is the Son of God. Valentinus Gentilis, in the preceding century, acknowledged Him, with the Tritheites and the ancient Peratae, to be God's Son, and that indeed by an eternal Generation — yet not by virtue of His Essence as God, but by virtue of His essence as a created offspring. The Socinians, who altogether hold with Samosatenus and Photinus (in order the more firmly to exclude Christ's eternal Godhead, and thereby His equivalent satisfaction for our penal debt, and, finally, in order to obtain that we be justified by our own works), acknowledge indeed that He is God's Son, but by no means by virtue of an eternal Generation, but by virtue of, and on account of, His birth from the blessed Virgin — insofar as He, in an utterly extraordinary manner, was conceived of the Holy Spirit, who took the place of a generating man here, and mingled a certain extraordinary seed with the woman's seed. Likewise, that there was communicated to Him, by grace, a certain likeness to God, since He (1) was sanctified by the Father and sent into the world, John 10:34-36; (2) was, as it were, born through the Resurrection from the dead, Acts 13:32,33; (3) was, through His exaltation, made and raised to God's right hand, Heb. 1:4[?]. Others add other reasons for this Sonship, or put others in their place. Calovius (in his Socinianismus profligatus) counts up eleven reasons of theirs, the eternal Generation alone being excluded. The Apologetic Remonstrants agree with the Socinians in this, that they approve the four causes of the Sonship which the Socinians bring forward; but in this they differ, that they seem to add thereto the Generation from the Father — although they do not grant that He is thereby ὁμοούσιος, of one substance with the Father (Episcopius, Instit. Lib. IV, Cap. 35). The Reformed hold that He is God's Son only on account of the eternal Generation — although that eternal Sonship is shown and manifested in His sanctification and sending into the world, and likewise in His Resurrection and Exaltation. There lie upon us here, therefore, these points to demonstrate: first, that the true cause of this Sonship is the eternal Generation of the Son from the Father. Which we thus prove and establish: (1) Because He is called the Son of the living God, Matth. 16:16; the true one, 1 John 5:20; the proper one, Rom. 8:32; the only-begotten, John 1:14,18; the Father's beloved Son, in whom He is well pleased, Matth. 3:17. (2) Because the Son is equal to the Father, Phil. 2:6; John 5:17,18 — yes, the same in Essence with the Father, John 10:30,33,36; 1 John 5:7, and of one substance with Him — as we have already long ago demonstrated from His Divine Names, Attributes, Works, and Honor. (3) Because He is expressly said to have been begotten of the Father, Ps. 2:7, through the communication of the Essence, John 5:26, and that from eternity, Prov. 8:22,23,24; Mic. 5:2; John 1:1,2 — whence He is called the firstborn, Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:6. Yes (4), He is proclaimed to be the essential image of the Father, the outshining of His glory, and the express image of His Person, Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3. (5) Because He is the Son in a way in which no creature — neither visible nor invisible, in heaven or on earth — is God's Son; not as the Angels are, in that they are sons of God by creation, Job 38:6,7; nor as the earthly rulers are, by power and authority, Ps. 82:6,7; indeed, in a way in which not even the most excellent of creatures, the Angels, are, Heb. 1:4,5. It cannot, therefore, be otherwise, but that He must be God's Son by an eternal Generation. But that they allege, for the contrary, that this Generation would in many ways disparage and diminish God, we have already, long ago, in the preceding chapter, shown to hold only of a natural generation, but not of a generation which is supernatural.

Then we must, secondly, prove and demonstrate (what the Socinians hold) that He is God's Son on account of a glorious communication of holiness, or on account of His Exaltation to God's right hand. (1) Because He was God's Son before He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and these declarations were made concerning Him, Ps. 2:7; Mic. 5:2; Prov. 3:23,24[?]. (2) Because He would thus be the Son of God according to His human nature — against which Holy Scripture contends, as often as it calls Him God's Son (a) in contrast to His human nature, Rom. 1:4 and 9:5; (b) as often as He is called the Son of man, without doubt according to His human nature, Matth. 16:13,16. (3) Because those three or four Socinian reasons are neither, each in particular (totales), a complete and entire cause of this Sonship — for then one would suffice, and the others would be superfluous — nor (partiales), taken together in part; for then He would, from His conception onward, have become the Son of God only by degrees, and would not, before He sat down at God's right hand, have been the complete Son of God, which is absurd. I will not add (4), that He would, according to the Socinian supposition, be God's Son of one and the same kind as believers, only in a different degree — which Holy Scripture contradicts, Heb. 1:4,5, and as often as it calls Him alone God's own and only-begotten Son. That now His Sonship is referred to His Conception of the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:35, to His sanctification, John 10:36, to His resurrection from the dead, Acts 13:32,33, and to His exaltation, Heb. 1:4,5, happens not because these things are causes of this Sonship, but because they are proofs and evidences of its open manifestation. Whence He is elsewhere said to have been manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3:16, and that, from His conception of the Holy Spirit onward, His glory has been seen, as it were, John 1:14; and finally, that He should be called a son of the Highest, Luke 1:35. Likewise we must, thirdly, show that He is also not called God's Son by a joint and combined title — partly on account of the eternal Generation, partly on account of a gracious communication of existence, holiness, power, and glory — as the Remonstrants hold, in order, to the Socinians' satisfaction, to weaken the eternal Generation. Because (1) Holy Scripture thus distinguishes the twofold Sonship in Christ, that He, according to the flesh, is a son of man, but according to the Spirit, or according to His Divine Nature, is called the Son of God, Rom. 1:3,4. (2) Because He would, in that way, be God's Son ambiguously, from various causes — against which Scripture contends, when it calls Him God's own and only-begotten Son. (3) Because in this way He could, according to His human nature, be called an adopted Son of God, and thus in no wise be ἀπάτωρ, without father, Heb. 7:3.

XVII. The question is: (II) Whether the Generation of the Son consists with the fellowship of the Essence, in His eternal co-existence and co-subsistence with the Father, and in His economic manifestation in the flesh? Concerning the nature of this Generation we have already, at length, set forth and refuted the various opinions of various Parties, above. Occasion and cause for this controverted point is given us by a certain Dutch theologian, who — because he could not reconcile the received opinion of the Reformed, concerning such a Generation as would communicate to the one begotten the same Essence, in number, as His own, with his own conceptions, nor clearly and distinctly grasp in what way God, who would be nothing other than a bare thought, could communicate His thought to another without dependency and changeableness, without loss of His eternity, and without other unfitting and insufficient consequences (which the Socinians allege) — first held that this Generation consists in nothing other than an eternal fellowship of the same Essence, and a co-subsistence with the Father; but afterward, when he noticed that this co-essentiality alone was not sufficient for the concept of a generation, added to it the economic manifestation of the Son in the flesh, through the generation from the blessed Virgin — all communication of the Essence being thereby excluded. This opinion has been condemned and censured by almost all the Synods of the Dutch Churches, and the author, by the authority of his high superiors, has been forbidden to propagate this opinion — which he also accepted. Meanwhile most of the Synods have resolved that candidates for the Holy Ministry should be examined on this opinion, and that no one, adhering to it, should be admitted to the ecclesiastical service. The Reformed, accordingly, hold that for the eternal begetting of the Son of God there is required a communication of the Essence, with the image or likeness of the one communicating; that here, therefore, it is not enough to have a fellowship of the Essence, coupled with a co-essentiality, nor also the economic manifestation of Him in the flesh. To this end serve, and are sufficient, the proofs of §VII and of the section just preceding, with the change of what needs to be changed, in order to establish that, for our generation, there is necessarily required a communication of the Essence. We shall only have to demonstrate here, that the co-essentiality in the fellowship of the same Essence, likewise the economic manifestation in the flesh, nor even both joined together, are sufficient for the nature and essence of the Generation. To which end we proceed distinctly as follows. First, indeed, that the co-subsistence in the fellowship of the Essence is not sufficient, we shall try to establish by these reasons: (1) Because the co-existence or co-subsistence, for example, of Peter with Paul in the same human Essence, is not sufficient, for that reason, that Peter should be called the son of Paul, unless there be added the communication of the Essence. (2) Because that co-essentiality is more forceful to ground a relation of brotherhood between them. (3) Because, according to the supposition of this co-essentiality, the first Person would as much be a Son as the second — since the Father likewise co-subsists in the same Essence with the Son, just as much as the Son with the Father; and the very same thing could be said of the Holy Spirit. (4) Because, accordingly, by this supposition, the characteristic or personal properties are taken away, and thereby, at once, also the Trinity of Persons. (5) Because that co-essentiality brings with it and includes, at the least, a twofold or threefold existence in God, and, since existence in God in no wise differs from His Essence, there would, for that very reason, have to be acknowledged in God a twofold or threefold Essence. Secondly, that the economic manifestation of the second Person in the flesh is also not sufficient for this, will likewise appear thus: (a) Because to be manifested in the flesh is by no means the same as to be, or to become, the Son of God. For the three Men who appeared to Abraham — among whom, meanwhile, the one was Jehovah, Gen. 18:1,2 — did not thereby constitute nor prove those to be Sons. And the Holy Spirit, especially under the Old Testament, was manifested to the Church more than once, and yet He did not thereby become the Son. If you take this way of escape — that the Holy Spirit was not manifested in the flesh, and did not bear a visible image of God — I shall answer by asking: who shall say that to be manifested in the flesh, or to become a man, amounts to becoming the Son of God? For what reason shall a Divine Person, who manifests Himself in the flesh, more be said to be God's Son, than one who manifests Himself in some other way, without or apart from the flesh? Then (b), if the manifestation in the flesh be the ground of the Sonship, what shall be the ground of the Fatherhood? For to be a Son, and to be a Father, are mutually correlative — since the manifestation in the flesh has the very same relation to the Holy Spirit which it has to the Father. Further (c), the second Person is the Son of God before He was manifested in the flesh, Ps. 2:7; Prov. 30:4; indeed, from eternity, Prov. 8:25. He was already, before that, God's Son, when He was sent into the world, Gal. 4:4. Now, as to what concerns the reasons of our opponent, one must observe, that for the co-subsistence, in which he first, and alone, placed the eternal Generation of the Son, he brings forward absolutely not the least proof, whether from Scripture or from reason, which would conclude that the Generation of God's Son consists in that co-existence. Wherefore, in his later thought, he strains all his powers to obtain, that — that co-essentiality being presupposed — that generation should consist in the economic Manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh; to which end he urges: (1) That the word "generation" sometimes signifies, in Holy Scripture, a manifestation, Prov. 17:17[?]; 27:1[?]; Song 8:5[?]. The force of this proof runs thus: if the word "generation" sometimes signifies a manifestation, then the Generation of the Son consists in His manifestation in the flesh. But now the first is true; therefore, consequently, so is the latter. Answer: (1) the connection of the first proposition is absolutely null. (2) It would have to be proved, that anything, or anyone, that is manifested is thereby generated, so that he is a son. (3) Granting that something which is manifested is said to be born in an improper sense, it is nevertheless nowhere customary that what, or who, is manifested without any communication should be called a Son. For example, when it is said, Prov. 17:17, "A brother is born, or manifested, in adversity," to whom, indeed, shall this mean as much as: a brother becomes, in adversity, a son? Suppose, too (4), that he who is manifested should in some way be called a Son — a thing which will never be proved — shall it then rightly be concluded from this, that God's own, firstborn, only-begotten Son, to whom the Father has communicated life, that is, the Essence, is thus named by virtue of, and on account of, His manifestation? As for (5) the minor, or second, premise, we deny that any single passage can be produced in which to be born as a Son consists in a manifestation, without any relation and respect to a communication. Not Prov. 17:17, for that passage speaks of a metaphorical generation of a Brother, not of a Son. Nor Prov. 27:1, "Thou knowest not what a day may bring forth," for the passage speaks not of a manifestation, but of a bringing-forth. Nor, again, the passage Song 8:5, "I raised thee up under the apple tree: there thy mother brought thee forth with pain," etc. — for that speaks not of a manifesting, but of a bringing forth, and that with the pains of childbirth. He urges (2), that the Son of God, in Holy Scripture, is often said to be declared, and shown to be the Son of God, in economic matters, 1 Tim. 3:16; John 10:36; Acts 13:32[?]; Rom. 1:4; Matth. 3:13[?], etc. — for example, at the Baptism, the Resurrection, etc. Yet nowhere is He said to have been begotten, or to have become, through these economic points, while the manifestation presupposes a Son already existing beforehand. He urges (3), that the third Person, on account of His economic operations, is called the Holy Spirit — and why, he says, should not the Son likewise be so called on account of His economic work? Answer: (1) He is indeed called πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, the Spirit of Sanctification, Rom. 1:4 (unless one prefers rather to refer this passage to the Divine Nature of Christ), whence the manner of speech, "sanctification of the Spirit," 1 Pet. 1:2. But this must be carefully and diligently distinguished from the name "Holy Spirit," since this name is His distinguishing, characteristic name, while the other is only a title, of which sort more are given to the Holy Spirit — some economic, some personal: among the first are these — the Spirit of life, the life-giving Spirit, the Spirit of truth; among the latter are, for example, the Spirit of God, Matth. 3:16, the Spirit of Christ, Rom. 8:9. (2) Although the designation "Holy" were an economic designation, yet even so the whole Name of "Holy Spirit" would not, on that account, be an economic name. He is therefore called Spirit, not on account of His economic operation, but on account of His manner of subsisting — whence He is also called the Spirit of [God's] mouth, Ps. 33:6; 2 Thess. 2:8, the Spirit, or the Breath, of the Almighty, Job 32:8[?] — because He goes forth, as it were, by an unspeakable breathing, which is meant to signify the act of Christ, John 20:22. He urges (4) the passage from Heb. 7:3, and says: The word of God forbids me to think that Christ, with respect to His Divine Nature, of which he speaks, is born. Answer: the text speaks of Melchizedek in the type, and of the Son of God in the antitype, and says of Him that He is without father, without mother, without genealogy — because He, with respect to His human nature, was without father, and, with respect to His Divine nature, without mother and without genealogy; or, because He had no fleshly father and mother. Finally, he urges (5), from reason (which he ought to have laid low and brought into subjection, in so great a mystery, 2 Cor. 10:5), that a properly-so-called generation is not compatible with His eternity and independence. Answer: this was of old the argument of the Arians, and is still today that of the Socinians; yet he might easily have removed this difficulty, by distinguishing between a natural generation, which alone entails those unfitting things, and a supernatural one, to which those unfitting things by no means apply. This controverted point has been handled most exactly, against his colleague, by the very celebrated Campegius Vitringa, in his writings, both Latin and Dutch. We have been, in this matter, somewhat more extensive and thorough, on account of its weight and importance, and also its novelty, occurring nowhere in the common textbooks of theologians.

XVIII. One asks: (III) Whether Christ is God from eternity, and ὁμοούσιος, of one substance with His Father? Of old the Tritheites and the Peratae acknowledged, and, in the preceding century, Valentinus Gentilis, that the Son has been God from eternity, but not thus of one substance with the Father. The Arians hold indeed that He existed before the world, but neither from eternity, nor of one substance with the Father. The Samosatenians and Photinians, with the present-day Socinians, hold that He neither existed from eternity, nor before His birth from the Holy Virgin, nor is of one substance with the Father, but was only a bare man — although they do not deny that He, a posteriori (as one says), is and has become the true God, and eternal. Whence they ascribe to Him a θειότητα, a divinity, not the θεότητα, the Godhead — according to Smalcius, differing, as the finite from the infinite. The Reformed teach that Christ, with respect to His Divine Nature, has existed from eternity, and is of one substance with His Father. The reasons for this truth we have given, §§II, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII; and there remains nothing but that we meet the objections of the [opposing] Parties. They allege: (1) That Christ Himself calls Himself God, as the [earthly] rulers are gods, John 10:35 — namely, with respect to His office, not with respect to His Essence. Answer: Christ had said, v.30, "I and my Father are one" — from which the Jews concluded that He was a blasphemer, because He thereby made Himself God; the Savior answers from the lesser to the greater: if the rulers, on account of their office, are called gods, why then not I, who am sent by the Father? But, having said this, He says that He is the true God, of one substance with the Father, vv.37,38: "that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in Him." The [opposing] Parties object (II): He is made a Lord, Acts 2:36[?]; John 1:27[?]; Heb. 1:4 and 3:2; therefore also made a God. Answer: (1) to be a lord, and to be God, are not equivalent things — for there are many lords, who are not thereby gods. (2) There is in Christ a twofold lordship — a Mediatorial lordship, according to which He is made a Lord, and an essential lordship, which belongs to Him insofar as He is Jehovah — which interpreters of every sort express by the word "Lord," for example, Jer. 23:6 and 33:16, when they render the words of that last passage, with Glassius and other learned men: "He who shall proclaim it (namely, Jerusalem), or gather it together by that word, shall be called Jehovah our righteousness." See also Hos. 1:7. With respect to this essential lordship, He is by no means made a Lord. They allege (III), that the Son is less than the Father, John 14:28, subject to the Father, 1 Cor. 15:28. Answer: He is elsewhere said to be equal to the Father, ἴσος Θεῷ, equal with God, insofar as He was, namely, in the form of God, Phil. 2:6 — whence there belongs to Him an honor equal with the Father, John 5:23: "that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." From which it is easy to conclude, that the Son, in one respect, is equal to the Father, and, in another, also less than the Father: equal, with respect to the form of God, or with respect to the Essence; and less, not only with respect to His human nature, but also with respect to His economic Office, insofar as He, in the eternal Counsel of Peace, took upon Himself, and had transferred to Him, the whole debt and the whole case of the sinner, by offering Himself as a Self-Surety, and thereby became subject to the Father, as a debtor and a servant. Unless you prefer, rather, that He be said to be less than the Father with respect to the relation of Sonship — whereby also, among men, a son is said to be less than his father, although, with respect to the essence of manhood, and also with respect to his gifts, wisdom, and goodness, he be equal to him, indeed sometimes even greater. They allege (IV), that the Father is the one, and only, true God, John 17:3. Answer: elsewhere the Son also is called the true, or the genuine, God, 1 John 5:20; and as He is the true or genuine God, so He is also the one God. Nor, indeed, John 17:3, is the Father alone called the one true God; but the Father is called the one and only true God, that they might know Him, the only true God — and there is added, "and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" — namely, that He too is that one true God. The [opposing] Parties allege (V), that He is commonly called a man, and the Son of man. Answer: this happens not in order to exclude His eternal Godhead, which we have already demonstrated, clearer than the sun; but because He was God manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3:16, and because thus the Son of God has, in time, been made of a woman, Gal. 4:4. They allege (VI), that He calls the Father His God. Answer: He calls the Father His God, not only with respect to His human nature, but also with respect to His economic Office, as we have noted at the third objection. They allege (VII), that He is said to have all that is His from the Father. Answer: just as He has some things from the Father through the eternal generation — being ὁ λόγος, the Word — namely, life, the Being, and everything essential of the Godhead, John 5:26, compared with Ps. 2:7; and other things through the grace of the personal union, as God-man — so this in no way detracts anything from His Godhead, but rather confirms it. They allege (VIII), that the Father alone is called our God, 1 Cor. 8:6; therefore not the Son. Answer: just as the text, by saying that the Son alone is our Lord, does not deny that the Father also is our Lord, so, when it says that the Father is our God, it does not deny that the Son also is our God; the meaning of the text is therefore nothing other than to exclude, from Godhead and from lordship, the so-called gods, v.5.

XIX. One asks: (IV) Whether the Son is αὐτόθεος, "God of Himself," or God of and from Himself? The Tritheites, Valentinus Gentilis, the Arians, Samosatenians, Photinians, and Socinians — in order the more forcibly to deny that the Son is of one substance with the Father — deny this. The Papists, because Calvin and Beza, disputing against a certain heathen [heretic] who held that Christ is Deus essentiatus, that is, an "essence-given" (a made) God, called Him αὐτόθεον, "God of Himself," cry out that they thereby assail and undermine the Holy Trinity, establishing that the characteristic Property of the Father, whereby He is of Himself, belongs also to the Son — and thus the Papists invent a new heresy of the Autotheans, that is, of the "self-God-ists." The Apologetic Remonstrants, too, in order, to the Socinians' pleasure, to lay snares against the Trinity by secret paths and hidden ways, likewise deny it. The Reformed distinguish between an essential and a personal aseity: the essential they do indeed grant — whereby the Godhead, communicated to the Son and the Holy Spirit, is of itself; but the personal they deny, insofar as He [the Son] does not possess that Godhead, which the Son and the Holy Spirit possess, of Himself, but from the Father. For this opinion Christ Himself lays the foundation, John 5:26: As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself. And if the Godhead which the Son has, and the Holy Spirit, were not of itself, then it would not be the true Godhead. Although, therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are αὐτόθεος, God of themselves, they are nevertheless not αὐτοπρόσωπα, "self-persons," of themselves — in which sense Bellarmine, Genebrard, and all who openly acknowledge the co-essentiality of the Persons, grant that the Son is αὐτόθεος, God of Himself.

or of Tritheism, since three would then be posited as having their being separately (collaterally) of themselves; or of Sabellianism, since the aseity by which the Father is distinguished from the Son would, through this αὐτοθεότητα of aseity, become common to the Godhead of the Son as well. But neither charge holds. Tritheism is not introduced, because we do not posit three essences existing separately (collaterally) of themselves, but only one essence, which is common to the three Persons. Nor is Sabellianism introduced, for although the essential aseity is made common to all three, the personal aseity is nevertheless left as the Father's own. So far, then, as this question and point of controversy is handled between us and the Antitrinitarians, it has been settled in the preceding section; but so far as it is handled between us and the Papists, it is nothing more than a bare dispute over words, as Ames shows (Bellarm. Enerv. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. §. 1.); and finally, so far as it is handled between us and the Remonstrants, it has already been sufficiently settled and dealt with above. Whoever desires more on this matter may compare Alting (Elench. Nov. Loci 11. Probl. 32.)

The Practical Part

XX. The gratitude the Person and Economy of the Son of God calls for

The Person and Economy of the Son of God furnishes us, first, with reason and matter for the glorifying of, and for thankfulness toward, God, who, by an eternal and unchangeable decree, moved by nothing but pure love for mankind, has given to His church not some ordinary man however excellent, nor even an angel, but His own Son — His own, only-begotten Son — to be Surety, Mediator, Redeemer, Ambassador, Head, and Judge; who should govern the church, take upon Himself the debt of its punishment, open for it the access to and entrance into the fellowship of God, redeem it with His own blood, disclose to it matter for the glorifying of eternal blessedness, protect it against every kind of enemy, and at last bring it the crown of righteousness. This love of mankind on God's part the Apostle extols so greatly, Rom. 5:5–8, that even the Son Himself cannot marvel at it enough, John 3:16; just as He, following the will of His Father, reports the decree of it to men as something extraordinary, Ps. 2:7 — so that here one may rightly cry out with the Apostle: "Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us!" 1 John 3:1. And in this glorifying of the divine love toward mankind consists the highest and supreme aim of the whole evangelical mystery, Eph. 1:6; Rom. 9:23.

XXI. It kindles the desire to know the Son

Secondly, this doctrine kindles the desire and longing to know ever more that Son whom, according to the decree of the Father, He has reported to us as the one in whom the Father has placed our justification, Isa. 53:11, and the Son our eternal life, John 17:3 — for which reason Paul reckoned the excellency of the knowledge of Christ so great that He counted all things but loss and refuse for its sake, that He might but gain that Christ, Phil. 3:8. Now He must be known: (1) As Steward or Dispenser, to whom all power is given, Matt. 28:18, so that at His name the knees of our hearts should bow, Phil. 2:10–11 — such as Joseph was of old, first in the house of Potiphar, Gen. 39:4, 8–9, and afterward in and over the whole of Egypt, Gen. 41:41. (2) As Surety, that we, having wholly renounced all our own righteousness, seek the defense and protection of our cause in Him alone, Phil. 3:9–10. Further, (3) as Mediator, without whom we must never presume to hasten and draw near to the throne of the Father, Heb. 4:14–16; John 14:6. Also (4) as Redeemer, in whose ransom-price we must place all our hope and all our salvation, Acts 4:12. Moreover (5) as the Interpreter and Ambassador of the Father, whom we must in all things hear with the most devout and reverent attention, Deut. 18:15; Matt. 3:17. Then also (6) as the Head of the church, whom we must honor and revere, John 5:23. And finally (7) as Judge, whom we must fear and dread, 2 Cor. 5:10–11, and likewise long and yearn for, Luke 21:28, for various reasons.

XXII. This doctrine also commends to us the sufficiency of our Mediator

From this, thirdly, this doctrine and consideration of the Son of God commends to us the sufficiency and perfection of our Mediator, on account of which it is said that in Him all fullness dwells, Col. 1:19, and He Himself is said to fill all in all, Eph. 1:23, so that we draw and receive out of His fullness grace for grace, John 1:16 — indeed, that we are made complete in Him, Col. 2:10. Now this sufficiency has its origin: (1) In the dignity and excellence of the Person, by which He is not some ordinary man, not an angel, not any most excellent creature whatever, but God's natural, own, first and only-begotten Son, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, Col. 2:9–10; the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His substance, whom He has appointed heir of all things, Heb. 1:3–4 — who is therefore able to be and to accomplish all things for His own, since He is almighty, to whom belongs all power in heaven and on earth, Matt. 28:18; who knows the needs and desires of His own, and equally the means and ways to come to their aid and to satisfy them, since He is omniscient, wisdom itself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, Col. 2:3; who also wills to be, for His own, all in all, who is supremely good and merciful, 2 Cor. 13:13(?); who has loved His church, and has given Himself for her, Eph. 5:2. Then, (2) this sufficiency derives and originates from the decree of the Father, which the Son reports to us, Ps. 2:7, from the counsel of the Father, Zech. 6:13, whereby it has come to pass, by the Father's good pleasure, that in Him all fullness should dwell, Col. 1:19, whereby He has been appointed Head over all things, Eph. 1:22, through whom the Father dispenses all things, so that He has already given all judgment to the Son, John 5:22, appointing Him over His whole house, Heb. 3:2. Finally, (3) this sufficiency has its origin in His economic office, whereby He, as we have said, according to the economic counsel of the Trinity, has taken upon Himself the work of a general Steward and Lord, of a Surety, Mediator, Redeemer, Ambassador, Head, Judge — through all of which relations He has become for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1:30, so that in Him is all salvation, Acts 4:12; He Himself is the way, the truth, and the life, without whom no one has access to the Father, John 14:6; in whom God has blessed us with every heavenly blessing, Eph. 1:3. From this He is compared in the Scriptures to everything that is good: He is called our life, Col. 3:4; our food, John 6:55; our Physician, Matt. 9:12; our comfort, Luke 2:25; our Protector, Isa. 32:2; a bundle of myrrh, Song 1:13; the Fountain of salvation and of blessedness, Zech. 13:1; the Sun of righteousness, Mal. 4:2; our glory, Luke 2:32; all in all, Col. 3:11.

XXIII. This entices us to kiss the Son

And this, fourthly, entices us to kiss the Son, Ps. 2:12 — namely, as a token of homage or tribute, such as was customarily rendered to kings and their rulers, Gen. 41:40, where the word nashaq, "to kiss," "to kiss earnestly," is used. By this kissing we understand nothing other than to receive and accept the Son — appointed by the Father as King and being His Vicegerent, in and under all His economic offices — readily and willingly, to worship Him, and to render Him all the honor and service that is His due. In particular this comprehends chiefly these three points: First, that we depend on Him wholly and entirely, which is, as it were, to kiss His hands — to promise, expect, and desire everything from Him alone, as the one to whom, as the supreme Dispenser, all things have been given over which are to be bestowed on men, Eph. 4:8. Secondly, that we submit ourselves willingly and readily to His power and dominion (which is, as it were, to kiss His feet), that we serve the LORD, Ps. 2:11, that our knees bow before Him, Phil. 2:10, that we readily hear, obey, and carry out His commands, Matt. 3:17, that we lay all that is ours cheerfully and fully at His feet, and spend it for His honor and glory, Matt. 21:2–3, 6–7. Thirdly, that we love Him sincerely and above all things, Matt. 10:37 — this is, as it were, to kiss His lips. This kiss of homage or tribute must be rendered to Him faithfully: (1) That we may turn away the wrath both of the Father and of the Son, Ps. 2:12, "lest He be angry." (2) That we may escape destruction: "and you perish in the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little." (3) That we may obtain the blessedness that comes from Him: "Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him."

XXIV. It commends to us faith in the Son

In particular, fifthly, it commends to us belief in Him. For "this is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent," John 6:29. Let us believe, I say, not only that He is such a one as the Father has sent, that Messiah, Matt. 16:16, nor only believe Him, Matt. 3:17, but believe in Him, so that by believing we receive Him with the heart. For "as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God" — namely, "to them that believe on His name," John 1:12. For (1) to this end He gives Himself to us, and the Father sends Him, John 3:16: "that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him," etc. (2) To this end the Son Himself has come to us, John 1:11. Moreover (3) He invites us by so many persuasions and promises, Matt. 11:28–29; Rev. 3:20; Song 5:2; Hos. 2:14–15. By this very means (4) we win Christ, with all His benefits, Phil. 3:8–9. (5) Without this, the Son, and all His offices, as well as all His economic benefits, will not profit us in the very least, Rom. 10:3–4; Gal. 3:2, 5–7. Indeed, (6) they will even be harmful and hurtful to us, Ps. 2:12; John 3:36. This is treated more fully in Book 2, Chapter 1, on Faith.

XXV. It urges us to prize the Son above all things

Further, sixthly, let us (1) esteem and exalt the Son highly above all things, Matt. 10:37; Song 1:2. (2) Let us seek to obtain Him even at the loss of all things, Phil. 3:7–8; Matt. 13:46. (3) Let us rest sweetly and calmly in Him, as in our all-sufficient portion, Ps. 73:25, even though we should have to lack all things whatsoever, Hab. 3:17–18. (4) Let us devote ourselves and all that is ours to His glorifying, and let Him be our Alpha and Omega, our beginning and end, the first moving cause and the last end of all our deeds, Phil. 1:20; Rom. 14:7–8; 2 Cor. 5:15. (5) Let us seek and expect from His hand alone all that is necessary for us, whether for the body or for the soul: if faith, hope, love are lacking to us; if strength to withstand temptations; if comfort in adversities is wanting to us — let us seek and expect it all from Him alone, Mark 9:24, since He can supply us with everything, Phil. 4:13, and it would be to His shame and dishonor if we, passing Him by, sought it from anyone else, 2 Kings 1:3. Finally, (6) let us undertake and do all that we undertake in the name of this Son, and in His power and might, Eph. 5:20; Col. 3:17.

XXVI. It stirs up our hope of eternal life in the Son

Moreover, seventhly, this doctrine stirs us up to set our hope and trust for eternal life on the Son, Ps. 2:12, for which reason He is called our hope, 1 Tim. 1:1, and Christians are said to hope in Christ, 1 Cor. 15:19; 1 Thess. 1:3, for which reason He is also called the hope of Israel, Acts 28:20 — inasmuch as He, namely, (1) as Surety and Mediator, has taken upon Himself and taken away everything that would exclude us from the hope of salvation, namely the guilt of punishment for our sins, Eph. 2:12–13; 1:7. (2) As Redeemer, He has by His satisfaction and merit obtained the right to eternal life, Eph. 1:14. (3) As a righteous Judge He shall on that day distribute the crown of righteousness, 2 Tim. 4:7–8. Only let us (1) lay hold of Him, as the anchor of our salvation, by a living faith, Heb. 6:19; (2) exercise an unspotted conscience, Acts 24:15–16; (3) labor for the constant improvement of our lives, 2 Cor. 7:1, just as everyone who has this hope in Him (namely, in Christ) purifies Himself, even as He is pure, 1 John 3:3.

XXVII. It warns us against the sins that oppose the Son

Finally, eighthly, that we should above all guard ourselves — as against something that is truly the very worst of things — from all those sins which especially and economically oppose the Son. Namely, (1) from despising and belittling Him, whereby men, though He comes to them and offers Himself to them, would not receive Him, John 1:11; 5:43–44, but despise and reject Him, Matt. 22:5; Acts 13:46; 28:24. Then (2) from rebellion, obstinacy, and resistance, Ps. 2:1–3; Acts 4:26–27; Luke 19:27. Also (3) from denying Him after having received Him, Matt. 10:33; 26:70–71. Moreover (4) from every kind of unbelief and unfaithfulness, John 3:36. Finally, (5) from a malicious rejection of Him, which is one and the same as the sin against the Holy Spirit, whereby we trample underfoot the Son of God and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, Heb. 10:29.

Chapter XXVII: On God the Holy Spirit

Over John 14:26.

"But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

I. Transition to the consideration of the third Person

In the economy of the Holy Trinity, the third place belongs to the Holy Spirit, since He — not only with respect to the order and manner of His subsistence — proceeds from the Father and the Son, but also, with respect to the manner of His working, works, just as He subsists, likewise from the Father and the Son. From this it belongs to Him to bring to completion and to perfect all things, by virtue of His economic office, namely regeneration, conversion, sanctification, etc. We shall base our description of His Person on the words of the Savior which we find in John 14:26.

The Explanatory Part

II. Analysis of the text

In which a certain declaration is contained, or rather a promise, concerning the Person, the economic office, and the economic benefits of the Holy Spirit. In it we note three points, namely:

1. The Person of the Holy Spirit, as the Benefactor, of whom a twofold name is set forth.

(1) A title, taken from His economic office: ὁ παράκλητος, the Comforter. The definite article here is a letter of emphasis, signifying such a one as is the Comforter par excellence — indeed, the one who alone in the Trinity is, by office, the Comforter. The Greek term παράκλητος, Parakletos, is a very common word among the Jews in the Chaldean translation, and among the Talmudists — not in the sense of a comforter, but of one who takes up the cause of another, and specifically of one accused and guilty, and defends it. The word comes from παρακαλέω, "to call to one's side," so that our word signifies an Advocate, appointed to stand up for and speak for someone in court; or to come to His aid with counsel in His danger; or to instruct Him in matters unknown to Him; or to intercede for Him and pray for Him before another; or to lift up His spirit in adversities; or to rouse one who is drowsy and to urge on one who is sluggish. Now, on account of all these things, the word Parakletos means an Advocate for or of some cause, a Teacher, a Comforter, an Exhorter, an Intercessor. In this way, then, the Holy Spirit is so named because He was, as it were, called in the eternal counsel of the Father and the Son to accomplish the work of the Trinity in the matter of man's salvation — decreed by the Father, obtained by the Son — by teaching, leading, comforting, interceding, exhorting, and thus, by office, to show Himself to be the Teacher, Advocate, and Comforter of the elect. By this word, then, is signified His appointment or establishment through the economic covenant, and the entirety of the Holy Spirit's office.

2. His own name, τὸ πνεῦμα, τὸ ἄγιον, "Spirit, holy." These two words, "Holy Spirit," constitute a single name of the third Person, though it is a compound one; not two but one proper and common designation. Though it is sometimes abbreviated to be expressed by the one word "Spirit," it always presupposes what is understood under it. Meanwhile the article τὸ is prefixed distinctly to both parts, so that the first τὸ, within the Trinity, distinguishes the third Person from the two preceding ones, and the second τὸ distinguishes the Holy Spirit from any other, unclean, created spirit. Of this compound name two parts are distinguished, whereby He is called:

a. Spirit, πνεῦμα. This is said not so much on account of His immaterial being, which is common to all the Persons of the Trinity, nor of a certain economic working by which He makes men spiritual, as of the manner and mode of His subsistence — because He subsists by an inexpressible breathing forth, on account of which He is called the Spirit of the mouth, the Spirit of the LORD (that is, of the Father), and also the Spirit of the Son, as we shall say more fully in the Doctrinal Part.

b. Holy, ἅγιον. This is said not so much on account of holiness, which is an essential attribute common to all the Persons, as on account of the work of sanctification, insofar as it is, as it were, committed to the third Person as His economic office by the other Persons — concerning which more will be said further in the Doctrinal and Practical Parts.

III. The sending of the Holy Spirit

The sending of the Holy Spirit, through and by virtue of an economic covenant: ὃν πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ὀνόματί μου, "whom the Father will send in my name." By these words two things in general are signified, namely His double origin, from which He is sent, and then the sending forth from both proceeding. These things are declared more distinctly in the text under three heads:

1. The Sender, ὁ πατήρ, the Father. That is, the first origin of the Holy Spirit — neither proceeding nor sent from another, but simply of Himself. Of this we have treated at length, Chapter 25.

2. The Sending, πέμψει, "He will send." Hereby is signified the outgoing of the Holy Spirit, insofar as He is from another. Now there is a twofold outgoing: the one is eternal or personal, whereby He goes forth from the Father — from which He is called the Spirit of the Father, Matt. 10:20, and the Spirit of God, 2 Cor. 3:3, and the Spirit that is of God, 1 Cor. 2:12 — and from the Son, from which He is called the Spirit of the Son, Gal. 4:6, and the Spirit of Christ, Rom. 8:9, because He is also sent by Him, John 16:7. The second outgoing of the Holy Spirit is temporal and economic, according to His economic office, whereby He is the Comforter.

3. The manner of sending, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, "in my name." That is, on the one hand, from me, as from a second origin from which He proceeds, as we have just said; and on the other hand, for my sake, Gal. 4:4, as one whom I, by my merit and intercession, have obtained for my own. More on this follows.

IV. His twofold economic benefit

1. His Teaching, which regards the understanding, so as to bring to it the knowledge of things until now unknown. Ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα, "He shall teach you all things." Here is marked:

a. The Teacher, ἐκεῖνος, "He" — in the masculine gender, which, according to the ordinary grammatical rule, does not well agree with the neuter noun. By this it is signified that the Holy Spirit is not to be some accidental power of God, but a Person, and one, moreover, to whom all things are known, or who is thus omniscient, that is, divine.

b. Those who would be taught, ὑμᾶς, "you" — namely the Apostles and other men driven by the Spirit of God, but not only these; rather every sort of elect person, throughout all ages of the world, Isa. 54:13; John 6:45; Jer. 31:34 — though in an unequal degree and in an unequal manner. Those, indeed, in a more excellent and infallible degree; these, however, in a lower and lesser degree, so much as is at least sufficient for them unto salvation.

c. The Teaching, or the act of teaching, διδάξει, "He shall teach" — outwardly, by the word inspired by Him and its outward ministry; inwardly, by the illumination of the understanding — both extraordinarily and infallibly, which took place in and with extraordinary persons, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles; and ordinarily, in and with all who shall be saved. He shall teach not only the truth, but also the goodness of the teachings; and not only by advising, but also by persuading, that they may walk in the truth. Meanwhile in this one word "teach" are comprehended, representatively, all the economic acts of the Holy Spirit, namely of guiding, comforting, rebuking, exhorting, stirring up — which are required in order to obtain eternal life.

d. What would be taught, πάντα, "all things" — namely, all that is necessary to salvation, and not only what is necessary to the being and essence of Christianity, but also to its well-being and welfare.

2. His bringing to remembrance, which regards the memory, so that those things which have slipped from it may return, and may exercise their power. Here is noted:

a. The bringing to remembrance, or the act of bringing to remembrance, ὑπομνήσει, "He shall recall, bring back to memory." The Vulgate, Erasmus, and others have suggeret, that is, "He will suggest to you, bring to mind." Not badly said, remarks Beza, but with a dangerous ambiguity; for those things are also said to be "suggested" which one has not heard of before at all. But here the subject is things already heard, that they might be understood and grasped, and recalled to memory. He shall therefore not only teach new and necessary and useful things, but He shall also bring back into your memory those things which you have long known.

b. The things which would be brought to remembrance, πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν, "all things that I have said unto you." Namely: just as Christ has explained the teaching of Moses, so the Holy Spirit has explained the teaching of Christ, and has, at least in substance, set forth nothing new, or anything foreign to it or contrary to it, John 16:13–14; Matt. 28:19.

The Doctrinal Part

V. There is in the Divine Being a certain Person

There is, therefore, in the divine Being a certain Person, coexisting with the Father and the Son, and distinguished from them in various ways, who is called the Holy Spirit. All these points stand out, as if illumined by the rays of the sun, from the text we have expounded, in which so much is said of the Holy Spirit: that He is a Person is pointed to by the word ἐκεῖνος, "He," as also His sending and His personal workings — "He shall teach and bring to remembrance"; His distinction from the Father and the Son is taught by the words "whom the Father will send in my name"; finally, that this takes place within the divine Being, the whole text shows, when it speaks of God and of the divine Persons, Father and Son, and of the divine Ambassador of both. Other passages, such as Ps. 33:6; Isa. 61:1; Matt. 28:19; 1 John 5:7, confirm this — and the reason and manner of promoting man's salvation according to the counsel of peace seems to require it: for just as in the divine Being there is a Father, who has decreed the work of redemption by eternal predestination; and just as there is a Son, who has accomplished it; so there is also a Holy Spirit, who applies the redemption obtained, and brings the matter to completion and perfects it, through regeneration, sanctification, etc.

VI. Names of the Holy Spirit

The name "Holy Spirit" is sometimes used (at least when the two are separated) of God essentially, John 4:24 — because every Person is a spirit and an immaterial and holy being; sometimes more particularly, to signify the deity of the Son, in distinction from His human nature, Rom. 1:4; 1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 9:14; Mark 2:8; 1 Tim. 3:16. When it is used of the third Person, it signifies either the Person Himself, as happens in the text, or His gifts — whether the common ones, Joel 2:28, or the extraordinary ones, John 7:39; Acts 19:2; 1 Cor. 12:9–10 — which are indeed carefully distinguished from the Person, Acts 2:38; 10:45; 1 Cor. 12:4, 8, 11; yet they also signify the Person at the same time, as their cause, whence the manner of speech of "seven Spirits," Rev. 1:4, since He is for this reason called by the ancients a sevenfold Spirit. Further, the Person is called, in particular, "Spirit," because He subsists by an inexpressible breathing, for which reason He is called the Spirit of the mouth, Ps. 33:6; 2 Thess. 2:8, whose sign the Savior gives to the disciples, John 20:22. He is called "holy" because He sanctifies by office, Rom. 1:4. There are also other names by which He is designated: the good Spirit, Ps. 143:10; the Spirit of adoption unto children, Rom. 8:15; the Spirit of grace, Heb. 10:29; likewise the Spirit of supplications, Zech. 12:10; the Spirit of generosity, or the free Spirit, Ps. 51:12; the Spirit of promise, Eph. 1:13; the Spirit of truth, John 14:17; 15:26; the Spirit of glory, 1 Pet. 4:14; the Spirit of life, Rom. 8:2; the Spirit of bondage, the same, v. 15; and by several other figurative names He is called the Advocate or Comforter, and more besides.

VII. That the Holy Spirit is a Person

That the Holy Spirit is a Person appears from this: (1) That He is commonly enumerated together with the other divine Persons, Matt. 28:19; 1 John 5:7. (2) That He has shown Himself under the appearance of a substance to be perceived, Matt. 3:16; Luke 3:22; Acts 2:3–4. (3) That the Greek name πνεῦμα, "Spirit," which is of the neuter gender, is joined grammatically with the pronoun of the masculine gender, ἐκεῖνος, "He," John 14:26. (4) That He is said to be sent, to come — there. (5) That everything which is personal is, according to and in Holy Scripture, ascribed and attributed to Him: (1) Substance, Matt. 3:16; (2) Life, Rom. 8:2; (3) Understanding, 1 Cor. 2:10; (4) Will, 1 Cor. 12:11; (5) Personal workings — regenerating, converting, sanctifying, giving life, comforting, leading, commanding, sending ministers — which occur everywhere in Holy Scripture. (6) That He is said to be grieved, to be affected with pain, Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30, as also that one sins against Him, Matt. 12:32. Unbegottenness, the not being born, which is common to and with the Father — but He is also distinguished in this from the Father's, that the Father has by it generated, but the Holy Spirit not at all. He is therefore distinguished most of all thereby from the Son.

VIII. That he is also a Person distinct from the Father and the Son

That He is also a Person distinct from Father and Son appears from this: (1) That He is not only, as a third, enumerated together with the other two, Matt. 28:19; 1 John 5:7; 2 Cor. 13:13, but also (2) that He is expressly called "another," John 14:16–17 — although not "another thing," with respect to the Being, as Vincentius Lirinensis (Adversus Haereses) says very well: "In Trinitate est alius atque alius, non aliud," etc. — that is: "In the Trinity there is another and another [Person], not another thing and another thing; in the Savior there is another thing and another thing, not another and another [person]." How is there in the Trinity another and another, not another thing and another thing? Because the Person of the Father is one, the Person of the Son another, the Person of the Holy Spirit another — not another and another nature, but one and the same nature. But especially (3) because personal and distinguishing properties are ascribed to Him which are incommunicable to the other Persons, namely: (1) The passive breathing forth, or outgoing by breathing, for which He is called Spirit, and the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Jehovah's mouth, speaking after a human manner, Ps. 33:6; Job 33:4 — a sign of which is that the Savior, about to impart the Holy Spirit to His own, breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," John 20:22. For this reason the Father gives and sends Him in the name of the Son, John 15:26, and through the Son, Tit. 3:6; by this passive breathing forth He is distinguished from the Father, who does not proceed from another. (2) The particular order of subsistence, whereby He, proceeding from the Father and the Son as from the same source, subsists, and is for this reason reckoned as the third in the economy, Matt. 28:19, etc. Finally (3) the particular order of working, whereby He works from the Father and the Son, insofar as He, proceeding and being sent from them, works, and is thence said not to speak of Himself, but to receive from another, John 16:13–15. By this He is distinguished from the two preceding Persons, inasmuch as the Father works of Himself, yet through two others; the Son from another and through another; the Holy Spirit from two others, yet through Himself.

IX. That he is also a divine Person

That He is also a Person, not created but divine, coeternal and of one substance with the Father and the Son, appears from this alone: that He is constantly joined together with the divine Persons, as one with them, 1 John 5:7 — but also because all that is divine is ascribed to Him just as to the Father and the Son. Namely, first, divine Names: for He is called Jehovah, as appears from the comparison of Isa. 6:9 with Acts 28:25–26; likewise of Exod. 17:7 with Ps. 95:7–8; Heb. 3:7–9; 4:3, 7–8; also of Lev. 16:2 with Heb. 9:7–8, and of Jer. 31:31 with Heb. 10:15–16. He is called Θεός, God, Acts 5:3–4; 1 Cor. 3:16–17, compared with 6:19. He is called Κύριος, Lord, 2 Cor. 3:17, by which name the LXX translators generally render the four-letter Name יהוה, Jehovah.

X. Divine attributes

Secondly, divine attributes, which are one and the same with the Being — of which sort are: (1) Eternity, Heb. 9:14; (2) Immensity, Ps. 139:7; (3) Omniscience, 1 Cor. 2:10–11, where He is said to search out — that is, to know most precisely — the depths of God; compare Jer. 17:10; (4) Omnipotence, and an independent power and might, 1 Cor. 12:4, 6, 11; compare Luke 11:20 with Matt. 12:28.

XI. Divine works

Thirdly, divine works, of which sort are: (1) Creation, Gen. 1:2; Ps. 33:6; (2) the working of miracles, the raising of the dead, Matt. 12:28; Rom. 8:11, the gift of miraculous healing, of powers, of tongues, of prophecy, 1 Cor. 12:9–10; (3) the anointing of Christ, Isa. 61:1 with Luke 4:18; (4) regeneration, or spiritual quickening, renewal, conversion, sanctification, the strengthening of Christians, the infallible leading of the Prophets and Apostles into all truth — matters which we shall demonstrate, along with others like them, in their proper places.

XII. Divine honor

Fourthly, religious honor — from which believers are called temples of the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 3:16–17; 6:19, since they are consecrated to His service. We are also baptized into His name, Matt. 28:19. He is worshipped, 2 Cor. 13:13; Rev. 1:4–5 — though more rarely, because He, rather, promises and forms our prayers for us than receives them, and because they end in Him — indeed, because He rather calls upon us (that is, causes and teaches us to call upon God) than is Himself called upon. He is religiously obeyed, Ps. 95:6 with Heb. 3:7, 9. Against Him one sins in particular, Matt. 12:31–32.

XIII. The economic office of the Holy Spirit

As for the economic office of the Holy Spirit: He is, as it were, the Envoy of the Trinity, to carry out and to perfect those things which had been decreed — for which reason He is said, at the Creation, to have hovered, to have brooded, on the waters (מְרַחֶפֶת, as a hen upon eggs, Deut. 32:11), Gen. 1:2; Ps. 33:6 — for which reason He is also called the power of God, Luke 1:35; Rom. 15:13, 19, and likewise the finger of God, Luke 11:20 with Matt. 12:28, which performed the miracles, there. He is the παράκλητος, the Advocate of the Trinity, to bring to perfection man's salvation, which the Father decreed and the Son obtained. For, just as the Son takes up man's cause chiefly with God, 1 Tim. 2:5, by offering and presenting Himself for men, Eph. 5:2, so the Holy Spirit takes up chiefly the cause of God with man, by bringing and leading man to faith in God and in the Mediator, and by sanctifying and strengthening him, that the salvation allotted him by the Father and obtained by the Son may be applied to him — for which reason κοινωνία, fellowship, is ascribed to Him, 2 Cor. 13:13.

XIV. What the Holy Spirit accomplishes, chiefly through a threefold activity

First, by teaching, John 14:26 — which is accomplished by sending out teachers, Acts 13:2, by preparing those sent and providing them with the necessary gifts, Acts 2:4; by co-working with them, thus provided, Rom. 15:19; by inspiring the word which is to be spoken, 2 Pet. 1:21, or by co-working and running along with their word, through an inward illumination of the understanding, Heb. 6:4, and by a powerful leading, Ps. 143:10. For all these things He is called the Spirit of truth, John 14:17.

XV. By sanctifying

Secondly, by sanctifying — for which He is called the Holy Spirit — which, in a wider sense, includes: (1) Regeneration, John 3:5, and renewal, Tit. 3:5, whereby the first act of spiritual life is brought to and into the soul; for which reason the work is called a quickening, and the Worker the Spirit of life, Rom. 8:2. (2) Conversion, whereby one who has been made alive is brought to the act of faith in Christ, for which reason He is called the Spirit of faith, 2 Cor. 4:13. (3) Sanctification, 1 Cor. 6:11, whereby the fruits of faith are produced, Gal. 5:22. (4) The strengthening of believers in the practice of godliness, 2 Cor. 1:21–22. (5) The stirring up and rousing to all that is good, Rom. 8:14, whereby zeal and ardor of spirit are brought to them, for which reason He is also compared to fire and to a driving force, Acts 2:2–3.

XVI. By comforting

Thirdly, by comforting (from which He is in particular called παράκλητος, Comforter), which occurs: (1) By praying in and for believers with unutterable groanings, Rom. 8:26, that the grace of hearing and comfort may, as it were, be extorted from God — that is, by awakening unutterable groanings for this purpose in their hearts. (2) By strengthening believers against the assault of enemies of every kind, Rom. 8:26. (3) By assuring them, in adversities of every kind, of God's unchangeable favor toward them, for which reason He is called a witness, 1 John 5:7, and is said to bear witness with our spirit, Rom. 8:15–16, that He seals and anoints us as our earnest, 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 4:30; that He pours out the love of God in our hearts, Rom. 5:5, and that through all this He brings it about that we may and can glory in tribulations, v. 3, and that in our hearts there is peace and joy through the Holy Spirit, Rom. 14:17.

XVII. His economic attributes

On account of all these economic works and benefits there belongs to Him in particular: (1) Holiness, from which He has His name; (2) Goodness, Ps. 143:10; (3) Grace, Heb. 10:29; Zech. 12:10; (4) Power and might, as He is the power of God, perfecting all things, Luke 1:35; (5) Glory, 1 Pet. 4:14, as He who leads and brings believers to an immeasurable and eternal glory.

XVIII. His economic offices

There are also economic offices, which, though not to the exclusion of the other Persons, are nevertheless in a particular manner proper to the Holy Spirit, arising from His particular working, and likewise proceeding from His economic benefits. There are, moreover, economic sins committed against the Holy Spirit, which we shall, God willing, mention in our Practical Part. The Holy Spirit has carried out His economic office from the very beginning of the world, Gen. 1:2, and under Moses in the wilderness, leading the church of God, Isa. 63:10; Acts 7:51–52 — yet chiefly and above all promised for the times of the New Testament, Joel 2:28; Isa. 44:3. Finally, He entered upon His assigned post since the departure of the Son of God to heaven, Acts 2:1–6, 17, according to the promises previously and repeatedly made by the Son, John 14:16–17, 26; 15:26; 16:7; and that post of His He shall keep and administer until the end of the ages, remaining with His own and in them, that they, since their Savior's departure, should not be left orphans — because the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, that God may be all in all, 1 Cor. 15:24, 28 — yes, even unto eternity, John 14:16.

The Polemical Part

XIX. The question is: (I) Whether the Holy Spirit is a Person

The opponents of the Spirit, the Macedonians, and in our time the Englishman John Biddle, indeed acknowledged Him to be a Person — but only a created Person, namely the Prince of the angels, against whom we shall dispute in the point of controversy immediately following. The rest of the Socinians hold that the Holy Spirit cannot in any way be said to be a Person, unless one wishes to hold that all that is in God are Persons distinguished from God, as Smalcius speaks (in Refutat. Thes. Graveri de Spir. S.). In particular they hold that He is something intermediate between the Creator and the creature; that He is an accidental power of God; that He is a divine breath; that He is the Gospel; that He is godly motions in man — for the brothers of Cadmus differ among themselves, and they, having strayed from the truth, find nothing on which to fix and set their foot. (See the most eminent Hoornbeek, Socin. Confut., Tom. I, p. 117.) The Reformed, on the contrary, hold that He is a true Person: (1) In agreement with Holy Scripture, as we have shown above, §. VI. (2) In agreement with right reason: for since (1) God, as all acknowledge, is an absolutely most perfect Being, how can there, without any contradiction, be admitted in Him an imperfection of dependency — essentially proper to something accidental, whose being consists in inhering in and depending on a subject, which is moreover by its nature more imperfect than substance? (2) Since to devise a certain intermediate thing between God and the creature is to devise a certain intermediate thing between the dependent and the independent, and, to say it in one word, an intermediate between contradictory things. (3) Since in this way there would be in God something which is in part God, in part not God. (III) Because the opinions of the parties conflict with one another: for if He is an accidental power of God, and therefore in God, how then is He a breath, which is outside of God? How then is He the Gospel? The general proof, whereby we have unassailably demonstrated in §. VII that the Holy Spirit is a Person — namely, that all personal things are ascribed to Him from and in Holy Scripture — we shall not repeat. We shall only briefly resolve the objections.

XX. Objections against the personality of the Holy Spirit answered

The parties allege: (1) That all these personal things belong to the Holy Spirit through a mere personification, as for example that Scripture "foresees," that the Law "speaks," that sin "seduces," etc. Answer: In a personification, some particular personal attribute may perhaps be ascribed to that which is not a person, but that all personal attributes should be ascribed to something which is not a person is shown by no single example — indeed, it involves a manifest contradiction to hold that that which has all personal attributes should not properly be called a person. The parties allege (2) that such things are ascribed to Him as fit no person — for example, to be given and poured out among men; to be baptized with Him; to be anointed with Him; to be filled; to be given by measure. Answer: (a) It is not contrary to the nature of a person that certain things be ascribed to him figuratively — for example, that God is called love, 1 John 4:8; Christ, the way, the truth, and the life, John 14:6; likewise the resurrection; a propitiation, 1 John 2:2; made sin for us, 2 Cor. 5:21. Therefore (b) all these things are indeed said of the Holy Spirit, but only with respect to His gifts, in which sense the words "Spirit" and "Holy Spirit" often occur in Scripture — for example, 2 Kings 2:9; Num. 11:17; Joel 2:28; John 7:39, and elsewhere. It is said (3) that the Holy Spirit is mentioned along with the other Persons, Father and Son — for example, John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 5:21; Luke 9:26; John 8:16. Answer: This does not conflict with His personality; for it also happens that, when mention is made of the Father and the Holy Spirit, no mention is made of the Son, 1 Cor. 3:16. Thus the Holy Spirit is joined with the Son without mention being made of the Father, John 1:33; Rom. 9:1. It is enough that He is, not seldom, joined together with the other Persons, Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:13; 1 John 5:7 — though this, for certain reasons known to God, does not always occur. The parties say (4) that a will is also ascribed to the wind, John 3:8. Answer: But without understanding, and without all the other personal properties which are ascribed to the Holy Spirit. (5) That workings are also ascribed to accidents — for example, to love, 1 Cor. 13:4–7, and to sin, Rom. 7:11. Answer: (a) Neither to love nor to sin are all personal properties ascribed. And (b) the workings ascribed to love and to sin are not personal workings, of the sort ascribed to the Holy Spirit. It is said (6) that He is called a power of God, by which God works, Luke 1:35. Answer: The power of God is no accidental power, which can have no place in the most perfect Being; nor is it an instrumental power, as though the world had been created by means of it, Ps. 33:6, where an instrument can have no place; but it is a personal or economic power, since the Father, through the Son and through the Holy Spirit, accomplishes and perfects His outward works, as we have taught above. Finally, they object (7) that He is called a breath, John 20:22, and is compared to wind and to fire, Acts 2:2. Answer: He is compared to these on the one hand to signify His personal outgoing, as we have seen above, and on the other hand His economic working — just as elsewhere He is said to have been in the wind, 1 Kings 19:11–13.

XXI. The question is: (II) Whether the Holy Spirit is a divine Person, from eternity, of one substance with the Father

The ancient Tritheists, and the Peratae, with whom Valentinus Gentilis agrees in everything, indeed acknowledged that He is God, and also from eternity, but nevertheless denied that He is of one substance with the Father, and asserted that He had received His essence (essentiatus) from the Father. The Jews speak variously and of various things concerning the Holy Spirit: sometimes they say He is a power of God; sometimes excellent gifts of God; sometimes heroic impulses; sometimes the presence of the divine Majesty in the Temple, which they call the Shechinah (שכינה); sometimes the lowest degree of prophecy, by whose help and aid the Hagiographa — that is, the so-called Holy Writings of Scripture — were said to have been written. The Macedonians, deriving from Macedonius, in the year 360 after Christ, hold that He is a prince of the created angels, a servant of God, and the deacon of Christ. This opinion the Englishman John Biddle has recently dredged up again out of the abyss, which the most renowned Klopppenburg, in a particular treatise, has most soundly refuted. Biddle tries to ground this invention of his chiefly on these suppositions: (1) He supposes that in the Scriptures the same names and words are used of the Holy Spirit and of a good angel, just as the names "unclean spirit" and "evil angel" are used, where common angels are spoken of, or the Archangel — however, apart from and without Scripture, in which the Holy Spirit is never called a good angel, nor the good angels Holy Spirits. (2) That Ps. 51:14, "רוח נדיבה" — ruach nedhibah, πνεῦμα ἡγεμονικόν (according to the LXX translators), a "princely Spirit" — is a certain foremost archangel, a prince and head of the created angels. However, this designation "ruach nedhibah" is variously translated and variously applied by the interpreters: some understand it of David's generous spirit, which befits a prince, or of the Holy Spirit, who might make him free and generous, and adorn him with a spirit befitting the dignity of a prince — but that this manner of speech of a "chief spirit" is used among the created angels, Biddle will still have to prove. (3) He says that the Savior belittles and lowers Him beneath God, by calling Him παράκλητον, an Advocate or Comforter, and by ascribing to Him the service of an Advocate. But that He is thereby lowered and belittled, Biddle has not proven, nor does he even attempt to prove it. For thereby is signified His economic office, which He has willingly taken upon Himself in the counsel of peace, for which reason He is perhaps called רוח נדיבה, the willing Spirit, Ps. 51:12. (4) That He is distinguished in Being from God, as "the Spirit of God." But this too Biddle has not proven, and never shall prove: for the word "God" is here used personally, to signify the Person of the Father, and also of the Son, as often happens in Scripture. So long, therefore, as he shall not have proven these four points from Holy Scripture, so long shall he also have nothing for himself; but he shall never prove them. We, however, have long ago demonstrated, with this one unshakable proof, that He is a divine Person, because all that is divine is ascribed to Him. And there is therefore nothing left but that we resolve the chief objections of this opponent of the Spirit.

XXII. Biddle's objections answered

He objects, (1) that the Spirit differs from God as His Spirit. Answer: Certainly, yes — but not as a being differs from a being, but as a Person differs from a Person. (2) That He who has given the Spirit is Jehovah alone, Neh. 9:6, 20. Answer: The sense of the words is: "You, Jehovah, the Triune One — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — you are that Jehovah alone," in the same sense, and in nearly the same construction, as occurs Deut. 6:4, "Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one." "You have made the heavens... and you have given your good Spirit... just as you have also given your Son to the world," John 3:16. Therefore the whole Trinity, and each Person in it, is that Jehovah alone, "the only true God," and "Jesus Christ, whom you have sent," John 17:3. He says (3) that He who does not speak of Himself, John 16:13, is not God. Answer: The Holy Spirit does not speak of Himself, insofar as He does not subsist (as a Person) of Himself, but from the Father and the Son; but not that His Being is not of itself, and that He therefore does not speak of Himself, as we have shown in the Doctrinal Part. (4) That He hears from another, John 16:13, and is thus taught by another. Answer: To hear from another, and to be taught by another, are not absolutely, in a general sense, identical manners of speech, though according to the requirement of the matter they are sometimes one and the same, as John 8:26–28. To hear, therefore, from the Father must in the Holy Spirit be understood in a manner befitting God, so far as it means to speak of another, namely according to His order of subsisting and working. (5) That He receives it from another, John 16:14, and therefore depends on another. Answer: Here too it is wrongly supposed that to receive from another and to depend on another are identical things. He receives it, then, and takes it from another, just as He subsists and works from another — not, namely, through dependency, but by and through a manner of subsisting particularly His own, which we have taught above. The same error is in what he alleges (6), that He is sent, and therefore serves. Answer: Although it sometimes happens that he who is sent serves, this is nevertheless not universally true, and cannot be true of Him to whom all that is divine is proper. (7) That He is a gift of God, and therefore not the Giver of all things. Answer: Someone can give himself to another, just as God, by and through the covenant of grace, gives Himself to His own, when He will be their God, Heb. 8:10; 1 Tim. 2:6; Tit. 2:14. And (8) that He changes place, Luke 3:21–22. Answer: It is denied that He changes place, except only in a figurative manner, just as it is said of God, Gen. 18:19–20(?). (9) That He bids Christ to come to judgment, Rev. 22:17. Answer: He prays this operatively (as one says) in believers, not formally in Himself — although one may also say that "the Spirit and the Bride," by a manner of speech called hendiadys (that is, that one and the same thing is expressed by two words), signify the spiritual Bride. (10) That the baptized did not even know that there was a Spirit, Acts 19:2. Answer: (a) Though they did not know it, is that a proof that He therefore did not exist? (b) They did not know of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, but they well knew of His existence. (11) That He has an understanding, which is distinguished from the understanding of God, because He hears it from Him and is taught by Him. Answer: This is warmed-over stew from the third and fourth proofs. Finally, (12) that He has a will distinguished from the will of God, because He is said to pray for the saints according to God, that is, they say, according to the will of God, Rom. 8:26–27. We answer, besides what we have said on the second objection, also that the manner of speech κατὰ Θεόν, "according to God," does not here mean "according to the will of God" as distinguished from His own will, but, according to verse 26, the same as καθὸ δεῖ, "as it ought" — namely, that the Holy Spirit is for believers the Author, the Producer, and the Giver, that they may come to pray as they ought, and, if you will, according to the will of God — but which is one and the same as His own. The most renowned Klopppenburg (in his Vindiciae pro Deitate Spiritus Sancti adversus Bidellum) has treated this subject fully, deliberately, and exactly.

XXIII. The question is: (III) Whether the worship of the Holy Spirit has foundation in Holy Scripture

The Socinians, because they deny the eternal deity of the Holy Spirit, are constrained also to deny that His worship has foundation and proof in Holy Scripture — namely, lest we should from His worship at the same time infer and press His deity. The Apologetic Remonstrants seem to acknowledge it, but nevertheless deny, out of love for the Socinians — although they otherwise are unwilling to deny the eternal deity of the Holy Spirit — that His worship has foundation in Holy Scripture. The Reformed, though they acknowledge that Scripture speaks more sparingly of the worship of the Holy Spirit, because He, according to His office, is much rather the cause of worship in us than the end and object toward which it is directed, Rom. 8:25–26; Gal. 4:6, nevertheless firmly maintain that His worship does have foundation in Scripture, because (1) according to the content of Scripture the Holy Spirit is of one substance with the Father and the Son, as we have shown in the Doctrinal Part, and as our opponents themselves confess; and because it is also commanded in that same Scripture to worship God, Deut. 6:13; Matt. 4:10 — while it is altogether unreasonable that the worship of one who is truly God should have neither command nor example in the Scriptures. (2) Because sufficiently clear and plain examples of this worship do occur — in our baptism, Matt. 28:19, and in the wish of Paul, 2 Cor. 13:13, and in that of John, Rev. 1:4. (3) Because it savors of atheism not to worship Him who truly is God. Nor does it hold good against this: (1) That we, 1 John 1:3, are said to have fellowship with the Father and with the Son, but not with the Holy Spirit. Answer: This happens because the Holy Spirit is rather the bond, and the internal and inward cause, than the terminating end of it; nor does this in the least detract from His worship. (2) That believers are said to be, and to remain, in the Father and in the Son, 1 John 4:13, compare with chapter 2:6 etc., but not in the Holy Spirit. Answer: (a) This has nothing to do with His worship. (b) This occurs because He and His anointing are rather and remain in us, than we in Him, 1 John 2:20, 27. (3) It is said that Holy Scripture speaks more rarely of the Holy Spirit than of the other Persons. Answer: This occurs both because He speaks constantly in Scripture, and because He, through His inward workings, insinuates Himself into the souls of believers. (Compare Hoornbeek, Socin. Confut., Tom. I, p. 447, and Alting, Elench. Nov., Loc. III, Contr. 2.)

XXIV. The question is: (IV) Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or also from the Father and the Son

Weigel and his followers hold that the Holy Spirit indeed proceeded, under the Old Testament, from the Father alone, but under the New Testament from both Father and Son — perhaps because he did not sufficiently sincerely and candidly acknowledge the presence of the Son even under the Old Testament. The Greeks of old, in the year 381 after Christ, when in reading the Constantinopolitan Confession of Faith they noted only these words, "who proceeds from the Father," and that "from the Son" had been added by the Latins — because thereby not only was the public confession of the church altered by the particular authority of the Latins alone, but also the Latin church raised itself to a position of authority over the other churches; indeed, they wished to correct even Holy Scripture itself, from which the words of that confession were taken, namely from John 15:26 — took occasion from this to deny altogether that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the source of His subsistence. Nor was that schism removed by the declaration of the Council of Florence, in the year 1438, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son from eternity, as from one single source, and by one single breathing forth; rather, the schism was by this very means increased and enlarged, because the Latins now urged and pressed as a necessary article of faith a doctrine which, up to that council, had not been necessary. Here there has been sin on both sides: on the part of the Latins, that they added something to the Constantinopolitan confession of faith, and thereby forced upon the Greeks from the side the authority of the Pope; but also on the part of the Greeks, that they, out of mere envy and spite against the Latin name, rashly and recklessly refused and rejected a doctrine agreeable to Holy Scripture and acknowledged by the older church fathers. Yet there are not lacking those who hold that both the ancient and especially the later Greeks meant nothing else, and wished to say nothing else, than that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, through the Son. And thus their opinion would be more tolerable, since the Father works all things through the Son; indeed, thus this controversy would almost amount to a mere dispute over words. Meanwhile the Reformed hold, with the Latins, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, and this for these reasons: (1) Because He is called the Spirit of Elohim, that is, of the divine Persons — but also in particular the Spirit of the Father, Matt. 10:20, the Spirit of the Son, Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:9; Phil. 1:19 — therefore, just as He is the Spirit of the Father by virtue of His outgoing, 1 Cor. 2:11, so He is also the Spirit of the Son for the very same reason. (2) Because He is called the Spirit of the mouth of the Lord Jesus, 2 Thess. 2:8, just as, Ps. 33:6, He is called the Spirit of the Father's mouth. (3) Because that pure river of the water of life, clear as crystal (by which nothing else can more fittingly be understood than the Holy Spirit, Isa. 44:3; John 7:38; Ezek. 36:25–26) is said to proceed (go out) from the throne of God and of the Lamb. (4) Because He is said to be sent by the Son, just as by the Father, Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:17(?) — indeed also in the name of the Son, John 14:26, just as, on the other side, the Son sends Him from the Father, John 15:26, that one may understand that He proceeds from both in like manner. (5) Because Christ, John 16:14, says of the Holy Spirit, "He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you" — just as He says of Himself, "All things that the Father has are mine." For indeed, He did not receive in time and take what He would announce; therefore from eternity — and how from eternity, unless through His outgoing? (6) Because, if His outgoing from the Son is denied, the order of subsisting and working in the Trinity will not a little be disturbed and confused — for if the Holy Spirit should proceed immediately from the Father in the very same manner as the Son, there will scarcely be anything left, apart from Generation and Breathing, by which the outgoing of the Son and of the Holy Spirit could be sufficiently distinguished from each other.

XXV. Objections of the Greeks answered

The chief proofs by which the Greeks attempt to establish their opinion are: (1) The passage John 15:26: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [namely] the Spirit of truth, ὁ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, who proceeds from the Father," etc. Answer: (a) That this passage, for lack of any excluding word, proves nothing more than that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, which is not contradicted. (b) If they mean nothing other than that He proceeds from the Father alone, but through the Son, then I have not much to bring against it. Meanwhile (c) the passage seems to speak not so much of His personal, as rather of His economic outgoing, which takes place in time. They object (2) that Holy Scripture has nothing of the outgoing of the Holy Spirit from the Son. But against this we set all the proofs which we have long since brought forward on behalf of the opinion of the Latins. If they (3) allege that, according to the opinion of the Latins, the order of the Persons in the Trinity would not a little be confused and disturbed, and that one might perhaps better say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, just as the prepositions διά, "through," and εἰς, "unto," are used, Rom. 11:36 — as Basil, Theophylact, and Damascene are willing to hold, according to the testimony of Bessarion, in his History of the Council of Florence — I answer thus: (a) that I do not strongly set myself against it; although (d) the passage Rom. 11:36 does not seem to be concerned with, or about, the outgoing of the Holy Spirit, and still less to speak of His personal outgoing, but only of the bringing forth of the creatures by God, and of their preservation through Providence, and of their being governed unto His glory. But (c) notwithstanding this, the order of subsisting, precisely named, shall stand, so long as one holds that the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, while the Father is simply said not to proceed or go out from anyone; the Son from the Father by an eternal Generation; the Holy Spirit by an outgoing or actual Breathing forth from both.

XXVI. The question is: (V) Whether the Holy Spirit, now that the canon of Scripture is sealed, teaches and leads believers in the same way and to the same degree

The question is: (V) Whether the Holy Spirit, now that the canon of Holy Scripture is already sealed, teaches and leads believers in the same manner and to the same degree as He formerly taught and led the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and other men driven by God's Spirit? The falsely so-called Enthusiasts, Weigel, Franck, Schwenckfeld, David Joris, and others of that sort of people, would have it (if they even openly acknowledge the personality and teaching office of the Holy Spirit, rather than setting up their own reason and its promptings in His place) that the Spirit, even today, now that Holy Scripture is already sealed, teaches and leads men, just as He formerly taught and led the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles — by breathing into them, through certain divine and enthusiastic inspirations, new doctrines and foundational principles, distinct from and apart from Holy Scripture. However, since we have already at length disputed this point of controversy from both sides, Book 1, Chapter 2, §. XXXII, it will for the present be enough, for the completion of this Polemical Part, merely to touch on it here with a fingertip, and to refer the reader there.

The Practical Part

XXVII. That we should strive after fellowship with the Holy Spirit

Here, then (so far as practice is concerned), there is great reason why we should, first, strive with all our strength and effort after the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, 2 Cor. 13:13, that we may become partakers of the Spirit, and may receive Him, Acts 19:2. For which, on God's part, is required: (1) That He be given to us freely, for which reason He is also called a gift of God, Neh. 9:20; John 14:16; 20:22; Acts 2:38; Rom. 5:5. (2) That He be sent to us by the Father, in the name of the Son — that is, that He come to us as it were on the authority, indeed in the name, of the whole Holy Trinity, John 15:26. (3) That He be poured out upon us, Joel 2:28, as a pure stream, Tit. 3:6; Isa. 44:3. On our part, in order that we may become partakers of and receive the Holy Spirit, is required: (1) Faith, Gal. 3:2, 14; John 7:39 — that faith, namely, whereby we lay hold of Him as the Spirit of promise, Eph. 1:13, which promises we obtain through faith, Gal. 3:14. (2) Prayer, Luke 11:13, for which reason He is also called a Spirit of supplications, Zech. 12:10. (3) Expectation, Acts 1:4. (4) The hearing of the word, Acts 10:44; 2 Cor. 3:8, and other such means besides, Acts 2:1. (5) Repentance from sin, Acts 2:38. (6) A religious exercise, whereby we make and show ourselves to be temples of the Holy Spirit, in which He delights to dwell, 1 Cor. 6:19. (7) Obedience, whereby we carefully order ourselves according to His motions and leadings, Rom. 8:14. To such an endeavor we shall be roused and stirred by: (a) The excellence of the Person, whereby He is God, of one substance with the Father and the Son, of like power, wisdom, and goodness, whereby He can promise us all that the Father and the Son promise us. (b) The end and aim of His economic office, namely to perfect the work of man's salvation — that is, to communicate to us the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of the Father, and all that these can do and accomplish, 2 Cor. 13:14(?). (c) The abundance and preciousness of His economic works and benefits — regeneration, guidance, instruction, comfort. (d) His absolute necessity, since without Him we cannot even say that Christ is Lord, 1 Cor. 12:3, and can have no fellowship with Christ.

XXVIII. That, having obtained the Holy Spirit, we should carefully keep and preserve him

There is, secondly, great reason why we, having obtained the Holy Spirit, should carefully keep and cherish Him, that He should not lodge in us as merely a stranger, and only for a time, Rom. 8:11, but rather that He should dwell in us, 1 Cor. 6:19 — indeed, that He should remain with us even unto eternity, John 14:16. For one may lose the Holy Spirit, wholly and finally, so far as concerns His common gifts, as appears in Saul, 1 Sam. 16:14; and one may lose the felt sense of the presently indwelling Holy Spirit, Ps. 119:8, which occurs in spiritual desertions, Ps. 13:1; one may lose Him so far as concerns His agreeable and pleasant gifts, which otherwise serve toward the full assurance of faith, toward joy, and toward comfort, Ps. 51:13(?) compared with v. 14, and Ps. 30:8; 77:9–10; 87:15. One can, with respect to the saving fruits — faith, hope, love — be so greatly diminished that one might ask, "Where is your faith?" Luke 8:25; Rev. 2:4–5; Isa. 6:13(?). Since, then, the Holy Spirit can be lost in so many and such great ways (although He simply and finally cannot be lost), there is truly great reason that we should do our utmost to keep and preserve the Holy Spirit, and all His fruits, after the example of David, Ps. 51:13 — since it is truly worth the effort, not only to preserve and cherish the Holy Spirit Himself, but also His gracious gifts; and not only His saving, but also His common gifts; and not only the honorable fruits, but also the agreeable and pleasant ones; and not only the presence of all these, but also the felt sense and the clear evidence of them.

XXIX. The means of keeping and preserving the Holy Spirit

The means, now, of keeping and preserving the Holy Spirit are these that follow: (1) A careful attentiveness to the motions of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, that we not only diligently attend to and note them — like the Bride, Song 2:8, and John, Rev. 1:10, who noted the voice speaking to them and turned themselves toward it — but also that we promptly obey Him: hear the Spirit striving with us, Gen. 6:3; let Him in when He knocks, Rev. 3:20; Song 5:2, walk according as we live in the Spirit, Gal. 5:25, and thereby kindle, fan into flame, and stir up the gifts of the Spirit, ἀναζωπυρεῖν, 2 Tim. 1:6 — for whatever remains idle gradually fades away. (2) The use of the means by which the Holy Spirit can be obtained, stirred up, and increased, of which sort are: (a) The hearing of the Word, Acts 10:44; 1 Pet. 1:12. (b) Meditation, Ps. 119:11(?). (c) Prayer, Luke 11:13. (d) Fellowship with godly people, Eph. 4:29. And (3) guarding oneself against all those things by which the Holy Spirit can be quenched or driven away, of which sort are: (a) All manner of sins committed against better knowledge and against conscience, especially those which are above others shameful and grievous — for example, David's adultery and murder, Ps. 51:1, 13–14; drunkenness, Eph. 5:18; excessive love of the world, John 2:15; sluggishness and laziness in spiritual things, Rom. 12:11(?); lukewarmness and satiety, whereby we rest content in what we have long since obtained, and do not strive to advance, Rev. 3:15–17. (b) Namely those sins by which we in particular, and as it were deliberately, set ourselves against the Holy Spirit, of which sort are: to quench the Spirit, 1 Thess. 5:19; to grieve Him, Eph. 4:30; to resist Him, Acts 7:51; to embitter Him, Isa. 63:10; to blaspheme Him, Heb. 10:29 — all of which will be discussed below deliberately and at length.

XXX. That we should give heed to the leading of the Holy Spirit and follow it

There is, thirdly, great reason to give heed to the motions and leadings of the Holy Spirit, to observe them, to follow them, and to be obedient to them, Rom. 8:14, so as to live according to the Spirit, Rom. 8:1, and to walk in the Spirit, Gal. 5:25. Now by the leading of the Holy Spirit we understand all those workings by which that Spirit is active concerning our soul, and which we have already above brought under three kinds: (1) His teaching and instruction — "He shall teach you all things" — to which we should be obedient by hearing Him, inwardly and outwardly attentive, in a godly and reverent manner, "not holding the truth in unrighteousness," Rom. 1:18. (2) Sanctification, whereby He (1) seeks to regenerate us, to renew us, and to make us alive, as a Spirit of life, Rom. 8:2, with which, being dead in sins, we cannot cooperate, Eph. 2:1; (2) to convert us, or, being made alive, to bring us to faith in Christ, by convincing us of sin, of misery, of the guilt of eternal condemnation, and of our natural inability with regard to the good, John 16:8–10, on account of which workings He is called a Spirit of bondage unto fear, Rom. 8:15; 2 Tim. 1:7; (3) to draw back and withdraw the converted, powerfully, from their defects, and to spur them on to virtue, for which reason He is called Holy Spirit par excellence, and a Spirit of sanctification, Rom. 1:4; (4) to strengthen the sanctified in the practice of that which is good, 2 Cor. 1:21; (5) to seal and assure them unto the day of redemption, Eph. 4:30; (6) to comfort them in all manner of adversities and misfortunes that befall them, for which He in particular bears the name of Comforter, John 14:26. Now, in all these it is our duty: (a) Carefully and diligently to attend to and note these motions, so that, when good thoughts, of whatever kind they may be, arise in our heart, we should at once hear and acknowledge that it is a voice, that they are knockings of the Holy Spirit — just as Samuel says, "Speak, LORD, for your servant hears," 1 Sam. 3:10, and the Bride-church: "The voice of my beloved! Behold, He comes," Song 2:8. (b) Carefully to examine the aim of these motions, what may be the mind of the Spirit, Rom. 8:27 — to what end, namely, these motions tend, whether it be, for example, to the acknowledgment, sense, and abhorrence of sin, or to a godly despair of ourselves and to conversion, or to faith, to sanctification, to comfort — so that with Paul we may ask, "Lord, what will you have me do?" Acts 9:6. (c) Promptly to obey the known motions of the Holy Spirit, turning ourselves toward them, as it were, as John did, Rev. 1:12, cooperating with them, running after them when drawn, Song 1:4, opening to Him when He knocks, just as the Bride: "I will rise, I will open" — "I rose up, I opened," Song 5:3, 5–6 — willingly and readily following His leading, as Peter did, Acts 12:8–9. (d) Above all to take heed that we never neglect or make light of, or cast to the wind, the known and acknowledged motions of the Holy Spirit — which is to quench the Spirit, 1 Thess. 5:19 — much less to set ourselves against them, whether through reasonings of the flesh, Gal. 1:16(?); 2 Cor. 10:5, or through the enticements of the world — as Saul did, when the motions of the evil spirit came upon him at David's playing of the harp, 1 Sam. 16:14–16.

XXXI. That we should examine and test the Spirit

There is, fourthly, great reason that we should examine and test the Spirit, whether He is of God, 1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:21. Let us test and examine: (1) Whether we have received the Holy Spirit, Acts 19:2 — "Have you received the Holy Spirit?" — that is, whether we feel some good motions in our hearts, and, if we feel them, whether they are motions of the Holy Spirit, or motions of the natural conscience, Rom. 2:14–15, motions of an honest and modest nature. (2) If they be motions of the Holy Spirit, of what kind then? Are they common ones, Heb. 6:4, or saving ones, which are joined with salvation, the same, v. 9? Something which we shall happily discover if we diligently examine the nature of the Holy Spirit, which excludes other similar motions, and if we then compare it with our hearts.

XXXII. Marks of the Holy Spirit

He is (1) a Spirit of life, Rom. 8:2, who makes alive, John 6:63, just as the presence of our own spirit or soul makes the body alive, Jas. 2:26. For this reason the Holy Spirit is called life, Rom. 8:10, who awakens and quickens us: for, if, as the Apostle says, the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, then He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by His Spirit that dwells in you, Rom. 8:11. If, then, we perceive spiritual life in ourselves, whereby we in turn, for our part, live to the Spirit, as opposed to putting to death the deeds of the body (the same, v. 12–13), then we are certainly led by the Spirit of God, so that we are children of God (the same, v. 14). (2) He is a Spirit of sanctification, Rom. 1:4. If, then, we find in ourselves an earnest desire and endeavor after holiness, and an abhorrence of all uncleanness, then we can safely conclude from this that we have received the Holy Spirit. He is (3) a Spirit of light, from whom all spiritual light must come, for indeed the natural man does not grasp the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14. If, then, we observe that there is in our understanding a new light, by which we discern spiritual things spiritually (the same, v. 14–15), then, etc. (4) He is a fiery and burning Spirit, Matt. 3:11; Mark 9:49, for which reason He was also imparted under the appearance of fiery tongues, Acts 2:3–4, just as He also makes fervent in spirit those in whom He dwells, Rom. 12:11, who, wherever He is, does not remain idle, but drives and spurs on, Rom. 8:14. If, then, we are not cold, nor lukewarm, nor idle and inactive in all that is good, but fervent and zealous, then we have the mark of the Holy Spirit. (5) He is the Spirit of Christ, Rom. 8:9, through whom Christ lives in us, Gal. 2:20, who glorifies Christ, John 16:14, through whom His holiness, righteousness, love, obedience, humility, patience, contempt of the world, and a heavenly conversation and walk, live and flourish in us. If, then, we observe these things in ourselves, we may be fully certain and assured that we have infallibly obtained the Spirit of Christ. Finally, this shall become known and manifest to us (6) from the fruits of the Holy Spirit which the Apostle mentions, Gal. 5:22–25.

XXXIII. That we should guard ourselves against the sins committed against the Holy Spirit

There is, fifthly, great reason that we should guard ourselves most carefully against all those sins which in particular set themselves against the Holy Spirit, which are these: (1) To quench the Spirit — to neglect and to make light of the motions and leadings of the Holy Spirit (as Felix did, Acts 24:25), of which we have already spoken above at length. (2) To resist the Spirit, Acts 7:51; Ps. 81:9, 12, 14, to hold the truth in unrighteousness, Rom. 1:18, as it were to stop the mouth of the Holy Spirit, to set the counsel of the flesh against His leading, to live after the flesh and not after the Spirit, Rom. 8:1, 13. (3) To grieve the Spirit, by whom we are sealed unto the day of redemption, Eph. 4:30, by doing that by which, if it were possible, the Holy Spirit would be grieved, whether in ourselves or in others — which happens through grosser and more shameful abominations, uncleanness, wantonness, drunkenness, and the like (the same). Likewise, to give oneself over to those things whereby the joy, the comfort, the readiness of spirit worked in us by Him can be darkened and, as it were, grieved. (4) To embitter the Holy Spirit, Isa. 63:10, by repeatedly resisting His leadings, and by murmuring against them, Ps. 95:8–11. (5) To lie to the Holy Spirit, as Ananias and Sapphira did, Acts 5:3, which occurs chiefly through hypocrisy, sacrilege, and robbing the church. Finally, (6) by blaspheming the Spirit of holiness, Heb. 10:29 — that great, unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit, Matt. 12:31–32, in which the whole Trinity — Father and Son, in whose name the Holy Spirit is sent and comes — is wronged in its Godhead. To this the other aforementioned sins pave the way. We must therefore guard ourselves from and against all those sins against the Holy Spirit, as against something beyond which nothing worse can exist, or even be conceived. Otherwise: (1) The Holy Spirit will, for these reasons, neglect us; despise and disdain us; resist us; grieve at us; be embittered against us — namely, through the just judgment of retribution, Prov. 1:24; indeed, even as He forsook David, Ps. 51:13(?)–14, whether for a time, as with him, or forever, as with others. Moreover, (3) after the Spirit has been quenched, the spirit of the Devil, or the fiery darts of the Devil, will be kindled, Eph. 6:16, after the example of Saul, 1 Sam. 16:14: an evil spirit will come in his place, taking with it seven other spirits worse than himself, so that the last state will be worse than the first, according to Matt. 12:44–45. We shall also (4) by quenching the flame of the Holy Spirit within us kindle the fire of the divine wrath, 2 Kings 22:17, and draw down and load upon ourselves judgments of God of every kind, both spiritual, Rev. 2:4–5, and eternal — that unquenchable fire, Isa. 66:24; Mark 9:43–48. Not to add (5) that by the first sins against the Holy Spirit the way is by degrees paved to that last and terrible sin, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the very thought of which must rightly strike terror and horror. For when you (a) neglect the Spirit, and thereby have as it were quenched Him, what is left but (b) to resist Him, seeking out pretexts? Furthermore (c) to grieve the Holy Spirit with greater and more shameful abominations; indeed (d) to embitter Him by doing this often, and by murmuring and grumbling against His motions with contrary things. And further, (e) that one, in order to cover up these misdeeds, uses hypocrisy as a means, and thereby, with Ananias and Sapphira, lies to the Holy Spirit. And finally, (f) having by all these abominations been sufficiently prepared and arrived at the nearest degree — what then will hold back and restrain one from also finally climbing this last step, and blaspheming the Spirit of Holiness, coming in the name of the whole Trinity, and thus bringing upon oneself unavoidable ruin? That you may therefore be far from this, guard yourself from the first step toward it.

XXXIV. That we should flee every spirit that is opposed to the Holy Spirit

Finally, sixthly, there is great reason that we should most diligently flee every spirit that is opposed to the Holy Spirit, 1 Tim. 4:1: namely (1) the spirit of error and of seduction, of lies, which was in the mouth of the false prophets against the Holy Spirit, 1 Kings 22:22; the spirit of Antichrist, 1 John 4:3, by which name is meant everyone who teaches things contrary to and inconsistent with godliness, in the matter of the true faith — especially the Enthusiasts, who believe a spirit apart from the Word and contrary to the Word; for which reason we are charged to try the spirits, 1 John 4:1. (2) The perverse spirit, or the spirit of perversity, Isa. 19:14, which blinds a man, so that he undertakes and carries out all his affairs in a perverse order. (3) The spirit of this world, 1 Cor. 2:12, which allures and entices to worldly wisdom and all sorts of other worldly things, 1 John 2:15–16. (4) The spirit of uncleanness, Mark 1:23, which is set over against a pure, clean, and upright spirit, Ps. 51:12, and which plunges men into every sort of lust. Finally (5) the wicked, malicious spirit, Satan, Matt. 12:43, in whom is the power of the air, who works mightily in the children of disobedience, Eph. 2:2. Let us flee these spirits, which are so opposed to the Holy Spirit, for this reason above all, that otherwise we can have no fellowship with the Holy Spirit, 2 Cor. 13:13(?). For what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what agreement has Christ with Belial? 2 Cor. 6:14–15; 1 Cor. 10:21.

Book III: Contemplative-Practical Theology, On the Works of God

Chapter I: On the Acts and Decrees of God

Over Ephesians 1:11.

"According to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His own will."

I. The two supports of faith

The faith by which we rest and repose in and upon God rests, as it were, on two props and supports: the all-sufficiency of God, whereby He is able to supply us with all that is necessary and profitable for our salvation; and His efficacious working, whereby He does and effects what He can do and supply. The first of these two points, arising from the Being of God and from the subsistence of the Persons, we have up to now explained and treated; the second we shall now undertake and begin, and shall, for the present, speak by way of a preface of the acts and workings of God in general, and then of His inward acts or decrees. To both the Apostle shall show us the way, in the passage set before us from Eph. 1:11.

The Explanatory Part

II. The text is built up

With these words the Apostle, about to explain the nature of the divine workings, shows:

1. The working of God itself: "who works all things." In these words we find:

1. The Doer, which lies hidden in the little word "the," "of Him who..." Here God is to be understood, of whom mention had been made in what precedes — whether taken theologically, with regard to the whole Trinity, since it is proper to each Person, according to His particular manner of subsisting, to work all things; or economically, that here only the Father is to be understood, as one who throughout what precedes is distinguished from the Son, in and through whom He works all things that are required for our salvation.

2. The Act or Doing, ἐνεργοῦντος, "who works, effects." By this word is signified a doing coupled with efficacy, and indeed with the highest efficacy, which can in no way be hindered or obstructed — and this according to the usage of Scripture. The LXX translators use this word, Isa. 41:4, in which passage a most powerful working is set forth, one which breaks through and removes every obstacle, and accomplishes the thing wrought. The Apostle uses this same word, Eph. 2:2, to express the power of the Devil, and the force of his dominion and rule in and over the children of disobedience. It signifies here, therefore, such a working of God as no power of any creature, no strength of the free will, can withstand or resist, so that it does not, with the utmost precision, come through to the intended and purposed effect.

3. The Thing Wrought, τὰ πάντα, "all things." Namely, either (a) ἁπλῶς, simply, and in the widest possible sense, without any exception — not only these benefits of grace, but also all manner of others, and not only good things, but also evil ones (namely so far as they are moral acts or deeds, but not so far as they are morally evil, seeing that God best orders even these to His own aim and end). Thus it would be an argument from the lesser to the greater: God works all things, even in the very least of creatures; much more those things which pertain to man's salvation. Or (b) in a somewhat narrower sense, all these things, namely, which pertain to our salvation, of which he constantly treats. Or (c) in the narrowest sense, of those works alone which are God's works, of which sort are: to send Christ with commands, and to raise Him up after He has died; the revelation of the Gospel of fulfillment, and dependence on Him. Yet in such a way that not only are the workings of the whole Trinity not excluded, but the economic works of the Father are also included, whereby He, as the first Person, decreed the whole work of Redemption from eternity, and afterward accomplished it in time.

II. The rule of the working: κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, "according to the counsel of His will." For the eternal counsel of peace between Father and Son is, as it were, the rule according to which the whole work of Redemption has been brought to execution. Here in particular is signified:

1. God's Purpose: κατὰ τὴν πρόθεσιν, "according to the purpose." God's Purpose, πρόθεσις, means in Holy Scripture sometimes the whole decree of Election, or the counsel of peace; sometimes the first act of Election, whereby God has purposed within Himself to reveal the glory of His mercy in the gracious salvation of certain particular men, according to which He has set apart and marked out those certain particular men in whom that gracious salvation should one day come to pass in time; sometimes the third act of Election, whereby He purposes to prepare the means fitted and suited to that salvation. For this reason election is sometimes said to occur according to the purpose, Eph. 1:11; sometimes the purpose according to election, Rom. 9:11; and election according to the purpose, the counsel, and the good pleasure of God's will, Eph. 1:5.

2. God's Counsel, κατὰ τὴν βουλήν, "according to the Counsel." For in any counsel there is, besides the setting forth of a certain end, also a deliberation concerning the means, and finally an intention of this means, to the neglect of all others. In God, properly speaking, a deliberation or consultation — as including ignorance — can have no place; nevertheless a counsel or deliberation is ascribed to God, with regard to the certainty of His knowledge, and also with regard to the wisdom and most perfect manner of working, which proceeds not from nature but from a counsel taken, or from a rational good pleasure, willingly.

3. The Intention of the will, τοῦ θελήματος, "of the will," whereby the means already beforehand chosen is applied and put into effect — freely indeed, yet also wisely and righteously, since this takes place according to the counsel of the will, by virtue of a complete, full, and unlimited right over all creatures. So that, in the whole text, both the general manner of all God's workings is pointed out, and, in particular, that of the divine decrees, of which we shall speak separately and point by point in the remainder of this chapter.

First Consideration

On the Acts and Workings of God

The Doctrinal Part

III. All things are said to be worked by God

All things are said in Scripture to be of Him, through Him, and to Him, Rom. 11:36; and the Savior says that His Father works, and He also, John 5:17. Nor could anything be clearer to all men than this, since God is the first cause of all things, without whom there could be no acting or working in the world at all — for, the first cause not working, how should the second work? Not to add, that it is beyond all doubt more perfect to do and to work than not to do and not to work, and that it therefore cannot be that this should not fit and be proper to a most perfect Being.

IV. In what manner working is ascribed to God

Now, to work, to do, and to accomplish signifies, in creatures indeed, these four things together: a Worker, in whom there is a power or capacity to work, from which the working itself arises, which produces the work. These four things, which in creatures are various and distinct, are in God, who is a most simple act, one and the same thing, and there is in Him no working except the working Being itself. Although, in the outward workings, the work differs from the worker and from the working, so that here the divine working includes two things — namely, the working Being of God, and its relation to the work. Further, in the workings of creatures both the worker and the work pass from power to act, insofar as the worker, who before could only work, now works in act, and the work, which before could only be brought forth, is now actually brought forth. But in the workings of God, only the work passes from power to act, insofar as it undergoes the power — the divine Being — which is in itself always and uniformly active; for in God there occurs, through the working, no change or alteration of power and act.

V. How far the divine working extends

God works all things and in all, Rom. 11:36 — all that exists, whatever has any being or goodness, whether natural or moral. For the working of every second cause depends necessarily on the working of the first cause (which otherwise would not be an absolutely first cause), both with regard to the being of the working, and with regard to all the real circumstances, Isa. 45:7: "I the LORD do all these things"; Lam. 3:37–38. Therefore God works only the morally evil things, or sins, not — and cannot work them — Ps. 5:5–6, because these are not works but defects of works; and God cannot transgress the Law, in which alone the working of this evil consists, 1 John 3:4.

VI. The manner in which the divine working belongs to the Persons

God's workings (namely, the outward ones, or those that go forth) can be considered either as flowing from the Being, or from the Omnipotence, which is one and the same with the almighty Being, of which we have spoken above at length; or from the Persons, and in this respect we find: (1) The co-working of the Persons, whereby they all work the same thing inseparably, John 5:17, 19 — since, according to that well-known axiom, the outward works of God are common to the three Persons, John 16:13–14. From this it follows (1) that each Person works of Himself, so far as concerns the working power, John 5:26, since one and the same power to work is common to them all. For this reason (2) in these workings no one Person has any preeminence over another, since they all work through one and the same power, John 5:21, 23. Here we find (2) the distinct manner in which the particular Persons work, whereby each particular Person works according to His particular manner of subsisting: the Father of Himself, through the Son and the Holy Spirit; the Son from the Father, through the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, through Himself — as we have taught in the chapter on the Trinity. (3) Here we find the particular Appropriation, whereby a work, which is otherwise common to those Persons, is for a particular reason attributed to one of them in particular. From this the first work outward, namely Creation, and the first outlining of the work of Redemption through Predestination, is ascribed to the first Person; to the second is appropriated Redemption, because He obtained it by His blood; and to the third belongs in particular Sanctification, along with adherence to it, because He touches and works it immediately. Then also (4) we find here the Termination of the working, whereby the termination or end-point of a certain working, though common to all the Persons, is proper to one Person in particular. Thus the end-point of the very act of the incarnation, namely the human nature, which is common to the three Persons, is in particular brought to the second Person, who assumed the manhood.

VII. The division of the divine working

The divine working is commonly divided and distinguished into inward or immanent, by which nothing is brought forth outside of God, or that is distinct from God; and outward or transient, whereby something is brought forth distinct and distinguished from God. The former are again either personal and distinguishing, whereby the Persons are distinguished from one another — as, to generate is the work of the Father, Ps. 2:7; to be generated, or to go forth by way of one begotten, is the particular working of the Son, Mic. 5:1(?); to go forth by way of one breathed forth is the particular property of the Holy Spirit, John 15:26 — or they are essential, whereby the Persons are in part impelled toward one another, as when, for example, the Father knows, loves, glorifies the Son, and the Son in turn the Father; and in part toward the creatures, whereby the Father knows the creatures, blesses, elects, rejects them. Under these come, in particular, the divine Decrees. The latter, namely the outward workings, are brought under Creation and under Providence.

The Polemical Part

VIII. Four points of controversy concerning the workings of God noted

That God works all things in all is thus sufficiently denied, first, by the Epicureans, when they ascribe to God such an idleness as would make Him despise and neglect all worldly affairs — namely, lest the activity of creating, preserving, and governing so many creatures should impair His rest and blessedness — giving little thought to what is written, Isa. 40:28, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary. Secondly, the Stoics, when they make God's own workings depend on a fate, or on a chain of second causes — as though He Himself did not work that chain of causes, or could not, according to His will, change it. Thirdly, the Pelagians, when they withdraw from the divine working the first determination of the free will, and also sin — not only as to its unlawfulness, but altogether, even as to the subject of the unlawfulness. All of which things they each shift and remove to their own place, that of Providence. Fourthly, the Socinians and Vorstius, who devise in God such workings as would be accidents of His, distinct from the Being — which the doctrine of God's Simplicity and Unchangeableness, in its proper place, has refuted.

The Practical Part

IX. That God works all things in all discloses first his glorious efficacious activity

That God works all things in all discloses, first, His glory, as the one from whom, through whom, and to whom are all things. To Him, therefore, belongs the glory forever, Rom. 11:36 — who forms the light and creates the darkness, Jehovah, who does all these things, Isa. 45:7. In particular, the glory of His Independence, whereby He, doing and working all things, is set in motion and effected by no one, Rom. 11:35; of His Omnipotence, whereby He, being moved by nothing from elsewhere, does whatever pleases Him, Ps. 115:3; of His Wisdom, whereby He makes all things with wisdom, Ps. 104:24; of Thankfulness, as the one to whom, for that reason, belongs the glory of all the good which all men enjoy from all the creatures, as the one who works all things in all — who works in us in particular both to will and to work, Phil. 2:13, so that we are and can be, by His grace alone, all that we are, and all that we can do and accomplish — whose grace, then, is not idle in us, 1 Cor. 15:10.

X. It condemns godlessness

Secondly, this marks the atheism of those who think that God works nothing, that neither good nor evil goes forth from the mouth of the Most High, Lam. 3:37–38; who say in their hearts, "The LORD does neither good nor evil," Zeph. 1:12; who thus do not love God, do not seek Him, as if He could do them no good, who say, "It is vain to serve God: for what profit is it that we have kept His ordinance?" Mal. 3:14; who thus do not revere or fear Him, as if He could do them no harm, Ps. 10:6, 11; 94:7, 10. And who make of God, who works all things in all, a dull and inactive idol.

XI. It comforts the godly in every kind of trouble

Thirdly, this comforts the godly in every kind of trouble, that it is God who forms their light and creates their darkness, who makes peace and creates evil, and that it is this same God who is theirs, Isa. 45:7; that there is no evil in the city which the LORD has not done, Amos 3:6 — so that they, on this account, are struck silent in every kind of adversity, affliction, and misfortune, and do not open their mouths, because the LORD has done it, Ps. 39:9.

XII. It raises and strengthens our trust

Fourthly, this raises and strengthens our trust in God, that we roll our way upon the LORD, because He shall bring it to pass, Ps. 37:5 — that we depend on Him alone in all things, since He so works all things in all, that without Him nothing can befall us, whether good or evil.

XIII. It binds us to God and to the pursuit of blessedness

Fifthly, it binds us to God, that we cleave and adhere to Him with sincere service and godliness, and withdraw and detach ourselves from all other things — whether from hope of any good, or from fear of any evil, to be received from the creatures apart from God — since God works all things in all; and that we should therefore be most concerned that we may have God at our right hand, that we may not be moved, Ps. 16:8 — for, if He is for us, who or what shall then be against us? Rom. 8:31; and on the other hand, if He is against us, who or what shall then be for us? — since He works all things in all. Having touched on these things, let this suffice; it will perhaps be spoken of elsewhere, more distinctly, in the chapter on Providence.

Second Consideration

On the Decrees of God

The Doctrinal Part

XIV. Among the inward workings, the Decrees of God come first to view

Among the inward divine workings, of which we have up to now spoken in general, there come first to view the Decrees of God, whereby, according to the text, He works all things according to the counsel of His will. That He is everywhere in the Scriptures of both Testaments said to have such a decree appears, for example, from Isa. 25:1: "This is the counsel that is counseled... for the LORD of hosts has purposed it in His counsel"; and 46:10; Dan. 4:24(?); Ps. 2:7; Zeph. 2:2(?); Acts 2:23; 4:28; Rom. 8:29–30; Matt. 11:26, etc. For since God works, not by nature, as unreasoning and lifeless creatures do, nor recklessly, without reason, out of a mere impulse, it is necessary that He work out of and with a deliberate, free counsel — especially since we have long since demonstrated, and it is also acknowledged by all, that He is endowed with understanding, and equally with will. Not to add that it is beyond doubt a greater perfection to work out of and with a deliberate counsel than out of and through nature or impulse. The word "decree" is indeed unscriptural, but the thing itself is scriptural, through many synonymous words and manners of speech, as we shall note in the following section. And yet it must not for this reason be said that a decree does not properly belong to God, since understanding and will belong to Him most properly of all, and likewise to work freely, or out of and with a rational good pleasure, for the reasons already given above. Nor does it conflict with this that in the decrees of creatures a deliberation and counsel is presupposed, and that in their decrees and counsels ignorance is observed. For these things do not belong to a decree simply, but only to a decree of creatures, whose imperfections must be withdrawn and kept away from God, just as we are accustomed to do with the communicable attributes of God.

XV. A Decree signifies a fixed and settled opinion

A Decree signifies a fixed and settled opinion and pronouncement, whether of a judge, giving a decisive sentence between parties, or any other opinion, pronouncement, and judgment following upon deliberation — called by other names counsel, good pleasure, purpose, predetermined counsel, Acts 2:23; 4:28; Eph. 1:9, 11; likewise in Hebrew, עֵצָה, a decree, a determination, Ps. 2:7. In God it means nothing else than His predetermined opinion and purpose, concerning the providing for and disposing of all future things, according to the counsel of His will. It is a pre- and firmly-determined opinion, signifying three things: (1) A decreeing act, which is nothing other than God's own Being, considered as a living act, or the decreeing God Himself. (2) Its inclination, leaning, and relation to the object which shall be disposed in time, without any change in God, or any perfecting of the Being — for that leaning and inclination is not some particular thing accruing to the Being, whereby the Being would come to be more perfect. And in this respect the decree differs from the Being, since the Being does not include such an inclination, leaning, and relation. (3) The decreed thing, or that which shall be brought forth in time, which really differs and is distinguished from God. With respect to the first, the decree in God is one, necessary, and eternal; with respect to the second, that is, of the inclination and leaning, it is manifold and various — much as, in a circle whose center is one, the lines drawn from it are indeed various, yet never in conflict with one another.

XVI. The determinate settling of the decree includes three things

Further, this determinate purpose and settling of the decree includes, first, the end which the one decreeing has pre- and firmly-set for Himself, which end, for God, is nothing but His own honor and glory, with respect to which He is said to work all things for His own sake, Prov. 16:4, and unto Himself, Rom. 11:36; secondly, the comprehension of the means, concerning which (in creatures) a deliberation is held, that the most fitting and effective might be chosen and settled upon — for which reason the decree is called a counsel or deliberation; thirdly, the intention of the will, whereby the means, chosen out of many, is intended. And this intention indeed is the cause of every future coming-to-be, but yet not of the future thing itself, whether it be good or evil — since the decree is an immanent act, producing nothing outside of God, and since also the future coming-to-be is there from eternity, while the future thing itself is born in time.

XVII. The decree is active and effective concerning the future coming-to-be

This determinate settling of God is therefore active and effective concerning the future coming-to-be of every and each thing, whether it be necessary or contingent, good or evil — although meanwhile the future things themselves do not receive that determinate settling as their cause. Thus the decree is indeed the cause of the future coming-to-be of sin, but not of the future sin itself, which acknowledges as its cause the free will of the one sinning. For if God's decree were not the cause of every kind of future coming-to-be, then the thing would have been from eternity of itself and by its own nature, whereby a fate more than Stoic would be implied — not to add that in this way that which shall be and come to pass in time would be the cause of that which has been from eternity, and thus the thing wrought would be prior to its own cause. Meanwhile, however, the future thing does indeed follow certainly upon the decree, through Creation or through Providence, as being either the cause of it, if it is a good thing, or only the antecedent, if it is an evil thing.

XVIII. God therefore, according to the decree, provides for and disposes the future coming-to-be and the future things

God, therefore, according to the decree, intends to provide for and dispose the future coming-to-be and the future things — whether by accomplishing them, if it is a good thing, or by effectively permitting them, if it is an evil thing — for which reason arises the division of the decree into an effecting and a permitting decree.

XIX. Finally, the rule

Finally, the rule, or that which is named as a rule of the disposing and providing, is the Counsel of the will, in a certain and determinate sense — such counsel as belongs to God, not (as it does to creatures) with regard to a properly so-called deliberation, in which an ignorance is presupposed, which must be driven off and removed by the deliberation; but with regard to a most perfect judgment, such as follows in creatures upon a careful deliberation, so far as it excludes rashness and recklessness, and adorns all things wisely and fittingly — for which reason God's decree is called פֹּעַל, a work, an undertaking, a masterpiece, Prov. 8:22; Isa. 5:12(?).

XX. God's decree is eternal

Further, that decree of God is, first, eternal, Eph. 1:4, for which reason it is said that all His works are known to God from eternity, Acts 15:18, and the purpose according to which grace is given to us is said to have been before the times of the ages, 2 Tim. 1:9. And God is said to have ordained beforehand, in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, before the world was, 1 Cor. 2:7 — and this not only with respect to the decreeing act, but also with respect to its inclination and leaning, to dispose and provide for the future thing. Were it otherwise, God would, by decreeing, pass from power to act, and would be subject to change, which Holy Scripture most precisely excludes from Him, Mal. 3:6; Jas. 1:17.

XXI. It is likewise absolutely free

Meanwhile it is, secondly, entirely free, Rom. 9:11; Jer. 18:6; Matt. 20:15(?). Not that God could have been without the power or without the act of decreeing — for thus He would have been able to be without understanding and will; nor that the power or act of decreeing could have been without any inclination and leaning toward a certain object — for then God would decree without anything decreed; nor that God at some time was indifferent as to whether to decree or not to decree — for then the decree would not be eternal, and God would have been changed by decreeing. But the decree is free, insofar as (1) God, by His nature, is indifferent to decreeing this or otherwise. (2) Insofar as God, in decreeing this or otherwise, is not determined from elsewhere, but only by His own reasons, through a rational good pleasure. And yet God's decree is not only free (as that of creatures is, though that is determined by a supreme cause), but also most free of all, or absolutely and unlimitedly free, since it is simply independent.

XXII. It is most wise

It is, thirdly, most wise, so that here one may rightly cry out: "O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" Rom. 11:33–34; Ps. 104:24 — insofar as God chooses and puts together, through their ends, all parts that are most fitting and most suitable, Rom. 8:28–30. Nor does He decree anything without reason, for although the divine decree excludes all causes that would produce it, it nevertheless absolutely requires — since it is most wise — reasons that are good in themselves.

XXIII. It is likewise, fourthly, absolutely unlimited and unchangeable

It is likewise, fourthly, absolutely unlimited and unchangeable, Isa. 46:10; Acts 4:28; Prov. 19:21. For although the decreed thing itself very often depends on certain determinate causes and conditions, yet the very act of decreeing is always and entirely independent of every cause and condition, and thus absolutely unchangeable.

XXIV. Finally, fifthly, it is in general efficacious

Finally, fifthly, God's decree is in general efficacious, Ps. 115:3; 135:6; Isa. 14:24. For although it does not work the decreed thing itself — for example, sin — it is nevertheless efficacious concerning the future coming-to-be of sin, which is evil, and which can be caused by nothing else than the divine decree. This efficacy of the divine decree does not, therefore, lay upon and in things any necessity, but only a certainty of outcome — since there is nothing in the way why a certain outcome should not proceed from a certain contingent proximate cause, which is not of itself determined to that effect, nor does it take away the freedom of our will, since there is nothing in the way why He should not work out of a preceding good pleasure and free choice. Indeed, it is so far from being the case that the efficacy of the divine decree would press all things with a hard necessity, that it is rather the root and wellspring of all contingency. For if there were no God, or a certain supreme and most powerful Being, who so ordered and joined together such a contingent and chance cause for such an outcome, there would then be absolutely no contingency or chance at all.

XXV. The Object underlying the divine decree

The Object lying beforehand under the decree is the possible; and the Object terminating and determining the decree is the future, insofar as God, out of the possible things, has decreed that this or that shall be and come to pass. Now the future concerns all things, Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:36; Lam. 3:37–38, down to particular sins, Acts 4:28 — so that, as we have said, although sin itself flows from the transgression of the Law, its future coming-to-be nevertheless comes from nowhere else than the divine decree.

XXVI. The decree is one, so far as concerns the decreeing act

To God belongs only a single and most simple decree, with respect to the decreeing act; and God has also, once for all and simultaneously, without any deliberation, determined from eternity the future things, which either already have been, or now are, or shall be. Nevertheless God's decree is called manifold and various, on account of and through the leaning and inclination toward various objects, and on account of the various endings and relations arising from it for Him — for which reason mention is made of counsels, Isa. 25:1, of thoughts (מַחְשָׁבוֹת), and of works (מִפְעָלִים), Prov. 28:22(?). And insofar as these are many, they hang together among themselves in a most beautiful and wise order. Indeed, according to our manner of conceiving, we note not only an order in the decreed things themselves, but also, in its own way, in God's counsels, thoughts, and undertakings — not that there are, in reality and in fact, various acts of decreeing there, and that the one is, either in time or in nature, later than the other, but because we, as it were, grasp various parts of one and the same decree, and join them together in a due and fitting order, that we may thus, each in its own distinct way, contemplate all the wisdom of the decree, and more fully draw it out and comprehend it. For, since it would be neither right nor fitting for God to decree one thing without the other — for example, to create the human race without any counsel to glorify Himself thereby, since He would then not have created it wisely, but rashly and in vain; or the end without the means, and again the means without the end — here we distinguish various parts of the decree, and we say that the one part, or the one decree, is, if not the producing cause, at least the reason of the other, and we reason from the one to the other, just as the Apostle leads us in this, Rom. 8:32, 29–30. By this order in the divine decrees we may rightly comprehend and say that God wills the end before the means to it, and among the means, those first which more nearly touch the end; and thus, that that which is first in intention is last in execution — namely, according to the order of intention, whereas according to the order of execution the means come before the end. Which, however, must not immediately be understood as though there were various willings in God, as if the one were earlier there, the other later; likewise as if the one were the cause of the other — but it must be understood of the decreed and willed thing, that there is with God a willing and most wise ordering together of an earlier and of a later thing, chiefly of the means and of the end, which He has joined together in the most fitting and suitable way, and at the same time in the most free way — so that, nevertheless, neither He Himself, nor His decree, depends on any thing, or condition, or means. Wherefore, as we have said, God's decree, just as it is one, is likewise for that reason necessarily, in the highest degree, absolute and unlimited, although the execution, and the thing wrought, and the bringing forth, can be conditional — all of which nevertheless depends on the one, simple, and unlimited decree.

XXVII. Finally, the decree, considered as manifold, is distinguished into an effecting and a permitting decree

Not that the decree properly effects anything, for it is an immanent act; but because there is a decree, according to which God has determined, in time, to effect some things, and to permit others. The effecting decree concerns all manner of good things, both natural and moral, since God is the first and general cause of all being; but the permitting decree only provides for the future coming-to-be, while the future thing itself is brought forth, through a certain deviation, aberration, and defect in the working, by the creature — God merely not preventing it, Ps. 81:13(?); Acts 14:16(?), compared with Gen. 20:6. This is active only concerning the moral evil, or sin, which God, as such, does not work, but only permits, Acts 2:23–24; 4:27–28.

The Polemical Part

XXVIII. The question is: (I) Whether God's decree is his very Being

Among the Greeks this question was of old disputed: whether the Being and the Will of God are one and the same thing — which was denied by some, acknowledged by others, as may be seen in Justin Martyr, or whoever else is the author of that book (in Quaestiones ad Graecos), upon which the later church fathers, chiefly Augustine (Lib. de Essentia Dei), and likewise the Schoolmen, Damascene, Lombard, Aquinas, and others, have given an answer affirmatively. The Apologetic Remonstrants, in order to have the Socinians the more favorable to themselves, and in order the more strongly to attack the Simplicity of God, and to defend the changeableness of the divine decrees, deny it. The Socinians deny it more openly, and reduce the decree to accidents in God, for this reason: (1) to overthrow God's simplicity, and (2) His unchangeableness. The Reformed acknowledge that the decreed things really differ from the divine Being; likewise that the leaning and inclination of the decree toward a certain object does not without qualification belong to the Being of God Himself; yet that this nevertheless in every respect belongs to the constituting of the decree, since otherwise there would be a decree which would decree nothing. But so far as concerns the very act of decreeing, they hold that this is one and the same with the Being — except that the Being, considered as unlimited and in itself, does not at the same time signify a leaning and inclination toward this or that object, which inclination the decree, formally considered, includes. Meanwhile there are not lacking among the Reformed those who make a distinction between the Being and the Decree, yet in such a way that they do not thereby admit any composition in God, since the leaning or inclination is nothing else than a relation, which properly has no being of its own, by which it would come to constitute a composition. The reasons of the Reformed, by virtue of which the Decree is one and the same with the Being of God, are taken: (1) From the divine Simplicity, whereby He wards off all accidents, as we have demonstrated in its place, in the chapter on the Simplicity of God. (2) From His Infinity, which allows no diversity of things, no parts, or any kind of composition, as we have shown in its place. (3) From the fact that the decree in God is nothing other than His Understanding and Will, which are without doubt one and the same with His Being. (4) Because accidents, which by their nature include an imperfection, do not fit the most perfect Being. Nor does the opposing view hold good here: (a) That in God there are many decrees, whereas the Being is but one; for if by decrees you understand the decreed things, they are indeed many, and really different from the divine Being and from one another; but if you look to the leaning or inclination toward the objects, by virtue of which leaning there are many decrees, this is not a thing different from the Being, nor an accident, but a relation, only distinguishing, not composing. But if by decrees you understand the decreeing act, this is nothing other than the divine Being itself, so far as it is understood by us as active concerning the future coming-to-be of things. (b) That the decrees in God are free, whereas the Being is necessary — for the act of decreeing is in God not free, but necessary, just as also the power of decreeing is in rational creatures; the leaning or inclination of the act toward some object is also in God not free, but necessary, since He cannot decree unless there be something which He decrees — although the leaning inclination of the decreeing act toward this object rather than that is free, indeed most free. This, then, we say is not the Being of God, but only the act of decreeing, so far as it is understood by us with relation to a decreeing or a decreed thing.

XXIX. The question is: (II) Whether all God's decrees are eternal

The Pelagians, Socinians, and Remonstrants, in order the more readily to maintain that God's decrees are not God Himself, that man's free will consists in an independent indifference, and that the decrees which arise from day to day are made according to the pleasure of man's free will, do indeed acknowledge that there are certain divine decrees which are from eternity — as of the creating, preserving, and governing of the world; of the giving and sending of Christ into the world; of the giving of eternal salvation to those who are obedient; and of other such things which are not opposed to the indifference of the free will — but that all the decrees are eternal, they deny. The Reformed, on the contrary, hold that all God's decrees, and each in particular, are eternal, for the following reasons: (1) Because, according to the preceding section, God's decrees are God Himself; therefore, since God is eternal, His decrees are eternal too. (2) Because He has foreknown from eternity all future things, Acts 15:18, and He did not foreknow them except from His decree. (3) Because, from the contrary supposition, God would have been from eternity, until the bringing forth of those decrees in time, ignorant, inconsiderate, and uncertain of very many, indeed of most, of the things that were to come. (4) Because God would then have received, and would still daily receive, very many perfections that are found in the knowledge of things not decreed from eternity, and would therefore not have been from eternity most perfect, and consequently not have been God. (5) Because the parties, with their contrary supposition, ground a necessity greater than that of the Stoics. For if that which now is in time has, from eternity, had to be, and that future coming-to-be does not depend on the free decree of God, then it can depend on nothing else than the future things themselves; if these, then, were future from eternity, before and without the decree, then even God Himself could not have determined otherwise concerning them, and God will thus stand under their future coming-to-be. If they object by way of the contrary: (A) That God alone is eternal, but that the decrees are not God, and are therefore not eternal either. Answer: (a) We have already at length demonstrated, in the preceding section, that the decrees are God Himself, and in what manner. (b) The parties themselves acknowledge that some decrees of God are from eternity; therefore at least some decrees will be God Himself — and if some, why not all. (c) The Apostle says, Eph. 3:11, that God's decrees, notwithstanding that they are made, are nevertheless eternal: "according to the eternal purpose which He has made," etc. Therefore that "He has made" is, with the Apostle, nothing other than that He has taken, that He has conceived within Himself. The parties object (B) that God's decrees are free, and therefore not eternal. Answer: (a) By the parties' own admission, some of God's decrees are from eternity; therefore eternity does not conflict with freedom, or else not all the decrees will be free. (b) They are therefore free, because they are not from a necessity of the divine Nature, but from a rational good pleasure — which does not conflict with their being from eternity. (c) They are therefore free, not with regard to the act of decreeing, but with regard to its leaning and inclination toward this or that determinate object. It is said, (C) that no contingent and free thing that has come to be is from eternity; but God's decrees are contingent and free things that have come to be — for all such things that have come to be are later than their cause. Answer: (a) The decree, so far as it means the decreed thing, is later than its own cause, and therefore not eternal; but the decree, so far as it means the decreeing act, is in no way later than the decree, but exists simultaneously with the decreeing act. (b) The decree is later than the decreeing act only in order of nature, but not in order of time — just as the sun's rays are later than the sun, not in order of time, since they exist together with it, but only in order of nature. They proceed further and say: (D) Some decrees are later than other decrees; they are therefore not all eternal, since in eternity there is no earlier and later. Answer: (a) There are earlier and later decrees, if one looks to the decreed thing, but not if one looks to the decreeing act — for God has decreed all things by one single and most simple act. (b) They are earlier and later, only according to the manner of our conceiving, but not on the side of the decree itself. (c) They are, among themselves, earlier and later, in order of nature, but not in order of time. (E) Finally, it is objected that some of God's decrees occur in time, and are therefore not all from eternity; the former, it is said, appears from Jer. 18:11; 31:28(?); Deut. 28:63. Answer: These texts speak, not of the decrees, but of God's promises and threats, which differ vastly from the decrees.

XXX. The question is: (III) Whether there are conditional decrees of God

The Pelagians and Pelagian-minded, the Socinians, the Arminians, the Papists, the Lutherans, and however many there are outside the Reformed church, in order the more easily to maintain the independent free will of man, and at the same time that God has decreed to save all men and each in particular — hold that there are conditional decrees of God, both antecedent and consequent, by which God would have determined to save every man and each in particular, if only they should be willing to believe and to convert themselves. The Reformed acknowledge that, if one understands by the decree the decreed thing, there are conditional decrees, insofar as God has from eternity willed that certain things should come to pass, upon an antecedent condition — for example, that this or that person will be saved, upon an antecedent faith and conversion. But if one understands by the decree the decreeing act of God, they deny that it depends on any condition. (1) Because God's decree is His will, Eph. 1:11, "according to the counsel of His will" — but we have already at length demonstrated above, Book 2, Chapter 15, §. 27–29, that there is in God no such conditional will. (2) Because God's decree is God Himself, according to §. XXVIII. Therefore, since God does not depend on a condition, neither will His decree depend on a condition. (3) Because an absolutely first and independent Being can in no way, without contradiction — and consequently not with regard to His decree either — depend on anyone or anything. (4) Because the decree, being from eternity, as we have demonstrated in the preceding section, cannot depend on a condition which shall only first arise in time. (5) Because that conditional decree, according to the nature of a condition, would be taken up in time, and in vain. (6) Because God would then not foreknow and foretell the outcomes of things which depend on man's free will, before they come to pass — since that foreknowledge depends only on God's absolute decree; and consequently there would fall in God an ignorance, and thus an imperfection in the most perfect Being. Finally, (7) because with God all things are unlimited and unconditional, Ps. 115:3; Isa. 46:10; Job 42:2. And it does not hold good against this that the divine decree is often changed, and made conditional, by the creature's placing a condition, Jer. 18:7–10 — since it is not the decree that is changed, or made conditional, as often as God promises something good, or threatens something evil, but the decreed thing. Not to add that the decree differs vastly from the promises, since the decree has been from eternity, while the promises are made in time — so that, when these are made conditional, and changed according to their state, the decrees are nevertheless not thereby immediately made conditional or changed.

XXXI. The question is: (IV) Whether there is a decree fitted and suited to the circumstances

The Remonstrants and the Jesuits, that they might, on the one hand, not seem to ascribe absolutely nothing to God's decree and grace, and, on the other hand, take nothing away from man's independent free will, hold that, before the regeneration of men, one man has a nature more inclined and disposed to conversion than another man; that God, according as the man is called in a manner and by means fitted and suited to his nature, in such a place, at such a time, with such motives — will, if he obeys that fitted and suited calling, of himself and willingly convert himself, and, by the powers of his free will, determine himself to faith and conversion. They then hold that God has decreed to call such a man, in accordance with that nature and those circumstances. The Reformed, on the contrary, hold that all men, through the Fall, are equally dead, and unable to believe, in whatever manner they may then be called; and that this decree is therefore in many respects foolish. (1) Because, as we have said, Holy Scripture teaches that all men are dead in sin, Eph. 2:1–3, and consequently equally unable for any spiritual good, even for the least good thought, 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 3:5; Rom. 8:7–8; Tit. 3:3; Jer. 13:23; Gen. 6:5; 8:21, and elsewhere. (2) Because Holy Scripture teaches a decree which precedes the circumstances and the conversion, Acts 13:48(?); Rom. 8:29–30. (3) Because that same Scripture brings the determination of the will to conversion only to the powerfully bending grace, Phil. 2:12–13; Prov. 21:1; Rom. 15:18; 1 Cor. 15:10. (4) Because such a fitted, suited, and applied decree makes God — who is independent and absolutely the first, who is one and the same with His decree — dependent, and, in time, conforming His decree to fitting or suitable circumstances. (5) Because this stated opinion establishes a connection, antecedent to God's decree, or a fully certain and inseparable connection, between those fitted and well-suited circumstances and the free conversion of, say, Peter — and thus the parties, while they wish to escape a necessity that arises from the absolute decree, fall into a fate more than Stoic. Or (6) it presupposes an uncertain connection, which God could not, therefore, have foreseen with certainty, so as to make a sure and settled decree, fitted to those circumstances — and thus they take away God's omniscience, for that which is not certain cannot be certainly foreknown either. (7) Because this opinion ascribes conversion and faith, independently, to man's free will, whereas, on the contrary, it makes God dependent on this. Nor is there anything that they allege for their so fitted decree, except that it is fitted for maintaining the free will. To which we answer, that the parties falsely presuppose that the freedom of our will consists in a mere independent indifference, whereas it truly consists in a capacity to do and to work out of and with a rational good pleasure, which is not taken away — indeed, not even injured — by God's absolute decree, since God has decreed from eternity that Peter, for example, should believe and convert himself willingly, or out of and with an antecedent good pleasure.

XXXII. The question is: (V) Whether there is an antecedent and general decree

The same Remonstrants and Jesuits, in order to come to the aid of their independent, indifferent free will, hold and maintain that there is a general predestination, election, and reprobation, which does not concern the persons so much as it does the state of the persons — holding that God has, by an antecedent and general decree, determined, for example, that everyone who shall have believed shall be saved; but by a subsequent and particular decree, that Peter, because he wills to believe, shall be saved. The Reformed acknowledge no antecedent and general decree: (1) Because every universal notion is born from a process of reasoning, and from an abstraction from particular things, which reasoning includes a dependence on particular things, as well as an ignorance, insofar as, by reasoning, a knowledge is obtained which one did not have beforehand. (2) Because that general decree would be idle and vain, since it is presupposed that another and particular decree shall follow, which determines and wholly amends that first one, and thereby sufficiently nullifies it. (3) Because it is superfluous — for where there is a particular decree, which is concerned with all and each thing down to the indivisible, there the general decree is of no use, since He who knows all things and each in particular, by and through one single and most simple act, and that in Himself, has no need to have a general concept and apprehension. (4) Because the logical genus is a non-being, and there would thus be a decree which would be no decree. Indeed, (5) one thereby posits such a decree as is altogether unworthy of and unbefitting God, as one to whom nothing is general, nothing unlimited, nothing dependent on something else, or on particular things. Nor, finally, (6) does it agree with His infinite perfection, that He should, by an antecedent and general decree, decree and determine salvation for all and each at once — for example — which He already, from eternity, foreknows shall never come to pass. If they urge against us those passages of Scripture which seem to breathe something of the universal in God — for example, John 3:16: "that whosoever believes should not perish, but have everlasting life," and verse 36: "he who is disobedient to the Son shall not see life, but," etc. — likewise Acts 10:43: "that whosoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins through His name," and whatever other similar passages there are — one must note that these passages speak not of the decrees, but of general promises and threats, which God uses toward men, to come to the aid of their weakness, as ones which comprehend all and each in

...can be understood only under general expressions.

§ XXXIII. One asks: (VI) Whether there is in God a changeable decree? The Arminians, Jesuits, Socinians, and other Pelagian-minded theologians teach that decrees are changeable — on account of their doctrine of a free will which is, in the same way, changeable at every hour, and upon which they make the majority of decrees depend; and also because they teach that the general, conditional election, when its condition fails, is changed into reprobation.

The Reformed hold, with their reasons, that all God's decrees are unchangeable. (I) Because all decrees are God Himself, as we demonstrated in §28. Therefore, as God is unchangeable, so also is His decree unchangeable. (II) Because all God's decrees are eternal, according to §29, and in eternity there is no succession of change. (III) Because the decree would then have to be changed by some other being prior to God, and God would consequently not be an absolutely first Being. (IV) Because God would then have to be changed either into something better — which does not exist, nor can exist — or into something worse — but then God would be corrupted — or into something equally good, which likewise does not exist. (V) Because Holy Scripture calls God not only utterly unchangeable in general (Mal. 3:6, James 1:17), but also, in particular, His decree (Isa. 46:10, Ps. 33:12, Heb. 6:17), and elsewhere — apart from those passages which speak only of conditional promises and threatenings, which differ immensely from decrees. Nor do our opponents have anything they can bring against this, although even these conditional promises and threats, being themselves conditional, are not, properly speaking, changed. If there remain yet other points of controversy on this subject, these will, God willing, be treated in their proper places under Predestination, Election, and Reprobation.

The Practical Part

§ XXXIV. The practical use of the general consideration of the decree of God appears most fully in the particular decree of Predestination, Election, and Reprobation. In the meantime, it belongs to this place, first, to draw and derive from the perfection of God's decree the majesty of God's dominion and rule, whence God is said to be wonderful in counsel and excellent in working, Isa. 28:29; Jer. 32:19. In particular, and in the following points: (I) Its comprehensiveness, inasmuch as it extends to every and each future thing, since God works all things after the counsel of His own will, Eph. 1:11; Ps. 115:3; Isa. 46:10 — so that not the least thing happens which He has not ordained by a prior decree, Lam. 3:37. (II) God's independence, inasmuch as the whole government and administration of this world depends on nothing other than the predetermined pronouncement of the divine decree, Rom. 11:34–36. (III) His power and almightiness, inasmuch as His counsel stands, and He does all His good pleasure, Isa. 46:10, so that no one and nothing can withstand His will, Rom. 9:19. (IV) God's wisdom, Rom. 11:33, 34, which discloses and reveals itself most of all in His decrees and counsels — for which reason it is said that counsel shall not perish from the wise, Jer. 18:18, and likewise that essential Wisdom claims counsel as her own, Prov. 8:14. (V) God's constancy and unchangeableness, inasmuch as His counsel stands as the sure foundation of His whole dominion, 2 Tim. 2:19. (VI) His freedom, whereby He, free from all constraint, of Himself and willingly, disposes all things solely according to the counsel of His own will, and does His own will and good pleasure. All these things point us to the majesty of God's power and dominion, to the end: (1) that we may acknowledge it, Ps. 93:1, 2 and 97:3; (2) that we may glorify, exalt, and magnify Him, Ps. 99:1–5; (3) that we may submit ourselves to Him and bow down before Him, Ps. 95:6, and serve His counsel, Acts 13:36, etc.

§ XXXV. It belongs, secondly, to this place, to guard ourselves carefully against every misuse of God's decree, such as: (I) rashly and irreverently prying into the hidden decree of God, Deut. 29:29; Acts 1:7; (II) neglecting, despising, and making light of the decrees of God, Isa. 5:19; 2 Pet. 3:4, and setting oneself in opposition against them, Luke 7:30; (III) measuring God's all-wise and absolutely independent decree by the scant measure of our own reason, and demanding a reckoning of it, Job 38:2; Rom. 9:20, 21; (IV) surrendering oneself to sloth, laziness, and idleness on account of the universality, efficacy, and unchangeableness of God's decree, and neglecting the care of the means, as though God, by an unreasonable decree, had intended the end without the means; or (V) despairing in adversities on account of the constancy and unchangeableness of that same decree, as though God's hidden decrees concerning one's outward state and welfare were known to Him, or as though he had been God's counselor, Rom. 11:34.

§ XXXVI. It belongs, on the contrary, thirdly, to this place, to bring the contemplation of the divine decree to our own use — namely: (I) to reverence and fear God, to repentance and the forsaking of sin, before the decree brings on the day of judgment, in which we would pass away and perish as chaff, Zeph. 2:2, before the decree hastily pronounces our ruin, Jer. 18:7, compared with Luke 19:42, 43; (II) to patience and quietness of mind in all adversities and afflictions which befall us, or could befall us, because, according to the eternal unchangeableness of God's decree, nothing befalls us, nor can anything befall us from any creature however mighty, except what God's hand and counsel has decreed shall come to pass, Acts 4:27, 28 and 2:23 — and this, according to the wisdom of that same decree and its goodness toward us, tends to nothing else than our own good and advantage, Rom. 8:28; (III) to trust and assurance in the matter of our salvation, because our redemption, justification, adoption as children, sanctification, and glorification rest upon the eternal, all-wise, and unchangeable decree of God — namely, upon that firm foundation which bears this seal: the Lord knows them that are His, 2 Tim. 2:19; Rom. 8:29, 30.

§ XXXVII. Finally, fourthly, there is here something for us to imitate. For since it belongs to the divine perfections to do all things according to decree, counsel, and deliberation, not rashly, recklessly, or out of mere impulse — and since God, in His decree, has a firmly proposed aim before Him, namely, His own honor and glory, and pursues that aim by wise counsel and deliberation, and what He has determined He carries out and follows through with unshaken effort and earnestness — we too, inasmuch as we likewise bear in this the image of God, and inasmuch as our chief perfection consists in this following and conforming to God, ought greatly to strive that in all our undertakings and occupations — and most of all in those by which we are engaged concerning God and concerning our own salvation — we do not act and proceed by impulse, or recklessly and rashly, as the beasts do (Ps. 32:9) or as nature does (Jude v. 19), but with a wise resolve, counsel, and deliberation, Eph. 5:15, so that our worship of God may be reasonable, Rom. 12:1. And that we set before ourselves in this resolve a rightful and lawful aim, namely, God's honor and glory, our own salvation, and the benefit and advantage of our neighbor; that toward this aim, with an intelligent and prudent deliberation and counsel, we devise and seek out the most effective means; and finally, that having devised and sought these out, we pursue, follow, and carry them through with a constant and unshaken resolve.

Chapter II: On Predestination

Rom. 9:22, 23. What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory?

God's decree looks either upon all creatures without distinction, with respect to all their states — and this is the decree either of Creation, according to which they first are and exist, or of Providence, according to which they subsequently are and are governed toward their ends (matters to be treated in their proper places) — or it looks upon rational creatures in particular, and that again partly with respect to their temporal state, to which the decree concerning the end of life stands related, and partly with respect to their eternal state. This latter decree is called, by a special name, Predestination, the consideration of which shall be grounded upon the words of the Apostle, Rom. 9:22, 23.

The Explanatory Part

§ II. In these words the Apostle describes the divine counsel of Predestination according to both its parts. Namely:

1. With respect to Reprobation, v. 22 — where there comes first the general cause of the whole of Predestination, which is also the electing cause, namely, God Himself, as the first and absolutely independent cause, excluding every external, moving, or conditional cause which might have moved and induced Him to predestinate, and moreover excluding any internal reason moving Him; but solely and only His own good pleasure, or will, which He makes known through the word θέλων, "willing." This word, when used of creatures, sometimes signifies a longing and a wish which is also powerless — thus even among profane writers, as Cicero says (Epist. Lib. XV, Epist. VIII): eum honorem tibi Deos fortunare volo, that is, "that honor I wish for you — I wish that the gods make you prosper" — and likewise among the sacred writers. But when used of Christ, it signifies an efficacious purpose, Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:41; Luke 5:13; John 3:8 and 5:21 and 21:22; Ps. 115:3; Eph. 1:5. It is therefore hereby made known that the will or good pleasure of God alone and solely is the cause of the whole of Predestination, Matt. 11:25, 26, and that it does not depend on the free will of anyone, Rom. 9:16.

2. The reasons, or the ends, of Reprobation, namely, God's purpose:

a. To shew His wrath, ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν ὀργὴν. The Greek word ὀργὴ, wrath, derives from ὀρέγεσθαι, to desire, because wrath is a desire for vengeance on account of some inflicted injury. It is sometimes joined together with the word θυμός, indignation, Rom. 2:8, because in wrath two things concur: a certain agitation or commotion of mind, and a desire for vengeance. The first is signified by the word θυμός, indignation; the latter by the word ὀργή, wrath. So it is among creatures; but in God there is no agitation or commotion, but only a desire for vengeance, which, speaking after the manner of men, is one and the same thing as God's avenging justice, John 3:36; Rom. 1:18. The root word ἐνδείξασθαι, to shew, signifies, with emphasis, to make something known by a clear demonstration, for the sake of manifest clarity, 1 Tim. 1:16. This compound verb, used both of God (Rom. 9:17; Eph. 2:7) and of men (2 Cor. 8:24; 2 Tim. 4:14; Titus 2:10 and 3:2), signifies to declare something plainly and clearly enough for all to see, so that the matter cannot be denied or kept hidden. To demonstrate and manifest His avenging justice in this way, in the righteous punishment of the sinner, is the highest and supreme end of reprobation — but by no means the destruction of the sinner as such.

b. His power: and to make His power known, γνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτᾶ. The Greek τὸ δυνατόν, the possible, here is equivalent to τὴν δύναμιν, power. For by Reprobation God intends to make known that it is in His power, for that exercise of His avenging justice, to choose out of all men whom and however many He wills. From which it follows that the end of Reprobation — as also of Election, and thus of the whole of Predestination — is not the display of His general glory, which is intended in all God's works, but rather to make known and manifest the particular glory of His avenging justice, power, and mercy, in a righteous destruction and in a gracious salvation.

c. The longsuffering in Reprobation, whereby God, with much restraint of wrath, has borne with the reprobate — insofar as He has determined not to destroy them immediately after the sin committed, nor to exclude them from all benefits, but, as it were, to restrain His wrath against them and still to load them with very many benefits, both bodily and spiritual. In all of which there shines forth not merely longsuffering but πολλὴ μακροθυμία, abundant longsuffering — that He is, in the Hebrew phrase, "long of nose," that is, slow to anger, Joel 2:13. The Greek word μακρόθυμος describes one who is long or far removed from indignation. Others render the word by "magnanimity," not exactly according to the root or force of the word, since the word θυμός does not signify a mind but indignation or wrath; nevertheless, by way of consequence, because he who can long and patiently bear injuries done to him is called magnanimous — so the word may not unreasonably be rendered by magnanimity. It is therefore not without cause that the second, or subordinate, end of Reprobation is set down to be God's patience, longsuffering, and magnanimity.

3. The object of Reprobation: σκεύη ὀργῆς, the vessels of wrath — or the instruments of wrath, by or in whose righteous damnation God manifests His wrath and avenging justice. They are called σκεύη, vessels or instruments, according to a Hebrew idiom that calls all household goods, all implements, all serviceable things by this name, Heb. 9:21; and it is transferred to men, indeed to the reprobate, 2 Tim. 2:20, 21, because God is accustomed to make known and obtain, through them or through their righteous punishment, the glory of His avenging justice, and likewise His power and longsuffering — just as, by contrast, the elect are called σκεύη ἐκλογῆς, vessels of election, or chosen vessels, Acts 9:15, likewise σκεύη εἰς τιμὴν, vessels unto honor, namely of God's grace and mercy, 2 Tim. 2:21, because God is accustomed, through them, to provide for and secure the honor of His mercy, both through their conversion, which is to God's honor and glory, and through their gracious preservation and salvation.

4. The act of Reprobation: κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν, fitted, prepared — namely, by the eternal Predestination — for destruction, not only as the end (for God has no pleasure in the death of the sinner, Ezek. 18:32) but as the means: κατηρτισμένα, heaped up, put together, made suitable, fitted, adjusted. This participle is used, according to Hebrew usage, which has few participles, for a verb. Exactly as the Hebrew נָכוֹן (nakon), which means fitted, adjusted, suitable, and which is regularly translated by ἕτοιμος, ready, prepared, and also by κατηρτισμένος, fitted, made ready, made suitable, Ps. 68:10 and 74:16. In this way one finds κατηρτισμένος, made ready, prepared, Luke 6:40 — thus here, prepared for destruction. But by whom are they prepared and fitted for this? Answer: partly by themselves, through their unbelief and impenitence, by giving themselves over to sin and thereby making themselves worthy of eternal destruction, Jude v. 4; and partly, and indeed most properly, by God, who by His eternal Reprobation has decreed to give over the impenitent to destruction, Prov. 16:4; Matt. 25:34, 41 — just as vessels are not prepared by themselves, but by the potter, Jer. 18:6. Εἰς ἀπώλειαν, for destruction. This word is of a very harsh meaning. In its very softest sense it means death, John 11:50 — indeed, death through some pitiable means, for example through hunger, Luke 15:17 — yes, even hellish destruction, 2 Thess. 1:9, whence the traitor Judas is called the son of perdition, John 17:12, and the Devil bears the name of Ἀπολλύων, Apollyon, that is, Destroyer, Rev. 9:11. It is hereby made known that by Reprobation the reprobate are fitted for every kind of destruction, both of soul and of body.

II. With respect to Election, v. 23 — where, the efficient cause being understood [as the same], there is laid down:

1. The supreme end: καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ τὸν πλῶτον τῆς δόξης ἀντᾶ, and that He might make known the riches of His glory — by which "glory" is here in particular understood God's goodness and mercy, just as occurs in Exod. 33:18, 19. The connecting word "and" joins the preceding v. 22 together with this v. 23, in order, by way of contrast with the end of Reprobation — at least incidentally — to make known that the end of Election is the display and adornment of divine grace toward the vessels of mercy, which would not sufficiently appear, nor be sufficiently esteemed, if it were common to all; or, that the Apostle, by means of this connecting word, would join the second part of Predestination, namely Election, together with the preceding Reprobation. Πλῶτος τῆς δόξης, the riches of glory — namely, of grace and mercy — signifies either (1) God's rich, indeed more-than-abundant, goodness; or (2) the riches and treasures of blessed immortality, which He has prepared beforehand for the elect out of grace; or (3) the riches of the glory of mercy, or of glorious and resplendent grace, Eph. 1:6 and 14. Paul is accustomed to call every abundance a "riches," πλέτον, Rom. 2:4 and 11:33; 2 Cor. 8:2; Eph. 1:7. Therefore πλάτος τῆς δόξης, the riches of glory, here and in Eph. 1:18 and Col. 1:27, is an exceedingly great glory.

2. The objects are the vessels of mercy — in whose gracious restoration God would manifest and display the glory of His mercy. In the Greek stands σκεύη ἐλέως. The word ἔλεος signifies mercy, like the Hebrew חֵן — that is, grace toward one in misery. With reference to men it signifies all sorts of goods which God bestows and grants them out of sheer grace; with reference to God it signifies every kind of compassion and His infinite goodness and mercy. The elect are therefore called vessels of mercy, because they are chosen out of mercy in order to obtain mercy, and through them God intends to make known and display the glory of His mercy.

3. The act of Election: ἃ προητοίμασεν εἰς δόξαν, which He had afore prepared unto glory — which He had beforehand fitted, made suitable, prepared for the obtaining of salvation, before they existed, or by a prior decree; which act therefore does not presuppose any fitness or suitability, but rather brings and confers it: ἃ προητοίμασεν εἰς δόξαν. The word ἑτοιμάζειν, to prepare, signifies a divine appointment and preparation, Matt. 25:34; 2 Tim. 2:9; Heb. 11:16. The word προητοιμάζειν means and expresses to prepare beforehand — a lasting precedence of the electing act, before the good works, and before the calling unto them. Εἰς δόξαν, unto glory — not only of God, since even Reprobation likewise tends to God's glory, but also of the elect, 2 Cor. 4:17.

The Doctrinal Part

§ III. Passing over now those particulars which pertain specifically to this text concerning Election and Reprobation, we conclude, and take from it in general, that there is with God a decree concerning the eternal state of rational creatures, which decree we call Predestination — a matter clearer than the sun, made evident not only by Holy Scripture, when it ascribes to God προορισμόν, a predestination, Rom. 8:29, 30; Eph. 1:5, a good pleasure, Matt. 11:26 — when it says that He does nothing in the matter of eternal salvation except according to the counsel of His own will, Eph. 1:11, and those who shall be eternally saved are said to be ordained to eternal life, Acts 13:48, likewise afore prepared unto glory, Rom. 9:23 — just as, on the contrary, those who shall be damned are said to be fitted for destruction, ibid. v. 22, likewise to have been of old written down unto judgment, Jude v. 4 —

§ IV. but also made evident by nature. For (I) if God does all things, even down to the least, according to the counsel of His own will, would He then neglect a matter of so great importance as is the eternal state of the rational creature? And (II) if there can be absolutely no futurition apart from the eternal decree — for otherwise God would be changed in time, and would depend on something outside Himself, or else there would be introduced, over and for all things, a fate more Stoic than anything else, since everything that exists has been future from eternity, and if it is not future through God's almighty decree, it could never have had its futurition from anywhere else than from itself — thus it cannot happen that either the salvation or the destruction of the creature should come to pass without and apart from an eternal Predestination. I shall not even add (III) that God's honor and glory, which springs from the eternal salvation or the eternal destruction of creatures, would be very greatly diminished if these were held to happen by chance, recklessly, and without a preceding eternal counsel of God. And also (IV) that it tends to the increase of the divine glory, that there be, through Predestination, in His house vessels unto dishonor as well as vessels unto honor — vessels of wrath as well as vessels of mercy, 2 Tim. 2:20; Rom. 9:22, 23.

§ V. The synonymous names of Predestination we have already enumerated long before; and yet, concerning them, it is worth noting and observing that the word προορισμός, predestination, sometimes signifies, more generally, any other decree, Acts 4:28, and πρόγνωσις, foreknowledge, sometimes, in this matter, signifies not merely knowledge properly speaking, but a foreloving disposition by which Election is accomplished, Rom. 8:29 — unless you would rather have that word signify the notion of the whole counsel of Predestination, insofar as this is the understanding of God prior to the existence of things. Likewise, that the word πρόθεσις, purpose, sometimes signifies in particular that part of Predestination which either intends the end, or proposes the means to the end — in which sense it is more specifically called Predestination. Whence Predestination is sometimes said to happen according to the purpose, and the purpose according to the election, and the election according to the purpose, counsel, and good pleasure of God's will, Eph. 1:5.

§ VI. In particular, the word Predestination sometimes agrees entirely with Election, Rom. 8:29, 30; sometimes it denotes, more strictly, the appointment of the means to the salvation of the elect, and thus it follows upon Election — as when He that He foreknew, He also did predestinate. We use the word here in its very broadest sense, to signify the whole counsel of God concerning the eternal state of rational creatures. And thus it is indeed called an ordination, insofar as it is a fixed and certain determination of the order of the means to their ends; and a Predestination, insofar as God, before the existence of all things, has fixed and determined that order within Himself.

§ VII. This Predestination is nothing other than the decree of God concerning the manifestation of His particular glory in the eternal condition of rational creatures. It is called a decree because it comprises God's fixed pronouncement and judgment, to be carried out by a firm and certain administration and counsel. All, therefore, that was said in the preceding chapter concerning the decree of God in general applies again here, to be applied to Predestination.

§ VIII. Among other things, there is, in particular, in Predestination: (I) a proposal of the end — the display or declaration of God's glory, not in general, of all God's glory, but of His particular glory, namely, that of His power and dominion, Rom. 9:21, 22 — Hath not the potter power over the clay? — insofar as He can dispose of His creatures, however free they may be, according to such uses as He Himself wills, and out of one and the same lump, according to His sheer good pleasure, fashion this one for a vessel of wrath and that one for a vessel of honor and glory; secondly, the glory of His grace and mercy, Eph. 1:6, to the praise of His glorious grace — insofar as He has determined to restore the creature, which deserved nothing but wrath and eternal damnation, not merely to eternal life, but even through the death of His own only-begotten Son; thirdly, the glory of His avenging justice, Rom. 9:22, willing to shew His wrath — namely, in the righteous condemnation and damnation of the stubborn creature.

§ IX. There is (II) in Predestination a conception and comprehension of the means, and, as it were, a survey of them, so that God might, as it were, choose out from them the most fitting. These means are: (1) gracious salvation and a righteous condemnation or damnation, for God has determined to manifest, in these, the glory of His grace and righteousness; (2) the general creation of the whole human race; the establishing, with created mankind, of the covenant of works; His permitting, or allowing, of the fall — so that He might have an object in whose gracious salvation and righteous damnation He might manifest the glory of His mercy and of His wrath. All these things converge as one single means in the matter of Predestination. (3) Out of all created mankind, an election of particular persons, in whom, by name, God's mercy and wrath shall be made manifest.

§ X. There is (III) an intention and appointment of the means by which the gracious salvation of some, and the righteous damnation of others, would be worked out and secured — namely, the restoration of the former through the Son as Mediator, and the abandonment and forsaking of the latter in their sins — of which more shall be said in its proper place.

§ XI. Predestination, therefore, is not, as some of the Schoolmen have wished, an act of the Understanding alone, nor of the Will alone, but of the Understanding and the Will together. Whence the counsel of God — in which both a conception in the understanding, concerning the end and the means, and an intention of the will, converge together — is called not only πρόγνωσις, a foreknowledge, but also προορισμένη βουλή, a predetermined counsel, and a counsel of His own will, Eph. 1:11.

§ XII. The object of Predestination, whereby it differs from the decree in general, is the rational creature — men and angels, both each and every one, and all together, in their eternal state; because it is in them, and by their salvation and damnation, that God's particular glory can and must be declared and made manifest. That the angels are an object of Predestination the Scripture testifies, since it expressly makes mention of elect angels, 1 Tim. 5:21; Matt. 25:34, compared with v. 41; and of such as are reserved in chains of darkness unto judgment, 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude v. 6, compared with Matt. 25:41 and v. 34. More abundant, however, is Scripture concerning the Predestination of men. Both these rational creatures, now, are objects of Predestination with respect to their eternal state — namely, destruction and glory, Rom. 9:22, 23; with respect to their temporal state, they are subject, together with the other creatures, to the decree of the general Providence. Likewise, they are objects of Predestination not as already created and fallen — for as far as concerns the angels, it is a clear matter that in Predestination they could not have been regarded as already created and fallen — and in order that one may see this matter still more clearly with respect to man also, four acts of God must here be observed and noted: (I) God's purpose to manifest the glory of His mercy and of His avenging justice; (II) God's determination to create all men, and to permit them all to fall, in a certain first common beginning and origin; (III) to choose, out of the created and fallen men, those in whom He would obtain the glory of His mercy, and to reject those in whom He would obtain the glory of His avenging justice; (IV) the intention to prepare, appoint, and direct the means, corresponding to Election and Reprobation. With respect to the first act of Predestination, the object could have been nothing else than man as capable of being created and capable of falling, since it is presupposed that, as yet, no decree has been made concerning creation and the Fall; with respect to the second act, it is properly man who would be created and who would fall; with respect to the third act, created and fallen man; with respect to the fourth act, elect and reprobate man. Since, therefore, Predestination, insofar as it is distinguished from Election and Reprobation, consists in the first two acts, one may say with the utmost precision that the object of Predestination is indeed man as one who would be created and who would fall, while meanwhile the object of Election and Reprobation is created and fallen man. And thus one will most easily be able to reconcile and harmonize the conflicting opinions among people, and also most safely to remove the difficulties with which each party is accustomed to burden the other. If, then, the Infralapsarians press against the Supralapsarians (as they are called): (1) the Scripture passages in which God is said to be occupied with predestinating men, as vessels of wrath and of mercy; and that (2) they could not have been regarded otherwise than as lost in Adam, who, "in Christ" (Eph. 1:4) — that is, so as to be saved in Christ — are regarded; and finally (3) that such as are set forth as objects of the divine Predestination as the divine Calling finds us to be — namely, plunged by sin into the world — if, I say, the Infralapsarians urge these things, nothing will be easier than to answer that the object of Predestination, as it is formally Election and Reprobation, or the object of the third act, is indeed created and fallen man, but by no means the object of the whole of Predestination, and specifically not of its first act, that is, of God's purpose to manifest the glory of His mercy and justice in the salvation and damnation of some undetermined persons. If, on the contrary, the Supralapsarians press against the Infralapsarians that they posit a creation and a fall whose end is not the display of grace and justice, it will be easy and simple to answer that they indeed acknowledge that the end and aim of creation and of the permitted fall is the display of grace and justice, and that the object of it is man not yet created and not yet fallen — but that they hold that the object of Election and Reprobation, as such, is man already created and fallen.

§ XIII. It will meanwhile be worth the trouble to survey the diversity of opinions in this matter. The strict Supralapsarians hold that, for example, Peter and Judas, as not yet created and not yet fallen, are the object of Predestination. The Infralapsarians, on the contrary, posit man as already created. The most orthodox, who take the middle course, hold that man, as not yet created and not yet fallen, is the object of Predestination as such, but created and fallen man the object of Election and Reprobation as such. The Reformed advocates of universal grace say that the object of Election and Reprobation is, moreover, man redeemed and called. The Pelagians and the Pelagian-minded hold man as already believing or not believing — indeed even man already placed at, and having died, the point of death.

§ XIV. As for the properties or conditions of Predestination: it is, according to the nature of all divine decrees, first, eternal, Rom. 9:11; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13, and indeed from the very beginning of God's works — yet it makes no difference among the predestined themselves before the actual Calling, Eph. 2:3. For Predestination establishes, prior to the application of grace which comes about through the efficacious Calling, or rather through Regeneration, nothing in the predestined; but it is hidden in and with the predestinating God alone.

§ XV. Predestination is therefore, secondly, independent, being the first cause of the eternal state. For "God, willing to shew His wrath," etc., Rom. 9:22, 23. For this reason Predestination presupposes (I) neither its object nor its aim as necessarily already existing, but rather ordains that its object should come to exist, so that it, by force of Predestination, is fitted and determined to be, 1 Pet. 1:20. For this reason it does not depend (II) upon any external cause, reason, or condition, but proceeds solely and only from the will and good pleasure of the predestinating God, Matt. 11:26; Rom. 9:16, 18. For this reason it is also (III) neither in accord with reason nor with Holy Scripture to posit any prerequisite quality in man as the formal object of Predestination, or to indicate and determine some certain state of man in such a way that the rest are excluded — for it is enough that one understand that men, being alike among themselves, are the object of this distinguishing decree, so that the difference of the decree does not depend upon man, but rather that the difference which is observed among men follows from that decree.

§ XVI. Furthermore, thirdly, it is also unchangeable — namely, according to the nature of every divine decree, Isa. 14:26, 27 and 46:10 — whence it is called a sure foundation of God, 2 Tim. 2:19, bearing moreover a seal — so that neither can anyone once elect ever be reprobated, nor can a reprobate ever be elected.

§ XVII. For the same reason it is also, fourthly, entirely certain and determinate, determining the number of those who shall be saved and who shall be damned — and not only the number in the sense of a count, how many shall be saved and how many shall be damned, but also the number as counted, namely, who these are — ibid. It determines, therefore, not only the state of those who shall be saved and those who shall be damned — I will save the believers, I will damn the unbelievers — but also the persons: He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth, Rom. 9:18. Indeed, even the particular persons: Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated, ibid. v. 13.

§ XVIII. It is, fifthly, absolute and consummating, so that although it makes salvation and damnation depend on their causes and conditions, and for that reason is in some manner called conditional, it nevertheless itself depends absolutely on no cause or condition whatsoever. For "whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate.... Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified," Rom. 8:29, 30.

§ XIX. It is, sixthly, free, indeed most free: for He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth; and, like a potter, according to His power and right, He makes out of the same lump, according to His good pleasure, one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor, Rom. 9:18, 21 — inasmuch as He elects the one above the other neither by any necessity of nature, nor by any condition of the subject, but solely by the good pleasure of His will, as was determined before, Matt. 11:25, 26.

§ XX. Finally, seventhly, it is most wise, so that the Apostle here justly cries out: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? Rom. 11:33, 34. Whence Predestination is also called a Counsel, because it comes to pass with so great and so exact a wisdom as that with which the wisest of all beings is accustomed to proceed in His most deliberate and well-considered counsels and purposes. For although God does not depend on causes and reasons from elsewhere, yet He always has before Himself His own reasons for His counsels; He joins the means together with their ends, and He foresees and provides such means as are proportionate and agreeable to their ends.

§ XXI. From this there springs and arises that most wise order of Predestination, of which Holy Scripture makes mention everywhere, Rom. 8:28, 29, 30 and 11:11; Eph. 1:4, 5; 1 Thess. 5:9; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14; 1 Pet. 1:2; John 3:16 — which becomes apparent from the most fitting subordination and conjunction of the end and the means, of the causes and the effects, and which shines forth on every side in the execution of salvation and of damnation. This order, however, under the general rule of governance, lies in this maxim: whatever is first in intention is last in execution; and on the other hand, whatever is last in execution was first in intention. According to this rule, God (I) proposed to Himself to manifest the glory of His Grace and Righteousness. To this end (II) He proposed to create men after His image, in the first-created humans, to establish with created mankind a Covenant of Works, and efficaciously to permit the breach of that Covenant in the Fall. Then (III), out of created and fallen men, to elect these by name, and to reject those. Further (IV), to bring the means of salvation to the elect — namely, to procure and provide redemption, through His Son the Redeemer, and the application of redemption, through faith — and, on the contrary, to refuse to the reprobate the means of salvation, and to leave them in their sins. And thus (V), through faith, to save the elect eternally, for Christ's sake, and to damn the reprobate eternally, for their sins' sake. So that, in this way, finally (VI), He might display the glory of His Mercy in the salvation of the elect, and of His avenging Righteousness in the damnation of the reprobate. This order Holy Scripture teaches, and experience clearly and plainly confirms it.

§ XXII. There is, according to the object, a Predestination either of angels or of men, just as we indicated above in a word. Concerning the Predestination of angels, Holy Scripture has few express statements; most of what is inferred and concluded concerning it is drawn partly from the execution of the divine Decree concerning them, partly from the Predestination of men, by comparison of like and unlike things. According to which, the Predestination of angels and of men agrees: (I) in the efficient and moving cause, which in both is the divine good pleasure — for He has chosen angels, 1 Tim. 5:21, compared with Mark 8:38; He has also rejected angels, for whom He has prepared everlasting fire, Matt. 25:41 — both according to His good pleasure, as also Dan. 4:24; (II) in the formal act of Predestination, namely, the separation or distinguishing of the angels who would be kept, from those who would be forsaken — such a separation being made known in Election, 1 Tim. 5:21, whence Peter says that God spared not the angels that sinned, 2 Pet. 2:4; (III) in the end and aim of Predestination — the display of grace, at least of preserving grace, and the display of God's punitive justice; (IV) in the created object, capable of being created and capable of falling. Meanwhile, they are both distinguished: (1) in order, insofar as the Predestination of angels precedes but that of men follows, as the Savior makes known, Matt. 25:41, and as also appears from the order of creation itself; (2) in the moving cause, which was indeed grace in the preserving of the angels, but mercy in the restoration of men; (3) in the means and effects, since God, in the blessing of the angels, does not, as He does in that of men, use Christ as Mediator, nor the Calling, Justification, Adoption as children; (4) in the degrees, inasmuch as there shines forth in the Election of angels a greater grace, since God preserved them beforehand from misery, and in Reprobation a greater severity of justice, since He cast them away without and apart from all hope of restoration, 2 Pet. 2:4; whereas in the Election of man there appears a greater mercy, since, being a sinner, He preserves him; and a greater severity, since He wills that the reprobate atone not only for their actual sins but also for the original sin — indeed even for that of the first parents.

§ XXIII. Finally, the Predestination of angels and of men, with respect to its parts, is either Election or Reprobation — although the manner of Predestination does not belong equally and alike to both these parts, but is ascribed, in a better and more excellent way, to Election in the Holy Scriptures. Meanwhile, we shall at once treat the manner of this division in the Polemical Part, but its particular members in their own particular chapters.

The Polemical Part

§ XXIV. One asks: (I) Whether Reprobation too is a part or species of Predestination? This may be either a merely verbal question, or dispute — whether the word Predestination applies also to Reprobation — or it may be a real question and controversy, namely, whether there is with God a certain decree concerning the eternal state of the reprobate, just as there is with Him concerning the eternal state of the elect. The Scholastics among the Papists, in order the more forcibly to come to the aid of the independent indifference of the free will — which they think would be constrained by a decree, and that the reprobate would thus sin and perish not freely but of necessity — admit no decree of God in Reprobation, but only a bare, mere foreknowledge, which does not flow into the free will of the reprobate, nor bring any necessity upon it — just as the physician's foreknowledge of a sick man's death does not flow into, nor make so necessary, the death of the sick man. For this reason and cause they deny that Reprobation is a Predestination. The Lutherans too, out of a hostility toward an absolute decree in Reprobation, bring the whole matter of Predestination solely to Election. The Reformed hold that in Reprobation there is likewise a decree of God concerning the eternal state of the reprobate, just as there is in that of the elect; and that for this reason Reprobation is just as much a Predestination as Election is — although concerning the word itself there is no lack of those who engage in verbal disputes about it. Their chief reasons are: (I) Because a word synonymous with Predestination, προορίσμη, is read to be used in the matter of Reprobation, Acts 4:28 — compare it with the reprobate Judas, ibid. 1:16, 25. (II) Because the matter of Predestination is brought, in more than one way, in the Holy Scriptures, to bear upon Reprobation — for example, Prov. 16:4, The Lord hath made the wicked for the day of evil; Matt. 25:41, everlasting fire is prepared, from the foundation of the world, for the Devil, his angels, and reprobate men; Rom. 9:22, the vessels of wrath are said to be fitted for destruction; 1 Thess. 5:9, some are said to be appointed unto wrath; Jude v. 4, of old written down unto the judgment of condemnation. (III) Because the Holy Scripture brings the reprobate Pharaoh, and his blindness and hardening — the means of Reprobation — to the predestinating will of God, Rom. 9:17, 18: "even for this same purpose have I raised thee up... He hardeneth whom He will." The reprobate unbelievers are said to be appointed to stumble at the Word, as the means of Reprobation — to which end also they are indeed appointed, 1 Pet. 2:8. From the reprobate wise men of this world God has hidden the mysteries of the Gospel, which is likewise a means of Reprobation — for, says Christ, so it was well-pleasing before thee, Matt. 11:25, 26. (IV) Because in Reprobation there is just as much an ordering of the means to their end as there is in Election, since the vessels of wrath, or the reprobate, and their righteous damnation on account of their sins, are, as the means, just as much and equally appointed and determined by God to the display of His wrath, or avenging justice, as the vessels of mercy and their gracious salvation are appointed and determined to the display of His glorious grace, Rom. 9:22, 23. For this reason (V) the ancients — Augustine, Enchirid. cap. C, likewise de Peccat. Merit. et Remiss. lib. II, cap. 17; Prosper, ad Capit. Gall. cap. XVII; Fulgentius, in a particular book on the twofold Predestination — hold, with us and with Holy Scripture, that Reprobation too is a Predestination.

Meanwhile our opponents raise the contrary opinion against this: (I) that the word προορισμός, Predestination, is nowhere in Holy Scripture used of Reprobation. Answer: (a) This proves, at most, nothing more than that the word προορισμός, Predestination, is not given in Holy Scripture to Reprobation — over which we will not dispute with anyone by mere words, so long as the substance of the matter remains certain. (b) That word is used in its equivalent verb προορίζειν, to predetermine, Acts 4:28, and in its synonymous words is used in more than one way of Reprobation, as we have shown. They say (2) that all who are predestinated, these same are also glorified, Rom. 8:29, 30 — but the reprobate are not glorified; therefore.... Answer: (a) By this reasoning they would also not be foreknown, which conflicts with our opponents' own supposition. (b) Although the word Predestination, Rom. 8:29, 30, is used in a narrower sense of Election, it is nevertheless elsewhere used equally of Reprobation, Acts 4:28. They object (3) that in Reprobation there is not a Predestination of the end and the means, or an ordering of the means to the end, since neither is damnation the end — since it is not something good — nor can sin, which is the means of Reprobation, be fitted to the end. Answer: The end of Reprobation is not, properly speaking, damnation, nor is its means, properly speaking, sin; but the end of Reprobation is the display and adornment of God's avenging justice, and also of His power, Rom. 9:22, and the means is righteous damnation, inflicted for and on account of the sins of the reprobate. This means God has, in every way, joined together with that end in Reprobation, and herein lies an ordering. The (4) objection is: Election and Reprobation are opposed to one another, and therefore they cannot have the same proximate logical genus of Predestination. Answer: (a) Just as a man and a beast, however different from one another, admit the same proximate logical genus, so also Election and Reprobation, however different from one another, admit one and the same species-genus, 1 Thess. 5:9, "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation." (b) Although there is a conflict between the objects and between the effects, yet with respect to God they are not conflicting, but only different, since both flow forth from one and the same predestinating God, and from one and the same good pleasure of His, Matt. 11:25, 26. They say (5) that if Reprobation were a Predestination, then the reprobate would be predestinated to sin, and to eternal damnation. Answer: By no means — for a reprobate is predestinated to the display and adornment of God's avenging Righteousness, as the end, and to the righteous damnation, on account of his sins, as the means. Finally they object (6): if Reprobation were a Predestination, then a reprobate would not sin freely, nor would he be justly damned. Answer: Notwithstanding this, a reprobate sins freely and willingly, since he sins with premeditated purpose, deliberation, and rational good pleasure — for Predestination takes none of this from him; but he is, after he has freely sinned, justly, although necessarily, punished.

§ XXV. One asks: (II) Whether Predestination — being eternal, absolute, and independent — consists in this one thing, that God has from eternity decreed to elect the obedient and to damn the disobedient? Our opponents, the Socinians and Arminians, posit several Predestinations of God, of which some are eternal, others temporal. The eternal are, with them, of two kinds: some absolute and unconditional, respecting the states, according to which He has decreed to save the obedient and to damn the disobedient; others conditional, respecting the persons — for example: I will save Peter, if he shows himself obedient, and damn Judas, if he shows himself disobedient. Likewise they have a temporal Predestination, and that again either not final and consummating — I will, for example, eternally save Peter, whom I now see believing, if he shall persevere in the faith unto the end — or final and consummating, because I see that he, being placed at the moment of death, will persevere, [and] I will eternally save him; and, on the contrary, [I will] eternally damn Judas, because I see that he will not believe. The first root-error of so many distinctions consists in this one thing: to preserve the independent indifference of the free will, which they think is violated, indeed taken away, by an eternal, absolute, and personal decree.

The Reformed acknowledge only one, and that an eternal, absolute, independent, and personal Predestination. Their chief reasons are: (I) Because all God's decrees are God Himself, according to §28 of the preceding chapter. (II) Because all God's decrees are eternal, according to §29 of that same chapter. (III) Because there is no conditional decree of God, according to §30 of that same chapter. (IV) Because there is no general decree of God, according to §32 of that same chapter. (V) Because there is no changeable decree of God, according to §33 of that same chapter. (VI) Because Scripture clearly and expressly brings the whole of Predestination to particular persons — for example, to Jacob and Esau, Rom. 9:10, 11, 12; to the Apostles, Luke 10:20; to Paul, Acts 9:15 — and there is no example to the contrary. (VII) Because God, by force of Predestination, knows those who are His, 2 Tim. 2:19. (VIII) Because Paul continually extends Predestination to himself and to his hearers — for example, the Ephesians, the Thessalonians, Eph. 1:4, 5; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Thess. 5:9. (IX) Because He, through Predestination, has inscribed particular persons by name, as it were, in the Book of Life, Rev. 13:18 — see Dan. 12:1; Luke 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 20:15 and 21:26. (X) Because Paul says: whom He did foreknow, these He also did predestinate, Rom. 8:29, 30 — likewise, that as many believed as were ordained to eternal life, Acts 13:48. Nor can our opponents produce a single passage of Scripture which says that God does not predestinate particular persons, or that He, in predestinating, determines only the state of those who shall be saved and who shall be damned.

Our opponents object only (I) those passages of Scripture which speak of promises and threats, yet which differ immensely from a decree of Predestination, as we showed in §32 of the preceding chapter. Then they say (2) that such a Predestination overthrows the contingency of things and the freedom of the will, and that, on the contrary, all things are pressed down by a harsh necessity. These things we steadfastly deny — for there is nothing in the way to prevent many things from happening in the world which, by their nature, are not determined to that effect by their proximate causes, whence they are called contingent things; nor by causes which determine themselves to their acts by deliberation, wherein consists the reason and manner of freedom — but rather Predestination determines only the certainty of the outcome, while yet bringing it about and appointing it through necessary, or through contingent, or through free causes, just as we have taught elsewhere. Then they press (3) that Predestination of particular persons overthrows all Religion and service of God, as being incompatible with such a necessity. This, since the compulsory character of Predestination has already been denied, falls of itself. Finally they press (4) that a particular Predestination of particular persons is unbecoming to God, because it ascribes to Him (a) an injustice, in that He punishes a man for that which He, according to His decree, could not have avoided doing. Answer: Indeed, He punishes the man because the man, of himself and willingly, transgresses the law prescribed to him, being ignorant of His decree, and not intending, in his transgression, to obey God's decree, but rather his own desire. (b) Also a deceitful pretense, whereby He calls all without distinction to be saved, while He has nevertheless, by an unchangeable decree, determined that by far the greatest part of mankind shall never be saved. Answer: Whom He calls, who shall not be saved, He does not call in order that they may be saved, but that they may be rendered inexcusable, and perish through their own guilt, on account of their own willful obstinacy. (c) That such a Predestination ascribes to God an ignorance and imprudence, whereby He would earnestly call and endeavor to bring to salvation those whom He, by force of Predestination, knows beforehand shall never obtain salvation. Answer: It has already been said that He does not call, nor endeavor, that they should actually be saved, but that they should perish through their own guilt, and acknowledge the righteous cause of their own destruction. (d) Wickedness and malice, whereby He would have decreed not only who must be damned, but also who must sin. Answer: He has decreed to permit sin, and, on account of and because of it, righteously to damn — to the end that thereby the Majesty of His Righteousness might be made manifest, in which there is absolutely no malice or wickedness.

§ XXVI. One asks: (III) Whether, besides the divine good pleasure, some other moving cause of Predestination is to be found? The gross Pelagians — with whom the present-day Socinians agree in every point, because they allow absolutely no certain and fixed foreknowledge of future contingent things, since they hold that, on account of the independent indifference of the free will, future things cannot be foreknown — do not even hold to the foresight of faith and conversion as the moving cause of Election, nor the foresight of unbelief as the cause of Reprobation; still less do they allow God's mere good pleasure as the moving cause of Predestination. The semi-Pelagians, Papists, Remonstrants, Lutherans, and all others outside the Reformed Church, set up as a moving cause of it either the foreseen good works, with respect to Election — thus the Papists — or the foreseen faith, with respect to Election, or the foreseen unbelief, with respect to Reprobation — thus the rest; to the end of preserving the independent indifference of man's free will unimpaired.

The Reformed acknowledge no properly so-called cause of Predestination, because Predestination, according to the nature of all God's decrees, is the predestinating God Himself, in whom, on account of His general independence, the relation of cause and effect does not fall. Nevertheless, according to the manner of our own conception, whereby we formally distinguish the doer from His act, we say that the moving cause of Predestination is solely His good pleasure. Meanwhile, we distinguish reasons from causes, insofar as the former produce the effect, but the latter are only reasons for the joining together of the means with their ends. Therefore, since God's decrees are all-wise, we do not at all object to the reason for that good pleasure being called the display and manifestation of God's Mercy and of His avenging Righteousness; but as a cause, or even as a reason for it, outside of God, we acknowledge none other than God's good pleasure, whose end and aim is, as we have said, the display of His Mercy and avenging Righteousness. Our reasons are: (I) Because, besides that good pleasure, to display His particular glory, we find nothing revealed in Scripture as a moving cause or reason, Matt. 11:25, 26; Eph. 1:5; Rom. 9:22, 23, etc. (II) Because in the Predestinated, who will only exist afterward in time, there can be nothing which in any way could be a cause of the eternal Predestination, unless one should wish to say that that which is born in time is a cause of that which has existed from eternity. (III) Because everything which is put forward, in the Predestinated, as having the appearance of a cause, follows upon Predestination — for example, the good works, Eph. 1:4; faith, Acts 13:48; unbelief, John 8:47 and 6:65. (IV) Because God cannot foreknow who shall believe and who shall not believe, except from the decree of Predestination — for all future coming-into-being is solely from the decree of God. (V) Because otherwise one man would distinguish himself from another, against that word of Paul, 1 Cor. 4:7: "Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"

Our opponents urge, for the contrary opinion: (1) that Christ is the cause of the divine Good Pleasure, and consequently also of Predestination, at least of the electing part, Matt. 3:17 and 17:5; Isa. 42:1. Answer: In Christ the Father has a good pleasure, insofar as He, in the eternal counsel of the Trinity, admitted Him to be the personal Surety of the elect; insofar as He gave Him to the elect as their only Mediator; insofar as He admitted His satisfaction for the punishment owed by the elect; insofar as He is the meritorious cause of all saving benefits, according to Election — but of Predestination, or of Election itself, insofar as it signifies the electing act of God, Christ is nowhere said to be the cause. Our opponents say (2) that we cannot please God, except we be elected through Predestination, in Christ, Eph. 1:5, nor are we in Christ, except by faith; therefore not God's good pleasure alone is the cause of Predestination, but also Christ, and the foreseen faith in Christ. Answer: Yes indeed, we cannot please God apart from Christ, Eph. 1:5, 6, 7, nor except by faith, Heb. 11:6. This, however, does not prevent God, out of His sheer and pure good pleasure, from having determined and ordained Christ and faith for the elect, that they should please Him through Christ and through faith. The good pleasure, therefore, to give Christ and faith, does not depend on Christ and on faith — although this, namely, to please God, depends on nothing else than on Christ and on faith in Him. They say (3) that if Predestination is absolute and unconditional, that is, independent of foreseen things, because it is out of and according to God's good pleasure — then glorification too would be absolute and unconditional, since this too is said to happen out of and according to God's good pleasure, Luke 12:32. But this latter is false, because glorification is made dependent on Calling and Justification, Rom. 8:29, 30. Answer: There is no connection here at all — for by force of the absolute good pleasure of Predestination, glorification is made dependent, by force of that same Predestination and of the same divine good pleasure, on faith and on sanctification; and therefore, although the consequence of Predestination depends on faith, Predestination itself does not, according to Rom. 8:29, 30. Finally they object (4) that if Predestination depends on nothing else than God's good pleasure alone, then an elect person will indeed be saved, although he live godlessly to the end, and, on the contrary, a reprobate will be damned, although he live godly. Answer: By force of Election, an elect person cannot live godlessly to the end of his life, Eph. 1:4, nor can a reprobate live godly — because God, who has predestinated them to the end, has also predestinated them to the fitting means.

§ XXVII. One asks: (IV) What must be held concerning the Arminian order of Predestination, which, with the alteration of a few particulars, is also adopted by the Jesuits and the Lutherans — whereby God is held to determine (I) to give Christ as Mediator, that He might, by His death, destroy sin; (II) to receive into grace those who convert and believe, and, on the contrary, to damn the impenitent and unbelieving; (III) to furnish to all sufficient and efficacious means for conversion and faith; and finally (IV) to elect, by name, those whom He has foreseen will freely believe, and to reject those who will not believe? Answer: Since upon this order there is grounded (1) an equally universal grace, as far as concerns those first acts; (2) free will, that man wills to believe or not to believe, and thereby distinguishes the universal grace; and (3) a Predestination dependent on the creature, and on its free will; and finally (4) a Predestination occupied not so much with persons as with their state and condition — one must hold absolutely that this order is directly contrary to the Scriptures and to experience, as Alting most exactly demonstrates, Elench. Nov. Loc. IV, Controv. 2. Whatever, beyond this, might come to be disputed concerning the conditions, affections, and divisions of Predestination, belongs particularly to Election and Reprobation.

The Practical Part

§ XXVIII. Just as all general things exist and operate in and upon their particulars, so too the practical force of Predestination is chiefly considered in its particular parts, Election and Reprobation. Meanwhile it will here be useful and profitable, first, to consider (a) God's absolute dominion and power, whereby He (I) can appoint and use for their ends, not only the meaner creatures, but the most excellent of all — and among these, not only men but also the angels, each and every one, and all together — and their state, not only the temporal but also the eternal, their salvation together with their damnation, so that they are His vessels unto His glory; whereby He (II) prescribes, to and for these uses, the means, conditions, and order; and this (III) solely out of and according to His good pleasure. This power the Apostle repeatedly, and with much emotion and earnestness, presses home in this matter, Rom. 9:17, "Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee" — v. 21, "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" — and v. 22, "What if God, willing to make His power known...." Compare 2 Tim. 2:19. (b) God's independence, whereby He, in so great and so weighty a decree and purpose, depends neither on the worthiness nor the unworthiness of the creature, but solely on His own sheer and pure good pleasure — not from works, but of Him that calleth, Rom. 9:11: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," v. 13; "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," v. 15; "He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth," v. 18, so that no one and nothing can withstand His will, v. 19; and, together with this, (c) God's wisdom, whereby He knows how to employ, to those very same ends, fitting means and fitting occasions — in consideration of which the Apostle cries out: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? Rom. 11:33, 34. And let us, in view of all this in Predestination, so acknowledge it that we (1) adore, and do not pry into it, ibid. (2) Let us submit ourselves to the Lord, and not contend against Him — for who shall withstand His will? (3) Let us glorify Him in all this: To Him be glory for ever, v. 36.

§ XXIX. Secondly, it will here be useful and profitable that we carefully guard ourselves against the reefs of this mystery, that what has been revealed to us for our salvation may not turn to our destruction. These reefs are: (I) An overly curious prying and inquiring into the manner and the reason of Predestination — why God has done thus and not otherwise; why He has elected these and rejected those — which is nothing other than measuring the unsearchableness and unfathomableness of God (Rom. 11:33) by our own scant measure of comprehension; demanding of the independent God reasons for His counsels — "why hast thou made me thus?" Rom. 9:20 — and esteeming oneself wiser than the all-wise God: compare Matt. 11:19. (II) Disputing and contending over the Righteousness of Predestination, Rom. 9:14 — "Is there unrighteousness with God?" — as though He were a respecter of persons, who deals unequally with equal things, when He is debtor to no one, Rom. 11:35, and, particularly to sinners, owes nothing but destruction. This is therefore nothing other than to carp at and quibble over His power and dominion, Matt. 20:11–14, and to make oneself a judge of the Supreme Judge, Gen. 18:25. (III) From the certainty and firmness of Predestination, to fabricate an absolute necessity of all things, or to take away the freedom of man's will — through which all care for religion and for the means of salvation would be lost, and we, in despair, would say: "Who hath resisted His will?" Rom. 9:19 — whereas Predestination does not take away the contingency and freedom of the will, but only directs and orders it to its uses. (IV) To make God, from Predestination, a cause of sin — whereas every decree of God is the cause not of any particular future sin, but only of its future coming-to-pass, as we have taught in the chapter on God's Decree. (V) To take occasion from Predestination for despair — as if God's unsearchable and untraceable decree were known to us, or as if we had been counselors to the predestinating God, Rom. 11:33, 34. (VI) Or, on the contrary, to give oneself over, on account of it, to carelessness and negligence, to esteem lightly and let slip the care and the means of salvation, because the purpose of Predestination cannot be revoked, and it is therefore all the same in what manner one lives — as if the all-wise God, by a foolish counsel, had determined the end without the means, or as if it were not rather the case that he who would resolve thus in natural matters would be a fool — for example, "if God has determined that I shall live, then it makes no difference whether I eat and drink or not."

§ XXX. It is, thirdly, useful and profitable to consider the decree of Predestination in this way: that we, after the example of God, may be stirred up and incited to the care of our eternal state. For if God, from all eternity, has had so great a care for each and every man, and for his eternal state, that He has willed to occupy Himself continually with him by means of a particular kind of decree — if He has ordained and appointed the state of each of them, and the whole condition of eternity, to nothing else than the display of His glory — if He has, to this end, created all things and everything — if, out of created mankind, He has chosen some to the glory of His Grace, and rejected others to the glory of His Righteousness — if He administers and applies to the elect the means of Grace, and to the reprobate the means of Justice, with so great a wisdom that one must cry out: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! — if, I say, God has had, from eternity, so great a care over us and over our eternal state, how great, then, ought our own care to be over ourselves and over our eternal state — so that we look not (σκοπῶμεν, that we regard and set as our end and aim) at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal, 2 Cor. 4:18. Let us, in this way, with a firm and unwavering resolve, take to heart that we, together with God, hold before ourselves God's honor and glory as our end and aim, and that we apply ourselves, by fitting and suitable means, to that end and aim, so as to work out our own salvation in all things with fear and trembling — because it is God who worketh in us, both to will and to do, of His own good pleasure, Phil. 2:12. On this subject one may compare what the very famous Hoornbeek has, Theol. Pract. lib. I, cap. I, and what he notes concerning the Practice of the whole of Predestination, lib. II, cap. 2, from which many things which we have said briefly can be further clarified. Other things of this kind may be drawn from the following chapters on Election and Reprobation.

Chapter III: On Election

Eph. 1:4, 5, 6. According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, To the praise of the glory of His grace.

The Explanatory Part

§ I. Every species, according to the maxim of the logicians, includes within itself, and presupposes, the whole nature of its genus, together with the determinate subject (individual) of its species. Therefore, just as Predestination includes within itself the whole nature of the divine decree, of which it is a species, so too Election and Reprobation, being species of Predestination, comprise within themselves all that belongs to a decree and to a predestination — which, carefully and precisely observed, will make for a great abridgment in setting forth both these species. With this in mind, and along this line of teaching, we shall descend a step from Predestination to Election. Its nature the Apostle will describe to us point by point and member by member, Eph. 1:4, 5, 6.

The Explanatory Part, continued

§ II. In which words is comprised a precise description of Election, from its parts or acts, according to all its properties. Its parts, or acts, are two.

1. Election, so called in a narrower sense — for Election, taken in a wider sense, always has four acts, namely: (1) a purpose to manifest mercy; (2) an intention to create those who would be elected, and to permit their fall, so that God might have objects in whom, or in whose gracious salvation, He would manifest His mercy; (3) the election of the persons, in whom He would make that mercy of His glorious; finally, (4) the predestination of the means, by which He would lead and bring the elect to the obtaining of mercy. The first two acts properly belong to Predestination, taken in a wider sense; the remaining two acts pertain to Election in a more determinate sense. These two acts, therefore, the Apostle traces distinctly in the text, namely, as noted above. (1) Election, v. 4: "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love." In which words is indicated:

1. The act of choosing, καθῶς ἐξελέξατο, according as He hath chosen. The little word καθῶς, "according as," joins the foregoing third verse together with this fourth, and makes known that all spiritual benefits are conferred upon us in time according to the eternal Election, and are consequences of it. Ἐξελέξατο, He hath chosen, from ἐκλέγω, I choose, I choose out — as if to say, I select out, I declare, I speak forth, because in Election this or that thing is spoken, named, or appointed, out of others. The various meanings of that word we shall set forth in the Doctrinal Part. Here it means to choose out the one, passing by another, to select, to set apart.

2. The object of Election, ἡμᾶς, us. He means himself and his Ephesians — not himself alone, nor every man alike, but the believers. Yet not the believers indeterminately and vaguely, but by name — me and you, namely, the saints which are at Ephesus, the faithful which are in Christ Jesus, v. 1.

3. The ground of Election, ἐν αὐτῷ, in Him — that is, being comprehended in Him, being united with Him, being implanted in Him, just as we, through the Covenant of Nature, were all implanted in the first Adam, Rom. 5:12.... In Him, as the foundation or ground, as in whom all God's promises are yea and amen, 2 Cor. 1:20; out of Him — that is, out of God — are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom.... Or, as the Apostle says, "that I may be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness," Phil. 3:9. Therefore it is not that Christ is the cause of Election itself, but that He is the meritorious cause of all saving benefits which follow upon Election. Ἐν αὐτῷ, in Him — not that they existed in Him before Election, or were foreseen as existing in Him, but that they should exist through Election, in Christ, by faith.

4. The time of Election, or, as it were, the time, πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, before the foundation of the world. The word καταβάλλεσθαι signifies to lay a foundation, Heb. 6:1 — יסד, to found, to lay foundations, is said of a house, 2 Macc. 2:30, and by way of similitude of the world: καταβολή, the foundation, is the beginning of the world, Matt. 13:35 and 25:34; Luke 11:50; John 17:24; Heb. 4:3 and 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 13:8 and 17:8. Thus the Gospel is said to have been hidden before the foundation of the world, Matt. 13:35, and a Kingdom is said to be prepared for the elect before the foundation of the world, Matt. 25:34 — that is, from the ages, Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26 — indeed, before the ages, 1 Cor. 2:7; before the times of the ages, 2 Tim. 1:9; ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος, from the age, from eternity, Acts 15:18. Hereby, then, is signified eternity, or an Election which has come to pass from eternity — for whatever is before the foundation of the world is before time, since time was created together with the world; and whatever is before time is from eternity, which among the Hebrews is קֶדֶם, of old, and עוֹלָם, of the age — Mic. ...: מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם, of old, and what is that? It is from the days of the age.

5. The proximate end of Election: that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. One must here note the omission of the little words εἰς τό, or πρὸς τό, "that," before the verb εἶναι, to be. Here is indicated the end, or the resulting effect, unto which we are elected of God — not indeed all the effects and ends, but that one which we obtain in this life; elsewhere the Apostle says that salvation is the end and effect of Election, 2 Thess. 2:13; elsewhere, glory, Eph. 1:6; here he expresses only the subordinate end: "that we should be" — he does not say "because we were holy," or that He had foreknown that we would be holy, lest anyone should suppose that we were elected out of a foreseen holiness or faith, or that the foresight of it is the cause of Election. The end, now, is:

a. Holiness, ἅγιοι, that we should be holy — that is, inclined and disposed toward holiness, and active in holiness. Therefore those who are elect can be nothing other than holy, and cannot live godlessly, unless the almighty God should be deprived of, or deceived in, His end.

b. Blamelessness, or perfection. In old times the sacrifices had to be תְּמִימִים, entire, perfect — that is, without blemish, Exod. 29:1; Lev. 3:3, 10, and elsewhere: ἄμωμοι or ἀμώμητοι, blameless — such must, by force of Election, the Christians be, Phil. 2:15; Col. 1:22; 2 Pet. 3:14; Jude v. 24; Rev. 14:5; likewise ἄμεμπτοι, unblamable, 1 Thess. 2:10 and 3:13. Ἄμωμος, unblamable, blameless, is one who is not exposed to the bite of Momus (the fault-finder), beyond all reproach, guilty of no crime, and thus blameless. The word μώμος, blemish, seems to be derived from the Hebrew word מוּם, Mum, which signifies a fault or defect — so that our Apostle seems to have in view Song of Songs 4:7: "Thou art all fair, my love, וּמוּם אֵין בָּךְ, and there is no spot in thee." The Hebrew מוּם, Mum, is the Chaldaic מוּמָא, Mouma, and from this the Greek μῶμος, Momos. Thus Election intends that they shall be such — partly, in this life, through the imputation of the holiness and righteousness of Christ, 1 Cor. 1:30; partly through the zealous pursuit of, and striving after, perfection, whereby they strive and endeavor toward the highest degree of perfection, though they shall never attain it so long as they are here, Phil. 3:12–15, compared with 1 Thess. 5:23; Isa. 1:16–18; partly after this life, when Christ shall sanctify the church, having cleansed her, that He might present her to Himself glorious, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish, Eph. 5:26, 27.

c. Love, ἐν ἀγάπῃ, in love. There are some who join these words, by a transposition of words, with the word ἐξελέξατο, He hath chosen, so as to signify that God has elected in love, out of His sheer and pure good pleasure and love, John 3:16; Eph. 2:4. More fittingly and more simply, the word "love" is joined with the words immediately preceding, so as to signify that not only must holiness and blamelessness be joined with love toward God and toward one's neighbor, but also that all the duties of holiness and blamelessness must proceed from love, Matt. 22:37–40.

d. Sincerity, made known by the words κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, before Him, or in His sight, in His presence. Hereby is meant both the constancy and perseverance in holiness through love, as Ps. 102:28, and the sincerity and openheartedness whereby we are holy and blameless not only before and in the presence of men, as the hypocrites are accustomed to be, Matt. 6:5 and 23:5, but especially before God, and in the presence of God, 2 Cor. 1:12.

II. Predestination — likewise, in a narrower and more determinate sense, denoting the appointment of the means for those who have been elected unto the end, namely, unto eternal salvation. Of this it is recorded:

1. The act, with respect to its object, προορίσας ἡμᾶς, having predestinated us, or, who hath predestinated us. The word ὁρίζειν, to determine, to ordain — ὅρος, a boundary — signifies to determine, to fix, to devise, to decree; and προορίζειν, to predetermine, means to appoint to a fixed and certain aim and goal, or to appoint and predetermine the means to a certain, fixed end. So that from this the following sense arises: just as He has set us apart, through Election, unto the end, so also has He appointed and determined, and brought to us, the means which are fitting and sufficient for this end.

2. The means, namely, unto the adoption of children, through Christ, to Himself. In and with these words there seem to be indicated three kinds of means, namely:

a. The benefit, υἱοθεσίας, of the adoption of children — whereby, besides the sanctification already expressed at length, there may abundantly be understood and comprehended the whole communion of us with Christ, in Justification, Adoption as children, Sanctification, and Glorification — in which breadth it seems to be taken, John 1:12 — that we are appointed and ordained to that whole communion, as to a means, through which is to be made known the praise of the glory of His grace.

b. The redemption, through Christ, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, through Jesus Christ. This might come to be, or be limited to, the aforesaid benefit of the adoption of children, so as thereby to signify that the adoption of children comes and belongs to us through Christ, being received through faith, John 1:12; or it might be extended to the whole work of redemption, obtained and brought about through the satisfaction, merit, and intercession of Christ — without which salvation cannot come and belong to us, Acts 4:12; John 14:6 — nor to God the glory of His mercy. This redemption the Apostle will describe more fully in verse 7.

c. The union with Christ, εἰς αὐτόν, to Himself. Not so much unto His glory, as Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36, which is separately expressed at the end of this verse; and therefore this εἰς αὐτόν, to Himself, seems to signify nothing else than the union with Christ, brought about and secured by our being led and gathered to Christ, which comes to pass through the Calling, that we may be united with Him by faith.

3. The rule, or, as it were, the moving cause, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, according to the good pleasure of His will. Therefore not according to merits, or according to a foreseen faith. The Greek word εὐδοκία (eudokia), among the Hebrews חֵפֶץ (hhefetz) or רָצוֹן (ratzon), a good pleasure, is also brought to bear upon Reprobation, as appears from Matt. 11:25, 26 — so far as it signifies, in general, a good pleasure; but insofar as it signifies a benevolence toward the object, it properly belongs to and befits Election. Furthermore, the word εὐδοκία (eudokia), good pleasure, is particularly proper to the Holy Scriptures, having been devised by the Seventy Translators, whereby they translate the Hebrew רָצוֹן (ratzon), good pleasure, benevolence, inclination. There is added to it θελήματος αὐτοῦ, of His will, so that it reads: according as it hath been pleasing to His will. The word "will" expresses something more general, which extends also to the reprobate; but the word εὐδοκία, good pleasure, usually signifies that kind of will which is joined together with favor, from which Election flows.

4. The highest and supreme end, namely, to the praise of the glory of His grace. The phrase ἔπαινος τῆς δόξης, praise of glory, is elsewhere ἔπαινος ἔνδοξος, a glorious praise, so that the second noun-case here stands in place of an adjective, after the manner of the Hebrews. Others, however, distinguish honor, praise, and glory — so that to honor is subordinated every good quality, to praise a more excellent one, but to glory the most excellent of all, just as we have taught elsewhere, Book II, Chapter XXII, on the Glory of God, in the Explanatory Part. There is added ἔπαινος τῆς χάριτος, the praise of grace, because grace is the proper end of Election — just as avenging justice belongs to and is proper to Reprobation, with this distinction: that grace has, in Election, the relation of the end, although of a subordinate end; whereas righteous damnation, in Reprobation, has no other relation and regard than that of a means, by whose help God obtains the end, namely, the display of His righteousness. It is also called a glory of grace, not only because this is the proximate end of Election, but also because it is the supreme end of it.

The Doctrinal Part

§ III. It is therefore, from this text, and from very many others, clearer and plainer than the noonday sun, that God, by an eternal decree, out of the men created and fallen in Adam, has elected some by name, in whose gracious salvation He would manifest the glory of His Mercy, Rom. 8:29, 30 and 9:11, 15, 16; 1 Thess. 1:5 and 5:9; 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 John v. 1; Matt. 20:16 and 24:22, etc. For since nothing happens in time which God has not decreed from eternity would happen, Eph. 1:11; Acts 15:18, and since, by a particular counsel of Predestination, He has taken upon Himself the care and provision for the eternal state of men, according to the preceding chapter — no one can, with any reason, doubt, as indeed no one does doubt, that there is an eternal Election.

§ IV. Now the word Election sometimes signifies a predestination to a certain office, whether civil, 1 Sam. 10:24; Ps. 78:70, or ecclesiastical, Luke 6:13; John 6:70. Sometimes it signifies a choosing out of a certain whole nation, in and among whom God would distribute the pledges of His love — His Law, Statutes, and the name — Deut. 4:37 and 7:7, 15; Rom. 11:5. Sometimes it signifies the elect themselves, Rom. 11:7. Sometimes a separation which comes to pass in time, according to the eternal decree, or the efficacious calling, Ps. 4:4; John 15:16, 19; 1 Cor. 1:27, 28. Most often, however, it signifies the eternal decree to save each and every believer, as appears from the passages cited in the preceding paragraph, as well as from Rom. 8:33; Luke 18:7; Rev. 17:14; 2 Pet. 1:10, and elsewhere.

§ V. Since, then, Election is nothing other than a predestination of certain determinate men, in whose eternal salvation the Glory of the divine Mercy would be manifested — while it is now called a predestination, all that has been said of it in the preceding chapter applies here as well. Although Predestination and Election are, in God, but one single and most simple act, yet, according to our manner of conceiving, their acts or stages are, in general (insofar as the acts of Predestination too are included in this), absolutely four in number.

§ VI. The first is the purpose to manifest the glory of His Mercy in the gracious salvation of men who are (as yet) only capable of being created and capable of falling, Eph. 1:6, "to the praise of His glorious grace"; Rom. 9:23, "that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory"; 2 Thess. 2:13, "He hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." The second act is the determination to create, and to permit the fall — so that He might have a suitable and fitting object in whom to manifest His Mercy, and might prepare beforehand, unto glory, the vessels of Mercy. The third act is the determination and separation of certain determinate men, in whose salvation the glory of His Mercy would be made manifest, 2 Tim. 2:19, "the Lord knoweth them that are His." In this third act, now, consists the proper reason and the very essence of Election, comprising within itself these three following points: (I) a loving, wherein and whereby it differs from the separation which is found in Reprobation, Rom. 9:13, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (II) A loving in order and with respect to the highest and supernatural good, namely, whereby He has prepared them beforehand unto glory, Rom. 9:23; "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee," Jer. 31:3. (III) A loving with separation from others, in which comparative act is included the habitual (virtual) intention to bring that good to them, Rom. 9:1, 2, 3; John 17:6; 1 Cor. 1:26, 27. The fourth act is the intention to prepare and appoint the means, by which the elect may be brought to salvation as to their end — to which belong both Redemption through Christ and the Application of Redemption through faith, John 6:37; 2 Thess. 2:13. This act, as we have already noted before, is in a particular manner called a Predestination, Eph. 1:5; Rom. 8:29 — just as the third act just preceding is, in a particular manner, called Election. And hence Predestination is sometimes said to happen according to the purpose, Eph. 1:11, and is called the purpose according to Election, Rom. 9:11, and Election according to the purpose and counsel of the will, Eph. 1:5. Furthermore, one must note concerning these acts also this: that with them, in the Understanding of God in particular, there goes together a fixed and utterly certain knowledge, whereby God knows, most certainly of all, the heirs of life — whence Election itself is also called a Foreknowledge, Rom. 8:29.

§ VII. These acts of Election having been noted and observed, it is not now necessary to repeat, concerning the object of Election, what we have noted in the preceding chapter — namely, that the object of Election, if it be taken more broadly, as it includes the first two acts, is man as capable of being created and capable of falling, likewise man who would be created and would fall; but if it be taken more determinately, as it consists in the last two acts, that the object of it is man created and fallen, and at the same time elect. One will therefore, more precisely, say that man as capable of being created and capable of falling is the object of Predestination; but man created and fallen the object of Election, as also of Reprobation.

§ VIII. It is better to note that the object of Election is the whole mystical Christ — that is, Christ with all His own — whence we are said to be elect in Christ, Eph. 1:4, likewise predestinated through Jesus Christ to Himself, v. 5; likewise, accepted in the beloved, v. 6, having redemption in Him, v. 7, obtaining an inheritance in Him, v. 11, being called and sealed in Him, v. 13, so that it hath pleased God to gather together all things in Christ, v. 10 — so that, just as we have all sinned and perished in the first Adam, so also we should all, in the second Adam, be restored, Rom. 5:12.... So, nevertheless, that Christ, considered personally, is regarded in this Election as the Head, absolutely without spot, blameless, and righteous, Rom. 5:18, 19, just as men, as members in Him, Eph. 1:4, are regarded as fallen and wretched.

§ IX. From which it is quite easy to grasp how, and in what manner, Christ enters into the matter of Election — namely, as God, He is, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Author of Election, although this is, in the economy, ascribed in Holy Scripture to the Father, Eph. 1:3, 4; but as Mediator, who would obtain salvation for the elect, He may be regarded either as the instrumental cause, insofar as salvation is a work of God, whereby He preserves and saves us through Christ; or as the principal cause, insofar as it is the benefit and advantage of man — whence He is called the captain and finisher of faith, Heb. 12:2. Therefore, in the first act of Election, or in the purpose to display Mercy, Christ is included as the means of gracious salvation; and in the last act, as the principal head-cause of the blessedness of the elect.

§ X. Christ, as Mediator, is not the meritorious cause of Election, though He is indeed of the salvation of the elect ordained and decreed through Election — since He, in the matter of Election, is Himself the one who elects, and Christ is also, through Election, ordained to be Mediator, 1 Pet. 1:20; Isa. 42:1. Nor is faith either, or good works, or whatever else one wishes to regard as foreseen, a moving cause with God for electing: (I) because neither Election, nor any other decree, admits of causes; (II) because neither faith nor good works have had any futurition apart from a preceding decree, and therefore could not have been foreseen; indeed even (III) because faith and good works derive their origin from Election, as from their first cause, according to the constant testimony of the Scriptures, which we shall bring forward in the Polemical Part.

§ XI. The cause of Election is therefore, wholly and entirely, the Triune God, 1 Pet. 1:2 — the Father, Eph. 1:3, 4; John 6:37 and 17:2; the Son, John 13:18 and 15:16, 19; the Holy Spirit, as is inferred and concluded from the Sealing and from His divine works, Acts 13:2; Eph. 1:13; John 3:6; 1 Cor. 6:11. And this same Triune God, considered as the moving cause, appears to us to be none other than God's sheer and pure good pleasure, Eph. 1:5; Rom. 9:16–18, 21–23; Matt. 11:25, 26; Luke 12:32. The supreme end is God's honor and glory — not the general glory, as of every decree, but the particular glory, of Grace and Mercy, Eph. 1:6; Rom. 9:23. To which, as a subordinate end, the gracious salvation of the elect serves and tends — whence the elect are said to be appointed unto the obtaining of salvation, 1 Thess. 5:9, and to have been afore prepared unto glory, Rom. 9:23. To this, as means, serve faith, union and communion with Christ, in Justification, Adoption as children, Sanctification, and in all things according to which the end of faith is said to be the salvation of souls, 1 Pet. 1:9, and we are said to be elected that we should be holy, Eph. 1:4 — predestinated to be conformed to the image of God's Son, Rom. 8:29 — and Election is called a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, 1 Pet. 1:2. These means, although in order and in relation to this end they are more mutually coordinated with one another than subordinated to one another, converge rather as parts of one and the same whole means unto salvation, because each of them by itself, and each in particular, does not by itself produce the highest end of Election.

§ XII. As for the conditions and properties of Election: it is, first, eternal — namely, before time, Eph. 1:4 — and no election takes place in time, which is to be distinguished from the Calling, whereby we are actually elected within ourselves, 1 Cor. 1:26–28. In particular, it does not first take place after faith, or at the moment of death, nor after death either.

§ XIII. For this reason it is, secondly, absolute, unchangeable, and certain — namely, the sure foundation of God stands unmoved, bearing, moreover, a seal, that God knows not only how many, but also who are His own, 2 Tim. 2:19: "Whom He did foreknow, these He also did predestinate," etc., Rom. 8:29. And the purpose of God, which is according to Election, is said to remain, Rom. 9:11; and that Election (the elect) obtains salvation, ch. 11:7. Whence Election is, moreover, called a Book of Life, Isa. 4:3; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 15, and 21:27 — although the Book of God sometimes signifies God's general Providence, Ps. 139:16; Dan. 7:10 and 12:1; Mal. 3:16 — sometimes the Book of the living on earth, Ps. 69:29, which Book Moses perhaps has in view, Exod. 32:32 — sometimes the Book of general Predestination, Rev. 20:12 — from which it is not difficult to infer and conclude in what respect, and in what sense, anyone can be blotted out of the Book of God. The number of the elect is therefore certain and fixed, and cannot be increased or diminished — of which a figure seems to have existed in the numbering of the Israelites in the wilderness, which, being repeatedly carried out, on each occasion yielded one and the same number of heads, with a remarkable corresponding proportion. See Exod. 38:26, compared with Num. 1:46 — a figure which the Holy Spirit seems to use and follow, Rev. 7:4.

§ XIV. And by force of, and by reason of, this Book, not only can God Himself know who are His; but also each elect person — if not always, then at least he can, by the ordinary marks, be assured that his name is inscribed in the Book of Election, Luke 10:20; Eph. 1:4. To this end they are charged to make their calling and election sure, 2 Pet. 1:10.

The Polemical Part

§ XV. One asks: (I) How many kinds of Election are there, according to and in Holy Scripture? The Pelagians, Socinians, semi-Pelagians, Jesuits, Remonstrants, and others, to whom the Lutherans here join themselves, in order the more speciously to come to the aid of the independent indifference of the free will against the Election of which Scripture speaks, betake and hide themselves in the hiding-places and hedgerows of various distinctions, and fabricate several kinds of election. (I) There is with them an Election of state and condition — for example: I will save all believers, I will damn all unbelievers. This, with them, is eternal, absolute, unchangeable, general. (II) There is with them an Election of the person, of this or that one — for example, of Peter: this, insofar as it is eternal, is with them conditional, changeable, incomplete, and unconsummated; thus God has from eternity decreed to save Peter, if he shall be willing to believe. (III) There is with them a temporal Election, and this again either incomplete and not final — for example: I will save Peter, whom I now, at present, see believing, if he shall be willing to persevere in the faith — or complete and final, which would come to pass at the moment of death, or even after death, when perseverance, through the free will, has now been fully and finally accomplished.

The Reformed, although they acknowledge various meanings in the one word Election, and understand various acts within Election itself — with respect to the persons, with respect to the end, with respect to the means — nevertheless admit, with Holy Scripture, only one Election, and reject all the others of our opponents as bastard and falsely-named elections. Specifically: (I) Scripture rejects a general and undetermined Election of state and condition, because Scripture constantly restricts Election to persons, Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:29, 30 and 9:11; Eph. 1:4, 5, 6, as we have also refuted at length, Book III, Chapter I, §32. (2) Scripture also does not allow a conditional and incomplete Election of persons, since it teaches that God has decreed the end and the means, all and each, with one single and most simple act, 2 Thess. 2:13; Rom. 8:29, 30; Eph. 1:4, 5, 9 — we have also deliberately and at length examined and refuted such an election, in the passage already cited, §30. (3) Nor is there any word or trace, in Holy Scripture, of some unconsummated, finalizing, and changeable election which would come to pass at death or after death; but on the contrary, the purpose of Election is constantly declared to be fixed, 2 Tim. 2:19; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:11 and 11:28, 29. We have also, with respect to its changeableness, refuted this at length in the passage mentioned, §33, and with respect to its temporality, §29. And since, in those cited passages, the objections of our opponents have been undone, there is no reason why we should occupy ourselves here with repeating them.

§ XVI. One asks: (II) Whether there is a certain general Election? Origen of old held that not only all men, and each without exception, are elected to salvation, but even the devils themselves — namely, that they, having in hell endured, for a certain time, punishments proportionate to their sins, would finally, all and each in particular, be carried over into heaven. Thus too held Franciscus Puccius, an Italian and a Socinian; likewise Samuel Huberus, a Swiss, who, having been a Reformed minister, became a Lutheran minister, yet was deposed from his ministry by the Lutherans on account of this same opinion; and, among the Socinianizing Arminians, Sebastian Castellio, in his Dialogues. The Lutherans distinguish between the use of the word Election properly speaking and improperly, or by abuse. Then they hold that, if the word is taken in the abusive sense — for God's favorable will toward all, and for His general love, or for a denial of the decree of Reprobation, or for a purpose of God to create all in Adam unto eternal life, and to restore all in Christ unto eternal life, or for an offering of the means of salvation, common to all — then, they say, they readily and easily grant that Election may be called general; but, they say, we deny that Election, in its proper sense, and in accordance with Holy Scripture, is general. Then they also say that the counsel of God concerning the salvation of men can be considered and regarded either in God's antecedent, or in His consequent, will; in the first respect, they say, the counsel of God is general, but in the latter respect it is particular, on account of the foreseen final unbelief of some. Hence they ground the general Predestination on this threefold support: (I) on God's general will and inclination, to save all; (II) on a general Redemption through Christ; (III) on a general Calling — and that nevertheless not all men are saved by that general Predestination, because they are not willing to believe. See John Bergh, tom. II, cap. X, de Elect. et Reprobat.; Hafenreffer, in loc. commun. The Pelagians and the Pelagian-minded, being taken up with a love for universal grace, do not, in terms and expressions, or as far as the word is concerned, accept a general Election, since it includes a relation to Reprobation, which, as far as the word is concerned, they do accept — but they do accept the substance of a general Election, absolutely, when they hold that God wills that all men, and each in particular, shall be saved, at least by an antecedent will.

This latter opinion, which the Pelagians and the Lutherans hold in common, we have refuted and rejected, Book II, Chapter XV, §30 — one may also compare some preceding paragraphs. Against the first-mentioned opinion of Huberus and Castellio, which maintains an absolutely unconditional general Election, we now enter into open conflict. The Reformed allow absolutely no general Election: (I) Because Holy Scripture has not the least trace of a general Election. (2) Because, on the contrary, it teaches nothing but a particular one, Matt. 20:16 and 22:14; John 15:19 and 17:6; Rom. 8:29 and 9:13, 15, 18, 22; 1 Thess. 5:9. Nor is there any example to the contrary. (3) Because to elect means to choose out one from among many, to set the one above the other, or, having accepted the one, to reject the other, Deut. 7:7; John 15:19. Therefore a general Election is σιδηρόξυλον, an "iron-wood," or an absolutely self-contradictory thing. (4) Because then there would be no Reprobation at all, against which Holy Scripture sets itself, Rom. 9:18 and 22; Jude v. 4; Prov. 16:4; Matt. 25:41. (5) Because the elect are said to be inscribed in the Book of Life, Luke 10:20; Phil. 4:3 — which is expressly denied of those who shall perish, Rev. 13:8 and 17:8. (6) Because the elect are said to have been predestinated unto the adoption of children, Eph. 1:5 — which is said of none of all men elsewhere, and cannot be said. (7) Because the elect are said to have been foreknown, that is, to have been foreloved, Rom. 8:29 and 11:2; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 Pet. 1:2; Ps. 1:6 — which is denied of the reprobate, Matt. 7:23. (8) Because the elect are said to be going to believe, [2 Tim.] 1:6 — which is not true of the reprobate. (9) Because thus so many of the elect would perish, against the declaration of Paul, Rom. 8:29. (10) Because that general Election would be either fixed and certain, or fruitless and in vain. If the former, then all men, and each in particular, would be saved — which conflicts with what was said before, especially against Matt. 25. If the latter, then Election would have to be made fruitless and powerless — either by God, but He is not changed, Mal. 3:6, and He changes not His counsels, Isa. 46:10; Heb. 6:17 — or by some other; but this cannot be, since he who changes the counsels of another is thereby earlier, and greater, and mightier than He.

Nor does the following avail here, for the contrary opinion: (a) that the decree to have mercy, which is one and the same as Election, is general, Rom. 11:31, 32 — for it does not say a having-of-mercy upon all, and each in particular, but upon all out of every kind and rank of men, or upon every kind of men, out of Jews together with Gentiles — which appears from the aim of the whole context, and also from Paul's explanation, Gal. 3:22; Rom. 3:22. (b) The passage John 3:16, "For God so loved the world," etc. Answer: "The world" here signifies the generality of believers, not only from among the Jews, as it was under the old economy, but also from among all the Gentiles, Rom. 11:11, 12. (c) That God wills that all men should be saved, 1 Tim. 2:4 — that He wills not the death of the sinner, Ezek. 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9 — nor that anyone should perish, but that they all should come to repentance. To this we have elsewhere answered, namely: (a) that God wills that all shall be saved, that is, of every kind and rank, Kings as well as subjects — for if the Apostle understood every single individual, then he would also have commanded to pray for every single individual, which John forbids, 1 John 5:16, and which Christ Himself does not do, John 17:9. (b) That God wills not the death of the sinner who converts, but that He wills it for the rest of them, absolutely, 1 Sam. 2:25; Prov. 1:26. (c) That He wills not that anyone of the believers, from among us, should perish, but that all such should come to repentance.

§ XVII. Further one asks: (III) Whether there is, on our part, any moving cause or reason of Election, besides the divine good pleasure? The Pelagians, together with most of the Papists, put forward the foreseen merits. The Socinians and the Remonstrants set in their place, not foreseen merits, but foreseen faith and good works. The root-error of all in this matter is likewise to come to the aid, all the more forcibly, of the independent indifference of the free will. The Lutherans rest in a mere foreseen faith, and add to it the merits of Christ. Augustine and the Reformed, together with Holy Scripture alone, admit here only the divine good pleasure: (I) Because all God's decrees, and especially that of Predestination, are eternal, independent, and absolute, as we have shown in the preceding chapters. (II) Because Holy Scripture constantly brings Election to God's good pleasure alone, Matt. 11:26; Luke 12:32; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 9:11, 12 — for which reason it is also called a gracious Election, Rom. 11:5. (III) Because we are elected not out of faith, nor out of works, but unto faith and unto sanctification, Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:29; John 15:16. And therefore (IV) because faith, sanctification, and perseverance flow from Election, as fruits of it, Acts 13:48; John 6:37 and 8:47. And because (V) faith and good works cannot have had any futurition, except from the decree of Election. Finally (VI), if our Election depended on and from the foreknowledge of our faith, works, or perseverance, then it would have to be necessary that these were foreknown and foreseen, either as things which would proceed from ourselves — and thus we would have distinguished ourselves, against the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4:7 — or as from God, who would, accordingly, have decreed, through Election, to bestow them.

And against this, the following objections do not avail: (1) that the predestined are expressly called foreknown, Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:1, 2. Answer: It is not said that they were predestinated out of a foreseen faith, but that they were foreknown, that is, foreloved beforehand, Ps. 1:6; Matt. 7:23. (2) That no one could have been loved, so as to be elected, except by being placed or reckoned in faith in Christ, Heb. 11:6. Answer: We can nevertheless be loved and favored by God, so that He gives to us both Christ, John 3:16, and faith in Christ, Phil. 1:29, so that through it we may at last please Him, Heb. 11:6. (3) That we are said to be elect in Christ, Eph. 1:4. Answer: Certainly not as already being in Him, but as about to be in Him — just as we are said to be redeemed and called in or through Him, vv. 7, 11, 13 — that is, that we should, through Christ and for Christ's sake, obtain salvation. (4) That we are justified by faith, and obtain salvation, and therefore that we are also elected by faith. Answer: Certainly, although we are justified by faith and obtain salvation, faith is nevertheless not, for that reason, immediately the cause of Election itself.

§ XVIII. Hence it is asked: (IV) Whether Christ, as Mediator, is at least the foundation of Election, that is, its meritorious cause? The Remonstrants and the Lutherans establish this — not with a purpose and intent to exalt Christ, but in order to undermine the independence of Election, and to make it dependent on foreseen faith, and on man's free will. The orthodox, although they nowhere read in Holy Scripture that Christ is the foundation of Election (as He indeed is of salvation, 1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20), and do not deny, in this respect, that He might so be called, insofar as He is the foundation of the execution — since God has decreed to bestow, through Him alone, the salvation determined by Election — nevertheless steadfastly deny that one must, for this reason, say that He is the meritorious cause of Election itself: (I) Because, just as all God's decrees, and especially Predestination, so too Election is so independent and free that it depends on no cause, reason, or whatever else it may be called, other than the good pleasure alone of the electing God. (II) Because Christ is an effect of Election, and an instrument of God, whereby He has determined to save the elect, Isa. 42:1; Matt. 12:18; 1 Pet. 1:20. (III) Because, in the order of Election, Christ with His merits is not placed in the first, but in the second place, John 3:16; Rom. 8:29, 30; 2 Tim. 1:9 — and also because the election of God is derived and drawn not from the merits of Christ, as indeed redemption and reconciliation are, but from God's Grace and Mercy, Eph. 1:—; Col. 1:—, and elsewhere.

What is objected is: (1) that we are elected in Christ, Eph. 1:4. Answer: This is not to be elected on account of Christ, but to be elected so that we, through Christ, and through faith in Christ, might obtain salvation — so that the preposition "in" is here taken for διά, "through," as appears from the following context, and from the parallel passages, 1 Thess. 5:9; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14. They say (2) that Christ, according to our supposition, is not the foundation of our salvation, 1 Cor. 3:11, and that it is contradictory that the decree to save some men should not be grounded on Christ as its meritorious cause, while nevertheless man's salvation is grounded on Christ. Answer: It is exactly as if there were no very great difference between the divine act, whereby we are foreordained to salvation, and salvation itself, unto which we are foreordained — as if He who is said to be the foundation and the captain-leader of it, Heb. 2:10, must also immediately, on that account, be the foundation of it. A third objection is that it would conflict with the divine Righteousness to love and elect anyone outside of and apart from Christ. Answer: It is certainly impossible that God, apart from Christ, should love anyone with a love of well-pleasing, so that he should be pleasing to Him, Heb. 11:6 — but not with a love of benevolence and favor, whereby God wills to give to him Christ, and faith in Christ, John 3:16.

§ XIX. Furthermore one asks: (V) Whether Election unto glory is just as absolute and independent as Election unto grace? There is but one Election of God, which for us inseparably ordains glory as the end, Rom. 9:23, and grace, justification, etc., as the means, Rom. 8:29, 30. The semi-Pelagians, Arminians, and Jesuits will have it that this is out of foreseen things — and specifically the Jesuits, out of foreseen merits — and thus deny that it is absolute and independent. Augustine held, with Holy Scripture and with the Dominicans, that the whole of Election is absolute and independent. Ambrosius Catharinus held, at the Council of Trent, that Election unto grace is absolute and independent, but that unto glory is out of foreseen merits. The Reformed hold, with Holy Scripture and with Augustine, that the whole of Election is absolute and independent, both unto glory and unto grace — because (I) it is called a gracious Election, Rom. 11:5, ἐκλογὴ χάριτος, an Election of grace, which excludes every kind of works, ibid., and Eph. 2:8, 9; 1 Cor. 1:28, 29; 4:7; Rom. 11:6. (II) Because we are elected in order that we should do good works, Eph. 1:4; John 15:16 — therefore not out of foreseen works. (III) Because the Calling itself, which is a consequence of Election (Rom. 8:28, 29, 30), and the cause of the works, comes to pass absolutely, and without any foresight, 2 Tim. 1:9, 10; John 15:16, 19; Eph. 2:8, 9. (IV) Because the whole of Election is brought solely to God's good pleasure, Eph. 1:4, 5, 11; Rom. 9:11, 18; Luke 12:32; 2 Tim. 1:9.

Nor does the following conflict with this: (1) that we are accustomed to choose that which is better — particularly when, out of many, only a few are to be chosen — and that therefore those must have been chosen by God who seemed to Him to be better than others, that is, endowed and furnished with virtues and works. Answer: One either chooses that which is better, or that which may become better — in the former case, the choosing happens out of merit, because it is better, and thus creatures choose; or out of grace, that it may become better, and thus the Creator has chosen. And still less does it avail (2) that glory is given on account of merits, and that therefore Election too must have been decreed on account of merits. Answer: It is both false that glory is given on account of merits, and, even if it were given on account of merits, it would not follow that it was therefore also decreed, on account of merits, to be given — since Election unto glory, and glory itself, differ from one another as an act of God, and as the good of the creature. Nor does it avail (3) that we become assured of our Election through the pursuit of good works, 2 Pet. 1:10; 2 Tim. 2:20 — this proves, with not the least shadow of reason, that we are chosen unto glory on account of our works.

§ XX. Further it is asked: (VI) Whether the number of the elect is absolutely unchangeable? The Socinians, together with the Pelagians, Remonstrants, and Jesuits, deny it, out of love for the absolutely independent and self-empowered free will. The Lutherans are here little consistent with themselves: for on the one hand they hold that it is unchangeable with respect to the divine foreknowledge — namely, that God has certainly foreseen how many, and who, would believe — but on the other hand, that it is changeable with respect to the elect, who come to believe and not to believe — as if what God has foreseen would certainly come to pass could, on the side of the creatures, both come to pass and not come to pass. The orthodox hold the number of the elect to be absolutely unchangeable: (I) Because not only every decree of God, but also, in particular, that of Predestination, is unchangeable, according to the preceding chapters; but also (II) because God, through Election, knows infallibly how many, and who, are His own, 2 Tim. 2:19; John 13:18; Rom. 8:29 and 11:2, 29.

Against this, however, it is wrongly objected: (1) that God wills that all men, and each in particular, be saved, 1 Tim. 2:4, and that therefore the number of the elect is not unchangeable. For the first premise is false, and this is not what is said by the Apostle either. It is objected (2) that the elect can become reprobate, which they attempt to prove: (a) from 1 Cor. 9:27, "lest... I myself should be a castaway." Answer: The Apostle does not say, lest I should in any way become a castaway, but, lest I should be castaway-like. And ἀδόκιμος, a castaway, is here not set in opposition to the eternal Election, but τῷ δοκίμῳ, to one who is approved — that is, pure, clean, innocent, blameless, who himself also does what he teaches to others. (b) From Matt. 11:—, that the Tyrians and Sidonians, if they had had the same means of salvation, would have repented. Answer: There is nothing here about Election, nor that the reprobate would become elect — but the Savior teaches that the stubborn obstinacy of the Capernaites is the more inexcusable, the more powerful the means of salvation are which they had, compared to those which the Tyrians and Sidonians had. They appeal (c) to Rom. 11:23, "God is able to graft them in again." Answer: The Apostle speaks of the Jewish nation, which is rejected from the Gospel on account of its unbelief — but that it could be, and indeed would be, restored by God, for the greater part of it, in its own time, vv. 25, 26. He does not, however, say that those very same Jews who have been rejected would have been restored so as to be changed from reprobate into elect. Our opponents object (3) that someone can be blotted out of the Book of Life, Exod. 32:33; Ps. 69:29; Rev. 3:5 and 22:19. Answer: The first two passages do not deal with the Book of eternal Election, but with the Book of the living on earth, as we have shown in the Doctrinal Part. And Rev. 3:5 does not say that anyone can be blotted out of the Book of eternal Election, but there it is promised to the overcomers a firm, sure, and unshaken blessedness after their victory. Compare Phil. 1:6. And Rev. 22:19 contains a conditional threat: that if anyone, being inscribed in the Book of Life, should take away from the words of the prophecy, God would take away his part out of the Book of Life — which conditional threat does not establish that this absolutely comes to pass, that anyone should be blotted out of the Book of Life, since God has decreed and foreknown that none of the elect shall commit that outrage — in much the same way as it is said, Ezek. 18:24, "when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness," etc. So that the sense of the threatening of the Revelation is: if anyone of the elect (which shall never happen) should take away, God would take away his part out of the Book of Life. More matters of this kind will come before us in the treatment of Perseverance.

§ XXI. Finally it is asked: (VII) Whether a true believer, by the ordinary helps, can be infallibly assured of his Election? The Pelagians, Papists, Socinians, Remonstrants deny it outright, because they hold that the will is in a lasting and independent indifference. The Lutherans do indeed grant it — but they add to it (whereby it would in fact have to be denied) that a truly elect person can wholly and completely fall away. The orthodox maintain, with Scripture, this position: (I) Because the elect are charged to make their calling and election sure, 2 Pet. 1:10 — certainly not in and with God, 2 Tim. 2:19, but in and with themselves. (II) Because they have within themselves the marks of Election, namely, the things that accompany salvation, Heb. 6:9. They can be assured of their faith, which has an inseparable bond with salvation, and consequently also with Election, 2 Tim. 1:12; John 3:16. (III) Because they have the Holy Spirit, who is the seal and pledge of our inheritance, 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13, 14 and 4:30, who bears witness with our spirit, Rom. 8:16. (IV) Because there are abundant examples of this Assurance at hand, Ps. 23:1, 6; Rom. 8:38; Gal. 2:20; 2 Tim. 4:8; 2 Cor. 5:1; Gal. 4:6.

And against this the following is not in the way: (1) that we have not been counselors to God, Rom. 11:34, and that we have not ascended into heaven, Rom. 10:6, to look into the Book of Life — for we come, by comparison of those things which are bestowed and granted by God only to the elect, to conclude afterward, firmly and certainly, that we are elect of God. Nor does the following avail (2): that this Assurance, when it is true and sincere, makes anyone — as our opponents slander — careless, proud, puffed up, carnal, vain, and idle, 2 Pet. 1:10, 11; 1 John 3:3. Nor does the following avail against it (3): that fear is everywhere prescribed to believers, Ps. 2:12, 13; Phil. 2:11, 12 — for by this is understood not a doubting concerning Election and salvation, but a childlike reverence and fear toward and before God as Father, Heb. 12:28. And finally (4) it does not avail against it that some are said to have fallen away, to have gone astray from the faith, 1 Tim. 1:19, 20 — for by this is understood the profession of faith, Rom. 1:8, or every kind of common and temporary faith, Matt. 13:20, 21; 1 Cor. 13:2.

The Practical Part

§ XXII. The decree of Election discloses to us, first, God's honor and glory, which is the supreme end, as of all God's works in general, so in particular of Predestination, as we have taught in the preceding chapter, and of Election — whence He is said not only to have elected us to the praise of His glory, Eph. 1:6, and that He might make known the riches of His glory, Rom. 9:23, but is also, on this account, called an elect stone, that we should show forth His praises, 1 Pet. 2:9. Namely, (I) the virtue of His Power, Dominion, and Authority, which He has, like a potter, over the whole lump, so as, according to His good pleasure, to make out of one and the same lump vessels of wrath and vessels of grace, and, to that end, to choose or to pass by whomever He wills, Rom. 9:22; Jer. 18:6; Matt. 20:15. Compare the preceding chapter, §28. (II) The glory of His Mercy, whence one reads of vessels of Mercy, Rom. 9:23, and that we are elect to the praise of the glory of His grace, Eph. 1:6 — which shines forth here so powerfully that nothing can shine forth more powerfully or more gloriously: namely, in the purpose to display grace; in the gracious choosing-out of Persons from among sinners, who were His enemies, Rom. 5:10; in God's sheer and pure good pleasure, without any merit or worthiness of our own, Rom. 9:—, without any expectation of advantage, ibid.; in the gracious gift of His Son, John 3:16, and of the Holy Spirit, who applies the Son to us, in the bringing about of faith, Acts 2:39 and 10:45; 2 Cor. 4:13; in the election, not to some mere friendship, but to adoption as children, Eph. 1:5; in the preparation unto glory, Rom. 9:23, unto an incorruptible, undefiled, and unfading inheritance, 1 Pet. 1:2, 4. (III) The glory of God's Wisdom, whereby He has aimed at the end of Election through so intelligent and wise an ordering and conjoining of the most fitting and suitable means, Rom. 8:29, 30; Eph. 1:4, 5, 6; 2 Thess. 2:13 — whereby He has devised a way to unite and reconcile together His mercy and His righteousness, Rom. 3:25. This...

wrings from the Apostle this exclamation: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? Rom. 11:33-34. And these are the excellences that God discloses in election — to what end? Not only that we should know and acknowledge them, but also that we should proclaim and glory in them, 1 Pet. 2:9, with a godly acclamation: To Him be the glory forever, Amen! Rom. 11:36. Compare the two preceding chapters.

XXIII. Furthermore, the decree of election, in the second place, urges us to make every effort to be assured of our election and to make it sure, 2 Pet. 1:10, and to examine ourselves as to whether we are not perhaps reprobate, adokimoi, 2 Cor. 13:5. For indeed there is nothing that more powerfully urges us to, and advances us in, the exercise of our sanctification, 2 Pet. 1:10, that we may not be idle nor unfruitful, but that we may be holy and blameless before Him in love, Eph. 1:4. (II) Because such a thing wards off apostasy and sin, 2 Pet. 1:10. (III) Because it thus richly supplies to us entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, there v.11. (IV) Because nothing more powerfully strengthens and confirms us amid every kind of adversity, Rom. 8:35, 38-39. (V) Because it makes our access to God more ready, Heb. 10:22. And (VI), to say it in one word, because it makes a heaven on earth, Eph. 1:3-4; Heb. 11:1. One labor will resolve for us a double matter: as we shall have made our calling sure, so shall we also have made our election sure, 2 Pet. 1:10. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined; and those whom He predestined, He also called, Rom. 8:29-30. Now we make our calling sure when we add to our faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, and so forth, 2 Pet. 1:5-6. The certainty of our election, then, will become clear to us by and through a twofold kind of marks — of which the first kind is from God assuring us, the second from us being assured. God demonstrates and makes manifest, by unmistakable signs and proofs, that He has chosen us; and we, from our own side, that we are chosen, through various kinds of evidence.

God makes it manifest from eternity that He has chosen us: (1) By that election of us which takes place in time, that is, by calling — from which calling itself is called an election, 1 Cor. 1:26-27. For when God sets apart, in time, from the wicked and fleshly crowd of worldlings, those whom He has separated from the reprobate in His eternal counsel, and now prepares — those whom He prepared for Himself from eternity for the benefits of grace — to devote themselves to God with an unshakeable resolve. (2) God makes it manifest by receiving and taking us up into His household, Ps. 65:4: Blessed is the man whom you choose and cause to approach, that he may dwell in your courts. This happens through the effectual working of the Word, through the power of the promises, and through the might and power of the Spirit — by all of which it comes to pass that we hear the God who calls, and follow the God who draws us, into His household, 1 Thess. 1:4-6: Knowing, beloved brothers, your election of God: for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance; and you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit. (3) God makes it manifest by the sanctifying of the cross, adversities, and afflictions sent to them, by pouring out the sense of His love, Rom. 5:5, by forming them to patience, humility, prayer, a sense of and hatred against sin; by hearing and answering their sighs, and by directing all their adversities and troubles to their profit and good — to such a degree that they come to see God's love in their very afflictions, and acknowledge with David that it was good for them that He afflicted them, Ps. 119:71. Paul lays down this mark, Rom. 8:28-29: We know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, etc. By these and similar proofs and marks, then, God makes manifest that He has chosen us.

But on the other hand, the elect themselves also, by various evidences and proofs, make their election manifest: (1) By the sanctification of the Spirit. For we are chosen that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love, Eph. 1:4, and 2 Thess. 2:13: God from the beginning chose you to salvation, in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. See also 1 Pet. 1:2. (2) By the virtues of Christ shining out in and through our whole walk. For we are chosen in Christ, Eph. 1:4, so as to be in Christ, or to be united with Him, that His humility, longsuffering, love, obedience, contempt of the world, and other saving things may shine and radiate through us everywhere, 2 Pet. 1:5-7, 10; 1 Pet. 2:9. (3) In our affection and disposition toward God, namely, blameless before Him in love, Eph. 1:4 — so that we, being chosen out of God's pure and unmixed love, again offer our love back to God, to His Word and ordinances, and that we also at the same time bring and show our love to the friends of God who are chosen together with us in Christ, Col. 3:12: Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, etc. — which love will then more powerfully make our election manifest, and by it we remain unmoved amid all adversities, Rom. 8:28, 35. (4) In and through our spiritual priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:9: You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood — whereby we offer up ourselves to God, by putting to death the flesh, or the unreasoning passions and desires, and offering them up, as it were, upon Christ as upon our altar, Gal. 2:20; 5:24; 6:14. (5) In and from the hatred and persecutions of the world, John 15:18-19: If the world hates you, know that it hated me before you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Other and more marks are given by Chamier (in his treatise on the signs of election).

XXIV. Now when we have obtained assurance of our election, this obliges and binds us, in the third place, to gratitude, Eph. 1:3-4: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc., according as He has chosen us, etc.; 2 Thess. 2:13: We are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brothers beloved of the Lord, that God chose you from the beginning to salvation. See likewise 1 Thess. 1:2, 4. To this thankfulness I say we are moved by these reasons: that God (1) has chosen us, when He could have rejected us, Rom. 9:21. (II) That He has chosen us above so many thousands whom He has passed by and rejected, Rom. 9:27-29 and 11:3-5, 7, 22. (III) That He has chosen us fallen, corrupt, sinners, indeed enemies, Rom. 5:8; Ezek. 16:5-6. (IV) That He has chosen us out of pure and unmixed mercy alone, there, without the least expectation of any gain or advantage, moved only by His sovereign good pleasure, Eph. 1:5; Matt. 11:25-26. (V) That He has chosen us not to some servile bondage, or to any kind of friendship with God, or to all sorts of other lesser and inferior benefits; but to adoption as children, Eph. 1:5, to justification, sanctification, and an incorruptible and eternal glorious inheritance, undefiled and unfading, reserved in the heavens for us, 1 Pet. 1:4. (VI) That He has chosen us in Christ, that is, to be redeemed, united with Him, and made blessed through and by communion in all His benefits, by the blood of His own and only-begotten Son, 1 Pet. 1:2: The elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, that we should be complete in Him, Col. 1:10; 1 Cor. 1:30 — to be made conformable to the image of His Son, Rom. 8:29. And (VII) through the sanctification of the Spirit, 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Thess. 2:13 — namely, to be regenerated, converted, and renewed by Him, John 3:5; Titus 3:5. Let us now show and render thanks to God for all these benefits: (1) by acknowledging with the heart the greatness and nature of that benefit, by sensing, esteeming, and valuing it, and ascribing it to God alone and to His pure and unmixed love and favorable goodwill, Ps. 103:1-3, and 116:12, Gen. 32:10. (2) By proclaiming with the mouth, as a chosen generation, the virtues of Him who has called us, 1 Pet. 2:9, Ps. 51:16. Finally (3) by works and deeds loving again, in return, God who out of pure unmixed love has chosen us, Ps. 116:1-5, choosing Him back for our God, Josh. 24:22: You are witnesses against yourselves, that you have chosen the Lord, to serve Him. See also Ps. 16:5-6. And since by choosing us He has separated us from the world, John 15:19, let us then not conform ourselves to the world, Rom. 12:2, but rather go out of it in spiritual fashion, Rev. 18:4; Heb. 13:13. And since He has chosen us that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love, we must serve this counsel of God (Acts 13:36) and give ourselves to holiness — of which more presently, expressly and at length.

XXV. Therefore, in the fourth place, the doctrine of election invites us, by its urgent and moving reasons, to the practice of holiness: (1) Because He who has chosen us is holy, Lev. 11:44-45; Matt. 5:48. (II) Because He has chosen us to be a holy people, Deut. 14:2: You are a holy people to the Lord your God; and the Lord has chosen you to be a people of His own possession, 1 Pet. 2:9: A chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. (III) Because He has chosen us unto holiness, Eph. 1:4: That we should be holy and blameless before Him, through or in the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2. (IV) Because He has chosen us in Christ, the Holy One of Israel, Isa. 10:20, whom the Father has hereunto sanctified, John 10:36, and who has sanctified Himself for us, that we too might be holy, John 17:19 — and in whom the one made new by grace in Him is a new creature, 2 Cor. 5:17, created unto good works which God has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them, Eph. 2:10. (V) Because He has chosen us that we should be conformed to the image of His Son, Rom. 8:29. (VI) Because He has chosen us out of sheer grace, which teaches us to renounce all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, Titus 2:12. (VII) Because by choosing us He has separated us from the world, John 15:19, that we should separate ourselves from it, and not be conformed to it, but be transformed by the renewing of our mind, Rom. 12:2. The exercise and practice of this holiness requires: (1) that we love God, just as He, by choosing us, has loved us, Rom. 8:29: Whom He foreknew, etc. — so that it be a mutual love, Song 2:16. (2) That we love Him purely, and, as it were, for nothing — just as He, in choosing us, had nothing in us that could move Him to it — so that we love Him not for our own sake, or for the sake of anything that shall come to us from God, but purely for His own sake. (3) That we love Him for choosing us, that is, with the passing-by and disregard of all other things, Ps. 73:25, just as He, in choosing us, passed by thousands. (4) That we so choose Him that we, now chosen by Him, give ourselves over to Him wholly and entirely, safe and complete, devoting and spending ourselves at His cost, 2 Cor. 8:5; Rom. 12:1, just as He, having chosen us, has furnished and spent for us His own Son and all things (Rom. 8:32), indeed even Himself. (5) That we devote ourselves and all that is ours to and for His glory, just as He has devoted Himself and all that is His to and for our salvation — to live to Him, and to die to Him, Rom. 14:7-9; Phil. 1:20-21. Finally (6) that we set our names down before God, subscribing ourselves, as it were, to Him, Isa. 44:1-5, just as He has inscribed our name in the Book of Life.

XXVI. Then, in the fifth place, from the divine election we have material for comfort in every kind of adversity, of unspeakable joy in prosperity, and of a gentle and sweet trust in every condition. For by virtue of election we are: (1) infallibly certain of our eternal salvation and life, 2 Thess. 2:13-14: God from the beginning has chosen you to salvation... to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, Ps. 23:6, and of God's unchangeable love toward us, Rom. 11:2 and 8:38-39. (II) Certain and secure of our gracious reception and adoption into the household of God, and of our continual and lasting fellowship and communion with God, Ps. 65:4: Blessed is the man whom you choose and cause to approach, that he may dwell in your courts; we shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house, the holy place of your temple. Likewise Isa. 65:13-14. (III) Certain and secure of divine protection in every kind of danger and adversity, Isa. 41:10-13: Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, yes, I will help you, yes, I will uphold you with the right hand of my righteousness. Behold, all those who are incensed against you shall be ashamed and confounded; they shall be as nothing, and those that strive with you shall perish, etc.; Ps. 23:4-5 and 3:6-9. (IV) We are certain and secure that all sorts of the hardest and heaviest afflictions, by the grace of God, shall not only be softened for us, Ps. 73:26, but shall also work together for good and for our salvation, Rom. 8:28, to such a degree that we can even glory in our tribulations, because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, Rom. 5:2-5. (V) Certain and secure that, however much we may be despised and rejected in the world, we are nevertheless chosen of God; that we shall always be received and accepted by God; that our prayers shall be heard and answered, John 15:16: You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain; that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, He may give it you, Heb. 4:16; Isa. 65:22. (VI) Certain and secure that Christ will impart to us, as to friends, the secrets of His Father, the mysteries of His kingdom, John 15:15-16; Ps. 25:14; Gen. 18:17. And finally we are (VII) certain and secure that all accusations which on that day shall be brought against us before God's judgment seat shall be rejected, because Christ, in and through the decree of election, has been ordained for us to be our surety and our paymaster, Rom. 8:31-35: If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died. All these and countless other benefits stand for us sure and immovable; let us then, without deceit or wavering, be assured and persuaded of our election.

XXVII. Further, in the sixth place, we gain from the divine election material for imitation — that we not only choose the God who has chosen us, as we have already said before, but also that we choose for ourselves those whom God has chosen along with us, as those who together with us, by the same love, out of the same grace, for the same uses, in the same Head, Christ, unto the same mystical body, unto the same union and fellowship with His Son, unto the same means of salvation, have been chosen: so that we, therefore, as chosen, holy, and beloved of God, should put on the tender affections of mercy, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering, etc. — just as Christ has done to us, etc., Col. 3:12-13; John 15:17 and 17:26. Let us then, without any disdain or respect of persons, embrace even the very least and most despised with love, since God has chosen the poor of this world, to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He has promised to those who love Him, James 2:5; 1 Cor. 1:27. Indeed, let us also be ready and willing to undergo and endure all things for their sake and on their account, because they are so precious to God, and thus to Him who has also chosen us, 2 Tim. 2:10.

XXVIII. Finally, in the seventh place, we must also take note, and diligently shun, the reefs by which the aforesaid fruits of election might not only be lost to us, but by which our very ruin could also be brought about. Such are: (1) The fancy of a certain general election, by virtue of which, through God's mercy, all men, and each one in particular, would in the end be saved — a fancy by which all concern to make one's election sure, on which almost all the efficacy of godliness and of comfort depends, is wholly unnerved and undone, as we have abundantly shown in the Polemical Part. (II) A high and deep precipice, whereby, meaning to examine our election, we begin the inquiry from above, aiming immediately and directly at our election — so that we, as it were, attempt to peer into the Book of Life to see whether our name is written there; from which nothing can follow but a steep and deep fall, since such counsels of God are, from that side, wholly inaccessible to us; whereas we must begin that work of self-assurance by examining our hearts, whether they have in and about themselves such things as have an infallible connection with election. Namely, that we, by means of the Apostolic Ladder erected in Rom. 8:29-30, climb gradually and step by step, from the sense of our faith and sanctification to justification, from there to calling, from there to predestination, and so finally to the foreknowledge of election. Then, when we have thus climbed up and have obtained the assurance of our election, we must from there gradually descend again to ourselves, drawing from it the certainty of our perseverance and salvation, and so gathering those sweetest and most pleasant fruits which we have already pointed out at length. (III) We must diligently guard against carnal ease and carelessness, whereby we, on account of the unchangeableness of our election, might through negligence come to esteem lightly and neglect the means of salvation, as though God, by some foolish decree, had determined and settled the end and salvation for us without the means, without the practice of faith and holiness — which the Apostle refutes everywhere, Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2, 13. (IV) We must also here guard against despair, whereby we, from not perceiving in ourselves the marks of election, would immediately conclude that we are not chosen, and by which all exercise of faith, conversion, and godliness would be entirely neglected and abandoned — since concern and anxiety about our election, and longing for it, awaken in us hope, by which we are lifted up to the practice of the means by which we at length arrive at the assurance of our election. Lastly, here (V) all the idle and fruitless doubts of true believers concerning their election must be avoided, which choke and stop up the love and common fellowship between God and them. I say the idle and fruitless doubts of believers, for there are also just doubts, arising from sins committed, which lay waste the conscience; but idle and fruitless are those which are taken from every particular weakness. For although it is fitting and proper, after every sin committed, to humble oneself before God, and to entreat pardon for it, it is nevertheless not fitting, after every single sin, to cast away all hope at once, and to doubt concerning one's election and salvation — for otherwise who could ever be certain of his election and salvation, since we all stumble daily in many things, James 3:2, and even a righteous man falls seven times a day, Prov. 24:16. For such idle and useless doubts greatly diminish the familiar fellowship which the elect have with their God.

Chapter IV: Of Reprobation

On Jude v. 4: For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Transition

I. Election and reprobation are among mutually related things, which, just as they establish and remove one another (for where there is an election, there is also a reprobation; and where there is no reprobation, there will also be no election), so likewise, in the knowing and comprehending of them, they help one another to excellent effect: so that the better we understand the one of these related matters, the better and more accurately we shall also, by that very means, understand the other. With this disposition and purpose we shall descend from the first kind of predestination, namely election, to reprobation — the truth, nature, and character of which the holy Apostle Jude will show us in the fourth verse of his epistle.

The Explanatory Part

II. In these words is comprised a certain description of a person, or a description of a reprobate apostate. Here we find:

1. The matter described. Παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι, for there are certain men crept in unawares. The Apostle means falsely-named Christians, who were deceivers within the enclosure of the Christian church, but who, already in his time, had shamefully fallen away from the Christian faith — such as were the Simonians, Nicolaitans, Gnostics, Menandrians, Carpocratians, Cerinthians, Nazarenes, Ebionites, etc., whom the Apostle John commonly calls Antichrists, 1 John 2:18-19, 22 and 4:1-3. One may see and read of these in Epiphanius, Panarion, Book I, and from him, as well as from Eusebius and Augustine, De Haeresibus, Book I, p. 14, Tom. VI, Basel edition, 1569 — who among other things taught that sin is a matter of indifference, that wives and all sorts of other things are common property, etc. It was against these, according to the testimony of Oecumenius on the contents of this epistle, that Jude wrote it. Now, he says, παρεισέδυσαν, they crept in stealthily, or by stealth, or came up in passing; they thrust themselves in deceitfully, gradually, and secretly — which is the force of the word δύειν or δύνειν, they crept in — namely, into the church.

II. The description, in which is taught:

1. The rejection of these men, οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα, who were of old before ordained to this same judgment. Here is marked, concerning their rejection:

a. The time, πάλαι, of old, long ago, now already for a long time, before their creeping into the church. Here it seems, according to the ordinary matter of eternal reprobation, to mean the same as מִקֶּדֶם יְמֵי עוֹלָם, from of old, from the days of eternity, Micah 5:2.

b. The act of rejecting, προγεγραμμένα, before written, before appointed. Some refer this to Paul, or to Peter, 2 Thess. 2:8-9; 2 Tim. 2:16; 2 Pet. 2:3 — so Grotius; others to Christ, Matt. 24:4-5, 10-11, 14, without doubt in order to escape an eternal reprobation. Others refer it to the times of the Old Testament, by a transfer taken from the fact that sentences used to be read out of a writing, Ps. 149:9, to signify that these had already been decreed and determined beforehand by God. Others refer it, better, to eternal reprobation, by a figurative manner of speaking, taken either from the fact that the decree of election is called a Book of Life, doubtless set over against a Book of Death; or from those who, for the aid of memory, write and note down in handbooks what they have purposed with themselves to do — which without doubt agrees more with the corresponding manners of speech, such as τιθέντες, appointed, 1 Thess. 5:9; κατηρτισμένοι, fitted, Rom. 9:22; οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς αἰῶνα τετήρηται, for whom the blackness of darkness is reserved forever — without doubt through eternal reprobation, 2 Pet. 2:17 — which is confirmed by the fact that Peter speaks of the same persons of whom the holy Jude says that they were προγεγραμμένοι, before written, unto this judgment. Compare both Apostles.

c. The end point — not to say the end — of this προγραφῆς, this before-writing, namely, εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα, unto this same judgment. Here he calls κρίμα the judgment, or a perverse and reprobate mind, whereby they are driven to twist and pervert the doctrine of the truth; or a righteous abandonment, whereby they, on account of their prior sins, are given up and left to suffer shipwreck as to the faith, in such a way that they should become masters of error and finally be eternally condemned; or eternal damnation, so that κρίμα, judgment, here stands for κατάκριμα, punishment, as in Matt. 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; Rom. 2:3 and 5:16; Gal. 5:16; James 3:1 — which punishment God has long ago determined against those who reject the gospel; unto which eternal ruin the holy Jude says they were before written, to signify that this happens neither lightly nor rashly, but that God's eternal and settled counsel and providence has thus righteously ordained it, 2 Pet. 2:23.

2. The ungodliness of these men, ἀσεβεῖς, ungodly, 2 Pet. 2:6. The word ἀσεβής, composed of the privative letter α and σέβομαι, I honor, I serve, denotes those who are not only devoid of all affection for and unto the service of God, but who are also inclined to all sorts of sins — for which reason ἀσεβεῖς, ungodly, and ἁμαρτωλοί, sinners, are more than once coupled together in Holy Scripture, 1 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet. 4:18; Jude v. 15 — and with this, ἀπώλεια, destruction, 2 Pet. 3:7, likewise the wrath of God, Rom. 1:18; Jude v. 15. Certainly not because this ἀσέβεια, ungodliness, was the moving cause of eternal reprobation, but because it is a consequence of that abandonment, in order that there may be a cause on account of which they are righteously condemned, and that the glory of God's avenging justice may be made manifest and appear in their righteous condemnation. In particular:

3. These men's misuse and abuse of divine grace: τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, or into indulgence, wantonness, licentiousness, etc. Here, concerning the misuse of grace, is marked:

a. The point of departure, namely, the grace of our God; by which is understood the doctrine of grace, or the gospel, called by this transferred name, Heb. 12:15 and elsewhere — specifically, the doctrine of Christ's gracious redemption, of our gracious justification by faith alone. This grace the Apostle amplifies by adding its relation to our God, or to the covenant of grace, by means of which God becomes our God in Christ — whence the gravity of this misuse becomes exceptionally greater, that they abuse the grace of so great a covenant.

b. The act of misusing, μετατιθέντες, changing, transferring — namely, its wholesome use, into and unto a perverse use. The word is taken from those who transfer their goods and possessions from one dwelling place to another, Acts 7:16; Heb. 7:12 and 11:5; it is applied to a perverse doctrine, as here, and likewise Gal. 1:6.

c. The point to which, εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, unto wantonness, licentiousness, riotous excess. According to the word, it denotes that insolence which is born of a shameless lust, as Junius observes (on Gal. 5:19). For this reason it is very often coupled with uncleanness, 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:19, where the Syriac renders it by "stench." This term now comprises every kind of licentiousness, lust, and impurity, whereby by loose and wanton words the inward lustfulness is disclosed. So that here is signified a monstrous outpouring of oneself into and unto every kind of wantonness and lust, into which the Simonians, Nicolaitans, Carpocratians, Gnostics, and others turned and changed the doctrine of the grace of our God.

4. These men's apostasy: καὶ τὸν μόνον Θεὸν καὶ δεσπότην, τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι, and denying the only God and Ruler, our Lord Jesus Christ. Here is marked:

A. A twofold object of the denial.

a. The chief one, καὶ τὸν μόνον Θεὸν καὶ δεσπότην, and that only God and Ruler. There are those who apply the three titles — the only God, the Ruler, and the Lord — to the one Jesus Christ, as being with the Father that one God, John 17:3; whom they call Ruler, or Father, of the household, in the household of the church; and a Lord, who by His blood has obtained and acquired us for Himself, 1 Pet. 1:18-19 — and this because only a single relative pronoun is set before both titles; though also, before various persons, not seldom only one relative pronoun is placed, Matt. 17:1; Acts 3:11, etc. I would rather, however, apply the first two titles to the Father, who is then called:

1. Μόνος Θεός, the only God, in contrast not only to creatures and idols, but also to the Son — whose God He is very often called, namely, in an economic sense, insofar as the Son, through His eternal self-suretyship, has become the servant and subject of the Father, Isa. 53:10; John 20:17.

2. Δεσπότης, Lord, or Ruler, Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24. Thus He is now called: because, as Father in His household, He is Lord and Ruler; also because in the economy of the Holy Trinity He is the first Person, just as the second Person is the Dispenser, and the third a common Sender-out, as it were, as we have taught in his proper place, in the chapter on the Trinity; also because in the eternal counsel of peace He has drawn up and arranged the whole work of redemption; and finally, because in the economy of the church He is the supreme Lawgiver.

b. The second object, τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, our Lord Jesus Christ. Commonly He is called Lord, not only on account of His deity, whereby He has created, sustains, and governs all things; nor only on account of the redemption, whereby He has acquired us for His own possession by purchasing us, Rev. 5:9; 1 Cor. 6:20 and 7:23; but also because all power has been given Him by His Father, Matt. 28:18; Phil. 2:9-11; Acts 2:36.

B. The act of denying, ἀρνούμενοι, denying. The word ἀρνεῖσθαι, to deny, means to withdraw from someone one's trust, allegiance, and respect, Matt. 10:33; Luke 12:9; Acts 3:13-14 and 7:35, etc. And this happens both by someone's life and deeds, Titus 1:16, and by his word and doctrine, Matt. 10:33. This is, as we have already noted before, properly said of and concerning the Simonians, Nicolaitans, Carpocratians, and others. These turned the grace of God into wantonness and licentiousness; they denied both God the Father — introducing several World-Rulers instead of one, worshiping a Simon who pretended himself to be that God who had appeared on Mount Sinai — and also Jesus Christ, of whom they said that He was neither truly born, nor had suffered, nor had risen, nor that He was the Christ, but was different, by mere appearance, from the highest, invisible, and incorporeal Christ; our Christ they said was a man, born of a woman, and many of them thought themselves His equals — and thus they did not acknowledge Him as their Redeemer and Lord.

The Doctrinal Part

III. Since, therefore, certain men — not all men, but certain determinate men, who are described by their marks — are said to have been before written, not merely foreknown but foreordained, unto a certain determinate end, namely to condemnation, and that πάλαι, of old, long ago: who then can doubt that there is a certain eternal decree of reprobation, by which God, through a righteous judgment and condemnation of certain determinate men, has intended to reveal the glory of His avenging justice? Especially since Holy Scripture teaches this in so many ways, both in express words, Isa. 41:9: I have chosen you, and have not rejected you — as often as certain persons are said to be prepared for destruction, Rom. 9:22, appointed thereunto, 1 Pet. 2:8-9 (but you are a chosen generation, 1 Thess. 5:9), and hated of God, Rom. 9:11-13; Mal. 1:2-3; Rom. 9:15; and as often, likewise, as God is said to have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and to harden whom He will; likewise, that there are those whose names are not written in the Book of Life, Rev. 13:8; who are not God's people, not beloved, Hos. 1:10 and 2:23, compared with Rom. 9:25.

IV. And besides Holy Scripture, sound reason also confirms the same: for (1) if there is an election, which everyone acknowledges, then there is also a reprobation, according to the nature of mutually related things. Reason also shows (II), from the divine perfection, that nothing happens in time which God has not foreseen from eternity, and that He could have foreseen it in no other way than because He had determined it beforehand; consequently, since He has foreseen the condemnation of many, it is necessary that He has predetermined and foreordained the same from eternity, that is, that He has rejected them. Reason further teaches (III) that God, concerning the eternal state of rational creatures, as being a matter of singular importance, has had a singular care from eternity in the decree of predestination; and just as He has had this concerning salvation in election, so He has also had it concerning damnation in reprobation. And also (IV), since He has been concerned to elect some, reason teaches that He must necessarily have passed by others, in order to leave them to their own ways and to condemn them eternally. Indeed (V), it is fitting and consonant, and it becomes God, that He from eternity should have intended to demonstrate His avenging justice, no less than to demonstrate His grace and mercy.

V. Reprobation, then, is the predestination of certain determinate men, in order, through their righteous condemnation, to reveal the glory of His avenging justice, Rom. 9:22; Jude v. 4. Now when reprobation here is called a predestination (according to the chapter on predestination), it is not a bare and powerless foreknowledge, but an ordering and determining of the will, whereby He hardens, sets, prepares, and before-writes unto destruction those whom He wills. Furthermore, when reprobation is called a predestination of certain determinate men, it is not thereby understood to be a predestination of the state of men in general, whereby He would have willed that unbelievers and the ungodly in general be condemned — since reprobation always extends to men — some men, vessels of wrath; nor is it a reprobation of men indeterminately, but of certain determinate men, for example Esau. And since God is said to have predestined some, it is plain and clear, according to the opinion of the Reformed, that God has not predestined man to destruction as to an end, nor that He takes pleasure in the death of the sinner, in and of itself; but that this is unto the glory of His justice, of which the means are not all sorts of things, but a righteous condemnation. Yet most of these matters must be stated a little more distinctly.

VI. The predestination of reprobation, as an act, comprises within its scope these following four points, as we have already noted before: (1) God's purpose to reveal the glory of His avenging justice, Rom. 9:22 — but not to condemn and destroy man, which has no regard whatsoever to any good (and hence also not to any end), neither in respect of God nor in respect of man. Whence He says that He has no pleasure in the death of the sinner, Ezek. 18:23. And in this lies the first difference between election and reprobation: that election has for its intended end not only the glory of God's mercy, but also the salvation of the elect, Rom. 9:23; whereas reprobation intends, as its end, only the demonstration of God's justice, and regards the righteous condemnation of the reprobate as nothing other than a means. (II) A purpose to create men, and to permit their fall — which is common to the reprobate with the elect, so that neither Cain nor Judas nor anyone else has ever had anything of which he could complain, since God, by creating men indeterminately and without distinction, in order to set forth through Himself the glory of His justice, and by permitting their fall thereunto, does injustice to no one — especially since that reprobation is an immanent act of God, and touches no one. (III) To determine and appoint, from among fallen men in particular — for example, Judas — in whom His justice should be made manifest. This appointment now cannot be called a choosing or election, because it is not out of love, nor a communication of any good, but only and merely a withholding of both. And in this act consists, in a stricter and most properly speaking sense, reprobation — because it rejects and turns away those with whom it is concerned from that love by which the elect are foreordained unto salvation. Just as, therefore, in election there is a loving-with-a-setting-apart, so in reprobation there is a not-loving-with-a-setting-apart. And in this lies the negative hatred of reprobation, as it is called, to which, as it were, is joined a positive hatred, whereby God wills that some shall be excluded from eternal life, and, on account of their sins, be righteously condemned, Rom. 9:13.

The second difference between election and reprobation lies herein: that the love of election immediately communicates good to the creature, whereas the hatred of reprobation only withholds good, and does not bring about evil except through the intervention of the creature's own demerit. (IV) The intention to prepare those means by which the justice may be revealed in the reprobate. Now what kind of means these are, that are most properly so called, is: the permission of sin, and the leaving-in sin, Rom. 9:18; 2 Thess. 2:11-12, and the righteous condemnation on account of the sin. And in this lies the third difference between election and reprobation: that election is the cause not only of salvation, but also of all the means leading thereunto; whereas reprobation is a properly-so-called cause neither of the condemnation, nor of the sin which merits the condemnation, but is only something antecedent to it. Indeed, here also shines forth a fourth difference between the two: that in reprobation the means themselves, among one another, do not have the relation of a cause and an effect — since the permitting of sin is not the cause of the abandonment, the hardening, and the punishing, but sin itself is; whereas in election, calling is the cause of justification, and justification of glorification. Meanwhile it must be noted that the means of reprobation are for the most part negative: as a not-redeeming, John 10:26; a not-calling, at least not effectually, Matt. 20:16 and 22:14; a not-giving of faith, Acts 13:48, compared with John 12:39-40; a not-hindering of sin, and a leaving-in it, Rom. 9:18; a not-forgiving of it, John 20:23. Meanwhile there are also positive means: blinding, hardening, Isa. 6:9; John 12:39-40; the righteous condemnation and damnation on account of sin, there, and Rom. 9:22; Jude v. 4. Yet all the means, whether they be negative or positive, are directed by a positive act of the divine will unto their end.

VII. Now there is no reason why we should again say, from the beginning, how man is the object of the divine reprobation — namely, in respect of the first act, as able to be created and able to fall; in respect of the second, as about to be created and about to fall; in respect of the third, as created and fallen; in respect of the fourth act, as passed by and rejected. It is rather to be noted here that every man can be the object of reprobation — not only an adult, but also a small child, even one dying in its earliest infancy. For although the little children of believers are under the promise of the covenant of grace, Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39, and thus holy, 1 Cor. 7:14, nevertheless the children of unbelievers are called unclean or unholy, and were of old excluded from the covenant by the lack of circumcision, and also all are, on account of original sin, condemnable, and much more reprobable, Rom. 5:14. Yet whether all the small children of all unbelievers, dying in their infancy, are actually reprobate, we leave to God, to reveal in His own time.

VIII. Although man, on account of sin, becomes and shall be condemnable and condemned — since a just penalty presupposes guilt — nevertheless he does not become reprobable through sin. For that God should propose to Himself the demonstration of His justice, and that He, out of fallen men, should in a like manner destine some to this and not others, is certainly not from sin, but from God's absolute might and dominion, Rom. 9:21; Matt. 20:15. And thus, although sin is the meriting cause of the eternal punishment ordained for the reprobate, it is nevertheless not the moving cause of the predestination itself, Rom. 9:11-12, 19, because that predestination is independent, eternal, and is the decreeing God Himself. And hence there is likewise, of reprobation, no other chief cause whatsoever than God, Rom. 9:11-12, 19; Jer. 6:30 — nor any moving cause besides God's sovereign good pleasure, Rom. 9:18-21; Matt. 11:26. Because everything that can be devised as a cause — for example, sin, unbelief, ungodliness, impenitence — follows upon reprobation, so that it could not have been presupposed before that decree, or foreseen by God, and be a cause of it: for God's foreseeing is, in order, later than the decree. The direct and proper end, indeed, is the glory of God's power and justice, or of His wrath, Rom. 9:23; but, incidentally or by the way, the display of His grace and mercy toward the elect, Rom. 9:22-23.

IX. This reprobation is entirely absolute and independent — yet certainly not in such a way as if there entered into that whole decree no regard whatsoever to sin: for there is such a regard to sin in the second act of reprobation, which determines and settles the permission of sin, in order that God may have that in and about which He might reveal His avenging justice; and hence the third act likewise presupposes sin, insofar as God, out of sinners, rejects whom He wills; and finally, the regard to sin also comes into play in the fourth act, since a righteous condemnation presupposes sin, and looks to it as its meriting cause. But sin does not enter into this decree as a moving and meriting cause, on account of which God should decree the revealing of His avenging justice; nor on account of which, out of all men equally reprobable, He should reject this one and not that one, Rom. 9:11, 13 — because otherwise the decreeing God Himself would depend on the creature, and the creature, on the other hand, would be made independent.

X. Finally, reprobation is, according to the nature of all God's decrees, unchangeable, both on God's side (with whose being the act of reprobation is one and the same), which always remains and is always the same, Ps. 102:27-28; Heb. 1:11-12; Mal. 3:6 — and on the side of the reprobate; for he who is disobedient to the Son through unbelief shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him, John 3:36. Whence also the number of the reprobate is certain and determined, known to God alone, Rom. 9:11-12; 2 Tim. 2:19 — not only the counting number, or how many, but also the numbered number, or who shall be condemned: Esau have I hated, Rom. 9:13 — a thing which appears both from the proportion of election, Rom. 8:29-30; 2 Tim. 2:19, and from the execution of reprobation, which shall take place on that day, Matt. 25:32.

The Polemical Part

XI. Most of the points in controversy in this chapter can be settled and disposed of from what we have already laid down as a foundation in the three preceding chapters. It is nevertheless worth the trouble to sketch the points in controversy briefly.

The first question is: I. Is there, with God, from eternity, a certain personal reprobation? The Socinians, and other cruder defenders of an independent indifference of the free will, acknowledge a reprobation of state, occurring from eternity, whereby God has rejected unbelievers and the ungodly, dying as such; they also acknowledge a reprobation of persons — but one which occurred, they say, not from eternity, but only after the death of the sinner. And they hold this position both because they take away from God the foreknowledge of future contingent things, and because they wish the free will to be self-determining and indifferent right up to death. The semi-Pelagians of Marseilles, with whom the Jesuits, Anabaptists, Lutherans, and Remonstrants agree, since they do not wish to seem to deny the certain foreknowledge of contingent things, allow a personal reprobation that occurred from eternity — but not an absolute and final one, which they, with the Socinians, put off until the point of death. The Reformed acknowledge, with Scripture, no other reprobation than one that is personal, occurring from eternity, final, and absolute: (1) because God hated Esau before he had done anything good or evil, Rom. 9:13, and because the vessels of wrath are said to be prepared and fitted beforehand for destruction, there v. 22; appointed thereunto, 1 Pet. 2:8; before written, Jude v. 4; wrought, or formed, for the day of evil, Prov. 16:4. (II) Because we have already shown at length that all the decrees of God — the whole of predestination, the whole of election — are independent, eternal, absolute, and unchangeable; and therefore reprobation likewise. Nor do our opponents have anything, either from Scripture or from nature, that comes to hand against our position — the eternal and infallible foreknowledge of future contingent things in God being demonstrated, and the nature of the free will explained — but only weak and thin accusations and carping, with which they attack, not so much our doctrine, as God Himself, and quite unjustly. Specifically, they object: (1) that this reprobation robs the sinner, in his sinning, of his liberty, and obligates him, as by an iron compulsion, to sin. Answer: (a) Reprobation, being an immanent act of God, does not touch man so as to rob him of his freedom. (b) Nor does it prevent man from sinning with deliberate counsel, forethought, and reasonable inclination; indeed, God has rejected him precisely so that he should thus sin voluntarily, and in this properly consists the freedom of the will, and not in an independent indifference. (c) Also, properly speaking, nothing is necessary except that which is produced by an immediate necessary cause, that is, by such a cause as by its own nature is determined to such a thing; but the decree of reprobation brings no such thing with it — although it does bring with it a firm, certain, and unavoidable future coming-to-pass, which differs, by a whole heaven's breadth, from a necessity or compulsion. They object (2) that this reprobation makes God a cause of all sin, since it would have predestined and necessitated the sinner to sin. Answer: (a) Reprobation does not make it so that the sinner necessarily sins, or is by his own nature determined to sin. (b) God has not predestined man to sin; but, on account of sin, through a just punishment, to show forth in him His avenging justice. (c) No one can be a cause of sin except him who transgresses and sins, which is repugnant to God. Our opponents object (3) that such a reprobation makes God unjust, because He punishes the sinner who, by force of the unchangeable decree of reprobation, cannot but sin. Answer: (a) Man can, notwithstanding reprobation, not sin, through the power of a cause, insofar as the decree does not compel the sinner — although the future occurring of the sin cannot fail to be, on account of and because of the decree. (b) God condemns justly, because He condemns for nothing but sin, and has determined to condemn for nothing but sin. (c) Reprobation itself is not an act of God's avenging justice, but only of His power and dominion, Rom. 9:22. A fourth objection is that such a reprobation makes God cruel toward His own miserable creature, since He has predestined it to eternal condemnation even while it was not yet created, nor had sinned, moved only by His own good pleasure. Answer: (a) Nevertheless, Scripture speaks thus, Rom. 9:22; Jude v. 4; 1 Thess. 5:9; 2 Pet. 2:8-9, compared with Mal. 1:2-3 and Rom. 9:11-13. But (b) He does not predestine and determine unto eternal condemnation as such, but unto the demonstration of His avenging justice, through a righteous condemnation, as a means. (c) That predestination, being an immanent act, does not touch the creature by bringing any evil upon it, and does not condemn it except for its own sin; and also God has no pleasure in the death of the sinner, except of an impenitent one, Prov. 1:25-27. Nor (d) is it cruel to will to punish a man for his sins; still less (e) to predestine him thereunto. They object (5) that such a reprobation makes God into a hypocrite and dissembler, in that, having by an unchangeable decree fitted man for impenitence and death, He nevertheless calls him to repentance and to life. Answer: God does not dissemble, but calls earnestly to repentance, and, that condition being met, promises life — although He has not decreed, according to His infinite power, to work conversion effectually in man, to which He is by no manner of means bound or obliged. It is said (6) that this decree makes God a respecter of persons, when He determines unequal things for equal persons — for these, life, for those, death. Answer: He is a respecter of persons who, when by rule and covenant he owes equal things, brings unequal things; but now God owes nothing at all to any creature, Rom. 11:36. Besides, it is not for equal persons, but for unequal — namely, for believers and unbelievers — that He determines unequal things; indeed, even for unbelievers, beyond and above all their merits, He prepares and bestows all sorts of earthly goods, Ps. 17:14. They further pretend (7) that this reprobation gives the ungodly a just occasion and reason to complain, that God has not chosen them, as He has chosen others; but that reprobation holds them bound, as it were with an iron force, so that they cannot do their duty. Answer: (a) He is not bound to choose them, since He is an absolute Lord of all; therefore they complain with not the least right, Matt. 20:13-15; Rom. 9:14-16, 21. But (b) this complaint might carry a little weight if they, through an unjust withdrawal of their powers, or through the hindering and preventing of outward actions, while a disposition toward those acts nonetheless remained, were unable to act — but as it is, they both sin very willingly and with the greatest pleasure, and they cannot do otherwise; they follow, like unreasoning beasts, their nature; they trample underfoot God's grace, and they do not wish it to be otherwise. Wherefore this complaint will be a most unjust one, of the sort that is made by that wicked, carping, and complaining servant, Matt. 25:24. It is further said (8) that such a reprobation shuts and stops up the way to all comfort and godliness, when someone fears that he is one of the reprobate, and that therefore all his efforts toward godliness will be in vain. Answer: (a) No one can be fully assured of his own reprobation, although an ungodly man may be certain that he is thus far outside the state of grace, yet not that he shall remain so. (b) This fear is useful toward repentance and conversion, Rom. 11:20. Meanwhile it gives (c) the godly occasion and a spur to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, Phil. 2:12. It also gives them occasion and opportunity to make their calling and election sure, 2 Pet. 1:10-11. Moreover, when they are assured that they are not reprobate, this furnishes them a most sweet matter of comfort, since they have learned that, whereas many are called, but few chosen, Matt. 20:16, this grace has been given to them, 1 Thess. 1:4 — which then gives them matter and reason to thank God most heartily, as we shall more fully urge in our Practical Exercises. Finally, having sufficiently demonstrated the truth of our doctrine of reprobation, we shall set, against all the bitterness of our opponents and their answers, that saying of Paul against those who dispute with God: But, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me thus? Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? Rom. 9:20-21.

II. The question is asked, secondly, whether reprobation is an act of the understanding alone, or also of the will; or, whether the reprobate ought rather to be said to be foreknown than foreordained; or, whether reprobation is a part or a kind of predestination. All of which comes to one and the same thing, and has already long since been answered and settled by us, Book III, Chapter II, §XXIV; and we note this here nowhere else but so that we may have ready and together at hand everything that is disputed concerning reprobation.

III. The question is asked, thirdly, whether the meriting, or in some manner moving and impelling, cause of reprobation is sin. The Pelagians, Socinians, semi-Pelagians, Jesuits, Remonstrants, Lutherans, and however many are outside the Reformed Church, acknowledge that their general reprobation, which looks to the state of men (namely, "I will condemn all unbelievers and the impenitent"), depends on no other moving cause than God's good pleasure — since such a reprobation does not stand in the way of the independent indifference of the free will. But all personal reprobation they make dependent on sin, as a moving and impelling cause. The Reformed distinguish between condemnation, of which they grant that sin, unbelief, and other things are the meriting causes, and reprobation, and they acknowledge that into this latter there does enter a certain regard and relation to sin, indeed in all its acts: the first act ("I will declare the glory of my avenging justice in the righteous condemnation of sinners") presupposes sin as possible; the second act ("I will create men and permit their fall") posits the future occurring of sin; in the third act ("I will, out of created and fallen men, set apart — for example, Esau...Judas — in whose righteous condemnation I will reveal my justice") sin enters in as the meriting cause of the condemnation; in the fourth act ("I will — for example, Cain, Ham, Esau, Judas...leave lying in their sins, not redeem, not bestow faith...on account of sin condemn, that I may, in that righteous condemnation, have the glory of my avenging justice") sin comes in together with the condemnation, as a means toward the making known and glorifying of God's avenging justice — but as a moving and impelling cause of the rejecting act itself, it enters in no way whatsoever. (1) Because Scripture nowhere makes the act of reprobation depend on anything other than God's mere and simple good pleasure, Rom. 9:11, 18, 21; Matt. 11:25-26 and 10:15; Ps. 115:3. (II) Because sin is not the cause of God's eternal will; but now the act of reprobation is nothing other than the will of God, Rom. 9:18, and the decreeing will of God is the first and highest cause of every future occurrence, and therefore does not depend on anyone who would be above God; nor can there be, of a matter that consists from eternity, any cause which first begins to exist in time — for thus that which is born in time would be a cause of that which has existed from eternity, and the effect would be prior to its own cause. (III) If sin were the cause of reprobation, then absolutely all men would be reprobate, since all men by nature are sinners, Eph. 2:3. (IV) Because God is said to have kept the wicked for the day of evil, Prov. 16:4. (V) Because He is said to harden whom He wills, Rom. 9:18. (VI) Because reprobation is nothing other than God who rejects, as we have already shown before in the chapter on the decrees. (VII) Because the future occurring of sin could not have been foreseen except from the decree, since the future occurring of any and every thing whatsoever is from nowhere else than the decree. (VIII) Because, by force of the opposite supposition, the act of reprobation would depend on the sin of man, whether already created or yet to be created. Nothing avails against the opposite opinion: (1) that the ruin, or destruction, of the reprobate is on account of sin, Hos. 13:9, which ruin is nothing other than reprobation. Answer: The consequence is false, since reprobation occurred from eternity, whereas the ruin occurs in time; and that which occurs in time cannot be the same thing as that which has existed from eternity. It is said (2) that that on account of which men shall be condemned and damned at the last judgment is sin, Matt. 25:41...We answer therefore that condemnation, or damnation, differs by a whole heaven's breadth from reprobation, namely, as something that is eternal differs from something that occurs in time. They object (3): sin alone is the cause of the divine hatred, Ps. 5:5-7; but now the hatred of God is the cause of reprobation, Rom. 9:13. Answer: The hatred of God is reprobation itself, but not the cause of reprobation, Rom. 9:13 — besides, the word "hatred" sometimes means a punishment or chastisement, Ps. 5:5-7, of which sin indeed is the cause, but not of reprobation itself, which precedes the punishing. It is said (4) that if God, according to His good pleasure alone, has rejected so many men, He would not be good, but a tyrant and an unjust judge. Answer: The consequence is false, because God, through reprobation, has determined to condemn no one except on account of sin, as the meriting cause of the condemnation — from which, as our opponents themselves acknowledge, no wickedness or injustice can rightly be asserted.

XIV. The question is asked, fourthly: is the end of reprobation the sin of the reprobate, or rather his condemnation or ruin? Or otherwise: is man predestined by God unto sin, or unto destruction? Answer: This fixed position is slanderously laid to the charge of the Reformed. For according to their own suppositions, sin is intended by God neither as the end nor as a means — although the just punishing of sin does enter into the divine decree, not as its end, but as a means. Therefore, with us, the end of reprobation is nothing other than the revealing of God's avenging justice, through a righteous condemnation of the sinner — and likewise, of His absolute might and dominion. Thus Scripture speaks with us, Rom. 9:17, 21; Matt. 20:15. Nor has He created the reprobate, or permitted sin, with the end of condemning them; but creation, the permission of sin, and the leaving-in-sin, are nothing other than a single accumulated means, tending thereto, that God, through it as through a means, might attain to the demonstration and revelation of His power and of His avenging justice, as His highest end, as we have already shown before.

XV. The question is asked, fifthly: is the object of reprobation not only a fallen man, and thus a sinner, but also one who is an unbeliever? And are, therefore, all sorts of small children able to be an object of reprobation? The Pelagians and Socinians, because they hold that man's will remains changeable right up to the end of life, notwithstanding any divine decree, make an object of personal and final reprobation only a man who is actually an unbeliever — and because they likewise deny original sin, they exclude small children entirely from reprobation. The semi-Pelagians, because they allow divine foreknowledge, and wish that the foreseen unbelief be the moving cause of reprobation, do make of adults, who shall not actually believe, an object of reprobation; but since they dare not lead small children into heaven, on account of the saying of Paul, 1 Cor. 7:14, they nevertheless acknowledge no reprobation of these, but assign to them a certain middle state, and only a punishment of loss, just as also to the heathen dying in their non-culpable unbelief. The Lutherans, because they hold that all and each are equally redeemed, and shall also all and each be equally called, and thus all are obligated to believe, make an object of reprobation those who shall actually not believe; concerning small children they determine, so far as I know, nothing definite. The Reformed say that the object of reprobation, taken in a broader sense, insofar as it signifies the purpose of God's predestination to reveal the glory of His avenging justice, is a man who can be created, and who can fall; but of reprobation, taken in a narrower sense, insofar as it denotes a setting-apart, the object is man already fallen, and thus sinful — but that the object of reprobation should precisely be, determinately, an unbelieving man (except perhaps with reference to the last act, which concludes and determines the righteous condemnation of the reprobate, and with reference to some who have rejected the Christ offered to them) they do not find in Holy Scripture, which regards as the object of reprobation those who are not yet born, and who have done neither good nor evil; indeed, which sets forth unbelief as a consequence of reprobation, Matt. 13:11-15; John 12:37-40; Matt. 11:25-26. And therefore they hold that even certain small children can be subject to reprobation, as being subject to original sin, Rom. 5:12, 14, not being holy but unclean, 1 Cor. 7:14, and placed outside the covenant of grace, Gen. 17:7-8; Acts 2:39. Meanwhile, concerning the small children of believers, because these are said to be clean, 1 Cor. 7:14, and to be within the covenant, Acts 2:39, compared with Gen. 17:7, and likewise because they are held to partake of the better things of their parents — they think better things; but concerning the small children of unbelievers, because Holy Scripture says nothing, indeed nothing express, about these, they hold that they must be left to the divine judgment. But since we have already abundantly urged the positions of the Reformed on this whole matter above, and our opponents have here nothing but their own suppositions, which we have already thrown out of court, we judge it superfluous to add more to what has been said.

XVI. The question is asked, sixthly: is the reprobation of certain determinate persons, occurring from eternity, absolute and independent, or does it occur on condition of a final unbelief? Our opponents hold that the reprobation of state, and also that final reprobation of persons which, according to their position, occurs at the moment of death, is absolute and independent; but the personal reprobation which occurred from eternity, they say, depends on man's self-willed unbelief. The Reformed, just as they accept and acknowledge, with and according to Holy Scripture, a reprobation not of state, but of persons alone, and not in time, but occurring from eternity — so they indeed believe that the righteous condemnation of the sinner is made, through reprobation, dependent on sin and on unbelief; but that reprobation itself should depend on sin or on unbelief, they read nowhere in Holy Scripture — no; but, according to the nature of every divine decree, which is one and the same with the decreeing God, they say that reprobation is wholly independent, eternal, absolute, and final, as we have shown above in the chapter on the decrees.

XVII. Finally the question is asked, seventhly: is reprobation firm, sure, and unchangeable? Our Pelagian-minded opponents hold that the reprobation of state, and the final reprobation of the person at the point of death, are unchangeable; but that non-final reprobation, being attached to and dependent upon voluntary unbelief, can, according to human free will, be changed. The Lutherans seem, as regarding election, so also here regarding reprobation, to make a distinction, and hold that reprobation, with respect to divine foreknowledge, must be said to be unchangeable; but that the same, with respect to men, can be changed, so that a reprobate becomes elect, and thus again, in turn, from the other side. The Reformed believe that the decree of reprobation is absolutely unchangeable: (1) according to Holy Scripture, Rom. 11:7. (II) By force of the proportion of election, Rom. 8:30: Whom He did foreknow, them He also did predestinate, etc., unchangeably; so too, whom He did not foreknow, these He has also not predestined, etc. Finally (III), from the nature of every single divine decree, which is absolutely unchangeable. Nor do our opponents have anything to allege for themselves, except only the divine promises, in and through which He promises the wicked, when they become penitent and are converted, the turning aside of His judgments — for example, Jer. 18:7-8. Yet they do not consider that God's promises differ by a whole heaven's breadth from His decrees, as we have shown elsewhere in the chapter on the will of God. And as for the slanders of our opponents, with which and in which they especially, in this matter, are accustomed to burst out — that our doctrine of reprobation overturns the liberty of man's free will and the contingency of things; that it brings a fatal and Stoic necessity upon all things; that it makes God a cause of sin; that it makes Him an unjust and unrighteous deceiver and dissembler; that it banishes all exercise of religion and godliness — to all this we have already long since answered, and done enough concerning it, indeed, at §XI of this chapter.

The Practical Part

XVIII. As for the Practical Part: first, the decree of reprobation forcefully displays to us the glory of God, to which end God has, above all else, applied and directed this whole counsel, Rom. 9:22-23. For God, just as in the matter of election, besides His own glory, has also intended the salvation of man, so in reprobation He has not been able to intend man's ruin or condemnation as such, since that, in and of itself, has no regard or relation to any good. The glory, I say, (1) of God's most absolute power and dominion: willing to make known His power, Rom. 9:22, which He has, like a potter, to make out of the same lump not only vessels of mercy, but also vessels of wrath or of His justice; and, to this end, out of persons equally reprobable, to set this one aside above that one — for example, Ishmael and Esau — according to His own sovereign good pleasure; and further, to leave him lying in sin; not to bring to him the means of grace; then also to harden him, to give him over to himself; and finally, on account of and for his sins, righteously to condemn him. Compare the chapter on predestination, and likewise the chapter on God's power and dominion. (II) The glory of God's wrath, severity, and avenging justice, willing to show His wrath, Rom. 9:22, and 11:22: Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God — who has excluded the sinner, with such great severity, from all grace and from the saving means of restoration, and has, on account of His own will, assigned him to eternal condemnation — so that He may, as it were, boast: Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth, Rom. 9:17. (III) The glory of divine wisdom, whereby, unto the revealing of this His wrath and justice, He has been able to devise means, by which neither His justice nor His goodness may be hurt or offended — indeed, even sin itself, being the highest evil, He has, through His highest wisdom, been able, as it were, to turn to use for a highest good, the glory of His avenging justice — so that here one may with all right cry out: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? Rom. 11:33-34. Indeed, the doctrine of reprobation brings that power, that strict justice, and that infinite wisdom of God so plainly into the light of day, that we should not only consider and acknowledge them, but also: (1) that we should submit ourselves and all that is ours entirely to that power of God, and set ourselves against our fleshly thoughts and reasonings, according to that word of Paul: But, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me thus? Rom. 9:20. (2) That we should regard and revere with fear and trembling the severity and strictness of God's avenging justice, Rom. 11:20: Be not highminded, but fear, etc. (3) That we should so give way before God's unsearchable wisdom, and so submit ourselves to it, that we cast down all our reasonings and considerations, to which we are especially in this matter so much inclined, and bring every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and every thought, into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10:5 — that we, with all humility, lay our hand upon our mouth: with David, for you, O Lord, have done it, Ps. 39:9; and with Eli, It is the Lord: let Him do what seems good in His eyes, 1 Sam. 3:18.

XIX. From this it follows also, secondly, that in reprobation we must guard ourselves, as against something than which nothing worse can be, (1) so that the reasonings of our own flesh do not conspire with the burning truth on behalf of the reprobate, so that we, as if we were their advocates, should contend with God, the supreme Judge, and, as it were, be His accusers — indeed, at the same time also His judges. So that we, from the very matter of reprobation, would as it were accuse Him, in and before the law, of: (1) Unrighteousness, Rom. 9:14: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid! (2) Cruelty, whereby, by rejecting, He withholds the miserable creature from all mercy, and purposes with Himself to burn the same with everlasting flames. (3) Respect of persons, in that He determines unequal things for equal persons, and that by an eternal decree of destruction. (4) Hypocrisy, in that He calls to repentance and to grace those whom He will not accept, as being rejected by and from Him. (5) That He would be a cause and abettor of sin, Rom. 9:19. (6) That He furnishes the ungodly, through reprobation, matter both to complain and to excuse themselves, since it is by and on account of it that they cannot but sin. (7) That He gives to the wretched occasion for despair, when they, being fettered by the hard necessitation of reprobation, can neither escape nor extricate themselves from sin and misery. Against all these fleshly accusations and reproaches we must guard ourselves, as against something than which nothing worse can be: because it is not only (a) most unjust, for the sake of a man, and of the very worst of men, to wish to dispute with the supremely good God, Gen. 18:27; but because it is (b) slanderous against God, even to hold Him suspect of so great an injustice; indeed also (c) ruinous for man, for whatever reason it may be, to contend with his God, Job 9:2-4. But rather, on the contrary: (II) We must, by virtue of this doctrine, valiantly stand up for God, not only against the perverse reasonings of our own understanding, but let us also courageously withstand and refute the attacks of our opponents, and their carping and reproaches, which we have already mentioned, with those and similar reasons which we have set forth before, §X — content with this one thing, that God has not rejected us; indeed, taking from this a proof and assurance that we are not rejected by Him, because we so valiantly stand up for Him and for His glory, both against ourselves and against others who rise up against it, Matt. 12:30, compared with Rom. 8:31.

XX. Indeed also, thirdly, reprobation displays to us the very glory of divine mercy, both toward the reprobate themselves — when He not only bears with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, Rom. 9:22, but also, very often, loads and heaps them with very many outstanding bodily benefits, even beyond the elect, Ps. 17:14 and 73:3, 12, and — what is still more — with spiritual and very excellent, though not saving, benefits, Heb. 6:4-5 — whereas He could have delivered them over to the everlasting flames from the ground up, being as they are excluded from all grace, Lam. 3:22; Isa. 1:9 — and especially toward the elect, Rom. 9:22-23: What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had before prepared unto glory? For since God (1), according to His absolutely unbounded power, could as well have rejected these as those — for who has first given to Him, that it should be recompensed to Him again? Rom. 11:35 — and since (II) they had all alike fallen, and thus alike become reprobable and children of wrath, Eph. 2:1, 3 — since therefore (III) the elect had absolutely nothing above the reprobate which would render them pleasing to God, so as not to be rejected, Ezek. 16:3-7 — and since, finally, (4) nothing whatsoever can be devised as to why God has chosen us above them, to be vessels of mercy unto glory, other than His sheer and pure good pleasure toward us, Luke 12:32; Eph. 1:5 — there is, from all these, indeed, an abundant reason: (1) to show ourselves, with all the greater care and diligence, thankful to God, and to make ourselves pleasing to Him, Matt. 11:25; Eph. 1:3-4. (2) To love God the more ardently in return, Ps. 116:1, 8, 16. (3) On His account, in turn, to renounce all other things, Ps. 73:25-26; Heb. 11:24-26; Phil. 3:7-8. (4) To show ourselves, above them, to be vessels of grace, prepared unto His glory, Rom. 9:23; Eph. 1:6; 2 Tim. 2:21. (5) To devote ourselves to humility and modesty, 1 Cor. 4:7, and not to exalt ourselves above the reprobate, but rather to be moved with compassion toward them, Rom. 11:18. Finally, (6) with the most careful avoidance of a fleshly ease, to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, because it is God who works in us both to will and to do, according to His good pleasure, Phil. 2:12; Rom. 11:20; Ps. 2:11.

XXI. Therefore, fourthly, that we may do all these things the more readily and promptly, let us with the utmost care guard ourselves from lightly imagining, and much more from persuading and assuring ourselves, of our own or of another's reprobation. For although the Apostles and others, through extraordinary revelations, by means of outward tokens and proofs coming to them, have been convinced of the reprobation of certain persons, 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude v. 4 — likewise, although you yourself, from ordinary marks, might with right come to doubt, indeed be assured, that you, or also someone else, are as yet not in the state of grace, and therefore, dying thus, shall certainly be condemned — nevertheless, since no one can be certain that he will never be converted by God, so neither can anyone be certain that he is reprobate; since all sorts of sins, from which one would have to conclude such a thing, can also fall even into an elect person, 1 Tim. 1:13-14; Matt. 26:72 — one sin alone excepted, whereby the Holy Spirit is blasphemed, of which the Apostle says plainly that it is impossible to renew such a one again unto repentance, Heb. 6:4-6. But since you can nonetheless be assured that you have not committed this sin (at least not intentionally), it remains that the elect must diligently guard themselves from ever allowing such doubts, and still less a firm imagination of their own reprobation. (1) Because this very thing is fit and able to extinguish love toward God, familiar fellowship with Him, trust in and rest upon Him, bold access to Him in prayer, the exercise of repentance and godliness, and the whole flourishing of religion, 1 John 4:18. Then (II), because this is a most ready means to root out all joy and gladness in God, all cheerfulness of mind, and thus the life and sweetness of the whole Christian life, and to set in its place a sorrowful and, as it were, dead life. One must also entertain no suspicion, still less any persuasion, concerning the reprobation of one's neighbor, however abandonedly and ungodly he may as yet live, because God is able to convert him, Rom. 11:23, and has revealed to no one that He does not wish to do so. For if you allow yourself a suspicion or imagination against your neighbor, that he is rejected of God, you will have closed off for yourself the way to all endeavor for his betterment, 1 John 5:16. It is therefore better here to use that saying of Paul. We are persuaded better things of you, Heb. 6:9.

XXII. Meanwhile, however, fifthly, let us be spurred on by the severity of reprobation to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, Phil. 2:12, that we be not high-minded, but fear, Rom. 11:20, 22; Ps. 2:11; 1 Cor. 10:12 — that we, who are chosen by grace, may not, by living as if reprobate, make ourselves reprobable. Wherefore we must especially guard ourselves against those faults and sins by which the reprobate have shown themselves to be reprobate, and by which we might arouse in ourselves or in others some suspicion of reprobation. Such sins Jude sets forth as a sample, v. 4: (1) Hypocrisy, whereby, with a profession of the true faith and with a pretended godliness, we creep secretly into the church. (II) Misuse of the divine grace, and fleshly carelessness, unto wantonness, licentiousness, and lust, Rom. 3:8. (III) Apostasy, whereby we deny God the only Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (IV) When we should stumble at Christ and at the word of truth, and conduct ourselves disobediently against it, 1 Pet. 2:8. (V) Giving ourselves over to those sins by which the step is laid toward that sin which is peculiar to the reprobate, namely, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: such are (1) grieving the Holy Spirit, by whom we are sealed, Eph. 4:30; (2) provoking Him, Isa. 63:10; (3) resisting Him, Acts 7:51-52; (4) quenching Him, 1 Thess. 5:19 — to which (5) the next step is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Matt. 12:31-32, whereby we would show ourselves to be wholly and completely reprobate. Finally (VI) all sorts of sins, by which the reprobate — Cain, Saul, Judas, and others — have made themselves notorious and shown themselves to be reprobate.

XXIII. But on the contrary, sixthly, since we are not vessels of clay or of earth, or made unto dishonor, but, like vessels of gold and silver, unto honor, 2 Tim. 2:20, prepared beforehand unto glory, Rom. 9:23, let us give ourselves entirely over to those virtues by which the elect have most of all shown themselves to be distinct and different from the reprobate — of which the Apostle sets forth a certain sample, 2 Tim. 2:19, 21: (1) To depart from all iniquity. (II) To purge ourselves from sins, that we may be a vessel unto honor. (III) To fit ourselves for the uses of the Lord. (IV) To be prepared and furnished for every good work. (V) To be holy and blameless before God in love, Eph. 1:4. (VI) To put on the tender affections of mercy, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering, etc., Col. 3:12-14. (VII) Obedience, and an aversion, 1 Pet. 1:2. (VIII) To strive for the truth of the gospel, Phil. 4:3 — and whatever other similar virtues there may very many be, from which the reprobate have been, above all, estranged and averse.

Chapter V: Of Creation in General

On Gen. 1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Transition

I. Having until now considered the internal works of God, we now proceed to the external — which internal works, as they display their own patterns and archetypes, and moreover bring to execution the counsel and purpose of God to reveal the glory of His mercy and justice. And these external works are two, namely: creation, whereby the creature is brought forth; and providence, whereby provision and care are made for the creature once brought forth. Of creation we shall speak, first, in general; then somewhat more distinctly, of the six-day creation; and finally, in particular and point by point, insofar as it presents an object for predestination, in the bringing forth of the rational creature. The first of these matters the first verse of the Bible will set before us.

The Explanatory Part

II. In the words of this verse is taught the sum and substance, or the framework of the whole creation, or of the works of the first day; and in it we find:

1. The time of creating: בְּרֵאשִׁית, in the beginning. The word רֵאשִׁית, Reshith, a beginning, comes from רֹאשׁ, Rosh, the head — whence Aquila has translated it ἐν κεφαλίδι, in the head, or in the chapter-heading, in the superscription — as if he said that the sum and chief substance of created things is comprised in this verse, because in the creation of heaven and earth all other things are contained and included. The word looks either to order or to time. If to order, then there must be understood beneath it הַכֹּל, of all, of all things — for in matters that are not doubtful, something is often, among the Hebrews, left unexpressed and understood, as in John 3:10; Isa. 8:4. And thus בְּרֵאשִׁית, bereshith, will mean: the first of all things He created... If it looks to time, then it will mean: in the beginning, either of time, or of creation, or of the totality of things, or of the creature, Mark 13:19 — in or with the first moment. There are also, among the ancients, such as Origen, Basil, Jerome, Augustine, and others, and among later writers, Galatinus (De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis, Book III, ch. 3), who think that by רֵאשִׁית, the beginning, Christ is meant, so that the sense is, ἐν ἀρχῇ ἀνάρχῳ, in or through the beginning that itself has no beginning — namely, the Son of God. Ambrose prefers that here a beginning that has a beginning be understood, of time and of the universe. Whatever the case may be, at least these two things are made known to us by this "beginning":

1. That the world has not existed from eternity, nor has anything else existed before that beginning, besides God.

2. That the world was not brought forth out of matter previously existing, because before the first beginning of all things there was nothing out of which the world could have been created.

II. The creating, בָּרָא, He created, He has created. The LXX translators render this word here by ποιέω, to make, elsewhere often by κτίζω, to create. The Hebrews distinguish the words ברא, to create, יצר, to form, and עשה, to make, Isa. 43:7. Thus: to create is to bring something forth out of nothing; to form is to give shape to what has been created; and to make is to arrange well the particular members and parts. Thus R. David Kimchi explains the passage of Isa. 43:7. As for the rest, the word ברא, to create, is properly taken for a bringing forth of a thing out of nothing — as it is doubtless the case in this text; sometimes, however, it is used of things which are made out of some pre-existing matter, but then it always signifies something outstanding, something new, and to make and do something with skill. We shall have the equivalent words of this in the Doctrinal Part. The word ברא, He created, which is of singular number, is joined together with the word אֱלֹהִים, God, which is of plural number, because — although all three particular Persons of the Trinity have created (whence they are called בּוֹרְאִים, Creators, Eccl. 12:1) — there is nevertheless but one common creating power to all.

III. The one who creates, אֱלֹהִים, Elohim, properly, according to the word, Gods — namely, the three Persons of the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Ps. 33:6. For although we should not, from this word alone, contend for the Trinity against our opponents, since this proof is exposed to many evasions, nevertheless — the Trinity being established by other, clearer and more evident proofs — no one need doubt that the Holy Spirit, in order to signify the plurality of Persons in God, wished to use the plural number, since otherwise a singular noun was indeed available, as we have more fully noted elsewhere, in the chapter on the Trinity. By this name, then, is made known:

1. That God alone is the cause of creation.

2. That the same work belongs to the particular Persons of the Trinity, though in a distinct manner, as we shall more distinctly note in its proper place, in the Doctrinal Part.

IV. The thing created: heaven and earth. Some understand this so, that God created these two things first, out of nothing, and afterward the rest of things out of these, as out of a pre-existing matter — so A. David Kimchi. Others understand by it the matter of heaven and of earth; others, all heavenly and earthly creatures, Acts 17:24, and thus this whole universe, Acts 17:24 — whence the future world is thus named, 2 Pet. 3:13. This is something which Moses, making a brief recapitulation and summary, states clearly enough, Gen. 2:1, 4. Elsewhere, however, to signify the world, there are joined together with heaven and earth the seas and all that is in them, Exod. 20:11; Acts 4:24 and 14:15. The thing created, then, or this world, Moses divides into two parts, comprising all things in themselves, namely:

1. The heaven, אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם. The Jewish teachers understand by "the heaven" the heavenly regions, from the sublunary heaven up to the firmament — but the creation of these heavens is better assigned to the second day of creation. Augustine understands by the heavens the angels, in his book The City of God, Book II, ch. 9. Valesius (De Sacra Philosophia) thinks that by the heavens the air is meant. Luther understands by heaven and earth a rough and unformed mass, a mixed and as yet unordered or unarranged lump, and he holds that it is called heaven and earth by a certain anticipatory account, with respect to its final purpose and end — which rough and unformed mass some indeed call chaos, that is, a confused lump, others the first matter, though different from Aristotle's first matter. The writer of the Book of Wisdom calls it ὕλην ἄμορφον, a formless, or unshaped, matter, ch. 11:18 — which then Moses would explain in v. 2: the earth was תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, without form and void. Those who hold that the first verse contains a short summary of the whole creation think, with the Jewish teachers, that by it is signified all the visible heavens. But those who assign this same first verse to the first day of creation understand, with the Scholastics, by "the heaven" the highest heaven, the dwelling place of God, the seat of the blessed angels, which Christ calls Paradise, Luke 23:43, Paul the third heaven, 2 Cor. 12:2, and a city, whose builder and maker is God, Heb. 11:10. So also think Theodoret, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, and Bede. One of these last two opinions seems to me by far the most probable. The particle אֵת, Et, is, according to the observation of Aben Ezra and David Kimchi, not merely a simple sign of the accusative case, but signifies the very substance of the thing.

2. The earth, אֶת הָאָרֶץ. The word אֶרֶץ, Eretz, that is, earth (whether it be derived from רָצָה, to will, to take pleasure, because by the sight of it the inhabitants of the earth are most of all taken with satisfaction, pleasure, and delight; or from רוּץ, to run, because it, as it were, runs, both around its own axis and around the sun, as the Copernicans and Cartesians hold; or rather from רָצַץ, to wear away, to be worn out, because it is worn down by our feet) is taken in this place not for a chief element, which enters into the composition of most material things, but it signifies here a part of the world, the second comprising part of this universe. The demonstrative prefix ה, h, seems here to signify that same earth which we now tread with our feet — yet in such a way that it includes together within it everything that is contained in it, namely, the seas and all that is within or upon it, as appears from Ps. 121:2 and 124:8; Jer. 10:11, compared with Ps. 46:6; Acts 4:24, and from Gen. 1:1, 15 — which also belongs to the sea, Acts 27:30, 33. The force of the particle אֵת, Et, we have already noted in the preceding clause.

The Doctrinal Part

III. The triune God, therefore, has brought forth out of nothing everything that is distinct from Himself, and indeed very good — a thing which we most readily know and understand by faith, Heb. 11:3: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God — as Scripture so often and so clearly says, Jer. 10:11-13: The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. But the Lord God is the truth, He is the living God, who has made the earth by His power, who has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heaven by His understanding. Isa. 42:5, 8: Thus says God the Lord, He who created the heavens, and stretched them out; He who spread forth the earth, and that which comes out of it; He who gives breath to the people upon it, and spirit to those who walk in it. Ps. 96:5; Isa. 45:12; Rev. 4:11: You have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created. Exod. 20:11, and in countless other places besides.

IV. The same is acknowledged by nature also — though, on account of the cunning and deceitful tricks and devices of the philosophers, more obscurely — when it cries out: (1) That God alone is an absolutely first Being, besides whom, therefore, nothing can exist which is not and does not depend upon Him, and who alone cannot not-be. (II) That everything which is distinct and different from God, can as well not-be, as be, and follows only from a possible existence, and thus is made by another, namely, by Him who alone exists through Himself. (III) That if anything had brought itself forth, this would, without any doubt, be a mark of infinite perfection, for nothing limits or diminishes its own perfection — so that even the general imperfection of this whole universe shows another author of itself, who has meted out to the particular creatures each its share of perfection, according to His good pleasure — a thing which will appear even more clearly from what follows. Hence there also come together here (IV) the testimonies of certain philosophers, for example, of Macrobius, in his Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, Book 2, ch. 10, as well as their disputes and disagreements concerning the origin of the world. Meanwhile, however, the reasonings of the philosophers have not been able to reach so far as to determine in what manner, in what order, at what time, the first cause of all things has brought forth all things — this belongs entirely to faith, as the Apostle teaches, Heb. 11:6 — although it is also not unfitting or inappropriate that this same thing be known both by reason and by faith, as appears from all those philosophical reasonings which are taught in the Scriptures.

V. The work of creation is expressed and signified in the Scriptures of both Testaments in various ways: and indeed, in that of the Old Testament, we find the word יצר, to form, to fashion, Gen. 2:7, compare Job 10:8; Isa. 64:8; Jer. 18:6; יסד, to found, Ps. 89:12 and 102:26; שפר, to build skillfully, to construct, to adorn; כון, to prepare, to fit, to arrange, to order, Job 26:13; Ps. 8:2; Jer. 10:12 — yet the act of creation is most powerfully expressed by the word ברא, which signifies a most excellent working, such as, without doubt, that is by which a thing is universally brought forth. In the New Testament it is called the founding of the world, καταβολὴ τοῦ κόσμου, Matt. 25:34; Heb. 4:3; a building of all things, Heb. 3:4, whereby πάντα ἐγένετο, all things were made, John 1:3; and God is said to have made the heaven, ποιήσας, Acts 4:24; to have prepared the ages, or the world, καταρτίζω, Heb. 11:3 — but most properly of all, that work is called κτίσις, creation, Rev. 4:11: You, Lord, have created (ἔκτισας) all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.

VI. Now as to the thing itself: creation is nothing other than a bringing forth of a new thing, and its passage from a not-being into a being, through God's mere calling and command. But, more distinctly, it is that working of God whereby He has made the world out of nothing, exceedingly good. Considered and regarded in an active sense, it does not differ from the very being of God, and is nothing other than God-creating. For by us is not to be understood some power, going out from God, as it were; or that the creature is brought forth by some power distinct from God — for this conflicts not only with the simplicity and unchangeableness of the first Being, but also with reason. For that creating power, distinct from God, could neither be finite — since an infinite power is required for creation, as shall appear in its place — nor infinite, for then more infinities would be devised, by which nothing would be simply infinite. The active, or effecting, creation is, then, nothing other than the willing of God (Rev. 4:11) that the world should be, at its own time; or God's powerful and almighty command, Ps. 33:9; Heb. 11:3 and 1:3, or calling, Rom. 4:17; Isa. 41:4. And in this respect, indeed, creation is from eternity, and God, in time, through the bringing forth or the coming into existence of the creature, has received nothing except a certain relation to His work. But creation, considered in a passive sense, is the creature itself, as it, by God's command, passes from not-being to being.

VII. Since, therefore, creation consists in nothing else than in God's powerful willing, and, as it were, in His mere nod or command, it excludes every other thing, whether as a cause or as an undertaking. And this is the reason why it is called a calling, Rom. 4:17: Who calls those things which are not, as though they were, Isa. 41:4. And such a calling, whereby that which is called comes into being, Ps. 33:9: He speaks, and it is done; He commands, and it stands fast. Whence the world is said to have been prepared by the word of God, Heb. 11:3; likewise, that all things are and were created by the will of God, Rev. 4:11. And God Himself is said to do all things by the word of His power, Heb. 1:3.

VIII. That command of creation, now, comprised these matters: (1) The bringing forth of the thing, by that most powerful word: let there be, Gen. 1:3, 6, 7, from which the creature has received its existence. (II) The ordering and arranging, that it should be for this or that end — for example, to give light upon the earth, Gen. 1:15 — whereby a usefulness and function is assigned to each creature at the same time, and, as it were, its duty, which it must render to the universe. (III) The approving: God saw that it was good, Gen. 1:4, whereby He, through His goodness, approved the goodness and perfection of the creature, and blessed it unto the use appointed for it.

IX. Since creation, therefore, brings forth something only through the mere nod and command of God's will, it follows that it did not occur out of a pre-existing matter, in whose power and capacity the shape to be brought forth would have lain hidden; but out of nothing — so that either there had been absolutely nothing before the command of creation, not even as a terminus from which, in respect of the manner in which the works of the first day were created; or, if something had existed before, this had nevertheless not existed before as the matter, out of which the shape would have come forth, and in whose power and capacity that shape would have lain hidden beforehand; but only as a terminus to which and upon which God, having brought forth its essential form out of nothing, applied and fitted it. And so likewise are the works of the five following days created. That everything is created out of nothing, Holy Scripture teaches when it says that God calls those things which are not, as though they were, Rom. 4:17 — whence the Apostle, Heb. 11:3, says that the world was built and prepared by the word of God, and by the power of Him alone, μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων, not out of things which are seen, that is, according to the manner of speech of Holy Scripture, out of things which are not, nor have existence. To this also belongs the fact that God (1) has created all things by His will, Rev. 4:11, so that nothing could have existed beforehand for that. Likewise nature or reason teaches the same; for whatever matter one might here suppose, it would be either created or uncreated — if created, then the question returns again into infinity; but that there is, besides God, nothing uncreated and from eternity, we have said before in its place, and shall say in what follows. Then (II), besides God and the world, nothing can be conceived; and therefore, since the world has been created by God, it follows that it has been created out of nothing.

X. The Author of creation, therefore, is God alone, Ps. 24:8: Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His fist? — whence He is called the Creator of the ends of the earth, Isa. 40:12, 28: as He who has created the heavens, and stretched them out, who has spread forth the earth, and that which comes out of it, who gives breath to the people upon it, and spirit to those who walk in it, there, ch. 42:5, and ch. 44:24: I am the Lord, who makes all things, who alone stretches out the heavens, and spreads abroad the earth by myself. Jer. 10:11-13: The gods that have not made the heaven and the earth shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. But the Lord God is the truth, He is the living God, who has made the earth by His power, who has established the world by His wisdom. And Ps. 19:1, the heavens are said to declare the glory of God.

XI. And God is not only alone the cause of creation, but also there can be, besides Him, no other. (1) Because an infinite power is required, to exhaust and remove that gap which exists between nothing and something. For the further that which shall be brought forth is removed and distant from that out of which it must be brought forth, the greater is the difficulty of the bringing forth, and the greater the power and might that is also required in him who shall bring it forth — from which it also follows that when that which shall be brought forth is at the very furthest and utmost remove, or so far distant that it can be no further or more distant, there is then an infinite distance, which brings with it an infinite difficulty and hardship of bringing forth, and therefore also requires an infinite power to bring it forth. Thus, for example, in generation: because in the generating of an animal the distance is greater from blood than from seed, and from phlegm than from blood, and from grass than from phlegm, there is accordingly a greater difficulty and hardship in bringing forth an animal out of grass than out of seed. Again, in change or alteration: for example, because a table that is to be brought forth is more distant from a hard stone than from prepared wood, and more from water than from a stone, and more from air than from water — so without doubt a greater power of change is required to bring forth a table out of air than out of wood. Therefore, since no greater distance can exist or be conceived than between nothing and something, it stands firm that here is an infinite distance, which can be exhausted and removed by nothing but an infinite power. Then (II), because the cause which shall bring forth the whole universal being (which happens in creation) must surpass and go beyond the whole universal being, or (which is the same thing) be ὑπερούσιος, above-being — for I cannot communicate that which I do not have, indeed which I do not have in greater measure, since otherwise I should lose it by communicating it. Since, then, besides and apart from God, there is no one and nothing to whom it can belong to be above- or super-essential, it stands firm that no one and nothing, besides God, can create. (III) Because a universal effect, such as is present through creation, requires a universal cause — a thing which belongs to God alone. (IV) Because neither an accident nor a material substance can create; for the effect would, in its whole kind and genus, be nobler than its cause; nor can an immaterial substance either, for it would create either through its essence, and thus it would always be creating, or through its accidents, and thus the cause would, in kind, be entirely inferior and lesser than its effect.

XII. And not only can no single creature be the principal cause of creation, but neither can it be even an instrumental one: because not only does every instrument require something beforehand upon which it may work, and from which it receives its efficacy, and through which it may act by receiving; but also because it cannot receive the creating power of an infinite cause, as being infinite, so as to work by it (according to the nature of an instrumental cause).

XIII. God alone, then, is the Creator, and the Lord of heaven and earth, Matt. 11:25; Acts 17:24 — and by creation He lets Himself be distinguished from all things, Ps. 96:5, whereby is understood and perceived His eternal power and Godhead, Rom. 1:20. God, I say, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who from this are understood to have taken counsel together, Gen. 1:26: Let us make man — and are therefore also called Makers and Creators, Isa. 54:5; Job 35:10; Ps. 149:2; Eccl. 12:1. Indeed, creation is also, on this account, ascribed to the particular Persons each in particular: to the Father, Matt. 11:25; Acts 4:24; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2; to the Son, John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:10; Prov. 8:22; to the Holy Spirit, Gen. 1:3; Job 26:12; Ps. 104:30 and 96:5, compared with Heb. 3:7, 9. So that it is not entirely beside the matter that Basil (De Spiritu Sancto, Book 8, ch. 16) calls the Father προκαταρκτικήν, the first moving cause of creation; the Son δημιουργικήν, the building or making cause; and the Holy Spirit τελειωτικήν, the perfecting or completing cause — to signify thereby that these Persons have not only joined together in and unto the work of creation, but that each Person, according to His own particular manner of subsisting, has contributed His own share to that work in particular: that the Father, working of Himself, has, as it were, begun the work; that the Son, working from the Father through the Holy Spirit, has carried it forward; and that the Holy Spirit, working from the Father and from the Son, has, as it were, brought it to completion. We must, however, take great care that we do not call these partial or confederate causes, since it has been one and the same efficacy of all; we must also take much greater care to call them subordinate causes, because creation, in an economic sense, is commonly ascribed in particular to the Father — since this is ascribed to the Father, as if it were a privilege, not with respect to the power of creating, which is one and the same in all, but with respect to the order of creating, whereby the first working with regard to the creatures is ascribed to the first Person.

XIV. Since, therefore, there is an infinite Workmaster, who moreover has created by a mere nod of His will alone; it appears that the particular creatures were made (1) not by any wearisome exertion, but only by a commanding word, Ps. 33:9; nor (II) by a temporally successive motion, by ways and windings, but came forth in a single moment of time, there — since creation excludes all matter which would need to be prepared by the alteration of its old shape, so that a new one could be set in its place, in which a temporal succession, of moments following upon moments, would be required. Finally (III), without any difficulty, trouble, or weariness, Isa. 40:28: The Creator of the ends of the earth grows not weary, nor faint.

XV. Furthermore, this creation began to occur at a determined and settled time, בְּרֵאשִׁית, in the beginning — both of time and of every thing distinct from God, and hence also of the words of God. So that nothing, out of which God has created everything, has preceded all created things, not only in the order of nature, but also, in its own way, in the order of time. Whence God is said not only to call the generations from the beginning, Isa. 41:4, but matters are also mentioned in Holy Scripture as having occurred or existed before the world, before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 1:20: before this world was, John 17:5: when the depths were not yet, before the hills, when the earth was not yet made, nor the fields, nor the beginning of the dust of the world, Prov. 8:23-26: before the mountains were brought forth, and the earth and the world were formed; yes, from everlasting to everlasting, Ps. 90:2. Hence eternity also is regularly expressed in Holy Scripture by such a manner of speaking. From which it follows (at least according to the judgment of Holy Scripture) that, besides God, nothing has existed from eternity — indeed, not even before this created world; and that nothing else could have existed either, as we shall say in its place, in the Polemical Part.

XVI. Whether, now, something could have been created before this its beginning, is asked ambiguously. For if you understand thereby that time was made, then you would thereby be asking whether, in eternity, one thing could occur earlier or later than another? But if you mean to ask whether that beginning of creation could have been further removed from us by yet more years than it now is, there is no reason why one should doubt to affirm this. For although it is nearly hopeless, on account of the very intricate and confused disputes of the chronologers, to determine the birth-time of the world, it nevertheless appears sufficiently from Scripture that it is not so far distant that it should have to be reckoned back by an immeasurable number of ages — indeed, that it is, according to the common reckoning of chronologers, more recent, or younger, than an entire span of six thousand years: so that those who extend their annals further either fabricate, or reckon by lunar years, or by four-month years, but not by solar years, which correspond to ours.

XVII. As to what season of the year the creation began — whether in spring or in autumn — this is, in general, with respect to the whole world, asked in vain and fruitlessly, since all the seasons, according to the various regions of the world, exist at once and together. Nor is it of much use or profit to determine this of a certain particular region — whether the land of Canaan, or the Garden of Eden (which are themselves also distant one from another, and do not lie under one and the same celestial sign). But if one asks about the sign of the Zodiac in which the sun was first seen — as being the most fruitful question — the common opinion holds that creation began in autumn, the sun being in Libra (the Balance); which is inferred from the civil year of the Israelites, which was also the civil year of the patriarchs down to the first time of the world, and which began with the month Tishri: (And you shall keep the feast of harvest, of the firstfruits of your labors which you have sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year, when you have gathered in your labors out of the field, Exod. 23:16; compare Exod. 34:22: the feast of weeks you shall also keep, being the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering, when the year is out) — likewise from the sabbatical years, which similarly began at the autumnal equinox, this is not idly or lightly inferred; and this same season of the year seems also, to most, to have been the season of Paradise, as appears from the fruits of the trees being ripe at that time. God now, by so creating, has willed to reveal His all-sufficiency and perfection, whereby He does not need the creature — for otherwise He would have created the world as soon as He could have done so; and also His liberty, whereby He has brought forth all things apart from any natural necessity; for otherwise He would have created from eternity, Ps. 115:3; Rev. 4:11.

XVIII. Finally, God has created everything good, indeed very good, Gen. 1:31; 1 Tim. 4:4; Rom. 14:14; Deut. 32:4 — because He Himself is not only good, and the highest good, from whom nothing can flow except what is fitting and proportionate; but also most wise, who has created nothing lightly and rashly, or in vain, but for a certain and determinate end, which He also has certainly obtained. That goodness, now, is the perfection of a given thing, whereby it is fit for that use for which it is designed: thus, for example, that man is good who is fit to glorify God, for which he is said to have been created, Isa. 43:7. And the use of a given thing is reckoned to be of four kinds: (1) A nearest use, namely, its own, proper, and formal working — for example, of food and drink, to nourish; of a medicine, to make well. (II) A more remote use, which a thing, by means of a nearest thing, furnishes to this whole universe, for whose preservation and maintenance all the parts of this world work together, just as the members of an animal do for the maintenance of the whole body — which is most clearly seen in nature's abhorrence of a vacuum. (III) A further-removed use, which the universe, and its particular parts, furnish to man (whence all things are said to have been created for man's sake, Ps. 8:7; Hos. 2:20-21): (1) by sustaining his life, both for being and for well-being, both honestly and pleasantly, Ps. 104:14-15; (2) by furnishing him occasion to know and to seek God from the creatures, Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:26-27. Finally (IV), a yet-more-remote use, which man, from the creatures, carries over to the Creator, namely, by acknowledging, in all things, His immeasurable wisdom, power, and goodness, praising and glorifying it — whence the heavens are said to declare the glory of God, Ps. 19:1. From all of which is composed that golden circle of the Apostle, Rom. 11:36: Of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to Him be glory forever. Amen. And thereby is likewise perceived the highest end of the whole creation, namely, the glory of the Creator, Prov. 16:4.

The Polemical Part

XIX. The controversial and polemical points of this chapter can easily and without much trouble be settled from the doctrines already demonstrated; meanwhile, however, the chief questions and controversies must be briefly noted.

The question is asked, first: I. Is there a creation, or bringing forth, out of nothing? Enough — indeed all — who accept Holy Scripture acknowledge this. But this is denied: (1) by those who hold that the world is God, as Pliny and Spinoza; (II) by those who hold that the world has existed from eternity, as the Chaldeans, the philosophers, Aristotle, etc.; (III) by those who hold that it came forth by a chance concourse of indivisible particles, as Democritus, Leucippus, Epicurus; (IV) by those who imagined two eternal beings, νοῦν καὶ ὕλην, mind and matter, as the Stoics, and Anaxagoras, who taught an eternal chaos, to which mind (Nous) was added, which separated out all the kinds of things from it — which error was introduced into the church by Hermogenes, whose footsteps Marcion follows, likewise Seleucus and the Manicheans; finally (V), by all and every kind of atheist. Against all the testimonies, both of Holy Scripture and of reason, by and according to which God alone is of Himself, and consequently everything that is distinct from God is from Him — these also have nothing which seems able to help them, except: (1) that out of nothing, nothing comes. But this does not hold, unless one distinguishes: naturally speaking, not supernaturally — as out of a matter, not as from a terminus from which. (2) That creation in time presupposes something creatable from eternity, which would be a something. Answer: It presupposes something, certainly, not as being actually present, but as being about to be — and if it were present, then not in itself, but in the understanding and in the power of God, which is one and the same as the power of creating.

The question is asked, secondly: II. Can the creating power and capacity belong to any creature? Avicenna dreamed that the highest angel created the one who was immediately beneath him, and this one, in turn, him who was next below him, down to the lowest angel, who then would have created bodies. The Simonians and Gnostics, and other ancients, who put in the place of angels their Aeons and other imagined powers, followed this. The Papists also maintain this view, for the sake of transubstantiation, whereby the mass-priest becomes the creator of his own Creator, and for the sake of the sacraments, of which they say that under the Old Testament they worked grace by the power of the work done. The Reformed deny it, with Holy Scripture: (1) since it ascribes creation to God alone, as we have seen; so that (II) God is, through creation, distinguished from all things; and (III) that from it is perceived God's eternal power and Godhead, Rom. 1:20 — with which reason agrees, teaching that an infinite power is required for creation, etc. Nor do the evasions which they make here hold good, such as: (1) that an infinite power is not required for creation, because the distance between a not-being and a something is not infinite, above which a greater distance and interval could be conceived — since without doubt there is a greater distance and interval between God and nothing, than between something else, whatever it may be, and nothing. Answer: Without doubt there is here a greater distance and interval of perfection, but that does not belong to this consideration; rather, there is not a greater distance and interval of that difficulty which we have spoken of in the Doctrinal Part. (2) That the effect, which shall be brought forth by creation, is finite, and thus requires only a finite power. Answer: Certainly the effect is finite, yet it nevertheless differs and is removed infinitely from the nothing out of which it shall be brought forth. (3) That God would not be almighty if He could not communicate the power to create to the creature. Answer: He is no less almighty on this account than He is on account of not being able to create another God.

The question is asked, thirdly: III. Can the creature at least be an instrumental cause of creation? Both the Jews would wish this — out of hatred toward the Trinity, so that it not be made up by us out of Gen. 1:26 — holding that God called the angels to a partnership in creation; and also the Socinians, with nearly the same design, namely, so that from those passages in which creation is ascribed to Christ it might not be inferred that He is one in essence with the Father; with the Arians they hold that God created through Christ as His instrument, and to this end they draw the passages in which all things are said to have been created through the Son, John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16. But they do not notice that the preposition "through" does not always express an instrumentality, as appears from Rom. 11:36, and that elsewhere too creation is ascribed to the Son without qualification, Heb. 1:10 and 3:3-4; nor that all things are said to have been created through Him for any other reason than to indicate the personal order of creating, according to which the Father, according to His manner of subsisting, has created through the Son. They add to this a proof, taken from something equivalent to creation, namely, that creatures have been able to be instruments of miracles. However, besides the fact that there is here an unequal case, since miracles admit of objects which receive the powerful working of the doer, whereas creation excludes this — it is likewise false that creatures should be instruments by whose power the miracle would be effected and wrought, although they may indeed be called instruments, because they obtain and bring it about from God that He, by His immediate power, performs the miracles; or they signify that God now wills to perform a miracle, Acts 3:12-13, 16 — since otherwise God alone is said to do wonders, Ps. 72:18. The Reformed therefore deny more correctly that the creatures themselves could be instruments of creation, for the reasons which we have adduced in the Doctrinal Part.

The question is asked, fourthly: IV. Could the creation of the world have been from eternity? That it has not been from eternity is acknowledged, against the philosophers, Aristotle, Pliny, and others, by enough — indeed all — who accept Holy Scripture. Some Scholastics, with a very great disagreement and dispute, in favor of Aristotle — so that he might not seem to have offended against reason — think that God has not only from eternity had the same power and capacity to create by which the world was afterward brought forth, but also that the world could have coexisted with God from eternity. The orthodox, just as they absolutely grant the first, so they steadfastly deny the second, and hold that God, indeed, in a divided sense (as one says), could have created from eternity; but that the world could not have been created from eternity. We have given the reasons for this above, Book II, ch. 11, §§V and XII. To which we now add: if the world had existed from eternity, then it would (1) have been infinite in duration; and since duration does not really differ from being, it would likewise have been infinite in being, and consequently either God Himself, or two infinite beings — and therefore neither of the two simply infinite. (II) There would then have preceded this year an infinite number of years, whereby — since years keep being added continually — the infinite would, by an open contradiction, be increased. Indeed (III), since that infinite number of years makes up a much greater number still of months, days, hours, and minutes, the infinite would, again with an open contradiction, become greater than the infinite. And since (IV), for the eternity of the world, an infinite number of days would have had to precede the present day, how then could this present day finally have been able to follow? — since the infinite number of preceding days would never have been complete or finished. And thus (V), there cannot, in the duration of the world, fail to be a succession of time, which brings in an order of earlier and later; so there is necessarily required a certain beginning, from which that earlier and later proceeds — which beginning excludes eternity. Now if our opponents say: (1) that the Son and the Holy Spirit have gone forth from the Father from eternity, so also the world could have gone forth from Him from eternity — the answer is easy, that here there is an infinitely unequal case, since the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same with the being of the Father, and therefore do not bring in more infinite beings, as God and the world certainly would; nor is there, in the duration of the Son and the Holy Spirit, any succession of time, whereby anything would be added to this duration, and the infinite would be increased — as is the case in the duration of the world. If they further say (2) that God has been almighty from eternity, and that He could therefore have created the world from eternity — we have long since answered that God indeed could have created from eternity, or that He had the power to create; but that the world could not have been created from eternity, because eternity is repugnant to the being of the world. If they say (3) that some creatures are eternal a parte post, as the spirits, and that there can also be some that are so a parte ante — I shall answer that there is a very unequal case here, because that first eternity does not include an actual, or properly speaking (categorematical), logical infinity, which the latter brings with it and includes; but only a potential and (syncategorematical) improper logical infinity, which does not conflict with the nature of the creature.

The question is asked, fifthly: V. Have at least the time, and the matter out of which the world was created, existed from eternity? This is affirmed by Volkelius (De Vera Religione, Book II, ch. 4), doubtless in order to obtain thereby that eternity is not an incommunicable attribute, from which the supreme Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Spirit could be soundly proven; nor that there is an infinite distance, which would have to be exhausted and removed by an infinite power — since creation (according to his view) occurred out of a pre-existing matter. On the contrary, all Christians acknowledge and confess: (1) that this whole universe was created out of nothing, and that this not-being preceded existence, not only in the order of nature, but also, in its own way, in the order of time, as we have already shown at length before. (II) That, with and beside God, nothing has coexisted from eternity — indeed nothing could have coexisted, according to the preceding paragraph. It can also (III), in no way, be escaped, from this supposition, that an infinite number of moments (since even Socinus and his followers acknowledge a temporal succession) would result, whereby either no further moment could be added, or the infinite would become greater — which is an open contradiction. Meanwhile Volkelius, to confirm his opinion, bids us compare the passages Heb. 11:3, where it is said that the world was prepared, not out of things which are seen. By these words, he says, the Apostle plainly enough indicates that visible things were created out of certain things, though not appearing, or not being seen. And Gen. 1:2, where Moses would explain what those not-appearing, not-manifest, not-seen things are, namely, the waste and empty earth. Answer: That perverse man perverts and twists both the words and the meaning of the Apostle: for whereas Paul says μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων, not out of things which are seen, he treats it as though it said ἐκ μὴ φαινομένων, out of things which are not seen; and whereas Paul means to deny every matter out of which the world would have been created, he there posits an invisible matter. Nor can the passage of Gen. 1:2, brought in for comparison, be of the least advantage to him; it is even against him and to his disadvantage, as it says in so many words that the heaven and the earth, which is called waste and empty, was created by God in the beginning — much better shall we compare this passage with Rom. 4:17, where God is said καλεῖν τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα, to call the things which are not, as though they were.

The Practical Part

XXIV. As for the Practical Part: the work of creation invites us, first, to know God, Isa. 40:26; Job 37:14 — because God's invisible things are said to be understood and perceived from the creation of the world onward, through the things that are made, Rom. 1:20, so that we should, from creation and the creatures, climb up, as it were by a ladder, to the Creator, and from this draw and conclude: (1) That God is — something which, from the creation and the dependency of the creatures, is not so much inferred and concluded, as it is, as it were, felt and touched, Acts 17:27 — so that it is not without reason asked, Job 12:9: Who does not know, in all these, that the hand of the Lord has done this? Likewise, Isa. 40:12: Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand? etc., and that it is answered, Isa. 66:2: My hand has made all these things, and all these things have been, says the Lord, and ch. 45:6, 12, to restrain the ungodly or the denier of God, Ps. 8:2. (II) What kind of God He is: namely, (1) absolutely independent, from whom all things are, and who is Himself of no one, Rom. 11:36: the first and the last, Isa. 41:4. (2) Almighty, Rom. 1:20, who has brought forth all things out of nothing, μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων, not out of things which are seen, Heb. 11:3: who calls the things which are not as though they were, Rom. 4:17, by the word and nod of His will alone, Ps. 33:9: who has created so many and so great things, Ps. 104:14. (3) Wise, there — so that one may ask: Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or, being His counselor, has taught Him? With whom took He counsel, and who instructed Him, and taught Him in the path of judgment, and taught Him knowledge, and showed to Him the way of understanding? Isa. 40:12-14. (4) Good, because He has made all things very good, Gen. 1:31, and has most bountifully assigned to each thing its own ends, and brought and given to it its uses and fitnesses. (5) Eternal, as one who has existed before the mountains were brought forth, and before He had produced the earth and the world; indeed, from everlasting to everlasting, God, Ps. 90:2; Rom. 1:20. (6) Perfect and all-sufficient, who, from all eternity until the creation of the world, has been sufficient for Himself alone, without any single creature, Ps. 50:9-14. (7) Blessed, as one who is not only sufficient for Himself in all things, but who besides also rejoices in His own works, Ps. 104:31. (III) Who God is: namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — because not only did אֱלֹהִים, Elohim, create the heaven and the earth, Gen. 1:1, but also distinctly the heavens were made by the word of the Lord, and all their host by the breath of His mouth, Ps. 33:6; because the Father made the world through the Son, Heb. 1:2; and the Holy Spirit hovered upon the waters, upon the waste and empty mass, and out of it wrought this whole universe, Gen. 1:2. Finally (IV), who He is for us in particular — namely, our Creator alone, whence we are charged to remember our Creator, even in the days of our youth, Eccl. 12:1; Ps. 100:3. To this end has God created the world, and man in the world; to this end has He, above all other creatures, endowed him with a rational soul, Job 35:11, that he might understand and perceive those invisible things of God, from the creation of the world onward, Rom. 1:20, and that the spirit might also return to God who gave it, Eccl. 12:7.

XXV. Creation invites us, secondly, to glorify God, wherefore He is said to have wrought all things for His own sake, Prov. 16:4, and the heavens are said to declare the glory of God, Ps. 19:2 — that from this, that of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things, it should follow, before Him: to Him be the glory forever. Amen! Rom. 11:36. We now glorify God: (1) not only by acknowledging all that we have said in the preceding subdivision, but also (II) by marveling that so many and so great things have been brought forth out of nothing, by the mere command of His will — whence Moses extols the works of God as great and marvelous, Rev. 15:3; and David: I will praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are your works, and that my soul knows right well, Ps. 139:14 — and bursts out into an exclamation of wonder: How great (how manifold) are your works, O Lord! You have made them all in wisdom: the earth is full of your riches, Ps. 104:24, and 8:2, 10. And also (III) by praising and extolling Him, namely, just as the heavens declare God's glory, and David: I will praise you, etc., Ps. 139:14 — and the angels in the song of Moses, Rev. 15:3: Great and marvelous are your works; and the twenty-four elders, Rev. 4:11: You, Lord, are worthy to receive glory, and honor, and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created. On account of such a glorifying: (1) we are said in particular to have been created by God for His glory, Isa. 43:7. (2) If we do not show and confess this, we shall fall into the sin and into the judgment of the heathen philosophers, who, when they knew God, glorified Him not as God, and were therefore given over by God to their own lusts, Rom. 1:21, 26. Indeed (3), we shall be worse and lower than the unreasoning beasts, Isa. 1:3. And also (4), God will at the least have created the world in vain for us — indeed, much rather will He have created us men in vain, if we, above the unreasoning beasts, furnish Him no use or benefit.

XXVI. Creation invites us, thirdly, to honor and serve God, Ps. 100:3-4: Serve the Lord with gladness...it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves. For He is (1), by virtue of creation, the Lord of heaven and of earth, Matt. 11:25, compared with Ps. 24:1-2, to whom, therefore, with all right, honor and service belong, Mal. 1:6. He it is (II) who has wrought all things for His own use, benefit, and service, Prov. 16:4, just as all creatures, each in its own way, serve Him, Ps. 33:9, even down to the unreasoning animals, Gen. 8:22; indeed, even down to the devils themselves, Phil. 2:10. (III) He is, hereby, in particular our Creator, Former, Maker, Isa. 43:1 and 45:11; likewise our Potter, there v.9; Rom. 9:20-21; and also our Father, Isa. 64:8; Mal. 2:10 — to whom, therefore, that whole manner of service and honor is owed, with all right, which a Creator may expect and desire from His work, a potter from His handiwork, and a father from His son. In particular: (1) thankfulness, Deut. 32:6, as to Him who has not only created us, however we are and however great we are, but who has also made all things for our sake, Ps. 8:7. (2) A deep humbling and humility, Ps. 95:6: Come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord who made us. (3) A resting content in every lot, as being that which the Creator of us and of this whole universe has determined and appointed for us, Rom. 9:20-21. (4) The weekly observance of the Sabbath, in remembrance of creation, Exod. 20:8-11; Ps. 92:1. (5) Love toward all sorts of creatures, even the very least, insofar as these, together with us, acknowledge one and the same Workmaster, Mal. 1:10.

XXVII. It invites us, fourthly, to the fear of God, Jer. 5:22: Will you not fear me, says the Lord, will you not tremble at my presence, who have placed the sand for the bound of the sea, by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass over it? Likewise Ps. 33:6-8: By the word of the Lord were the heavens made...let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. Rev. 15:3-4. By which fear we should, in general, shun and flee all sins, as by which the Creator of heaven and earth is offended and dishonored, Ps. 24:10 — but most of all those sins which are, in particular, committed against God as Creator, such as are: (1) Ingratitude, Deut. 32:6, 15, 18 — those who, having grown fat and thick, forsake the God who made them, and set at nothing the rock of their salvation; and: we have forgotten the God who bore us, so that you complain, Isa. 1:2, 4: I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. See also Ps. 106:21. (II) Slothfulness, sluggishness, negligence, whereby we neglect to behold the works of the Lord, Isa. 5:12; Ps. 92:6-7, compare Ps. 111:2. (III) Contending with one's Creator, Job 40:2, and murmuring against Him, Rom. 9:20-21.

XXVIII. It invites us, fifthly, to set our trust, in every circumstance, upon God our Creator, Ps. 146:5-6: Blessed is he who has the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them. See also Isa. 42:5-6, and Ps. 121:2: My help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth, and Ps. 124:8 — because (1) He who once created all things out of nothing can also do so now; for His hand is not shortened, Isa. 59:1. Because (II) He who once, by His word, command, and will alone, created heaven and earth, can also now still say: let it be so, Ps. 33:9: He speaks, and it is done; He commands, and it stands fast. (III) Because He who once created all things out of nothing can also still call the things that are not, as though they were, and it comes to pass that they are, Rom. 4:17 — indeed, not out of things that are seen, Heb. 11:3. For which reason (IV) we confess to believe in God the Father, the almighty Creator of heaven and earth, who, therefore, with His infinite abundance, can do everything, indeed, above what we can ask or think, according to the power that works in us, Eph. 3:20. And therefore let us commit our souls to Him, as to a faithful Creator, 1 Pet. 4:19.

XXIX. The doctrine of creation invites us, sixthly, that we, in particular, in every kind of adverse condition, should wholly and entirely depend, and draw and obtain comfort, from Him who has made heaven and earth, Ps. 121:2, who, therefore, (1) —

...our Creator, the LORD, our Potter, in whose power we are, to determine concerning us wholly according to His own good pleasure (Matt. 20:15) — against whom it does not befit us to grumble or murmur, "Why hast thou made me thus?" (Rom. 9:20). (II) He it is who, by the same right hand with which He made all things, can turn all our misfortune and adversity (Ps. 77:11-13). Indeed, (III) He it is "that formeth the light, and createth darkness; that maketh peace, and createth evil; I the LORD do all these things" (Isa. 45:7). In particular, and point by point: (1) If a harsh poverty presses you, let this be your reason: that you consider the Creator of all things to be the portion of Jacob (Jer. 10:16), who provides for the birds of heaven, for the grass, and for the lilies of the field, and who is your maker and your Father (Matt. 6:26, 28). (2) If an enemy presses, oppresses, and hard besets you, you have reason to think that the very one who is the Creator and Lord of the fire that is yours is He, and that He who is your Maker is also your Husband, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, who is called the God of the whole earth; therefore fear not (Isa. 54:4-5). (3) If some danger hangs over your head, this is reason to think: "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: behold, I will make thee a new sharp threshing instrument," etc. (Isa. 41:14-15, and ch. 51:13) — that you do not forget the LORD who made you, who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth, and that you not fear continually every day, etc. (4) If some spiritual inability presses and constrains you with respect to some necessary spiritual good — to believe, to be converted — or if a general bent toward evil weighs upon and oppresses you, then this is your comfort: that He who made all things out of nothing can create in you a clean heart, and renew within you a steadfast spirit (Ps. 51:12), that you may become a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10, and 4:24).

Chapter VI: Of the World and the Work of the Six Days

Exodus 20:11: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day."

Having considered Creation, we shall now consider the creature — both in the general composite of all things, which is called the World, and in its outermost containing parts, heaven and earth; and then also the things which are contained within those outermost parts, following the order of the six days of Creation. Most of these matters will be kept before us by the aforementioned portion of the Fourth Commandment.

The Explanatory Part

II. Here is described, in a brief compass, the work of the six days, so as to move us to rest and to the sanctifying of the seventh day, together with God's rest that followed upon it. In this description we are told:

1. The duration of Creation, namely, six days. Those who follow Descartes, in order to assist their mechanical account of creation — whereby God is said to have created matter out of nothing and to have imparted to it a certain motion and expansion, by which, as though poured forth, the matter would in due course unfold into all the appearances which we now see before our own eyes — hold that God spent whole six days, or full days-and-nights (as some say), upon the work of Creation. Augustine, on the contrary, holds that God took up only a single moment, on the first day, for Creation, and that during the remaining days He only distinguished and adorned what had been created on the first day. The common opinion holds that God did indeed spend six days on Creation, yet in such a way that on each particular day He was occupied only for a single moment, or with a single command of His will — since that word or command, of which Exod. 20:9 speaks, did not require six whole days-and-nights. In what order God, throughout so many days, was thus occupied, and what He brought forth on each particular day, we shall set forth, God willing, in the Doctrinal Part.

2. The Creation by the Creator: עשה יהוה, "the LORD made." Here two things come before us:

(1) The act of creating: עשה, "He made." This unquestionably signifies the same as ברא, "to create" (Gen. 1:1), though not in the same manner, as we said in the Explanatory Part of the preceding chapter. The word ברא (Bara), "to create," properly means "to bring forth," so that it is used, in the history of Creation (Gen. 1:1), of that first thing from which it began — rather rarely, and almost only of the work of the first day, on which God simply brought forth immaterial things, namely the light and the chaos, and that out of nothing; whereas for the remaining days there is commonly used instead the word עשה (Asah), "to make" — for example, vv. 7, 12, 16, 25, 26, 31 — not that God did not create on the later days, but because He then no longer brought forth something first, but rather gave to matter already at hand its essential forms, and that out of nothing, inasmuch as those forms did not lie hidden in the power and capacity of that matter, which for this reason is called unformed and ἄμορφος, "shapeless." He therefore chose rather to say that He "formed" or "wrought out" that matter; for the word עשה (Asah) does not properly mean "to make," but rather "to work out," "to perfect," "to form."

(2) The cause of the act of creating: יהוה, "Jehovah," "the LORD." In Gen. 1:1 stands אלהים, "Elohim," "God." Not so much because the name Jehovah was not yet so widely common and known at that time (Exod. 6:2), or because — just as there He intended to make known the Trinity of the divine Persons — here He intended to make known the unity of the Essence; but especially in order to attribute the bringing-forth of all the being that exists in Creation to Jehovah, the essential Being itself.

3. The thing created during those six days, namely, all that exists apart from and outside of God, or distinct from God, which is commonly signified by the name "World," whose parts are here mentioned:

1. The containing parts, namely:

a. The outermost, the heaven, את השמים. One is to understand here not merely the third heaven, as in Gen. 1:1, but all the kinds of heavens — the third heaven (Deut. 26:15), the starry heaven (Ps. 8:8), the airy heaven (Gen. 8:2) — because God here has expressly undertaken to recount the Creation of the Whole, as in a summary, by its parts, whereas there in Gen. 1:1 He had intended only to set forth the work of the first day. The etymologists do not agree on the derivation of this word. Some hold that it is compounded of שם, "sham," that is, "there," and מים, "mayim," that is, "waters," so that it means "waters there," in the dual number. Others derive it from שמם, "shamem," that is, "to stand amazed," because the heavens, by their vast expanse, carry us away in astonishment — in the plural, on account of the various spheres and circuits of heaven. Others derive it from שם, "sham," "there," an adverb of place, yet a distant one (Eccl. 3:17), which, to intensify its meaning, is as it were expressed as a doubled form.

b. The inner part: "and the earth," ואת הארץ. The word "earth" is taken here in a narrower sense than in Gen. 1:1, for there it signified the waters as well, and denoted the whole globe of the earth, the dry land and the water together; but here it means only the dry land, since the seas are separately included under it.

c. The middle part: "the sea," את הים. It is called Yam, that is, "sea," derived, as it were, from המה, "hamah," that is, "he made a roaring sound," namely on account of its abundance and multitude; it denotes every kind of greater gathering of waters (Num. 34:11), and in particular the great sea, or the ocean (Josh. 23:4), that most spacious and far-reaching gathering of waters.

2. What is contained therein: "and all that in them is." Namely, in the particular parts of these containing parts — for example, in heaven, and specifically in the third heaven, the angels; in the starry heaven, the stars; in the airy heaven, the birds, the fowl of the air; on the earth, animals, fruits, mountain-works; in the sea, fish and other things — concerning which see Zanchius, Danaeus, Vallesius, and others.

IV. The rest: ויניח ביום שביעי, "and rested on the seventh day." Here two things come before us:

1. The rest itself: יניח, "He rested," "He ceased." The word נוח (Nouach) means, according to the requirement of the matter concerned, either "he rested from oppressions, labors, and hardships" — namely, when used of creatures, whence one of the patriarchs was so named, Noach — or "He ceased," "He rested from His work," by no longer working, as when it is used of the Creator (Job 3:17; Esth. 9:22) — so much so that Rutilius, in his travel-account, mockingly derided the history of Creation, saying: Septima quaeque dies, turpi damnata veterno, ut delassati mollis imago Dei, that is: "Every seventh day is condemned to a shameful sleep and idleness, as the image of a wearied and feeble God." To which the Jews very fittingly replied out of Isa. 40:29, that God does not grow weary nor faint. It is meant, therefore, that God ceased from the work of Creation.

2. The time of resting: ביום שביעי, "on the seventh day." The word שביעי (Shevii), "the seventh," comes from שבע (Sheva), "seven," which signifies a full, perfect, and complete number. With what design and counsel God spent precisely six days and rested on the seventh is, in our present imperfection, not so easy for us to determine; at the very least, He rested on this day in order to sanctify it, and thereby to perpetuate the memory of Creation — commending this day to us for the remembrance of the divine works that must take place on it, and for the work of religious worship that must be given to it, persuading us by His own example. This, however, must be well noted: that God sanctified this day for this purpose even while man was still in the state of rectitude, when there were as yet no typical ceremonies looking to Christ — so that from this very fact we may firmly hold that the seventh day does not belong to the shadowy law abolished under the New Testament, of which more elsewhere, God willing, more particularly.

First Topic. Of the World

The Doctrinal Part

II. There shall first come before our consideration here the general composite which is signified by the name "World"; then its outermost part, Heaven; then its inner part, the Earth; and finally the things which are contained in those parts, according to the order of the six days. The whole World, then, is created by God, so that it has passed from not-being into being. That the World is created by God is proven from the Holy Scriptures and from reason. Concerning this, Scripture is nowhere clearer than where (1) it teaches that all that exists apart from God — indeed, even the matter of things itself — draws its origin from the divine work of Creation (Exod. 20:11; Neh. 9:6; Ps. 146:6; Acts 4:24; 14:15; and 17:24; Rom. 11:36; Col. 1:16; Matt. 25:34); wherein one also reads (2) that all the things of this World once were not (Prov. 8:22-25; Ps. 90:2; John 17:5; Eph. 1:4). To this same end also (3) tends that well-known phrase, "in the beginning" (Gen. 1:1; John 1:1; Matt. 19:8). Nor does the light of nature doubt this, presupposing these three things: (1) that the World could not have brought itself into being, since in that case it would at once both have been and not have been; (2) that it could not have been brought forth out of anything other than out of some matter — for that question would then recur to infinity; but also (3) not from eternity, since eternity is an incommunicable property of God, as we have said more fully in the preceding chapter. There remains, therefore, nothing left but that the World was created by God out of nothing, in the beginning.

IV. The World is called by the Greeks Κόσμος, Kosmos, on account of its comeliness and adornment; by the Hebrews עולם, Golam, as though it had existed from eternity, hidden as it were in God. Hence the expression "things that were hidden from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 13:35), or because it shall be forever — with which corresponds the Greek αἰών, "age" (Heb. 1:2). It is expressed in various ways in Holy Scripture: sometimes by "heaven and earth," to which is sometimes added "all their host" (Gen. 2:1); sometimes also "the seas and the deeps" (Ps. 135:6; Rev. 14:7); sometimes also "and the dry land" (Hag. 2:7); sometimes also "all that is in them" (Exod. 20:11; Ps. 146:6; Neh. 9:6; Jer. 51:48; Acts 4:24). Likewise it is made known by "heavenly, earthly, and under the earth" things (Phil. 2:10; Rev. 5:3). This word also signifies various things: most often and most commonly, the composite of created things, whence among the philosophers τὸ πᾶν, τὸ ὅλον, "the All," "the Whole-All" (see also Heb. 11:3); sometimes only the innermost part thereof, namely the earth (Matt. 28:18); sometimes the men upon the earth (1 Cor. 4:9; John 12:19); or else the elect (John 3:16); or the reprobate (John 17:9); or all without distinction; and again, sometimes, the misuse of earthly things (1 John 2:15).

V. With us, "World" here signifies the composite of Heaven and Earth, and of all that is in them (Acts 4:24), or the composite of created things. By this description of the World we understand both the parts of the World, as its matter, and also the connection and coherence of the parts, as its form or figure. The parts of the World are set forth variously by various writers. We prefer, above others, those which the Text points out, by which the World consists, or is contained — Heaven, Earth, Seas — or what is contained therein, namely the creatures, both the immaterial, the Angels, and the material, which are partly simple, namely the elements, and partly compound; and these either unensouled, like the meteors and the products of the mountains, or ensouled, endowed with life — whether a growing life, as trees, stems, herbs, fruits; or a sensing life, as animals and fish; or a rational life, as man — to which must be added all sorts of accidents and circumstances, namely place and time. Yet we do not hold that all these things were created in one and the same manner; for some things were created to persist in their own being, as the Angels, the Heavens, the Stars, the elements; others to arise and pass away, only their species remaining, as plants, beasts, men; some were created in themselves, others in their causes, as the meteors, and the bloodless animals, which are born only out of putrefaction; or out of the mingling of species, as mules and leopards. Finally, some things are said rather to have been created together with other things, and to become uncreated in themselves rather than directly created — such as accidents and various parts; likewise place, which signifies the "where" (ubi) of creatures, and time, which signifies their "when." But of these the natural philosophers treat.

VI. The connection, coherence, union, and most beautiful and well-ordered arrangement, whereby all things are enclosed within one and the same bounds, conspire toward one and the same end, and are serviceable to one another, is what we call the figure, or form, of the World. For we do not here allow any general (substantial) essential form of the World, which would form the particular parts; since the World is not something one through itself, but only through a gathering together, like a Republic, an army, or a heap of grain; nor does it have continuous, but rather successive, parts. Nor do we allow a certain common soul of the World as its form, as formerly with Plato, the Stoics, and lately Deusingius, because by and through such a soul the World would become a living animal, like a man or a beast, and thus a man would be formed with a twofold soul — one common to this World, and one peculiar to himself. And still much less do we allow — what some would have — God Himself as the forming form of the World, since He, being thus united with the creatures, would be more imperfect than the composite; but also then every single thing would be partly God and partly a creature.

VII. From this connection and coherence of the parts arises the unity of the World. For although I do not at all doubt that there could very well be many worlds — whether by a mere addition of space, or by something entirely distinct and of a wholly different kind — because God is not only almighty, but also because such a thing involves no contradiction, either on God's part or on the part of the world itself; yet we do not believe that there actually are, at once, or have been in succession, more worlds, as the Jews, along with some ancient philosophers, dream. Not only because we find in nature not the least compelling reason forbidding it (for those things which are outside this World, and are done there, can be made known to us only by a divine revelation), but because we see that Scripture cries out against it, when it speaks everywhere not of "heavens and earths," but of "a heaven and an earth"; and describes only one World, created in the space of six days, and moreover teaches nowhere that anything else has been created (John 1:3; Col. 1:16).

VIII. Very ill-advisedly, therefore, do both ancient and some later philosophers attempt to ground the eternity of the World upon its (infinitati) infinity. For although we do not know precisely what the limits of the World are (Isa. 40:12), and to that extent it may be called (indefinitus) undefined; yet neither Scripture (1 Kings 3:27; 2 Chron. 2:6 and 6:11; Job 11:8-9; Prov. 30:4) nor reason will allow that it has no limits at all — against which stand: (1) that there would then actually be more infinite beings, whether in perfection or in magnitude, since magnitude is itself a perfection, and therefore what is infinite in magnitude is also infinite in perfection; (2) [that it would then be] a natural body, and yet could not be changed, moved, increased, or diminished; (3) that out of finite parts there would arise a whole which is actually infinite; (4) that it would have one part outside another part, and so a bounded shape together with an unbounded magnitude; (5) that it would have parts infinite in number, to which not even God's absolute power could add a single further unity; (6) that out of something infinite, by the annihilation of one part, something finite could arise. Not to add (7) that we have an idea or concept of a finite World, so that in this sense we admit no infinite or undefined World either, by which we might comprehend no limits of the World at all.

IX. Further, that the World, because it is finite, also has a certain determinate shape, is in every way certain, although we do not know for certain which and what sort of shape that is — except that Scripture seems to indicate a spherical shape (Eccl. 1:5-6, compared with Prov. 8:27 and Isa. 51:22), where "heaven and earth," by which the whole World is commonly signified in Holy Scripture, seem to be assigned a round shape; and besides, a most perfect shape seems fitting for a most perfect body, which the philosophers hold to be spherical, because that is the most capacious of shapes.

X. Moreover, since the World consists of parts which could be composed together, and which can therefore also be divided and separated from one another, it can not only be annihilated by God — which belongs, by its very nature, to each and every one of its particular parts — but it can also be changed and corrupted, and shall indeed be corrupted and destroyed: "They shall perish, but thou shalt endure" (Ps. 102:27); "The heavens... shall be dissolved" (2 Pet. 3:12-13). Yet in such a way that its matter remains, and that its particular parts, according to the law of nature, retain and preserve their unchangeableness for as long as they are not disturbed from their state by some other cause.

XI. Meanwhile, however, it is good (Gen. 1:31; 1 Tim. 4:4), because it not only, in its whole, agrees with the mind and will of its Creator, but also, in its particular parts — being created, as we have said, neither rashly nor in vain, but for a certain determinate use — has, through the goodness of the Creator, both fitness and capacity for that use; indeed, the whole World also has a general end, namely, God's honor and glory, and the sustaining and support of man unto the glory of God, as we have taught in its proper place. Hence it is also perfect, insofar as nothing is lacking to it according to the intention and idea of its Creator, although some parts appear to us more imperfect and lesser, when set apart from the whole and considered by way of comparison — since even those creatures, according to the wisdom of the Creator, contribute their share to the perfecting of the Whole-All, which without them would be more imperfect. And if in some creatures there now indeed appears an inclination to harm men, this seems rather to be traced to sin than to Creation. But whether the World could have been created better and more perfect by God is a useless question, since this World could not agree more exactly and perfectly with the will of the Creator than it now does — wherein its whole perfection consists. Although both the whole World itself, and its particular parts, considered in themselves, could indeed have been created absolutely more perfect, had it so pleased the Creator.

XII. Finally, we say that this World was created in the space of six days — not exactly of full days, as though God spent a full twenty-four hours, on each day, upon Creation; for Scripture nowhere teaches this — indeed, rather the contrary — since by the mere command, whereby He said "let there be this or that," on any given day, the works to be brought forth were there at once (Ps. 33:9: "For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast"); but that the moments of that command, over the course of twenty-four hours, were spaced apart from one another. At any rate, that God did not use but a single moment for the whole of Creation, as Augustine, and many of the ancients, as well as some later writers, have held — deceived, in construing Moses's narrative as figures of speech (allegories), by Jesus Sirach, ch. 18:1, who said that God created all things κοινῇ, "together," which in the common Latin translation is "at once," "simultaneously." Against which opinion the six days of Creation in Moses's narrative plainly contend, when he testifies that the earth was at first without form and void, and afterward separated from the waters — which cannot fit with a single moment. Nor does that well-known saying of Jesus Sirach help them; for besides that he is no Apostle or [inspired] Writer, this need not be understood strictly of time, but may be understood of the gathering of all creatures, which alike and in general derive their origin from God, as happens in Ps. 49:11. As for the reasons why God spent precisely six days upon Creation, we have already in part traced these out beforehand in the Explanatory Part; for the present we add only this, that it happened so that He might unfold His wisdom by degrees; and also, that He might set before us, in due order, the whole World as it lay under the Creator's hands, and how its particular parts came forth upon this stage of the World, and might the longer detain us in this most delightful Topic, and finally lead us by the hand, as it were, from natural Creation to spiritual Creation. That is, just as in natural things He has generally made a passage and progress from something less perfect to something more perfect, at least with respect to material creatures, so also in spiritual things He ever proceeds by degrees toward what is more perfect (2 Cor. 4:6).

XIII. Let us add that the World, and everything created within the compass of six days, was created for the sake of man, who was to be created on the sixth day (Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8:4-7; Ps. 115:16; Matt. 25:34; Hos. 2:21-22; 1 Cor. 3:21-23) — namely, that the Creator might at last obtain, through man, the honor and glory of Creation, and of the unreasoning creatures, on account of which He has set man as it were as His Steward in the World, into whose lap all the remaining creatures should bring and heap together the goodness they had received from the Creator, as their tribute and toll, whether directly or by various roundabout ways — that from man's hand, with thanksgiving and glorifying, it might be brought back and restored, as it were in account, to the Sovereign Lord: so that all creatures would have been in vain and to no purpose without and apart from man. All creatures, I say, and each one in particular, were created for man's sake — partly to furnish him a dwelling-place, as heaven and earth (heaven hereafter, earth for the present); partly for delight, namely all the variety and beauty of things; partly for food, whence heaven is said to hear the earth, and the earth the corn and the new wine, and these at last Jezreel (Hos. 2:22); partly also for help, to which the ministry of the Angels serves (Heb. 1:14); and finally, all things as a stirring and spur to glorify the Creator. Yet the World and all things are understood to have been created for man's sake in such a way that, nonetheless, both man and all things are for God (Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36).

The Polemical Part

XIV. In a Polemical Part to this Chapter, the greater part of the disputed questions of the preceding chapter return; to which we here add, as belonging more particularly to this Topic, the philosophical-theological questions and controversies with Descartes and the Cartesians, which we have elsewhere examined at length. Namely, first, whether God spent, on the particular days — at least on the last five — full twenty-four hours upon Creation. Augustine, with a great many of the ancients and also some later writers, held that God spent, on the whole of Creation, and specifically on the works of the first day, no more than a single moment; but that on the works of the remaining days He spent nothing but the ordering and adorning of what already existed — being deceived in this, that they supposed Creation to exclude the presence of any matter whatsoever; and therefore, since the works of the five following days had a certain matter already at hand, and God thus properly brought forth nothing out of nothing on those days, that He therefore created nothing on those days either. Sacred History plainly refutes this, when it says that God made all things not only in six days (Exod. 20:11), but also expressly ascribes the word ברא, "to create," to the following days as well — thus Gen. 1:21, 27. Indeed, the matter itself refutes that opinion; for although the works of the following days had a certain matter already lying at hand, which had been brought forth out of nothing on the first day, yet that matter was ἄμορφον, shapeless — that is, such that it lacked all those essential forms which were to be given to it on the following days, forms which lay hidden in the power of that matter in no way whatsoever, and which therefore had to be brought forth out of nothing; and thus He properly created on those following days as well. Not to add that God spent, on the works of the first day — namely, the creating of heaven, earth, the unformed mass, and the light — not merely a single moment, but many moments. The Cartesians, in order the more easily to explain their architectonic construction of the World, whereby motion was imparted to the fine matter brought forth out of nothing, which motion, proceeding over the space of twenty-four hours, of itself thrust forth and thus produced all the phenomena of this World, hold that twenty-four hours were fitting and suitable for this task; meanwhile they grant that God, for the works of the first day, spent only a single moment, or at least a very few. The Reformed maintain, against Augustine and his followers, that God, on each day, truly and properly created; and against the Cartesians, that God, for the works of the particular days, spent only a single moment, or at least but a few — because (1) God, by a mere command or nod of His will, brought forth particular creatures (Ps. 33:9); (2) because the Cartesians' architectonic world-making has no foundation, neither in Scripture nor in Nature, but only in the bare imagination of Descartes; (3) because they themselves acknowledge and grant that the works of the first day were brought forth in a moment, or a few moments, and there is no reason why God should not have brought forth the works of the other days in the same manner; (4) since those essential forms (though they deny them without any lawful reason) which were brought forth on the following days of Creation, since they did not lie within the capacity of the shapeless matter, must necessarily have been created out of nothing — and, as the Cartesians themselves acknowledge, the transition from not-being to being takes place only in a moment, since otherwise a thing would in part be and in part not be. I shall not add (5) that, according to the Cartesians' own suppositions, the very idea of a body, and of something extended, does not allow that it should be created part by part, or in various successive moments; and that those essential and substantial forms, which were brought forth on the following days, are truly material. Nor does it avail the opposing view (1) that otherwise, instead of God being said to have rested on the seventh day, He would have rested on each day after that moment of Creation. Answer: (a) This is no more the case than that God rested, on the first day, after that moment which both parties acknowledge. (b) God did not rest until He had ceased bringing forth new species, which did not happen before the seventh day. They say (2) that otherwise it would not have been necessary to spend six days upon Creation, but only a few moments, or at most the space of one hour. Answer: Certainly God could have brought forth the whole World in a single moment; but it pleased the Creator to spend upon it several moments — say, days — separated from one another; and this will of the Creator is, in this matter, reason enough for us. It is said (3) that the separation of the waters by motion took place successively in time, and that the forming of Eve, and the bringing of the animals to Adam, undoubtedly required more than one moment. Answer: Let them, if one so wishes, have required several moments; God did not therefore spend, on that account, a full twenty-four hours on each and every day of Creation. And the works of the first day, which, according to the Cartesians, were brought forth in a single moment — heaven, earth, light, the raw mass — required, on that same foundation, more than one moment. Cf. Gangraena Cartesiana, Sect. II, ch. XIX, §7-12.

XV. Second, whether God, in creating the World, brought forth out of nothing only the fine, subtle matter, imparted to it a certain motion, and let that motion — proceeding successively through the six days of Creation — thrust forth all the parts of the world, and its species and all particular things? The Cartesians assert this; the orthodox deny it. For (1) the History of Creation, Gen. 1, denies it, when it relates that the works of the particular days were created immediately by God, by His command "let there be" and "it was," but not by means of a motion. (2) David denies it, Ps. 33:9, when he says that, at God's command, the things which were to be created were at once present: "He spake, and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast." (3) Reason denies it, because, according to this supposition, it would not so much be God as motion that created — at least on the later days. (4) Because, in this way, Creation would have to be denied to the five following days, since on those days nothing would have been brought forth out of nothing — which Scripture constantly contradicts, as often as it teaches a six-day Creation. Nor do our opponents bring forward any reason for their view, apart from the false supposition of Descartes — which he himself calls such (Principia III, §47, in the marginal lemma; likewise §45, Dissertatio de Methodo, p. 41) — and the claim that Preservation is the same thing as Creation, and consequently that God, by preserving the motion during the five last days, created. But it is as yet unheard-of that God creates by Preservation; for thus He still preserves motion today, and would therefore still be creating now in an equal manner as of old; yet finally, Creation and Preservation, at least in a formal sense, are no more the same thing than Creation and Destruction — wherefore one could with no more right say that God creates by Preservation than by Destruction. Cf. Gangraena Cartesiana, Sect. II, §13-16.

XVI. Third, whether the World can be infinite in magnitude, and thus undefined (indefinitus), because we could conceive that it has no limits? The Cartesians — because they hold that whatever we have an idea of, or clearly and distinctly conceive, truly exists; and moreover think that they have an idea of such a space beyond which they can conceive nothing greater — hold that this space (Spatium) can be infinite, and therefore that the World too can be infinite, if not in perfection, at least in magnitude and size; especially since Space, they say, is a true body, being furnished with a threefold dimension (trina dimensione), and in this sense they finally say that the World is undefined and infinite (indefinitus). The Reformed, though they grant that the World may be called (indefinitus) undefined, insofar as we cannot determine what the limits of the World are, nevertheless deny that it should be called undefined (indefinitus) merely because we do not know precisely that it has any limits: (1) because every kind of infinity belongs to the incommunicable properties of God, and what is infinite in magnitude — that is, infinite in a certain perfection — is also infinite in perfection [as such]. (2) Because God, by virtue of His divine Omnipotence, can always add some further magnitude to it. (3) Because that space (spatium) which we conceive to be beyond this World is not itself a true being (ens), much less a body; but only a "where" (ubi) in which some creatable body could exist; and therefore (4) because the threefold dimension (trina dimensio) belongs not to the containing space, but to the body contained, or capable of being created, within it. Nor does it avail them (1) that it is said, Jer. 31:37, that the heavens above cannot be measured, etc. Answer: This is to be understood with reference to us, and to our comprehension and understanding. Nor also (2) that we conceive the space beyond the heavens to be immeasurable, and that it is truly of a threefold dimension, and thus a body. Answer: This is denied, because thus, while there is a body in the space, there would be a body in a body — which is repugnant to our very conceptions. Nor do those threefold dimensions belong to the containing space, but to the body which is contained within it: therefore, if there is no body within it, there will also be no dimensions there. Wherefore that space which is beyond the heavens is, in fact, not a true being (ens), but only a "where" (ubi) in which God could place a body. Cf. Gangraena Cartesiana, ch. XX, §3-19.

XVII. Fourth, whether there could be more Worlds? That there are, in the course of time, more Worlds, is held by the Cabbalistic Jews, who deduce from the letter ב, with which the Creation of this World begins (Gen. 1:1), that our World is the second World which God has created — but by a Cabbalistic, that is, a trifling proof. Epicurus, Metrodorus, and the philosophers in general, invent countless Worlds, without revelation, without reason. Descartes and his followers hold to one such World that they also at the same time deny that there could be more. The Reformed acknowledge but one World, because Scripture, by the help of which alone this could be made known to us, counts no more worlds; meanwhile they firmly hold that there could be more worlds, because God is almighty, and this involves no contradiction, either on God's part or on the part of the thing itself — chiefly, since God can undoubtedly create a world distinct, in its essential parts, from this World: not to add that God, having annihilated this World, could set another World in its place, and that He could therefore, by that same power, also add yet another world alongside this very World. Nor does it avail the Cartesians that a plurality of Worlds would involve a contradiction on the part of the thing itself: because (1) the World would then be conceived by us as infinite. Answer: This is false. (2) Because these several Worlds could be distinguished from one another neither by nothing — for then they would constitute but one World — nor by something, for then they would be joined together and become one. Answer: (1) They could be distinguished from one another by an intervening space (spatium), which is not a body, as we have already shown at length. (2) They could be distinguished by a certain being (ens), of a different kind than the two mutually separated Worlds. Descartes says (3) that this World is τὸ πᾶν, the Whole-All. Answer: Not simply so; for thus God too would be a part of the World, as being in this way comprehended within that τὸ πᾶν, the Whole-All; but the World is τὸ πᾶν, the Whole-All of things that have been created, but not of things that could be created. (Cf. Gangraena Cartesiana, ch. XX, §19-22.)

XVIII. Fifth, whether the World, and all that is in it, was created, if not for man alone, at least for man's sake? This all Christians have hitherto acknowledged, together with the Scriptures and with Natural Philosophy, as we have taught above, §XIII. Descartes and his followers deny it: (1) because, on account of the immeasurable or undefined greatness of the World, by far the greatest part of the creatures is unknown to man. Answer: (1) We have already contradicted and refuted the infinite greatness of the World. (2) Holy Scripture represents to our understanding, suitably and easily enough, the whole greatness of the World, by and through the division of heaven, earth, sea, and all that is in them, and it says and assigns the particular parts thereof throughout to men. (3) And those things which are not perceived by men can nonetheless be directed and governed by God for their use, just as things which are hidden from a small child can be directed by its Father for the child's use. It is said (2) that it savors of self-love and pride to think that all things were created for one's own sake. Answer: (1) No more than that God gave His own and only-begotten Son to men, indeed gave Him over to death, and to an accursed death. (2) Indeed, rather, it tends to gratitude toward, and love for, the Creator; yes, and also to modesty and humility concerning ourselves: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?... Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet," Ps. 8:4-6. (Cf. Gangraena Cartesiana, ch. XIX, §22-25.)

XIX. The sixth question is, what is to be held concerning the System (Systema) of the World? The Cartesians, in service of their own suppositions, divide the World into those vast regions, as it were, Heavens. Of which (1) there is a first Heaven, or this our Heaven, in the middle of which the Sun stands immovable, and around which are moved and revolve Mercury, Venus, the Earth with its companion the Moon, then Mars, Jupiter with its four attendants, and Saturn. (2) The second Heaven they divide into countless world-spheres and vortices, which are turned round about by the fixed Stars. (3) Whatever is found beyond those two Heavens, far from our sight, is to be reckoned the third Heaven — whether this is one and the same with the third Heaven so named in Holy Scripture, that is, with the Heaven of the blessed, they say they cannot determine. The Reformed determine, from the Scriptures, the System (Systema) of the World thus: that they assign its first and uppermost part to the fiery Heaven (Coelum empyraeum), which they hold to be the dwelling-place of God and of the blessed Angels, and likewise of the blessed men, and which is hence called the third Heaven, likewise Paradise (2 Cor. 12:2, 4), likewise the Heaven of Heavens (1 Kings 8:27). Beneath this Heaven they place the airy Heaven, in which are the Stars and the Sun, revolving about the Earth (Isa. 40:12-13; Ps. 19:5-7), and likewise the Moon (Josh. 10:12). The lowest place they leave to the Earth, which, according to the constant tenor of Holy Scripture, is distinguished from the Heavens and from the Stars, and stands immovable as the center-point of this Whole-All (Eccl. 1:4). The Cartesians, for their World-system, attempt and undertake nothing whatsoever from Holy Scripture, nor from nature, other than that it should sufficiently account for the phenomena and for observation — something which may be said more truly and more soundly of the World-system of Holy Scripture, and with which the common opinion of Christians has hitherto agreed. If the Cartesians add that our World-system (Systema) involves various difficulties, and more than one inconvenience, we answer: God will resolve those difficulties; and those who defend the Tychonic World-system (Systema) have already resolved them.

The Practical Part

XX. As for the Practice: here return, with such changes as need to be made, most of the uses of the preceding chapter. Yet first, from the contemplation and consideration of the World — being so great and so vast a structure, and from the most skillful manner of its making — there grows in an outstanding way the recognition of, and glory belonging to, the Creator. In particular and point by point: (1) The glory of His infinite Power (Rom. 1:20), whereby He was able, by His mere command, without any use of helpers and instruments, and without the least previously-existing suitable matter, within very few moments, to bring forth a work of such vast magnitude — though not itself infinite — adorned with such great and various abundance. (2) The glory of His unfathomable Wisdom (Ps. 104:24), whereby He has been able so skillfully to unite, join, and heap together parts of so great a variety, indeed even of so great a contrariety. (3) The glory of His inexhaustible Goodness, whereby God has, in so many ways, poured out His goodness upon so many creatures — even creatures at war with Him — that not only is the Earth constantly said to be full of the divine goodness (Ps. 33:5 and 119:64), but that it reaches even unto the clouds (Ps. 36:6), yea, even unto the heavens (Ps. 57:11) — He who, moreover, has assigned to each particular creature its uses, and has likewise given it the fitness for those uses. (4) The glory of God's steadfastness and Unchangeableness, whereby He has so sealed so great a structure, consisting of parts so mutually contrary and hostile to one another, that it nonetheless stands unmoved and unchanged.

XXI. But second: The system of this World furnishes man, in particular, matter both for gratitude, love, and service toward the Maker, who has built for us so excellent a lodging; who has adorned it with so many and so splendid furnishings; who has provided us with every kind of equipment and provision, both for food and for delight; who has surrounded us, as it were, with a bodyguard of Angels; who prepares for us an eternal dwelling-place in the heavens; indeed, who has built all the things of this Whole-All for our sake — so that Paul rightly says, 1 Cor. 3:21-22: "All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours." Are not, then, all these things so great that they must, as it were, extort from us gratitude, love, and the service of God? — whereby, just as He has given us all things, we in turn give back all things — ourselves included — to Him, that of Him, and through Him, and to Him, all things may be, and that to Him may be glory forever, Rom. 11:36. This also furnishes us matter for modesty or humility toward ourselves, that we not become puffed up, proud, and haughty because of the beneficence of the Creator toward us, and the greatness and munificence with which He has freely favored and crowned us, but rather always think: "What hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory?" 1 Cor. 4:7. And to address ourselves: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." And finally, to bring all things back to the glory of the Creator, crying out: "O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!" Ps. 8:2, 5-10.

XXII. Meanwhile, also, third, let us earnestly abhor and curse the malice and wickedness of sin, which has brought (1) the curse (Gen. 3:17; Deut. 28:15-19) upon so fair a work — whose beauty, usefulness, and goodness God Himself, by His blessing, has so often and so solemnly extolled (Gen. 1:31); (2) vanity (Rom. 8:20; Eccl. 1:14), whereby its original goodness, and its fitness and inclination to do good to men, has become so dried up and deadened that creatures now neither can nor will benefit us; (3) bondage (Rom. 8:20), whereby the World is made subject to the lust of the worst and most wicked of men, and, as it were, seizes and plunders man, its former lord, into servitude and slavery for itself; (4) vexation of spirit (Eccl. 1:14), whereby those things which formerly served for refreshment, for a holy delight and pleasure, are now nothing but trouble, and as it were a thorn, Matt. 13:22; (5) sworn enmity with men, whereby creatures have not only shaken off their former ready and willing obedience and service, but whereby, moreover, they have also become deadly and destructive fires against Him, and conspire for His destruction — namely, meaning, as it were, to avenge the wrong done to their Sovereign Lord through sin, by man's rebellion. Hence the heaven becomes as brass (Deut. 28:23; Lev. 26:19; 1 Kings 18), or altogether as water (Gen. 7:4); the earth becomes stone or iron (Deut. 28:23), or brings forth, instead of fruit, nothing but thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17-18); and so it stands with all creatures, even to the Angels, indeed even to men themselves, who through hatred, strife, quarreling, wars, plunder, and murder rage against one another. Finally, (6) the corruption and destruction, whereby the very Heavens wax old like a garment (Ps. 102:26, 29), and shall indeed be dissolved and melt away (2 Pet. 3:12), so that it is in fact nothing but a passing fashion of the World (1 Cor. 7:31). And since all this evil which clings to the creature is not voluntary (Rom. 8:20), but only on account of sin (Gen. 3:17; Deut. 28:15), we have every reason: (1) to acknowledge, lament, and abhor sin; (2) as often as we perceive creatures that are useless, harmful, and rebellious toward us, to be thereby reminded of our own rebellion and disobedience against God, since it is on His account that the creatures, in avenging Him, refuse us their obedience; (3) to strive, through faith and repentance, to be reconciled with the Creator, that the creatures too might thereby return into favor with us (Hos. 2:21-23; Rom. 8:38-39); and for that reason (4) to strive and long, by all manner of means, after that ancient dominion over the creatures which we have lost — namely: (a) through faith in Christ, to whom all power in heaven and on earth is given (Matt. 28:18), and who is heir of all things (Heb. 1:2; Ps. 2:6, 8), in and with whom all things are given to believers (Rom. 8:32); (b) through love toward the Creator, for to them that love God all things work together for good (Rom. 8:28); (c) through godliness, which has the promise of this life and of that which is to come (1 Tim. 4:8); (d) through diligence, to free ourselves more and more from bondage to the creatures, and to pass over to the liberty of the children of God (Rom. 8:21), by bringing the creatures under our power (1 Cor. 6:12), by being enslaved to no creature (Matt. 6:24), so that all things may be ours, and we alone God's (1 Cor. 3:21-23).

XXIII. Fourth, therefore, let us carefully guard against an immoderate love of this World (1 John 2:15; Jas. 4:4), of which Demas gives us an example (2 Tim. 4:10), and from which some are named "men of this world," whose portion is in this life (Ps. 17:14) — to whom Christians must not be conformed (Rom. 12:1-2); no, but rather be crucified to the world (Gal. 6:14), and keep themselves unspotted from the world (Jas. 1:27), and thereby overcome the world (1 John 5:4). This immoderate love includes: (1) an excessive regard for this world and for worldly things, whereby we ascribe to it, instead of vanity and emptiness, a fullness, as though it could be sufficient for our happiness; (2) an excessively violent desire, whereby we seek and pursue it with too great an eagerness and covetousness, as if we could not be happy without it; (3) an excessively sweet and pleasant delight and enjoyment in and from the creatures, and a resting in them, whereby we do not use them as means, but enjoy them as our highest end; (4) an excessively anxious fear of losing them, or grief over their loss. By all of which we set our hearts upon, indeed make ourselves dependent upon, the world and worldly things (Ps. 62:10) — whose excess and going-too-far is a most certain mark and proof, in an ascending degree, that we love all things, even father and mother, more than Christ (Matt. 10:37); the honors and offices of this world, more than God (John 12:43); and are more lovers of pleasure than lovers of God (2 Tim. 3:4). Against which one must set, as a help and remedy, the proofs and motives of the preceding section.

XXIV. Finally, fifth, since God created the World for man, and man for His own [i.e. God's] sake, let us so use the world that we do not misuse it (1 Cor. 7:31). Let us, I say, not misuse the World: (1) by possessing worldly things as though without God (Ps. 10:3-4): "There is no God in all his thoughts" — as though these things had come to us by chance, or by our own labor alone, apart from and without God; which is to sacrifice unto one's own net, and to burn incense unto one's own drag (Hab. 1:16); (2) by exalting them above God (Matt. 10:37), so that they become to us, as it were, a god, and stand in the place of God (Phil. 3:19; Col. 3:5); or (3) by setting them alongside God, so that we pursue the world and worldly things with at least an equal zeal, ardor, and affection as we do God, and thus have them as strange gods before His face: עלעניו, "before His face," "in His sight," "in His presence" (Exod. 20:3); (4) by setting them against God, by using our goods, riches, honors, etc. against God, θεομαχοῦντες, "fighting against God" (Acts 23:9), as the Israelites did (Deut. 23:15), and as Goliath, relying on his own strength, mocked and reproached the battle-lines of the LORD (1 Sam. 17:10). On the contrary, let us use the World and worldly goods: (1) by possessing all things as from God, and receiving and accepting them as from the hand of God, who gives us all things richly to enjoy (1 Tim. 6:17), from whom every good gift and every perfect gift comes down (Jas. 1:5, 17); (2) by placing the world and every creature beneath God its Creator, as being His footstool (Isa. 66:1), and not serving the creature above the Creator (Rom. 1:25); (3) by using the creatures for God's sake (Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36), so as to be led by worldly things unto God, by the creatures unto the Creator, and so to go on from strength to strength, until at last we appear before God in Zion (Ps. 84:8); finally, (4) by directing all things to God (Rom. 11:36), so that we hold them for God — that is, so that they may serve His honor, His Kingdom, and His Will, and stand or fall according to His good pleasure. And that we thus bring our donkey, with her colt, to Christ and to God the Creator, and cast our cloaks and garments upon them, and then set Christ upon them (Matt. 21:7). And this, finally, is not to misuse the World and worldly things, but to use them.

Second Topic. Of the Heavens

The Doctrinal Part

XXV. Now, following an analytical order of teaching, we pass on to the Parts, and first to the outermost Part of Heaven itself — namely, to the Heavens, which were the very first thing created by God, and which the Text mentions, and with it Holy Scripture everywhere (Gen. 1:1 and 2:1; Ps. 8:4 and 33:6, and in countless other places); indeed, nature and reason teach this as well. For since we have already shown that there is nothing which has brought itself into being, and likewise that nothing could have existed from eternity, and that the whole World was created by God, nothing remains whereby a man of sound understanding could with any right doubt that all the heavens are created. This is to be understood not merely of this or that heaven, but of all, according to the teaching of Ps. 33:6: "The heavens were made, and all their host." For there are more heavens than one — there are natural heavens, as I shall call them, and there is also a supernatural heaven. Thus Holy Scripture speaks expressly of three heavens; namely, it mentions (1) the airy heaven, after which birds are commonly called "fowl of heaven" (Matt. 6:26), which Moses calls the Firmament (Gen. 1:6), of which we have had more to say in the exposition of the work of the six days. There is (2) a starry heaven, in which are the stars (Gen. 15:5): "Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars," by which we understand that region of the World which rises, through the various circuits of wandering and fixed stars, from the Moon up to the third or uppermost heaven. This starry heaven the Triune God created out of nothing (Ps. 33:6), stretching it out as a curtain (Ps. 104:2). Whether its matter, of which it consists, be elemental, and of a like nature with the sublunary creatures, or of another and unlike nature, we confess that we do not know, since Scripture does not explain it, and, on account of the too-great distance, cannot otherwise be known; and still less do we know its inward forming form, so that some philosophers have rashly and recklessly ascribed to it, from its regular motion, a certain soul — and still more rashly and recklessly, even a rational soul — or, with Aristotle, have attached to the several spheres particular intelligences, as assisting forms, as it were, whereas that motion proceeds from its own form, as from an inward principle, whence the Sun is said to go forth from its chamber, and to run its course (Ps. 19:5-6). As for its ends: the supernatural end is indeed God's glory (Ps. 19:1), of which more in the Practical Part; the natural ends are: (1) by its power and motion to form the cycles of times and seasons; (2) by its light, warmth, influence, and revolution, to move and sustain the sublunary world, and to bring forth one thing from another; (3) to furnish a dwelling- and lodging-place for the birds and for the meteors, which is the work of the airy heaven; for the stars, which is the work of the starry heaven; just as the uppermost Heaven does this for God and for the heaven-dwellers.

XXVI. Among the properties and conditions of this Heaven, the first is that its magnitude, though not infinite, is nonetheless utterly beyond our expression. For — not to speak of the uppermost Heaven, whose magnitude is far greater — who can measure or express the thousands upon thousands of miles that make up its circumference? How uncommonly great is our globe of earth? and yet what is it, compared with the Heavens? scarcely a small cottage in comparison with the globe of the earth. There are those who calculate 180,000 miles from us to the third Heaven, to measure which a journey of 500 years would be required — and this would be only half the diameter to the third Heaven. Whatever the truth may be, it is not without reason that Eliphaz stands amazed, Job 22:12: "Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are!"

XXVII. The second property and condition is its perfectly round shape, which we infer from the like shape of our globe of earth, around which we see the Heavens revolve; and also from the fact that the stars, having completed their course, return to their own place. Although, I confess, one can less certainly infer from this the outermost shape of the Heaven than only from the fact that so perfect a shape seems fitting for so perfect a body. Compare Prov. 8:27.

XXVIII. The third is its most rapid motion, so great indeed that it cannot even be followed by thought; for it is reckoned of the Sun alone — which is but the middle one among the Planets, and revolves around our globe within twenty-four hours — that it travels 1,160,000 miles every hour, so that some think this altogether unbelievable, and, though it runs against Holy Scripture, would rather hold that the earth revolves around the Sun than that the Sun revolves around the earth. And what should I now say of the motion of the upper Planets, and of the motion of the primum mobile, which, according to the calculation of some astronomers, covers twenty thousand miles within the space of forty hours? But we leave these matters to the philosophers, as the prying investigators of nature.

XXIX. To Scripture, and to us from Scripture, belongs the further consideration and contemplation of the third Heaven — which we may not unfittingly represent under the figure of Solomon's Temple, as the inward parts of Heaven represent the Court and the Holy Place. This Heaven, because it is inaccessible to the philosophers, and to our outward senses, indeed even to our reason (since it produces no effects in these our lowest parts of the world, from which its existence might be inferred), is accordingly represented all the more variously in and by Scripture, through figurative names; for it is called, with reference to the lower heavens, the third Heaven (2 Cor. 12:2), the Heaven of Heavens, or the uppermost and most excellent Heaven (1 Kings 8:27), Paradise, on account of its delightfulness (Luke 23:43), the Throne of God, on account of God's Majesty, which is there manifest and visible in an outstanding way (Isa. 66:1), the Heavenly Jerusalem, on account of its most excellent Safety (Heb. 12:22), and, for the same reason, the Mountain of Divine Holiness, the House of the Father (John 14:2), since the Father of Christ, who is also ours, is particularly in the heavens (Matt. 6:9), a House, not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens (2 Cor. 5:1), a City which hath foundations (Heb. 11:10), the heavenly Fatherland, Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:23), and very many other names besides — by which, taken together, it is in some measure represented to us that this heaven is the dwelling-place of the Divine Holiness, filled with all that can belong to eternal blessedness, where the Divine Majesty presents itself for contemplation, as it were face to face.

XXX. The Maker, Artificer, and Builder of this Heaven is particularly named and extolled as God (Heb. 11:10), so that one must not believe that this heaven has existed from eternity, as Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus, together with the Socinians, has held; nor also that it is God Himself (although it is sometimes used, by a transfer from the container to the thing contained, for God Himself, Luke 15:18) — for it is absurd to call God the Artificer and Builder of Himself, or of that which has coexisted with Him from eternity; especially since it is called elsewhere a building of God, not made with hands (2 Cor. 5:1). As for the matter of which it is composed: there are those who believe it to be nothing other than that inaccessible light spoken of in 1 Tim. 6:16, or a certain radiance of God's glory, or a light flowing forth from the Divine Being. We do not allow this, because not only is the Son alone called the brightness of God's glory (Heb. 1:3), but also because whatever thus flows forth from God must necessarily be the very Being of God. It seems nearer the truth that the aforesaid third Heaven is not something spiritual, since it is also ordained and fitted to receive one day the bodies of believers; it is, at the very least, of the most excellent matter that can be conceived by men — for which reason that heavenly Jerusalem, which descends from heaven, is represented with streets, with gates of precious stones, and with all manner of most excellent things (Rev. 21). From which we may in some measure grasp its splendid form, than which none more splendid can be conceived, if only we are able to utter or stammer out that which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man. God has built this Heaven for these purposes: (1) to be the dwelling-place of His glory, wherefore it is called His Throne (Isa. 66:1), where He would grant, in an ineffable manner, to the blessed heaven-dwellers, Angels and men, to behold His glory visibly. (2) To serve His Son, after conquering His and our enemies, as a kind of triumphal chariot, where He would sit at the right hand of the throne of Majesty in the highest Heavens, and whence He would return to judge the living and the dead (Eph. 4:8; Col. 2:15; Phil. 2:9). Finally, (3) to furnish the godly, after their pilgrimage, a place of eternal dwelling; after their labor, a place of rest; and after their struggle and victory, a place of triumph (2 Cor. 5:1; Matt. 25:34).

XXXI. Further, this Heaven is (1) a very wide and spacious place, wherefore it is called by John the great City (Rev. 21:10), whose great and high wall, and twelve gates, when the Angel measured it with a golden reed, he found this Heaven to be of twelve thousand furlongs — a definite number taken for an indefinite yet exceedingly great number; namely, being of such capacity as easily to contain so many millions of believers, on account of which the Savior ascribes to it many mansions (John 14:2). (2) Very glorious and very bright, whence it might be called ὄλυμπος, Olympus, as it were ὅλος λαμπρός, "wholly shining" — so much so that this City of God has no need of the sun, moon, or stars, but that God's glory fills the place of them all (Rev. 21:23). (3) Incorruptible — not that it could not be corrupted or changed, but that it must never be corrupted; wherefore it is called a house, not made with hands, and eternal (2 Cor. 5:1), and a city which hath foundations, namely, immovable ones (Heb. 11:10) — indeed twelve foundations (Rev. 21:14) (although I do not deny that this is also said of the church) — indeed also that they are of gold: all of which serves not only to make known the glory of this third Heaven, but also its incorruptibility, since we shall dwell there forever. Finally, it is (4) a place free from all sin (Rev. 21:27), likewise from all misery, sickness, poverty, and persecution (Rev. 21:4); on the contrary, filled with all glory and blessedness (Ps. 16:11). It is the place of rest from all our labor (Heb. 4:9-11), the place of triumph and coronation after the struggle and after the victory (2 Tim. 4:7-8); indeed, it is the place of our complete perfecting (1 Cor. 13:9-10).

XXXII. Opposed to this Heaven stands Hell — although, along with the earth, it seems to have been created only on the second day — not only in position, insofar as, just as Heaven appears to constitute the outermost part of the world, so Hell seems to constitute the innermost part thereof, as Scripture generally indicates (Num. 16:33), but also in nature and quality: for just as we have said that Heaven is free of all sin and misery, and complete and perfect in all blessedness, so we find in Scripture that hell is empty and stripped of all blessedness, and, on the contrary, filled with all misery. It has been prepared from eternity (Matt. 25:41) as a dwelling- and punishment-place at once for the unclean Angels and men, whose place it is hence called (Acts 1:25; Luke 16:26; 1 Pet. 3:19-20; 2 Pet. 2:2-4). How vast and wide hell is, and by what great interval it is separated from the outer and inner parts of the earth, we do not know for certain; though we by no means doubt that it is even now spacious and capacious enough to hold the unclean spirits within it, and shall afterward also be spacious enough to receive the bodies of the wicked (2 Pet. 3:10-11; John 5:29; Matt. 25:41).

The Polemical Part

XXXIII. Concerning the natural Heavens, no controversies are raised so much as those touching the motion of the starry Heaven, which we defer to the work of the fourth day. Meanwhile it is first asked, whether the third Heaven is created? Among the Papists this is denied by Augustinus Steuchus, Bishop of Gubbio (in his Perennial Philosophy). The Socinians, in order to maintain that God alone is not from eternity, and that therefore no sound conclusion for the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit can be drawn from eternity, hold that the third Heaven is not created. The Reformed hold that everything that exists apart from God was created by God: (1) because it is plainly and expressly said that God created the heaven, just as much as the earth, in the beginning (Gen. 1:1; Exod. 20:11; Heb. 11:10; Ps. 33:6, and elsewhere); (2) because otherwise it would exist of itself, and consequently be God, and so there would be more Gods; (3) because nature teaches that there is no middle state between the Creator and the creature, and therefore, since this heaven is not the Creator, it must necessarily be a creature. They object that heaven is an inaccessible light, which God has inhabited from eternity (1 Tim. 6:16). Answer: that God has dwelt from eternity in Himself, and that therefore that inaccessible light is nothing other than God Himself (1 John 1:5, compared with v. 7).

XXXIV. It is asked, second, whether the third Heaven is everywhere? The Ubiquitists (the proponents of omnipresence) — in order to maintain the omnipresence of Christ's Body, namely, so that He, ascending into heaven, would not be compelled to change place — hold that the third heaven is not a certain fixed and definite place, but that it, alongside God, is omnipresent, or everywhere, even in hell itself (Brenz, De Majestate Christi, pp. 160-162). Indeed, in order the more easily to maintain this heaven, they call in to their aid yet another error, when they distinguish God's heaven from the heaven of the blessed. The Reformed hold that Holy Scripture contradicts this opinion: (1) when it everywhere shows and presents this third Heaven to us as a definite place, as a City, as a House in which there are many mansions (John 14:2). (2) When it everywhere distinguishes this Heaven from the earth and from hell, as something that is above, from that which is lower and beneath. (3) When it says that God dwells on high, in the exalted place (Ps. 113:4-6; Luke 2:14). Wherefore Christ, about to pray, lifted up His eyes on high; and the Angels, who are said to descend and ascend (John 1:51), behold in Heaven the face of God (Matt. 18:10). (4) When it relates that Christ ascended on high (Eph. 4:8-10), that He passed through the heavens (Heb. 4:14), that He entered into the Sanctuary (Heb. 9:24), that He sits in the highest heavens (Heb. 1:3), and charges us to seek those things which are above, where Christ is (Col. 3:1). (5) When Christ teaches that we shall dwell with Him forever in His Father's house (John 14:2, compared with ch. 17:24). Not to add (6) the absurdities of this error, since by it even the Devils and the damned would also be in heaven. And what Brentius, to support his absurd error, brings forward from Job 1:6, 1 Kings 22:19, and Eph. 6:12, is all too shallow and pitiful and wretched. For Job 1:6 does not say that the Angels stood with Satan before the face of Jehovah in heaven; since elsewhere the Seraphim are said to have appeared before the LORD in the Temple (Isa. 6:1-2), and Adam on the earth (Gen. 3:8-9), as also Abraham (Gen. 18:33). Nor does 1 Kings 22:19 relate a history, but a vision in an ecstasy of the senses. And finally, Eph. 6:12 does not say that the evil spirits are in the third heaven, but in the airy heaven, as the Apostle teaches there, ch. 2:2.

XXXV. We shall not trouble to refute those who confess that they do not know whether the third heaven has limits or not — or, what is the same thing, whether it is finite or infinite, something which they hold to be undefined (indefinitum). This we have already, together with the possible infinity of the World, refuted expressly and at length in the preceding Topic; and which, as their own judges, Zophar exposes, Job 11:8, compared with 1 Kings 8:27.

The Practical Part

XXXVI. As for the Practice: first, the natural Heavens invite us (1) to their attentive contemplation, which God enjoined upon Abraham (Gen. 15:5): "Look now toward heaven," and which David himself practiced (Ps. 8:3): "When I consider thy heavens"; and nature itself, and the very form and posture of man, urges this, according to that well-known line of the poet: Pronaque cum spectent animalia caetera terram, Os homini sublime dedit, caelumque tueri — that is: "Whereas all other animals look down, bowed toward the earth, He gave to man a face uplifted, and bade him behold the heavens." And this same thing the heathen commend by their examples, as when, for instance, Anaxagoras said that he was born for this purpose, that he might see and behold the heavens, according to the testimony of Lactantius (Institutes, Bk. III); and Eudoxus burned with so great a desire to see the Sun that he would not have shrunk from letting himself be burned up by it. It is added that it would be most unjust and most shameful that God should have deigned to create the Heavens, which man would disdain to behold. Yet, since it is not enough merely to see the Heavens, and to contemplate them in some fashion, this Topic invites us also (2) to the consideration and observation of the Heavens as being a work and handiwork of God (Ps. 8:3): "When I consider thy heavens" — so that in that handiwork we see the Workman, namely, God who is in the Heavens, just as Stephen (Acts 7:55), being full of the Holy Ghost, and looking up steadfastly into heaven, saw the glory of God. Lactantius rebukes and censures this lack and negligence in Anaxagoras, because he placed the whole duty of man in the eyes alone, bringing nothing to the soul and mind, but all to the body. Yes, but (3) let us so see God in the heavens that we glorify Him, whence the Heavens are said to declare the glory of God, and the firmament to show His handiwork (Ps. 19:1). In particular and point by point, (4) that we contemplate them with a godly amazement (Ps. 8:3-4): "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; then, indeed, I burst out in amazement: What is man?" — with amazement (1) not only at the infinite greatness, which God has so formed that He has stretched it out like a curtain, so that He holds it as it were in His fist, and is therefore higher than it, indeed infinitely so (1 Kings 8:27); (2) with amazement at the swiftest of motions, in the midst of which He nonetheless coexists, unmoved and eternal (Ps. 102:26-28); (3) at the most brilliant splendor, which nevertheless the splendor of the inaccessible light which God inhabits infinitely surpasses (1 Tim. 6:16); (4) at the inexhaustible usefulness, whereby heaven hears the earth, the earth the corn, the new wine, and the oil, and these at last hear us (Hos. 2:21-22), from which we may gather the goodness of the Creator who brings all this to us (Ps. 8:5). (5) That we, for this reason, love the Creator of the heavens above the heavens themselves, and rest in Him, so as to say with Asaph (Ps. 73:25): "Whom have I [beside thee] in heaven? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee" (Rom. 1:25). Meanwhile also (6) that we honor and fear Him who has heaven for His throne (Isa. 66:1; Ps. 33:6, 8). And moreover (7) that we obey Him, that His will may be done by us on earth, as it is done in heaven (Matt. 6:9-10), and that thus the name of our Father who is in the heavens may be hallowed.

XXXVII. Then, second: the ineffable perfection of the supernatural heaven discloses to us the ineffable happiness and ineffable blessedness of those for whom He has, by His eternal decree, appointed it (Luke 10:20), and has prepared it in time. Who (1) shall have the same dwelling-place with the blessed Angels, indeed with God Himself (2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 12:22-23; John 14:2 and 17:24). Who, for this reason, (2) are not strangers and sojourners, but of the household of God (Eph. 2:19), whence their citizenship and civic right is said to be in heaven (Phil. 3:20). And as such, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob have conducted and comported themselves (Heb. 11), whose names (1) have been entered upon the roll and register of citizens (Luke 10:20). Who, for this reason, (2) are no longer slaves of the world, but freedmen of God (Gal. 5:1). Who also (3) possess and enjoy the privileges of this citizenship (Eph. 2:12-13, 18-19). And moreover (4) also have and enjoy fellowship and communion with the heaven-dwellers, with God, with the Mediator, with the Angels, and with the spirits of the departed and perfected righteous (Heb. 12:22-23). Then also, (5) they have their share in the goods and treasures of this City (Acts 26:18; Eph. 1:3) — namely, in all those goods and benefits which God has prepared for them that love Him (1 Cor. 2:9). Further, they are also (6) under the shelter and protection of heaven (Ps. 84:12; compare Acts 22:25, 28). This right of citizenship they possess under the title: (a) of foreordination and creation, because Heaven was designed and created for them by God beforehand (Matt. 25:34); (b) under the title of purchase, not at their own price, but at the price of their Redeemer (Eph. 1:13-14; compare Acts 22:28); further (c) under the title of birth (John 3:3); moreover (d) under the title of inheritance (Matt. 25:34; Rom. 8:17); and further still (e) under the title of their sworn oath of allegiance (Ps. 2:12). This is, as long as we are here, to be understood more of the acquisition (κλήσει) and the right to it, than of the use, enjoyment (χρήσει), and possession — but which is as certain, indeed more certain than anything certain can be, and shall follow when we have laid aside the burden and weight of this body (2 Cor. 5:1). Or, if you would rather understand it also of enjoyment and possession, then it must be understood of that which we ourselves do not, but which our Surety, Christ, ascending into heaven, has taken possession of for us and in our place (John 14:2).

XXXVIII. Third, there arises also a most sweet and most pleasant comfort for all those privileged citizens of heaven: (1) in their banishment, sojourning, and wandering in this life (Ps. 39:12), that they are nonetheless citizens of heaven, fellow-citizens with the saints, indeed of the household of God (Heb. 11; Eph. 2:19). Then (2) in poverty, because the Kingdom of Heaven nonetheless belongs to them (Matt. 5:3 and 25:34; Eph. 1:3), and because their heavenly Father, who feeds the fowls of the air, will never allow those who are citizens of Heaven to perish for want (Matt. 6:26). Further (3) in contempt and reproaches, when they are made as the offscouring of the world (1 Cor. 4:13), that they are nonetheless citizens, indeed also heirs of the Kingdom of the heavens (Heb. 11:26, 37-40). Moreover (4) in labors, hardships, sicknesses, in commotions and shakings of every kind, that they, being privileged citizens of heaven, shall obtain in their Fatherland every refreshment, quiet, and rest (Heb. 4:9-10) — indeed, that it is impossible to obtain that Fatherland, that place of rest, in any other way than through such hardships (Acts 14:22), or to enter into this glory except through sufferings (Luke 24:26; Rom. 8:17), and that their light affliction, which is but for a moment, works for them a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory (2 Cor. 4:17). Finally (5) in death itself, whereby they must leave the world and lay aside this their tabernacle, because they are here strangers, but privileged citizens in heaven, that they have a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens (2 Cor. 5:1).

XXXIX. And since that heaven has not been built, and the heavenly Kingdom not prepared, for all, and since therefore the blessedness and the comfort of which we have spoken does not belong to and through all men equally and in particular (Matt. 7:21) — indeed, since there are also those for whom the fire is prepared, to be tormented forever, since God has prepared hell (Matt. 25:41) — it is, fourth, in the highest degree necessary that we examine whether that heaven is also prepared for us; namely, that we, being falsely persuaded and assured of this, may not neglect the necessary care to prepare and obtain it for ourselves (Luke 13:24). But from what, finally, shall we with certainty conclude and infer this? Answer: chiefly by these marks and tokens: namely, Heaven is prepared: (1) for those who are born of heaven, or born again of spiritual water; for none but such shall enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:3, 5). (2) For those who are truly and in fact children of God; for these are also heirs of the Kingdom (Rom. 8:17). Also for those who are of the household of faith, who are the People of God (Heb. 4:9), and who, by making covenant, having as it were sworn the oath of allegiance, have become citizens and subjects of heaven, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, those chief leading citizens. (3) For those who are clean of hands and pure of heart (Ps. 24:3-4) — that is, pure and clean in life and conduct (Ps. 15:1-2); for indeed, nothing that is unclean shall enter in here (Rev. 21:27; Matt. 5:8); without shall be the dogs (Rev. 22:15). (4) For those who already here on earth have their citizenship and their conduct in heaven (Phil. 3:20) — that is, who conduct themselves on earth as privileged citizens of Heaven. (5) For those who esteem the earth and earthly things small and of little worth, and despise them, who hold the earth as it were under their feet, like God (Isa. 66:1) and Asaph (Ps. 73:25); who can accept and endure the loss of their goods with joy, knowing that they have in themselves a better and abiding possession in the heavens (Heb. 10:34). (6) For those who, as strangers on earth, as on a journey, in an inn, can be content with little; with the Apostle (Phil. 4:11-13) — namely, with and upon hope and expectation of and for a better and larger and more glorious lot and portion in their Fatherland. (7) For those who, for the same reason and with the same design and intention, can here undergo and bear all manner of adversities and misfortunes with a level and resigned mind (Heb. 10:31, 33-34). Finally, (8) for those who, on account of their expectation of and hope for heaven, for their house, for their Fatherland, can despise even death itself, indeed even long for it thereafter (Phil. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:2, 4; Rev. 22:20).

XL. Further, fifth, since the excellence of heaven is so great, and hence the blessedness of the privileged citizens of heaven so great — indeed, since from this there arises and shall arise for them so great a comfort in every condition and state — it truly appears from this how slovenly is the negligence and carelessness of those who (1) are ignorant of Heaven, or at least do not believe in it, except perhaps only with the mouth; but who in their heart hold it to be nothing but a certain churchly fable, and would gladly leave heaven to the Lord of Heaven, provided only that He leave to them their heaven, that is, the earth, forever — with whom, if not on the lips, then at least in the heart, stands: Ede, bibe, lude, post mortem nulla voluptas — that is, "Eat, drink, play; after death there is no more pleasure or delight" (compare 1 Cor. 15:32; Eccl. 3:19-20). (2) Those who do to some extent believe that a heaven is prepared for the elect, but who embrace and caress the earth all the more, and would readily let heaven go for the earth's sake; at least, who hold and keep heaven for nothing but a certain refuge and hiding-place, in case the earth should suddenly be taken from them by death — whence they only desire it with idle wishes, like Balaam (Num. 23:10; Luke 14:15). (3) Those who, besides idle wishes, also spend some effort on it, diligently attending religious worship with the Pharisees, pouring out public prayers, and crying with a full throat, "Lord, Lord," indeed abounding in an outward righteousness (Luke 18:10-12; Matt. 5:20 and 7:21-23) — who cleanse the outside, who tithe mint and dill and cummin, but neglect the weightier matters of the Law, namely, judgment, mercy, and faith, as well as the denial of self, the crucifying of the flesh, etc. (Matt. 23:23, 25, 27). Not to speak now of those who (4) shamefully squander the possession of heaven through their crimes and abominations, of whom the Apostle speaks (1 Cor. 6:9-10): "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, etc. shall inherit the kingdom of God." To all such the Judge Himself has already denied the right to heaven (Matt. 5:20): "Ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven"; and He shall also openly deny it on that day (Matt. 7:23): "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Indeed, on the contrary, He shall assign them hell as their own place (Matt. 25:41): "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

XLI. Therefore, sixth, this Topic rather stirs us up, and spurs us on, to stand and strive, with every exertion of body and soul, to prepare for ourselves the possession of heaven — that is, that we mind the things that are above (φρονεῖν) (Col. 3:2), consider, aim at (σκοπεῖν) (2 Cor. 4:18), seek (ζητεῖν) (Matt. 6:33; Col. 3:1), work out (κατεργάζεσθαι) (Phil. 2:12), strive to enter in (ἀγωνίζεσθαι) (Luke 13:24), after the example of the Patriarchs (Heb. 11), and together with those who, however many, have the firstfruits of the Spirit (Rom. 8:23). For indeed, heaven is (1) the Dwelling-place and the Throne of the most high and most gracious God, where He dwells not so much for Himself as to grant us there a view of His Majesty and Glory; where the Angels behold the face of God (Matt. 18:10), and where we too shall see Him, face to face (1 Cor. 13:12). It is (2) the Palace of the blessed Spirits (Heb. 12:22-23). It is (3) the place of our Redemption (Luke 21:28); (4) the place of our Crowning (2 Tim. 4:7-8); (5) the place also of our eternal rest (Heb. 4:8-11). It is (6) the place of our most blessed fellowship (Heb. 12:22-23), where dwells our Father (Matt. 6:9), our Brother, our Bridegroom, our Advocate; where our inheritance, all our income and estate, indeed all our treasure is (Matt. 6:19-21). It is (7) the place where we shall be perfectly united with God, who is the highest Good, enjoy Him, and rejoice and be glad in Him. Who would not, after weighing and considering all these things, cry out with the Psalmist: "How amiable are thy tabernacles, O LORD of hosts! My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God" (Ps. 84:1-2, and 42:1-2)? But on what ground, and in what manner, shall we finally obtain that Heaven? Answer: (1) God the Father has, by His eternal Election, ordained it for us, and has prepared it in time (Matt. 25:34). (2) The Son is the way to the Father (John 14:6); He has also gone to prepare a place for us in His Father's house (John 14:2), and moreover has, as our Head, already taken possession of it in our place. (3) The Holy Spirit is not only our Guide (Ps. 143:10), but is also our seal and pledge (Eph. 4:30; 2 Cor. 1:22 and 5:1, 5). On our part, however, is required: (a) to be born again by the Holy Spirit, that we may see the Kingdom of God, and enter into it (John 3:3, 5); (b) to lay hold of Christ by a true and living faith, who is that ladder of Jacob's, which reaches from earth to heaven, by which we too may climb up together with the Angels (Gen. 28:12), just as He also is the way, apart from whom no one comes to the Father (John 14:6); (c) to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, as our Guide (Ps. 143:10), and thereby to go forward from virtue to virtue, until at last we appear before God in Zion (Ps. 84:8); (d) carefully to abstain from all uncleanness, for nothing that is unclean shall enter there (Rev. 21:27); (e) to order our whole life according to the laws of Heaven, that our πολίτευμα, our citizenship and conduct, may be in heaven, whence we may then confidently look for and expect Jesus, who shall fashion our mortal and lowly bodies like unto His glorious body (Phil. 3:20-21); (f) unceasingly to walk and hold converse before and with the God of heaven, that we too, with Enoch, may be taken up by Him into heaven (Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5); (g) to perform all these things and duties without deceit and hypocrisy, but in singleness of heart; for indeed no one shall climb the hill of the LORD, nor stand in His holy place, except one who is clean of hands and pure of heart (Ps. 24:4; and 15:1-2; Matt. 5:8). Finally, (h) to accustom ourselves to patience, since we must enter the Kingdom of God through much tribulation (Acts 14:22; Luke 24:26), and thus not only to seek, but also, with much striving and wrestling (ἀγωνίζεσθαι), to strain and struggle to enter in through the narrow gate (Luke 13:24).

XLII. Meanwhile, seventh, while and as long as we are still outside of heaven, and absent from the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6), while and as long as we still live on earth, we must have our conversation and citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20), and seek the things that are above (Col. 3:1) — that is: (1) that our heart, our life and longings, indeed also our endeavors, be directed toward heaven, where our treasure is (Matt. 6:21); (2) that our ultimate end be to seek heaven and heavenly things above all else (Matt. 6:33), with so great a zeal and earnestness that we forget all that is behind, and reach forth unto those things which are before, pressing toward the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God, which is from above, in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:13-14); (3) that the principles, the pivots as it were of our endeavors, with which we strive and strain heavenward, be spiritual and heavenly (Rom. 8:5); (4) that the rule of those endeavors be heavenly (Matt. 6:10; Gal. 6:16), not earthly and worldly (Rom. 12:2); (5) that our conversation, converse, and company be heavenly, and with heavenly and heaven-minded men (Ps. 16:3), with a loathing for the worldly (same place, v. 4, and Ps. 1:1); (6) that all our doings and occupations on earth may be heavenly — let us therefore gladly do here on earth that which one day it shall be our task to do in heaven: for example, let us strive to see God more and more, that is, to know Him (John 17:3), which we shall do on that day in heaven (Job 19:27; 1 Cor. 13:12); let us carry out the will of God readily and willingly, as it is done, and as we shall also afterward do with the blessed Angels in heaven (Matt. 6:10; Ps. 103:20); let us take delight in the spiritual Sabbath, which we shall celebrate and keep forever in heaven (Heb. 4:9-11); (7) that our mind, even in earthly things, may be heavenly — that is, that in earthly things it discern and ponder heavenly things: for example, in the natural Sun, the Sun of righteousness; in earthly food, spiritual food; in the garments of the body, the garments of the soul; that our mind also let itself be led up, by earthly things, to heavenly things; that we further spend our earthly things, riches, honor, and standing, to a heavenly use, for the Kingdom of God, for the relief and support of the poor. Such a heavenly converse and walk these following reasons commend to us: (1) because we are citizens of heaven (Eph. 2:19), and heaven is our fatherland, and it therefore befits us to live with heavenly manners; (2) because we, as touching our soul, originate from heaven, not only by virtue of its immediate creation by God (Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 12:7), whence He is called the Father of spirits (Heb. 12:9), but also on account of a divine, and thus heavenly, regeneration (John 3:3, 5); (3) because through sanctification we have become partakers of the divine, and thus heavenly, nature and disposition (2 Pet. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:47), which is driven upward, just as an earthly nature and disposition is driven downward; (4) because all our most excellent treasures are in the heavens — our Father, Brother, Bridegroom, Advocate, Inheritance, and our whole treasure — wherefore our heart must also be there, according to the declaration of the Savior (Matt. 6:21), and of Paul (Col. 3:1-2); (5) because it is the wellspring of all quietness, calm, and gladness of mind to have one's heart in heaven, and to converse with heaven-dwellers and heavenly things (Ps. 17:15 and 84:1-2, 4, 10); (6) because it is a spur and goad to godliness, and likewise also a foundation of Christian patience, to have our heart and mind godlily, and often, indeed continually, set upon heaven, as the place of reward and refreshment, of comfort and rest (2 Tim. 4:7-8; 2 Cor. 4:17-18 and 5:1). More matters belonging to this subject shall come before us in the Chapter on Glorification.

Third Topic. Of the Earth

The Doctrinal Part

XLIII. Upon the outermost, containing and fixed part of the World follows now the middle and inner part, namely the Earth, which, after the Heavens, was created by God, as the Text testifies, and also other sayings of Scripture, particularly what we read, Ps. 104:5-7: "He hath founded the earth upon her foundations, that it should not be removed for ever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains." Where God is said to have created the Earth by founding her — that is, by setting her as a support and foundation of this Whole-All, and also by fixing her immovably, resting and supported, as it were, upon foundations. To this same point look also the passages Isa. 45:8, where God is called the Creator of the Heavens, the Former and Maker of the Earth, who established and confirmed it; Ps. 24:2; Neh. 9:6; Ps. 90:2; 95:5; 102:26 and 146:6; Isa. 40:28 and 48:13; Jer. 10:12; Acts 4:24 and 14:15; Heb. 1:10; Rev. 10:6 and 14:7. Further also those passages in which the Earth is said to be God's, Exod. 9:29 and 19:5; Deut. 10:14; Ps. 24:1 and 50:12; 1 Cor. 10:26-27. Likewise those passages in which God is called the God of the earth, or of the world (Isa. 54:5; Rev. 11:4; Ezra 5:11). There is also no one so senseless as not to grant that the Earth is created; and if there be such a one, he can be convinced by the very reasons with which we have already shown before that the whole World, and the Heavens too, were brought forth out of nothing.

XLIV. The word "Earth" in Latin is Terra, which some hold to be derived from terere, that is, "to wear away," "to tread," just as also the Hebrew word ארץ, Eretz ("Earth"), according to some. Sometimes it denotes the element, as opposed to and distinguished from water, air, and fire; sometimes it denotes a certain definite region or tract of land. With us, "Earth" here means nothing else than that inner part of the World, or that vast and great globe which we tread, and which, joined together with water and with soil, God has set immovably in the middle of the Whole-All, in the Air, upon which the Whole-All should rest as upon its center-point, and which should furnish a dwelling-place, until its very end, to the animals, but especially to man. Of which Job says that it is stretched out over the empty place, and hangs upon nothing (Job 26:7), that is, suspended in the Air; and the Psalmist, that it is founded upon its foundations, that is, that it is immovably built and created — which took place on the third day of Creation, when the globe of the earth, which before had been covered with the deep or with the waters, was separated from them. So that the matter of which it consists is the dry and the wet, just as flesh and blood is for our body; the form or figure of the Earth is its well-ordered and well-fitted composition, whereby, just as the members of the body, so all the parts of the Earth work together to one and the same end — namely, (1) to the filling out and perfecting of the Whole-All, of which the globe of the earth, as we have said, is the foundation (Ps. 104:5); (2) to be a dwelling- and abiding-place for every kind of bodily substance, both living and lifeless, which all incline toward the earth, as toward a place that is natural to them, on and in which they may rest; (3) particularly for the animals, both those endowed with reason and those lacking it, moreover for food (Ps. 115:16; and 104:13, 15-16; Hos. 2:21-22).

XLV. Among the qualities and conditions of the Earth are the following: (1) As to its situation or position, it appears to occupy (as we have said) the middle of the Whole-All, surrounded on every side by the Heavens. (2) As to its size, it constitutes, at least compared with the Whole-All, no more than a mere point; although, considered by itself apart, undefined, it is of a very vast extent, whose circumference (perimeter) is commonly reckoned and estimated at five thousand four hundred German miles, and its diameter at one thousand seven hundred and eighteen miles. (See Timpler, Physica, Bk. III, ch. 4, prob. 6.) From which one may then gather and conjecture how vast a mass its whole body is. (3) As to its shape, it is beyond doubt round, according to the testimony of navigators — against which the mountains and valleys do not contend, since these, compared with the whole mass, will scarcely amount to what is, in a great globe, but a small crack. (4) As for its support (fustentaculum), which the Psalmist compares to and sets upon a foundation (basis), and which Job has already said before is nothing (Job 26:7): this has tormented very many, namely, in what way a mass of so great a weight could, as it were, fly in the air without any supports whatsoever (Job 26:7 and 38:4-6) — since not even a small stone, its support being removed, can remain an hour in the air. It is quite true that the system of this Whole-All, of which the Earth constitutes the foundation and support, absolutely requires this, since, if that foundation were moved, the upper parts would be mingled together with the lower; but from this it still does not appear how, and in what way, the Earth hangs immovably in the air. There are those who hold that this happens, contrary to the laws of nature, through a divine miracle. Others devise these reasons: (1) that a body which is heaviest naturally occupies the lowest place, just as lighter bodies strive upward — whence water exists above the earth, just as air exists above the water. Then (2) that the elements, in the place that is natural to them, do not weigh down, but rather rest. Further (3) that the earth, if it were moved, would be moved upward, heavenward, and would fall into heaven, and conversely the heaven earthward — which is against the nature of both. As for us, while we indeed leave to these and similar reasons their force, we nevertheless hold that they do not sufficiently meet the difficulty posed, unless one also calls in, besides, God's almighty support — wherefore God also says to Job, ch. 38:4-6: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?... Who hath laid the measures thereof?... or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?"

XLVI. The whole mass of the Earth (imitating, as it were, the human body, which consists of flesh and blood, Matt. 16:17) is composed of the dry, as its flesh, and of the wet, as its blood; along with this, of stones and mountains, as its bones and veins. (1) The dry is divided by geographers into four, as it were, essential parts, among which Asia is as the head, America as the foot, Africa as the left, and Europe as the right arm. The outer parts of the dry land are seen to be adorned (besides the works of art) with trees, plants, produce of the earth, and beasts — all of which serve for the use and benefit of man (Ps. 104:13-15). The inner parts consist of minerals of various kinds, which are here, as in their womb, cherished and brought forth by the influence of heaven, and particularly by the heat of the Sun — concerning which one may consult a description of the World and of the Earth. Again, (2) the wet part of this globe of earth consists of seas and rivers, which, in the manner of veins, cross both its outer and its inner parts, in order to moisten it and make it fruitful. Concerning the Seas, we must in particular consider and stand amazed (1) at their almost immeasurable breadth and extent, whereby and wherewith they cover and surround the earth round about like a garment (Ps. 104:6 and v. 25): "This sea, great and wide"; (2) at their height, whereby, though they are higher than the earth, they nevertheless do not overflow it, of which the Psalmist gives the reason there, v. 9: "Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth." See also Prov. 8:29. (3) At their motion, in ebb and flood, visible within the space of six hours; the cause of which various writers seek variously, in its correspondence with the motion of the Moon, which would be, as it were, the mother of moisture; yet they obtain scarcely anything that is certain. Compare the hydrographers.

XLVII. It is also beyond all doubt, if one gives credence to the constant testimony of Holy Scripture, that Hell was created, at least within the surface of our globe of earth, on the second day of Creation, as most hold, to be a prison and place of torment for the unclean spirits (1 Pet. 3:19-20; 2 Pet. 2:4), and at the same time also for the damned (Acts 1:25; Ps. 63:9), appointed by God. Although there are not wanting those who, without reason and against Holy Scripture, hold that our whole earth, after the last judgment, shall be a hell for the damned. Compare what we have noted above, §XXXII, concerning Hell.

The Polemical Part

XLVIII. The Topic concerning the Earth is not, in fact, so very subject to theological controversies. Nevertheless it is asked: (I) whether the Earth is turned about the Sun by a twofold motion, namely, a daily and a yearly one? Nicolaus Copernicus and his followers, as also René Descartes and his followers, hold this firmly, because they think that they can more easily explain the phenomena of this World by the help of this supposition. The Reformed deny this, together with the Tychonic astronomers, because divine revelation plainly denies it, and establishes that the Earth stands immovable (Ps. 93:1): "The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved"; (Ps. 104:5): "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever" (Ps. 96:10 and 119:90?; Eccl. 1:4), and in all those places in which it is repeatedly said that God has founded the Earth, which we have adduced at §XXXIII. Nor do our opponents, for their opinion, adduce anything whatsoever from Holy Scripture; indeed, not even anything from nature that soundly proves that the Earth is moved: they only insist that it seems more fitting and easier, for the explanation of the phenomena, that the Earth, being the smaller body, should be moved, rather than the Sun. Yet, although this seems easier to us, it does not on that account seem easier and more fitting to God. Indeed, from this a greater glory and renown seems to accrue to God, that He causes the Sun, being so great a body, to revolve, through so small an interval, in so short a time. Moreover, it still hangs before the Judge, and it is not yet decided, whether the phenomena are more fitly and more easily explained and resolved by the motion of the Earth or by the motion of the Sun. At any rate, in theology, that method of proceeding is the most dangerous of all, whereby one sets against the constant testimony of Holy Scripture nothing but one's own assertions, indeed philosophical conjectures.

XLIX. It is asked: (II) whether the Earth is a Planet, just as the Moon is? The Cartesians, since they have ascribed motion to the Earth, and consequently also assigned to it a round orbit in which it should be moved around the Sun, and finally, that it, having received light from the Sun, would likewise reflect it back as the Moon does — hold that the Earth may be called a Planet, as is the Moon. The Reformed deny this: (1) because Holy Scripture constantly sets the Earth over against Heaven, and distinguishes it therefrom; (2) because the Earth, if it were a heavenly body, would have had to be brought forth, along with the other Stars, only on the fourth day of Creation. Not to add (3) that Hell itself, which, even according to the testimony of our opponents, is within the Earth, would, according to this supposition, be in Heaven — a thing which in fact is nothing other than to confuse and mingle Heaven with Earth, indeed even with Hell itself. (Cf. Gangraena Cartesiana, Sect. II, §7-8.) The foundation of the contrary opinion lies in the motion of the Earth around the Sun, which we have overthrown and refuted in the preceding controversy.

The Practical Part

L. As for the Practice: since the words "World" and "Earth" very often agree in meaning in Holy Scripture, there return here again, with such changes as are needed, all those Uses which we have already set forth beforehand in the Topic of the World, §XIX etc. Only, that first, God's Glory and Majesty receives new proofs from the Creation and founding of the Earth (Ps. 104), where the Psalmist is wholly occupied in and with the glorifying of God as Creator and Ruler, v. 5, and takes an outstanding proof from the Creation and founding of the Earth. Similarly Isa. 40:18-19. In particular, (1) His Power, which has hung so great a mass upon nothing (Job 26:7), and holds and supports it, as it were, with His fist (Isa. 40:12); who has set bounds for the untamable Sea (Ps. 104:9; Prov. 8:29). (2) His Wisdom, whereby He has assigned the Earth, for this structure of the World, as a support and foundation, and has adorned it with so great a variety of trees, fruits, herbs, animals, and metals (Ps. 104:14). (3) His Goodness, whereby He has given the whole Earth, furnished with so great a variety of goods that it is said to be full of God's Goodness (Ps. 33:5), to men, to possess, enjoy, and tread upon (Ps. 115:16, compared with Ps. 104:13-16). (4) His steadfastness and unchangeableness, whereby He has caused a body of so great a mass, and consisting of so many contrary parts, to be immovable in the air (Ps. 96:10). This Majesty of God the Earth presents to us for this purpose: (1) that we should marvel at it, and stand amazed in our hearts. To this end God asks Job: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?" (Job 38:4-6; Ps. 104:24). Then (2) that we should proclaim and praise it with our mouths, like the Psalmist: "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty... who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever," etc. (Ps. 104:1, 5). Finally (3) that we exalt and extol Him with our works and deeds, by reverencing so great a Creator of the whole Earth and of the Seas: "He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him" (Ps. 33:7-8) — namely, just as the waters are said to have fled at His rebuke (Ps. 104:5-7).

LI. In particular and chiefly, second, there appears from Creation God's most far-reaching sovereignty and dominion, whereby He is not only extolled as being the God of the earth, indeed of the whole earth (Isa. 54:5; Rev. 11:4; Ezra 5:11), but the earth is also said to be His (Ps. 24:1; 50:12; 95:5; Exod. 9:29 and 19:5). Moreover, that we should (1) reverence Him, not as a petty king, but as the God and Lord of the whole earth (Ps. 33:8); (2) that we should carry out His commands and ordinances, as His servants, ready and prepared (Exod. 19:5-6): "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine" (Deut. 10:13-14); (3) that we not misuse the earthly things which have been entrusted to us for our use, that we not squander them, not consume them wastefully (Luke 16:1). Meanwhile, also, that we use and enjoy them without scruple (1 Cor. 10:25-26), yet so that, in using them, we give no offense to the conscience of others, there v. 28.

LII. Third, the earth can (1) admonish us of our mortality, as those who, just as we were made from the earth (Job 10:9), shall likewise also return to the earth (Gen. 3:19; Eccl. 12:7), so that the earth, at least now after the fall, serves to consume our bodies, and at the same time to devour them, whence the grave is in many places called σαρκοφάγοι, "flesh-eaters." And hence (2) the consideration of the earth further forms us to modesty and humility, because God not only forms us out of the earth, which is the meanest of matter, so that we are children of the earth, but has also placed us upon the earth, as the lowest chamber of this Whole-All, as in a dwelling-place, so that we inhabit huts of clay (Job 4:19; Ps. 115:16), which He Himself has even made the footstool of His feet (Isa. 66:1). (3) That we should therefore also despise and disdain the earth of this world, as being the lowest place of this World, and the most ignoble element, and that we hold and regard it, in comparison with Heaven, and likewise with God, as a footstool for our feet (Col. 3:2), which we tread with our feet — wherefore the etymologists also derive the word ארץ, Eretz, "earth," from רצץ, Ratzatz, "to wear away," "to shake," "to move," just as also the Latin word Terra ("earth"), a terendo, from wearing away, trampling, treading.

LIII. Above all things, fourth, let us carefully guard against becoming earthly-minded, minding earthly things (Phil. 3:19), even though we have proceeded, as to the body, out of the earth, and the earth is given to us rather as an inn than as a dwelling-place of the Creator (Heb. 13:14 and 11:9). This happens (1) when we spend the earth and earthly things, which have been given us by the Creator for the body, as a dwelling-place and as food for the soul, setting our heart upon them (Ps. 62:10), and thus cling to the earth as it were (Ps. 44:25). (2) When we choose the earth and earthly things as our only portion (Ps. 17:14), instead of choosing God (Ps. 16:5 and 73:25), or at least as our best portion, instead of first seeking the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and holding and regarding earthly things as things thrown in besides (Matt. 6:33) — whereby we make our belly, as it were, our god (Phil. 3:19), and esteem gold more highly than God; or at least set the earth and earthly things beside God, and thus alongside God, as a certain second god, as the Philistines their Dagon (1 Sam. 5:2) — that is, pursue them with an affection equal to that with which we pursue God, and do not subordinate everything to God's honor, will, and kingdom. When we (3) spend our chief efforts and cares upon the earth and earthly things (John 6:26-27). And also (4) take our chief sorrow and grief from the loss of the earth and of earthly things (2 Cor. 7:10), altogether otherwise than spiritual men do (Heb. 10:34; Ps. 73:25). For these following reasons: (1) those who have been set by God as lords over the earth (Gen. 1:26) thereby make themselves slaves of the earth; and thus bring upon themselves (2) Satan's own curse: "Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life" (Gen. 3:14). Indeed (3) since they turn away from God, they shall be put to shame, and God shall write their names in the earth, since they have forsaken the fountain of living waters, namely Jehovah (Jer. 2:13 and 17:13) — that is, not in Heaven, which belongs to the heaven-dwellers (Luke 10:20). They are also (4) enemies of God (1 John 2:15; Jas. 4:4), enemies of Christ and of Christ's cross (Phil. 3:18). Moreover, they are thus (5) idolaters, who serve Mammon (Matt. 6:24), indeed the most shameful of idolaters, who make themselves, indeed their own belly, into a god (Phil. 3:19). Finally, (6) they bring upon themselves, if they do not repent in time, the most certain ruin (Phil. 3:19).

Fourth Topic. Of the Things Contained in Heaven and on Earth, According to the Six-Day Creation

The Doctrinal Part

LIV. And God has created not only the World, Heaven, and Earth, but also everything that is contained and comprised beneath these — and this within the space of six days. Thus He created, on the first day, Heaven and Earth, so that the Earth was, up to that point, tohu va-vohu, "without form and void," ἄμορφος, "shapeless," a raw and unordered matter, which the fanciful poets have dreamed to have been a Chaos, that is, as it were a confused mass, upon which God, in the following days of Creation, imposed particular shapes by His creating. This matter was ἄμορφος, shapeless, because it did not yet actually possess those substantial and essential forms and shapes which it afterward received (as may be seen in every instance of generation and change), nor did it possess them even in power and capacity — but was purely and simply obedient, whereby it was able to receive the shapes. So that God had to bring forth those shapes, on the following days, out of nothing. And this bringing-forth seems to be indicated by Moses through the Spirit of God (whether the Spirit that is God, or the Spirit of the Trinity), who is said to have hovered, merachefet, upon the face of the waters, in whose depth, as in an abyss (Gen. 1:2), the Earth had lain hidden and concealed — just as happens in the brooding of a hen — namely, in order that, just as a hen hatches her chicks out of the eggs, so He might likewise bring forth all things, of every kind.

The power of this Word, and the working corresponding to it, may be gathered from Deut. 32:11, where it is said that, as an eagle stirreth up her nest and fluttereth over her young — the very same word — so the LORD led His people; from which one may infer what sort of efficacious hovering this too must have been. There are those who understand by it the wind — which cannot be, since the wind was not yet created, and moreover the wind does not brood, but rather scatters — or fire, or a certain world-soul, or an angel: none of which can properly apply here. Nor can it be that by "the Spirit of God" one should understand merely a general active power and efficacious working of God Himself — which the Socinians, to serve their own principles, would have it be; since this hovering plainly distinguishes the Spirit's own proper efficacious power from any such thing.

LV. Upon this, the Light was next created, Gen. 1:3: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." By this Light some understand the Angels, because they are called angels of light (2 Cor. 11:14). But wrongly so, because the Angels are nowhere, in the proper sense, called "a light"; and they are called angels of light only in distinction from, and contrast to, the angels of darkness (Col. 1:13) — a distinction which as yet, at that point, had no place. There are those who understand by it the element of fire — yet without reason, indeed against all reason. Some among the Papists would have it that this was an accident without a subject — to the advantage of their doctrine of Transubstantiation — a position which Bellarmine and Cornelius à Lapide advance, though even they do not dare to defend it, both because it is contrary to reason (it being as much as to say that an accident is a substance, since that which exists in nothing other than its subject exists through and of itself, and is therefore a substance), and because it runs contrary to the common opinion of almost all the Fathers, Greek and Latin alike, and of nearly all theologians. It is enough to say that the light was a true substance, whereby, having distinguished light from darkness, it came about that, when the light departed, it was evening, and when it returned, morning — and that these were never confounded (Gen. 1:5; compare Job 38:19-20 and 8:22? Jer. 33:25). Then God Himself called the light Day, and the darkness Night. Furthermore, the commentators ascribe to this day, at least in part, on rather feeble grounds, also the creation of the Angels — a matter which we shall defer to the following chapter.

LVI. The work of the second day is (1) the establishing of the Firmament, and its use to separate the waters from the surface of the Earth, and to make a division between the upper and the lower waters (Gen. 1:6): "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Namely, that, through the intervention and means of the warmth from above, a certain portion of the water should be separated into vapors, and thus raised up into the middle region of the air, and there, the warmth gradually departing and failing, and the vapors thereby condensing together, should be changed into clouds, which would constitute the upper waters, distinguished and set apart from the lower waters of the earth's surface (Ps. 104:3; Jer. 10:13; Job 26:8). So that one must not here posit waters above the whole of the Air, and still less above the starry Heaven, as it pleases certain Ubiquitists to hold, in order that the passage through Heaven for Christ's body might thereby be made the more difficult. (2) By this same day also seem to have been created, in their causes, the meteors — rain, hail, mist, and others — indeed also, through accompanying earthly sulfurous exhalations and other winds, thunder and lightning (Ps. 147:8, 16-18; Jer. 10:13). Among these is, in particular, the Rainbow, which is appointed as a seal of the Covenant (Gen. 9:9-17).

LVII. There are those (such as Aben Ezra, Vatablus, Mercerus, Piscator, and Vossius) who assign the founding of the earth to the second day, through the separation of the lower waters from the dry land, holding that this was only related more fully in connection with the work of the third day (Gen. 1:9-10) — namely, so that this second day should not be deprived of its customary particular blessing and approval; and they accordingly render vayomer, "and God said," by the pluperfect tense: "and God had said." See Vossius, De Idololatria, Bk. II, ch. 67. Yet, since this pluperfect rendering of the word vayomer ("and God said") is unusual in the History of Creation, and since a fitting reason can be given for the absence of a blessing on this day — namely, that the work of this day was only begun, but was first completed on the third day, as Maresius says — I see, thus far, no reasons which would compel us to depart from the customary and received opinion of the ancient Fathers and theologians. To the third day, therefore, belongs: (1) that founding of the earth of which we have spoken, whereby it, having been separated from the waters, now stood forth above them; (2) by this same act also the establishing of the seas and rivers — namely, through the gathering of the waters separated from the dry land into their particular basins, prepared by God for this use (Ps. 104:5-9), where the covering waters are said, at the voice of the thunder — that is, by the word and voice of the divine command, or else by thunder and earthquakes — to have fled from the dry land, and to have betaken themselves into their hollows (Job 38:8). Hence the earth is said to be founded upon the seas, and established upon the rivers (Ps. 24:2). By and on account of this separation, the islands and peninsulas were also born at the same time; (3) the adorning of the earth thus separated from the waters, which took place not only outwardly, through trees, herbs, indeed fruits — at least in the region of Paradise, which appears to have been created expressly on this day — together with a power of nourishing, healing, and propagating; but also inwardly, through minerals and metals of various kinds. Not to speak of subterranean fires and winds, from which earthquakes and devastations arise, as well as of the springs and rivers, and likewise the hot and salty waters, which are born from them.

LVIII. On the fourth day the Lights were hung in the starry Heaven (Gen. 1:14): two greater ones, the Sun and the Moon, so named not from (discus) a round disc-shaped body, which is far surpassed by all manner of other heavenly bodies, but from the light which they spread from themselves, and from the effective power which they exert upon our globe of earth; then also, at least to our sight, the lesser Stars — both the Wandering Stars, called Planets, and the Fixed Stars, which differ greatly in size, position, and brightness, and are countless in number (Gen. 15:5; Isa. 40:26; Jer. 33:22) — whose constant and manifest motion is accomplished, not by intelligences, nor by assisting beings, nor by informing beings, as the philosophers idly speculate, but by and through the particular character of their own nature, impressed upon them by God through Creation, under God's supreme governance (Ps. 19:5-6).

LIX. The use and benefit of all these is: (1) to give light (Gen. 1:15): "to give light upon the earth." (2) To be for signs — both (1) natural signs, of the eclipses of the Sun and Moon, of the tides, and of various changes; and (2) civil signs, which, depending on natural causes, indicate the fit times and occasions for plowing, sowing, sailing, etc.; and also (3) spiritual signs, whether of God's favor (Gen. 8:22; Ps. 65:9; Hos. 2:21-22; 2 Kings 20:11), or of His wrath (Matt. 24:29 and 27:45; Lev. 26:19; Judg. 5:20) — although it is by no means within their power to determine or predict contingent and voluntary outcomes; except that signs which are shown in heaven outside the ordinary course seem to announce extraordinary calamities, according to Joel 2:30-31 and Acts 2:19-20, compared with the experience of history. Meanwhile, to predict definitely this or that calamity from them is vain and futile, and is forbidden (Deut. 18:10). Further, (4) to distinguish, by their light and by their motion, the changes of times, of days and nights, and of the seasons, summer and winter — a task which falls chiefly to the Sun and the Moon (Gen. 1:14, 16; Job 26:10; Gen. 8:22; Jer. 31:35).

LX. After this, the beasts began to be created, to which a soul belongs (Gen. 1:20-21, 24; Lev. 17:14) — not only a growing soul (anima vegetativa), whereby they are propagated, nourished, and grow, but also a sensing or sensitive soul (sensitiva), whereby they have perception. And on the fifth day were created the water-animals (Gen. 1:20), among which the Whales excel, and all manner of fish of monstrous size. Under this head must also be counted and reckoned the amphibious creatures; likewise other creatures living in the water, shellfish, purple-fish, etc., and the creatures of the air, or birds.

LXI. Finally, on the sixth day the land-animals were brought forth (Gen. 1:24-25) — namely: (1) Behemoth, all manner of larger beasts, and domestic and tame animals; (2) Remes, creeping creatures, under which name are also included the footless and the many-footed creatures; (3) Chaytho, wild and forest beasts of every kind — all of which God created, each according to its own kind (true, lawful, and genuine, not the degenerate kinds arising from a mingling of species), on this day. For the hybrid species were not created on this day in themselves, but in their causes — whence one may perhaps learn that such minglings, being as it were adulteries among the unreasoning creatures, were forbidden to the Israelites (Lev. 19:19). As for those animals which arise from putrefaction, they were either created only in their causes, or in their first immediate species, in such a way that, after the first Creation, they were to be propagated in both ways — partly by natural generation, and partly out of putrefaction. As for the things inquired concerning uncertain and fabled creatures — fire-devouring beasts, the Salamander, the winged Horse, winged and fire-breathing Dragons — these can scarcely be determined from Holy Scripture, since most Hebrew names, whether of animals, or of herbs and trees, are, if not wholly unknown, at least uncertain to us Westerners — something which must in particular be thought concerning the unicorns (reem). Finally, God brought the work of the six days to an end with the Creation of man, who would not only constitute a compendium and a little world of all the creatures, both spiritual and bodily, but would also be its end — whose Creation we shall treat in a separate chapter, God willing. This whole Work of Creation, as we have already noted before, God chose to accomplish within six days, though He could have done it in one, indeed in a single moment — so that He might thereby admonish us that we ought to spend six days in the contemplation of the divine Works; and also, that He might lay the foundation for the rest and sanctification of the seventh day (Gen. 2:2-3, compared with Exod. 20:9-11).

The Polemical Part

LXII. The questions and controversies concerning this Doctrine (besides those which have already been raised concerning the World, the Heavens, and the Earth, and which shall be treated in their place concerning Men and Angels) are, for the most part, more philosophical than theological. We shall briefly touch upon the most weighty of them. First, then, whether the first-created Light was an accident without a subject? Some among the Papists would gladly maintain this, to the advantage of their doctrine of Transubstantiation, and to this end Bellarmine adduces this position (De Eucharistia, Bk. III, ch. 24), as does Cornelius à Lapide (on Gen. 1); and they also ascribe it both to Basil (Hom. II and VI, Hexaemeron) and to Nazianzen (Orat. L.) — yet nevertheless they do not dare to take up its defense: not so much because that position runs contrary to reason, and amounts to saying that an accident is a substance (for that which exists in nothing other than its own subject exists through and of itself, and is consequently a substance), as because it runs contrary to the common opinion of almost all the ancient Fathers, both Greek and Latin, and indeed of nearly all theologians, as Pererius says, commenting on Gen. 1. Indeed, à Lapide himself adduces this opinion only in order to refute it.

LXIII. It is asked, second, whether above the general Firmament, indeed above the starry Heaven, there is a certain immeasurable body of waters? Some of the ancient Fathers hold this, whom Cornelius à Lapide follows, as also the Lutherans, because on this view the local ascension of Christ into heaven is made the more measurable. This opinion is denied: (1) because it is absurd to place a thicker and heavier element above the air — which is itself finer and thinner even in its third region — and above the starry Heaven, which is of the finest and thinnest matter of all; (2) because no natural use can be assigned to this water; and particularly (3) because the letter of Moses does not require this — for indeed, he does not say that the whole firmament was interposed between the upper and lower waters, but simply that a certain Firmament, such as the Air is in its first region, distinguishes the lower waters — the seas and the rivers — from the upper waters, namely, the vapors and clouds gathered together in the second region. For indeed nothing is more common in Holy Scripture than that by "the upper waters" the clouds are meant (Ps. 104:3; Job 26:8; Ps. 148:4; Jer. 10:13). This being well noted, nothing remains which our opponents could bring forward for their contrary opinion.

LXIV. It is asked, third, why and by what design the work of the second day lacks God's customary approval and blessing? Some deny that this second day lacked any blessing at all, but hold that the blessing of that day, from the tenth verse, must be transferred here, since otherwise the third day would have received a double approval and blessing — ascribing to the second day the founding of the earth and the gathering of the Seas and Rivers. Lombard holds that this happened because the number two is an evil and disreputable omen — to which Jerome also inclines, out of his aversion to marriage. Others seek the reason in this, that hell was created on this day, or that the Angels fell on this day — something which the Cabbalists invent. Luther holds that we ought not to inquire into the reasons for this design, since they have not been disclosed to us by God. Others hold that the work of this day was only begun, to be completed on the third day — against which I see nothing that stands in the way or contradicts it. One may add that the general blessing in v. 31 is to be applied to this day as well.

LXV. It is asked, fourth, whether the Sun stands immovably fixed in the heaven? The constant tenor of Scripture denies this, since it ascribes motion not only to the Sun (Eccl. 1:4-7; Ps. 19:5-7; Matt. 5:45; 2 Kings 20:9, 11, compared with Isa. 38:8), but also ascribes immovability to the earth, denying it motion (Ps. 93:1 and 104:5). Against which one could only, by a most perverse interpretation, set up Philosophy alone. Nicolaus Copernicus, Descartes, and others maintain this, moved by no scriptural passages — which they themselves acknowledge — but partly because motion, and indeed so swift a motion of so great a body, exceeds human comprehension, and partly because the heavenly phenomena can more easily be explained from the Sun's rest. But these are far too slight and trivial matters to be set against the unanimous testimony of Scripture, since God can also do what exceeds all human comprehension (Eph. 3:20), and since, through the swiftness of this motion, the honor and glory of the first mover is made all the greater and more illustrious. And indeed the heavenly phenomena have, on the basis of and according to this motion, been easily and fittingly enough expounded, unraveled, and explained by Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, and other most eminent astronomers. Cf. Gangraena Cartesiana, Sect. 2, ch. XXI, §8-12.

LXVI. It is asked, fifth, whether the disposition and position of the Stars foretell future contingent things — good or ill fortune, the fates of men, kings, and princes? This is denied (1) by Holy Scripture, when it ascribes the foretelling and certain and sure prediction of future things to God alone, as His own prerogative (Eccl. 8:7; Jas. 4:13-16), and when it also forbids and bans every kind of prediction from the Stars (Deut. 18:10, 14; Isa. 8:19 and 19:3 and 47:13; Jer. 10:2 and 27:9-10). This is also denied (2) by reason, since the Stars, on account of their immeasurable distance from us, scarcely exercise any influence upon us — and if they exercise any at all, it is a very general one; at any rate, they do not act upon the souls of men. Nor can those things which depend on the will, zeal, inclination, and pursuits of a person be foretold from his natal star or point of birth — much less those things which touch the fates of a whole City, Nation, or Kingdom. And since the secretive interpreters of this astrology attempt to derive from the Stars not only good things but also evil, would they not then have to acknowledge even God Himself, who is the Author of Nature and of the Stars, as the cause of sin? Not to add that before sin there would have been neither sins nor punishments, though the position of the Stars would nonetheless have been, in every respect, the very same. Finally, this is denied (3) by Experience, since not all who are born under one and the same position of the Stars undergo one and the same fate; just as neither do those who are born at the very same moment as some king's son thereby attain to royal rank; indeed, since even twins, born at one and the same time, undergo different fates, and pursue mutually contrary occupations and inclinations. Yet the astrological fortune-tellers of nativities maintain this firmly — partly because the Stars are said to have been given to be for signs, though only of times, years, and days, but not of future contingent things, since God plainly and expressly rejects that use of signs; and partly because experience is said to agree with their predictions, which, though it might happen by chance, or through the Devil's craft, or through some hidden judgment of God, nevertheless occurs by no sure and fixed rules of art or of nature, nor even constantly.

The Practical Part

LXVII. The things which could be said, in a practical way, concerning the particular kinds of Creatures are without number; and what needed to be said concerning the world, heaven, and earth we have already said; and what remains to be said concerning the rational creatures we shall say in its place, and these can, with such changes and such additions as are needed, easily be applied here as well — so that nothing seems to remain here but that reflection which flows both from the duration of Creation and from the order of creating. Therefore, first: that God, though He could have accomplished this Whole-All in a single moment, nevertheless spent six days upon it, so that we might have a more distinct occasion to reflect upon His works and workings — this, I say, urges and calls upon us to occupy ourselves, as far as may be, during the six days of the week, with the contemplation of God's works: namely, to acknowledge the more distinctly, with our soul, the Creator's wisdom, power, goodness, and other attributes, from the variety, goodness, and steadfastness of the creatures; to praise them the more readily and eagerly with our mouth; and to glorify the Creator yet further with our works. And also, since God chose to be occupied for six days with working upon the world, that we too, after His example, should apply ourselves for six days to the business of this world with all diligence and prudence, most carefully avoiding all idleness and negligence. And since God, during those His six days, was occupied in working at nothing but things which are good, and useful to men, that we too should not spend the works of our six days on evil works, harmful and injurious either to God or to men; nor indeed on idle and trifling things, which contribute nothing to God's honor, or to men's use and benefit. Finally, since God worked for no more than six days, and rested on the seventh day, that we too, during the six days of the week, should so dispatch the business of this World that we may rest on the seventh day, and be able to devote it to the works of God's Honor and Glory, and to the salvation of our souls (Gen. 2:2-3, compared with Exod. 20:9-11).

LXVIII. Second, in the order of working which God observed during the six days, there shines forth: (1) God's Wisdom — in that the simple elements were created before the elemental, or compound and composite, things; in that, among the simple things, the more perfect were created first, being nearer to the nature of God; in that those things were created first which have only being; then those things which, besides being, also have life; and after that, those things which, besides being and life and sensation, also have reason; in that, among the simple things, the progress has been from the more perfect to the less perfect, but among the composite things, from the less perfect to the more perfect — from the plants to man. (2) God's Power shines forth particularly in this, that He created the plants, herbs, and trees before the Sun and the Stars, which usually possess the power of causes in their production. (3) His Goodness shone forth in this, that He created the dwelling-places before the animals, and likewise those things which would serve for man's use and benefit before man himself. These are the words of Ames, Medulla, Bk. I, ch. VIII, §57-59.

End of the First Volume.

Index of Principal Matters

An English rendering of the topical index appended to the 1749 Rotterdam/Utrecht Dutch translation of Petrus van Mastricht’s Theoretica-Practica Theologia. The original page numbers, keyed to the 1749 print pagination, have been omitted.

A

• Academic Exercises (Akademische Oeffeningen)

  • eleven rules concerning them

• Adonai

  • what this name of God means

• Affections in God (Aandoeningen in Godt)

  • what they are in general
  • specific kinds: love, hatred, desire, aversion, joy, sorrow, wrath

• The Air-Heaven (Luchthemel)

  • what it is

• The All-Sufficiency and Perfection of God (Algenoegzaamheit of Volmaaktheit Godts)

  • proven from Scripture and by reason
  • objections answered
  • its nature explained
  • arises from all his perfections and the Trinity of Persons
  • uses of this doctrine: comforts us in all adversity; convinces us of the vanity of all things; shows God's majesty and glory; shows the vast extent of God's kingdom; rebukes those who neglect it in practice; stirs zeal for the practice of virtue; warns against earthly-mindedness

• Angels (Engelen)

  • how they are objects of predestination
  • the predestination of angels and of men compared: wherein they agree and differ

• Animals (Dieren)

  • land, water, and air animals were created on the fifth day; earthly animals on the sixth day

• Antitrinitarians (Antitrinitariſſen)

  • their atheism noted

• Apocryphal Books (Apokryfe Boeken)

  • rejected; must not be counted among the canonical books

• Atheism (Atheiſtery)

  • what and how many kinds there are, a threefold kind noted
  • six arguments against atheism
  • preventive remedies against it
  • its causes, general and four particular ones

• Attributes of God (Eigenſchappen Godts)

  • make known to us God's essence
  • how and in what way "attributa" — that is, ascriptions/appropriations — apply to God
  • all the attributes signify in God one and most simple act
  • ten inferences concerning the divine attributes
  • divisions of the divine attributes
  • whether the attributes are distinct from God's essence
  • whether only a few attributes need necessarily be known
  • whether the division into incommunicable and communicable attributes may be allowed
  • uses: for the knowledge, glorifying, and reverencing of God; for confirming other articles of faith; for strengthening our faith and trust; for prayer; for other virtues; for the blessedness found in fellowship with God — see further under each attribute's own name

• Authority — the Divine Authority of Scripture (Gezach)

  • demonstrated with seven reasons
  • whether it depends on the Church — denied, against the Papists, with objections answered
  • whether other, non-original editions carry authority of their own
  • the authority of Scripture must be impressed upon its hearers

B

• Becoming Children of God (Kinderen Godts te worden)

  • what this implies

• The Beginning (Beginne)

  • how and in what way it is spoken of

• Believing (Geloven)

  • the various meanings of this word

• Blamelessness in Man (Onberispelykheit)

  • what it means as said of man

• Blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Laſteren)

  • what it means, and why it must be avoided

• The Blessedness of God (Gelukzaligheit Godts)

  • that God is blessed, and the fountain of all blessedness, is proven from Scripture and with reasons
  • what blessedness is
  • what God's blessedness is
  • uses: gives us matter to glorify God; marks the folly of those who seek their blessedness outside of God; rebukes the folly of those who trouble themselves over their happiness by their false suppositions; invites us to seek blessedness in God, with motives and helps; comforts in all kinds of adversity, with the conditions of that comfort

• The Blessing of the Second Day (Zegen [Tweede Dach der Scheppinge])

  • why it lacks a solemn blessing

• Boasting in and Glorifying God's Majesty and Glory (Roemen en Verheerlyken van Godts Majeſteit en Heerlykheit)

  • by whom, and by what means, it is done
  • happens chiefly in the exercises of religion

• The Body — Whether God Is a Body (Ligbaam)

  • whether God is a body, consisting of human members — the orthodox view denies this, and defends it against objections
  • whether a subtle/fine body belongs to God — denied

• The Book of Life (Boek des Levens)

  • how many kinds there are; and its several names accordingly

C

• The Canon of Scripture (Kanon der H. Schrift)

  • whether now that the canon is sealed, the Holy Spirit still teaches in the same way and degree as formerly to the patriarchs — denied, and defended against objections

• Cases of Conscience (Gewetensgevallen)

  • [noted]

• The Cause of Sin (Oorzaak van de Zonde)

  • see Sin

• Christ is God (Christus is Godt)

  • from eternity, and of himself, which is demonstrated and defended
  • not the cause of predestination [as contrasted with reprobation/hell]
  • see also Son of God, Trinity

• The Citizenship of Believers (Burgerrecht of Burgerſchap der Gelovigen)

  • is in heaven
  • titles and grounds of this right
  • marks of those who hold it

• Coming to God (Komen tot Godt)

  • what this means

• The Commandments of Christ (Geboden van Chriſtus)

  • saving faith does not consist in keeping them

• Communicable and Incommunicable Attributes (Mededeelbare en Onmededeelbare Eigenſchappen)

  • whether this division may be allowed

• Constancy in God (Beſtandelykheit in Godt)

  • what it is

• The Contingency of Things (Gebeurlykheit der dingen)

  • is not excluded by predestination

• Covenant Fellowship with God (Verbondgenootſchap met Godt)

  • [noted]

• Creation in General (Schepping in 't gemeen)

  • the time of creating, in the beginning, and what that means
  • the act of creation, with the force of the original words explained
  • the Creator, Elohim: the force of that name, and what is signified by it
  • the thing created, namely Heaven and Earth, how to be understood: what "heaven" means here; what "earth" means, with the force of the original word Eretz, and with the pointer-letter ha-arets — that is, the very earth we now tread with our feet, yet so as to include the seas and all that is within and upon it
  • all things were brought forth by God out of nothing, and were very good
  • the creation of the world could not have been from eternity, as proven and urged against objections
  • creation is expressed in Scripture in various ways
  • what creation is
  • the act of creation is an almighty command
  • the time and matter out of which the world was created have not existed from eternity, proven from Scripture and with reasons
  • the practice concerning creation invites us: to know God — that he is, what he is like, who he is, and who he is for us in particular; to glorify God
  • the power to create cannot belong to a creature, demonstrated against various parties
  • a creature cannot be an instrument of creation, urged against various parties
  • God alone is the author of creation
  • besides God there can be no other cause of creation
  • to honor and serve God, with motives, and in what manner
  • a creature cannot be an instrumental cause of creation
  • to fear God, and thereby guard against certain particular sins, which are noted
  • the author of creation is the whole Trinity
  • creation happened without a laborious undertaking, without succession of time, and without labor or weariness
  • it began in time
  • in what sense creation could have happened earlier or sooner — see World
  • the creation of the six days in particular
  • in what season of the year creation began
  • God made everything very good
  • that there truly was a creation is demonstrated

D

• Deceit (Bedriegen)

  • God cannot deceive

• The Decree of God (Besluit)

  • is a determined and settled purpose
  • concerns the determining of future events
  • is eternal, wholly free, all-wise, unlimited, unchangeable, universally efficacious
  • in what sense one, either effecting or permitting
  • is misused by those who hold that all men, even devils, will eventually be saved
  • conditional decrees of God defended against an objection
  • objections resolved
  • there is no decree accommodated to circumstances (the Remonstrants say yes, the Reformed say no, and defend their view)
  • there is no prior general decree
  • there is no changeable decree
  • uses of this doctrine: exalts the majesty of God's rule and government; concerns election, though the decree is not the foundation of election, as proven and defended against objections; requires that we wisely apply the divine decree to our use; teaches us to conduct ourselves after God's example, especially in his service, with wise conduct; warns us against sins contrary to the divine decree

• The Degrees of Faith (Trappen des Geloofs)

  • see Faith

• The Deity of the Son Proven (Godheit des Zoons bewezen)

  • see also Christ, Son of God, Trinity

• The Delights at God's Right Hand [Ps. 16:11] (Lieffelykheden in Godts rechte[rhandt])

  • what is meant by it

• Denying the Only God and Lord (Verlochenen den Enigen Godt en Heer)

  • namely, the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ — what this means

• The Depth of the Riches of God's Wisdom and Knowledge (Diepte des Rykdoms)

  • [Rom. 11:33 theme]

• Desire in God (Verlangen Godts)

  • what it is

• The Divine Authority of the New Testament (Goddelyk gezach van 't Nieuwe Teſtament)

  • [established]

• Doctrine (Lere)

  • why theology is so called

• Doctrine and Admonition (Lere en Vermane)

  • how this is done

• Doubt Concerning God's Existence (Twyfeling aan Godts Aanwezen)

  • is in every respect unlawful

E

• The Earth (Aarde)

  • what it meant at the beginning of creation, and what is implied
  • was created by God
  • its creation and purpose
  • hangs immovably in the air
  • its essential parts: the dry, the moist, the hollow
  • whether it revolves daily and yearly around the sun
  • the earth is not a planet

• The Earth Is Not a Planet (Planeet)

  • [see also The Earth]

• Earthly-mindedness (Aardschgezintheit)

  • what it is, and why one must guard against it

• Ehyeh (Name of God) (Ehejeh)

  • what this name of God means

• El (name of God)

  • what this name of God means

• El Shaddai (name of God) (Elſchaddai)

  • what it means

• Election (Verkiezing)

  • its supreme end is to make known the riches of God's glory, with the means to obtain it
  • that there is an election is proven
  • the object of election, its nature
  • the object of election is the whole mystical Christ — that is, Christ together with all his own
  • how and in what way Christ enters into election
  • its parts or acts are two: election in the narrower sense, and the act of electing itself, comprising: the act of electing; the object of election; its foundation, in what does it consist, and what this manner of speaking signifies; the nearest end of election
  • the chief cause of election is the whole Trinity; its moving cause is God's grace alone
  • election is not soundly derived from foreseen faith
  • election does not depend on things foreseen
  • its end and aim is the praise and glory of God's grace
  • election is eternal, absolute, unchangeable, and certain
  • whether there are several kinds of election — a plurality is claimed by our adversaries and refuted
  • whether there is a certain general election — a difference of opinion; the Reformed absolutely deny a general election, and prove it with ten reasons, refuting the objections
  • election unto glory is likewise absolute and independent, as is election unto grace
  • the number of the elect is unchangeable, proven and defended against objections
  • uses: discovers to us the glory of God's power, mercy, and wisdom; every elect person can obtain assurance of his election, with motives and two kinds of marks; it spurs us to gratitude, with motives and manner; it stirs us to the practice of holiness, with motives and manner; it gives us matter for comfort, joy, and trust; there is in election an example for us to imitate, in regarding others charitably as God's elect; pitfalls to be avoided in the matter of election
  • Christ is not the foundation of election, proven and defended against objections

• Election Not from Foreseen Faith (Verkiezing niet uit een voorgezien Gelove)

  • it is not soundly concluded that election proceeds from foreseen faith

• Elohim (name of God)

  • whether it is a name denoting only an office, and not the divine essence itself; this name implies a plurality [of Persons]

• Embittering the Holy Spirit (Verbitteren van den H. Geeſt)

  • what it is, and why it must be avoided

• The Ends of the World (Eindpalen der Wereldt)

  • what they are

• The Envoy/Messenger of the Father (Gezante des Vaders)

  • is the Son

• Epicurus

  • wherein he sought happiness

• The Essence of Faith (Wezen des Geloofs)

  • see Faith

• The Essence of God (Wezen Godts)

  • is invisible
  • is made known to us through his works and attributes
  • is incomprehensible
  • we can have no positive, full comprehension of it
  • we have no idea that fully represents him
  • its eternity, infinity, and freedom of will
  • its unchangeableness and efficacy
  • serves: for comfort; for rebuke; for admonition

• The Eternal Generation of the Son (De Vader heeft van Eeuwigheit den Zoon Gegeneereert)

  • proofs of this

• Eternity of God (Eeuwigheit Godts)

  • proven with testimonies of Holy Scripture, of the ancient church teachers, and of the heathen, and confirmed with reasons
  • God alone is eternal
  • what the word eternity means, and what the thing itself is
  • eternity is a property that belongs to God alone, truly
  • excludes a fivefold composition
  • five objections resolved
  • besides God there was nothing, and nothing could have been, from eternity
  • in God's eternity there is no succession of time
  • whatever is, has been from eternity
  • uses of this doctrine: it lays before us a foundation of all perfection in God and of imperfection in creatures; it points us to the mutability of all things; it stirs us up to glorify him; it teaches us to rest with a simple heart in God alone; it gives comfort against all evils; it draws us back from sin; it invites us to meditate on a blessed eternity, with the means to it; it counsels and obliges us to simplicity and uprightness in our conduct; it stirs up zeal to be content with our lot, however simple and small

• The Excellence of Christian Theology (Voortreffelykheit van de Chriſtelyke Godgeleerdheit)

  • [noted]

• The Existence and Knowledge of God (Aanwezen en Kennisse Godts)

  • proven and defended; see also God, and Knowledge of God

• The Expanse/Firmament (Uitſpanſel)

  • its arrangement
  • no waters are to be placed above it

• The Exposition and Explanation of Scripture (Uitleggen en Verklaren der Schrift)

  • urged, with means for the learned and for everyone

• The Extinguishing of the Holy Spirit (Uitbluſſchen des H. Geeſts)

  • what it is, and why and how it must be avoided

F

• The Face of God (Aangezichte Godts)

  • what it means

• Faith and Love (Gelove en Liefde)

  • are two parts of theology

• Faith, Saving (Gelove)

  • is the first part of theology and of the spiritual life
  • description of saving faith
  • the origin/derivation of the word "faith"
  • distinctions and divisions of faith
  • saving faith does not consist in keeping the commandments of Christ
  • saving faith is an act
  • acts of faith in the understanding, the will, and the passions and affections
  • it is a receiving of Christ, and what receiving Christ means
  • various names for this receiving
  • it does not consist in trust alone
  • it is an act of the whole rational soul
  • whether anything false can exist within true faith
  • the object of saving faith, what it is not
  • the examination of faith
  • Christ the Mediator is its object according to his three offices
  • see also Unbelief, under letter O (Ongelovigheit)
  • faith consists neither in the understanding alone nor in the will alone, but in the whole spiritual life of man
  • the ends and fruits of faith: union and fellowship with Christ, in justification, in adoption as children, in sanctification, in glorification
  • the degrees of faith
  • the chief and efficient cause and origin of faith, and its instrumental cause
  • weak faith distinguished from mistrust and from common/historical faith
  • the smallest faith distinguished
  • a great faith distinguished from a merely imagined faith
  • marks of saving faith
  • the exercise of faith: motives taken from its excellence, its pleasantness, its usefulness, its equity and fittingness, its necessity, with helps to the exercise of faith
  • concerning obtaining faith, the manner of its production on God's side and on man's side
  • the maintaining and preserving of faith, with motives and means
  • the increase of faith with its helps
  • signs of a waxing or waning faith
  • the life of faith, with its motives
  • the particular persuasion and application of faith
  • the goods and advantages of this assurance of faith, the manner, motives, and means to it

• The Faithfulness and Truthfulness of God (Getrouwigheit en Waarachtigheit Godts)

  • see Truthfulness

• The Faithfulness of God (Trouwe Godts)

  • see Truthfulness

• False Doctrine (Valſche Lere)

  • its marks

• False Religion (Godsdienſt [Valſche])

  • see Theology

• Falsehood Cannot Hide under True Faith (Valscheit... onder het Goddelyke Gelove)

  • [see also Faith]

• The Father Is God (Vader is Godt)

  • the Father is not only God by nature, but so also are the Son and the Holy Spirit

• The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit (Gemeinſchap des H. Geeſts)

  • what it means, and how it is to be desired and prayed for
  • the fellowship of the saints, urged from the doctrine of the Trinity

• Fellowship/Communion with God (Verkering of Ommegang met Godt)

  • what it is

• The Filling of Joys [Ps. 16:11] (Verzading der Vreugden)

  • how it is, with God's presence

• The Fire-Heaven (Vuur-hemel)

  • see the Third Heaven

• Fleshly Curiosity (Nieuwsgierigheit [de Vleeſchelyke])

  • by what it is curbed, and why it must be avoided

• The Flight of God (Vlucht Godts)

  • what it is

• Foreseen Faith (Voorgezien Gelove)

  • see the Love of God

• The Formless Mass [of Creation] (Klomp)

  • [Gen. 1:2 theme]

• The Free Will of the Unregenerate (Vryen Wille der Onherboornen)

  • see the Grace of God

• The Freedom of the Will (Vryheit van den Wille)

  • is not excluded by predestination

• The Fruit of Faith (Vrucht des Geloofs)

  • is becoming a child of God

G

• The Generation of the Son (Generatie des Zoons)

  • see Father and Son

• The Glory of God (Ere of Heerlykheit Godts)

  • what it is
  • what is to be understood by it — see further Majesty and Glory

• God the Father (Godt de Vader)

  • is necessarily related to the Son and the Holy Spirit
  • the practical use of this doctrine concerns the duties we owe the Father: as Lord — honor and submission; the duties owed him as Creator; as Lawgiver, Judge, and Avenger; as Father
  • from God the Father we have matter for comfort
  • the Father's fatherhood invites and moves us to seek adoption as children from and by the Father

• God's Attributes (Godts Eigenſchappen)

  • see Attributes

• God's Purpose (Voornemen Godts)

  • what it is

• God's Will, What It Is (Wille Godts)

  • what it is, and how God works all things according to it

• The Good Pleasure of God's Will (Welbehagen van Godts Wille)

  • what it is, and how it is the rule of election

• The Goodness of God (Goedheit Godts)

  • that God is good, declared and proven from Scripture
  • uses: to acknowledge the evil and wickedness of sin; to imitation; to seek blessedness in God; to glorify God
  • confirmed with four reasons
  • objections against God's goodness answered
  • God's inward, indwelling goodness, and his outward, communicated goodness
  • the various and differing ways in which God communicates his goodness
  • those are foolish who imagine that God could be evil
  • those deny that God is God who do not acknowledge him to be the highest and supreme Good
  • God's goodness does not require that every single man be saved
  • those misuse divine goodness who try to argue from God's being called good that Christ is not necessary
  • the Reformed do not diminish the goodness of God by their doctrine of an absolute and independent reprobation
  • uses: to love him; to seek all manner of good in God; to find a remedy against every evil in his goodness

• The Governance of God (Regeringe Godts)

  • is righteous, against the view of the Papists

• Grace (Genade)

  • that grace exists in God is proven with reasons
  • difficulties against God's blessedness removed
  • common/general grace, what and how it is
  • the heathen have not rightly known or acknowledged the divine blessedness
  • the grace given to the elect in their adoption, what and how it is
  • things opposed to grace: I. nature; II. merits; III. wrath, what it is in God and how
  • saving grace of God does not extend equally to every man
  • objective grace likewise is not universal, against the Universalist Reformed
  • whether one still unregenerate could, by the power of free will, without grace, not resist the Holy Spirit — denied, against the objections of the Lutherans
  • those nullify the grace of election who make election depend on foreseen things
  • those nullify the grace of justification who make justification depend on good works
  • grace is besought from the Lord Jesus Christ

• Grieving the Holy Spirit (Bedroeven)

  • what it means, and why it must be avoided

H

• Hardness Ascribed to God (Hardigheit Godts)

  • what it is

• Hatred (Haat)

  • what it is, and what it means when said of God

• Heaven (Hemel)

  • what it meant at the beginning of creation
  • what this word means in Exod. 20:11
  • that the heavens were created by God is proven
  • Scripture speaks absolutely of three heavens: the air-heaven, a star-heaven (its substance unknown — see Star-heaven), and the fire- or third heaven (see Third Heaven)
  • the practical use of this doctrine: invites contemplation of the natural heavens; explains the blessedness of the elect, for whom the supernatural heaven is prepared, of which they are citizens, with the titles and grounds of that citizenship; gives believers strong comfort; shows by sure marks and tokens for whom heaven is destined

• Hell (Helle)

  • set over against heaven, and described
  • was created by God

• Holiness in Man (Heiligheit)

  • what it means as said of man

• The Holiness of God (Heiligheit Godts)

  • that God is holy is proven from Scripture and with reasons
  • what holiness is as it pertains to creatures
  • God displays this holiness in various ways
  • in what way holiness belongs to God
  • uses: that we strive to obtain the Holy Spirit, with the means and motives; that, being sanctified, we sanctify God, with the acts and motives of sanctifying him; that in sanctifying ourselves we abhor all unholiness and ungodliness; that, having a dread of sin, we apply ourselves to holiness; that we labor to examine and test our sanctification; sanctification serves for comfort; and finally for the glorifying of God

• Holy Scripture (Schrift [Heilige])

  • is the second preliminary foundation of theology
  • is useful
  • is a perfect rule to live for God
  • its abbreviation/summary
  • like-sounding names for Scripture
  • the canonical parts of Scripture
  • the authoritative edition of Scripture
  • vernacular editions
  • the origin of Holy Scripture
  • the manner in which Holy Scripture was composed and written
  • the properties of Scripture: its authority and majesty; its truth; its completeness; its holiness; its clarity and perspicuity; its perfection; its necessity; its efficacy and powerful effects
  • whether there is a certain written Word of God
  • whether the original Hebrew and Greek text has been corrupted — denied, against the Papists, whose objections are resolved
  • whether Scripture may be rendered in the vernacular languages
  • whether, besides Scripture, there are other means of equal authority
  • whether Scripture is its own sure and infallible rule of interpretation — the Papists' denial of this is refuted
  • whether there is, among men, a visible judge of controversies of religion on whose pronouncement the consciences of all must rest — denied, especially against the Papists
  • whether judgment over controversies must be left to each individual person
  • whether Scripture is a perfect rule of faith and morals — defended against the Papists, with their objections resolved
  • whether human traditions are necessary besides Scripture — denied, against the Papists, with their objections resolved
  • whether Scripture is now necessary for the Church
  • whether Scripture arose only by chance occasions, without any divine command — denied, the Papists' objections refuted
  • whether Scripture must be translated — the Protestants say yes, and prove it with five reasons, resolving the Papists' objections
  • whether Scripture is obscure
  • whether Scripture allows more than one sense — denied, against the Papists, and urged against their objections
  • the confirming of the Word of God, fourfold: what it is; that it is necessary; why; in what way
  • the keeping and practice of the Word of God is necessary, and why

• The Holy Spirit (Heilige Geeſt)

  • is, in the heavenly economy, the third Person
  • names of the Holy Spirit
  • is a divine Person, distinct from Father and Son, which is proven
  • the economic (household) office of the Holy Spirit: its acts are to teach, to sanctify, to comfort
  • the household attributes and household season of the Holy Spirit
  • that the Holy Spirit is a Person is proven and defended against objections
  • the Holy Spirit is a divine Person, and may and must be worshipped
  • he proceeds from the Father, and also from the Son

• The Holy Trinity (Drie-eenheit)

  • the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary to be believed
  • that God is Three in One is proven from Scripture and confirmed with reasons, natural reasons being excluded
  • that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinguished as Persons
  • it is a doctrine of Scripture that God is one in essence and three in Persons, proven and defended against objections
  • the fellowship of the three Persons, in what it consists
  • the distinction of the Persons from the essence
  • what kind of distinction there is among the Persons
  • the mystery of the Holy Trinity
  • the chief manners of speech and expressions belonging to this topic explained
  • the economy (household offices) of the three Persons: their distinct roles, service, and honor
  • the atheism of the Antitrinitarians
  • uses of this doctrine: gives us matter for the glorifying of God; commends the excellence of man to what end; draws us to and invites us to seek fellowship with the Holy Trinity, with motives and means; urges the proper worship of the Holy Trinity; counsels against sin; invites to the fellowship of the saints

• Human Reason (Reden)

  • whether human reason is an infallible rule for interpreting Scripture — it does not teach the Holy Trinity

• Human Will (Menſchelyke Wille)

  • see Will and the Volitional Affections of God

I

• Idolatry (Afgodery)

  • both the grosser and the more refined kinds must be abhorred, by virtue of the unity of God

• Ignorance of God (Onkunde en Onwetenheit van Godt)

  • the reasons it must be avoided: for reverence toward God; against hypocrisy and for uprightness; for diligence and zeal to walk with God

• Ignorance, Its Evils (Onwetenheit)

  • the evils and mischiefs of ignorance

• Images (Beelden)

  • God cannot and may not be represented by them

• Imitation of God's Goodness (Navolging van Godts Goedheit)

  • with motives and means, and likewise of his love, grace, etc.

• The Immensity and Omnipresence of God (Onmetelykheit en Overaltegenwoordigheit Godts)

  • proven with testimonies of Holy Scripture and of the ancient church fathers, and confirmed with reasons
  • various kinds of divine presence distinguished, with their nature and manner explained
  • is diminished by the Anthropomorphites, by Vorstius, and by the Socinians
  • that God, even as to his essence, is omnipresent everywhere, is demonstrated and defended
  • in what order the omnipresence of God's essence, power, and working must be understood, noting the views of the Cartesians and of the Reformed
  • whether, supposing the infinity of the world, we can comprehend God's omnipresence without a concept of the spaces above the heavens

• The Immensity of God, Practical Use (Onmetelykheit Godts — Praktyk)

  • serves for the comfort of the godly, and for fear and reverence in every place
  • evils which befall believers in this life do not flow from God's avenging justice

• The Immortality of God (Onſterflykheit Godts)

  • proven from Scripture and with reasons
  • in what way it belongs to God alone
  • uses: to glorify God; for our humbling; for comfort; to strive after a blessed immortality

• Impossibility in God (Onmogelykheit in Godt)

  • what is the root of it

• The Independence of God (Onafhankelykheit Godts)

  • see the Essence of God

• The Infinity and Greatness of God (Oneindigheit en Grootheit Godts)

  • that God is infinite is proven with testimonies and with reasons
  • whether God properly has a name, and what a name in God signifies
  • how many kinds of God's name there are
  • what the name Jehovah implies
  • what, and how many kinds of, God's infinity there are
  • that God is in every way infinite is proven, against four objections
  • Elohim, what it means
  • Theos (Greek for God), whence it comes and what it means
  • the world is not, and cannot be, infinite, against four objections
  • whether God's infinity consists only in his thinking all things by a single act — the view of the Cartesians and of the Reformed, with their reasons
  • infinity is so proper to God that it cannot be communicated to any creature
  • the practice concerning infinity guides and directs us: to modesty; to glorify God; wards off all low regard for him; incites to humility; forms us to magnanimity

• The Insensibility (Impassibility) of God (Onvoelbaarheit Godts)

  • [noted]

• Inspirations and Breathings of the Holy Spirit (Ingevingen en Inblazingen des H. Geeſts)

  • whether believers enjoy these

• The Instrument of Creation (Werktuig der Scheppinge)

  • cannot be a creature, urged against various parties

• The Intangibility of God (Ontastelykheit Godts)

  • [noted]

• The Invisibility of God (Onzienelykheit Godts)

  • [noted]

J

• Jah (name of God)

  • what this name of God means

• Jehovah (name of God)

  • what this name implies
  • whether it is a miraculous name
  • belongs to God alone, with the cases in which this holds noted
  • whether that name may be pronounced
  • the name explained

• The Joy of God (Blydſchap Godts)

  • what it is

• The Judge of Controversies (Rigter der Verſchillen)

  • see Theology

• The Judgments of God (Oordelen Godts)

  • their meritorious cause
  • the punishment of judgments
  • their ends
  • their kinds
  • public judgments, for what causes sent
  • the dispositions and qualities of judgments

K

• The Kabbala

  • whether it has a divine authority and standing

• Kissing the Son [Ps. 2:12] (Kuſſen)

  • what it means to kiss the Son

• Knowledge (Kenniſſe)

  • its degrees

• Knowledge and Wisdom (Kenniſſe en Wysheit)

  • wherein it consists, and how it is to be acquired

• The Knowledge and Wisdom of God (Kenniſſe en Wysheit Godts)

  • see Understanding

• The Knowledge of God (Kenniſſe Godts)

  • is necessary
  • the nature and kind of this knowledge
  • belongs to faith — see Trinity
  • four particular means, and general means, to attain it
  • inquiry into the true knowledge of God

L

• The Laying of the Earth's Foundation (Grondlegging der Aarde)

  • belongs to the third day of creation

• The Life and Immortality of God (Leven en Onſterflykheit Godts)

  • God lives, and is the fountain of all life
  • life is ascribed to the particular divine Persons in particular
  • that life belongs to God is demonstrated
  • what life is, and how many kinds there are
  • what kind of life belongs to God

• The Life of Faith (Leven des Geloofs)

  • what this implies, and its motives

• Light (Licht)

  • the first, original light, what is meant by it
  • it was not accidental, but necessary, and why

• The Lights of Heaven (Lichten des Hemels)

  • which they are, when created, and for what purpose

• The Longsuffering of God (Lankmoedigheit Godts)

  • belongs to him
  • what longsuffering and patience are, and their acts
  • divine longsuffering and forbearance
  • the longsuffering shown even toward reprobation, with its causes and reasons
  • how the life of God agrees with and differs from the life of creatures, and from God's own thought
  • that which has no rational life is not God, and must not be held to be God
  • those who religiously honor lifeless creatures worship lifeless gods, against the Papists
  • whether the life of God differs from his understanding and will
  • whether the life of God agrees with that of creatures in anything more than name alone

• Love and Faith (Liefde en Gelove)

  • are two parts of theology

• The Love of God (Liefde Godts)

  • that there is love in God, and what it is, is shown
  • the dispositions and qualities of divine love
  • it is not enough alone to reconcile the sinner without the satisfaction of Christ, as is demonstrated and defended
  • the love by which God has chosen us — means to obtain it, its marks, its use, and our duty to follow/imitate it
  • has three commingled objects
  • is threefold toward creatures

• The Love of God the Father (Liefde Godts des Vaders)

  • [noted]

• Love of God's Word (Liefde tot Godts Woordt)

  • consists in several things, with seven motives to love Scripture
  • the manner in which one ought to love Scripture
  • means to nurture this love
  • Scripture is not without a proper subject, against the Papists
  • the opposite of this love

• Love toward God (Liefde tot Godt)

  • the acts and motives thereof: as a ground to glorify him; flowing from the contemplation of God's perfection and all-sufficiency; matter for chastisement; matter for comfort; to live for God

• Love toward the World (Liefde tot de Wereldt)

  • wherein it consists

• The Loving-kindness of God (Goedertierenheit Godts)

  • proven and explained

• Lying to the Holy Spirit (Liegen)

  • what it means, and why it must be avoided

M

• The Majesty and Glory of God (Majeſteit en Heerlykheit Godts)

  • proven from Scripture and with reasons
  • the Roman Catholics, contrary to God's own declaration, give God's glory to another, and his praise to carved images
  • the Lutherans gnaw at and obscure God's glory with their suppositions
  • four commingled aspects of divine glory: the infinite exaltedness of God's essence and attributes; the radiance and reflection of that exaltedness; the knowledge of it and esteem for it; the glorying in and revelation of it
  • the Socinians weaken and darken the glory of God with their suppositions
  • the old and new Pelagians obscure God's glory through their doctrines
  • uses: to glorify God; to draw back from every kind of desecration of the divine glory; to incite to flee sin; to stir us to glorify God in ourselves and by our strength; to awaken the desire for eternal glory, what it is, and the means to it; to give comfort amid all lowliness and dishonor

• The Making of Heaven and Earth (Maken van Hemel en Aarde)

  • how it is to be understood

• Marks of Practical Theology (Kenmerken der Praktikale Godgeleerdheit)

  • [noted]

• Means to Obtaining Theology (Middelen ter Verkryging van de Godgeleerdheit)

  • in general, and of practical theology in particular

• The Mediator between God and the Sinner (Middelaar tuſſchen Godt en den zondaar)

  • is the Son of God

• Meditation on God's Word (Betrachting van Godts Woordt)

  • see Scripture

• Meditation on Scripture (Overdenking der Schrift)

  • fourfold

• Mercy (Barmhartigheit)

  • that mercy belongs to God, proven from Scripture and by reason
  • what God's mercy is, and its operations
  • the rule of its dispensing is God's counsel
  • objections answered
  • its opposite is God's severity in executing judgments — see Judgments
  • remedies against [abuse of this doctrine]
  • exercised either by carrying out or by withholding

• Middle Knowledge (Middelkenniſſe)

  • see the Understanding of God
  • there is no middle knowledge (scientia media) in God, shown and defended against objections

• The Might and Power of God (Magt [en Kracht] Godts)

  • whether God, for equally balanced decrees, can will unequal things — affirmed, and defended against the objections of the parties
  • that the sins of parents are punished in the children, urged against the objections of the parties
  • God's might, to do what he wills
  • how God intends to make his power known through reprobation
  • God's infinite might and power
  • no passive capacity can fall within God
  • God's power and might is infinite in itself, and not only in relation to us, urged against the Socinians
  • whether God wills many things to happen which he does not bring about by his omnipotence — denied, proven from Scripture and reason, and defended against objections
  • that God, by his absolute power, cannot do self-contradictory things, proven and defended against objections
  • what God's might is, with the ground and the titles on which and over which it extends
  • its exercise and acts
  • its qualities and properties — it extends to everything
  • whether God, by his power, can bring forth a body infinite in its bulk — denied, objections refuted
  • the root of this impossibility
  • whether God could deceive if he willed — denied
  • God's absolute and his ordained power
  • the qualities and properties of God's might and power
  • whether the foundation of all divine power and authority over men is creation, covenant, benefit, and sin, noting the view of the Remonstrants
  • God's power, might, and capacity cannot be communicated to a creature, against the Ubiquitists
  • whether those who deny that God can make a body infinite and omnipresent thereby deny or diminish God's omnipotence — denied, with reasons
  • uses of this doctrine: to acknowledge God's power in particular over us; forms us to patience; directs us to self-denial; stirs us to surrender ourselves and all we have to God; to submit ourselves readily to God; to revere God; to rest in him through trust; to honor him for his power and strength

• The Mind of the Lord [Rom. 11:34] (Zin des Heren)

  • what it is, and how no one has known it

• Mistrust (Wantrouwen)

  • noted

• The Misuse of the World (Misbruik der Wereldt)

  • noted and condemned

• Modesty Concerning the Knowledge of God (Zedigheit omtrent de Kenniſſe Godts)

  • urged with compelling reasons and helps

• The Most Holy (Allerheiligste)

  • his holiness; such titles belong to no mortal

• Muhammad

  • is not a true prophet

N

• The Names of God (Namen Godts)

  • reveal to us his nature
  • they are various — which they are
  • the practice regarding them: concerns the knowledge of God; the glorifying of God; the desecrating of them; the sanctifying of them

• The Necessity and Usefulness of Christian Theology (Noodzakelykheit en Nuttigheit der Chriſtelyke Godgeleerdheit)

  • [treated] — see also Scripture for the necessity and usefulness of Scripture

• The New Testament (Testament [Nieuwe])

  • is of divine authority
  • its deity, personality, and its distinction from the other Persons
  • its economic office and duty, and its economic attributes
  • the Father's governance

• No One Has Been Counselor to God (Raadsman)

  • no one has been counselor to God [Rom. 11:34 theme]

• No Shadow of Turning Is in God (Schaduwe van Omkeringe)

  • [James 1:17 theme]

O

• The Old Testament (Testament [Oude])

  • whether it is now abolished — objections answered

• Omnipotence of God (Almachtigheit Godts)

  • see Power

• Omniscience of God (Alwetenheit Godts)

  • see Understanding

• The Oral (Unwritten) Law (Wet [Mondelyke])

  • there is nothing beyond what is written

• The Order God Kept in Creation (Order... in de Scheppinge)

  • what stands out in it

• Our Blessedness (Gelukzaligheit [Onze])

  • must be sought in God

• Our Spirit Dedicated to God (Geeſt — het toewyen van onzen geeſt)

  • we must dedicate our spirit to God, why and how
  • we must purify and cleanse our spirit: from what defilements, for what reasons, by what means

• An Outline of the Whole of Theology (Schets van de Ganſche Godgeleerdheit)

  • [noted]

P

• Papal Canonization (Kanonizatie [de Pauſſelyke])

  • by which mortals are made into, and held as, saints — this dishonors God and his holiness

• Passive Capacity/Suffering (Lydendt Vermogen)

  • cannot fall within God
  • [see also Passive Capacity]

• The Patience of God (Lydzaamheit Godts)

  • see Longsuffering

• The Patripassians

  • refuted

• Perfection and All-Sufficiency (Volmaaktheit en Algenoegzaamheit)

  • see All-Sufficiency

• The Perfection of Believers (Volmaaktheit der Gelovigen)

  • what it is

• The Perfection of Man as the End of Scripture (Volmaaktheit des Menſchen)

  • how to be understood

• The Perfections of God (Volmaaktheden Godts)

  • see Attributes

• Personality in God (Perſonaliteit in Godt)

  • what it is

• Persuasion and Application of Faith (Overreding en Toepaſſing des Geloofs)

  • [noted]

• Pitfalls to Avoid in the Doctrine of Predestination (Klippen)

  • rough and improper ones to be avoided in the matter of election

• The Polytheism of the Ancient Heretics (Veelgodiſterye van de Oude Ketteren)

  • the Tritheites and others
  • the manner and reason of polytheism among the Papists, and likewise among the Socinians

• The Polytheism of Unbelievers and Heathens (Veelgodendom der Ongelovigen of Heidenen)

  • which and how great it was

• The Praise of God (Lof Godts)

  • what it is

• Prayer (Bidden)

  • how one ought to think of God in it

• Predestination (Voorverordineringe)

  • [proven and defended against objections]
  • whether the possibility of things is known to God only through the decree
  • the longsuffering shown even in reprobation
  • that there is a predestination is proven from Scripture and with reasons, and difficulties in this matter removed
  • whether particular predestination is not unbecoming to God, shown
  • what the word predestination means
  • its moving cause
  • what predestination consists in as to substance: a foreordaining of the end; an eternal comprehension of the means; an intending and ordaining of the means
  • it is an act of God's understanding and of his will
  • it concerns the eternal state of rational creatures, angels and men
  • besides God's good pleasure there is no other moving cause
  • what must be thought of the Arminian order of predestination
  • the ambiguity of the terms "grace of God" and "election"
  • various opinions concerning its object
  • various properties of predestination in the narrower sense: eternity, independence, unchangeableness, certainty, absoluteness, freedom, wisdom
  • the order within predestination
  • in the matter of predestination one must: acknowledge both God's power and authority, and his independence, together with his wisdom; avoid the pitfalls in this matter; after the example of God, continually care for our eternal state
  • its act, with respect to its object: having foreordained us beforehand
  • its means: adoption as children through Christ, to himself
  • it rests upon the truth and truthfulness of God: the infallibility of God's Word; the assurance of faith; the whole service of God; a firm and sure comfort; a fleeing and abhorring of sin and of all false speech and deceit; the practice and exercise of truth and truthfulness

• The Price of the Glory of God's Grace (Prys der Heerlykheit van Godts Genade)

  • what this phrase means

• The Principle of Theology (Beginsel der Godgeleerdheit)

  • is Holy Scripture

• The Procession (Breathing) of the Holy Spirit (Blazing des H. Geeſts)

  • what it is

Q

• The Quran (Alkoran)

  • whether it must be set alongside Holy Scripture — it is not divine Scripture

R

• The Rainbow (Regenboog)

  • what, when, and for what purpose it was brought forth

• Receiving Christ (Aannemen van Christus)

  • is an act of faith
  • its qualities and conditions

• Recklessness (Roekeloosheit)

  • noted

• Recording unto Judgment (Opſchryven ten Oordeel)

  • what it is, and how it happens beforehand

• The Redeemer (Verloſſer of Rantzoeneerder)

  • is the Son of God

• Repentance ascribed to God (Berouw)

  • how this is ascribed to God

• Reprobation (Verwerping)

  • the objects of reprobation are called vessels of wrath
  • the act of reprobation prepares and fits the reprobate for destruction
  • that there is a certain eternal reprobation is proven from Scripture and with reasons
  • what reprobation is
  • four acts of reprobation
  • the object of reprobation, which and what kind it is
  • the chief cause of reprobation is God; the moving cause is his good pleasure
  • reprobation is absolute and independent, likewise unchangeable and certain
  • it is an eternal, personal reprobation, proven and defended against the objections of various parties
  • its uses: in the glorifying of God; in the humbling of us men; in the exercise of modesty; in the abhorring of sin
  • it deprives the sinner, in his sinning, not of his freedom, and does not oblige him to sin by any necessity
  • it does not make God a cause of sin, guarding us against every accusation against God
  • it does not make God unjust
  • it magnifies and increases the glory of divine mercy
  • it does not make God a hypocrite or dissembler
  • it does not make God a respecter of persons
  • it gives the ungodly no rightful ground to complain that God did not choose them as he chose others, since reprobation holds them bound as by an iron force so that they cannot fulfill their duty
  • it admonishes us concerning our own or others' reprobation
  • it moves us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling
  • sins peculiar to the reprobate: hypocrisy; abuse of divine grace; apostasy; taking offense at Christ
  • it does not shut off the way to all comfort and godliness
  • is an act not only of the understanding, but also of the will of God
  • its moving cause is not sin, proven and defended against objections
  • man is not predestined to sin or to destruction
  • whether man, not only fallen but also unbelieving, is the object of reprobation, answered distinctly
  • Cain, Saul, Judas, and others have shown themselves notoriously reprobate
  • it is absolute and independent
  • it is fixed and unchangeable
  • the consideration of reprobation reveals the glory of God's power, righteousness, and wisdom, and admonishes us to conform ourselves obediently to the Word of Truth; to guard against those sins by which the degree is laid toward the sin peculiar to the reprobate, namely blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; to make an effort toward those virtues from which the reprobate are most estranged and averse

• Resisting the Holy Spirit (Wederſtaan [den H. Geeſt])

  • what it means to resist him

• Rest, Ascribed to God (Ruſte)

  • what this means as said of God

• Reward (Loon)

  • see the Righteousness of God

• The Righteousness of God (Rechtvaardigheit Godts)

  • that God is righteous in himself, and in all his acts and works, proven from Scripture and with reasons
  • what righteousness is, in general and in particular
  • each kind of it is right
  • what, and how many kinds of, God's righteousness there are
  • God's rewarding righteousness
  • avenging/punitive righteousness is essential to God, and its exercise absolutely necessary
  • the affections and dispositions of divine righteousness
  • whether, and in what way, righteousness can have place in God
  • whether God's governance must in every way be called righteous, with reasons for doubt answered
  • whether all righteousness depends only on God's will, answered distinctly
  • whether righteousness can obligate man to impossible things
  • whether God, by his righteousness, is equally bound to reward obedience as to punish disobedience

• The Rule of Faith and Morals (Rigtſnoer van Gelove en Zeden)

  • see Scripture

• The Rule to Live for God (Regel of Richtſnoer om Godt te Leven)

  • [noted]

S

• Scriptural Dialogues (Schriftuurlyke t'Zamenſpraken)

  • are to be held/practiced

• The Sea (Zee)

  • what this word means
  • it must be regarded with wonder

• The Second Day of Creation (Tweede Dach der Scheppinge)

  • why and in what manner it lacks a solemn blessing

• Seeking God (Zoeken [Godt te])

  • what it implies to seek God

• The Severity of God in Judgments (Geſtrengheit Godts)

  • see Judgments

• Shaddai (name of God)

  • the origin and meaning of that name

• Simplicity of God (Eenvoudigheit Godts)

  • proven from Scripture and confirmed with reasons
  • that God is a most simple being is demonstrated, and objections resolved
  • that this absolute simplicity of God is taught in Scripture

• The Simplicity of God's Will (Eenvoudigheit van den Wille Godts)

  • [noted]

• Sin (Zonde)

  • its evil and wickedness, and how it is to be acknowledged
  • whether the Reformed diminish God's holiness by holding that he is an occasion of sin — denied
  • sin is not the moving cause of reprobation, proven and defended against objections
  • it has brought great deformity and ugliness upon the world
  • God can punish sins in the children, urged against the objections of various parties
  • certain sins are customarily peculiar to the reprobate — which ones

• The Six Days of Creation (ZesDagen)

  • whether God devoted the whole work of creation entirely to them
  • why so many days

• The Son of God (Zone Godts)

  • in the economy of the Trinity is the second Person
  • what the Son is with respect to the name, and with respect to the thing itself
  • his personality, being an uncreated Person
  • the distinction of the Son from the Father and from the Holy Spirit
  • the eternal generation of the Son
  • the deity of the Son, proven
  • the household office and duty of the Son himself is demonstrated and defended
  • his household attributes
  • the Person and household office of the Son
  • the period of his household ministry and governance
  • Christ is the Son of God solely by virtue of the eternal generation, not for any other cause, urged against objections
  • uses of this doctrine: gives us matter to glorify God; kindles the desire to know the Son; commends to us the sufficiency of our Mediator; invites us to kiss the Son, and what that means
  • whether the Son's generation is consistent with the unity of essence, with his eternal co-existence with the Father, and with his household revelation in the flesh — denied, urged against objections
  • counsels us to faith in the Son
  • urges us to esteem the Son of God most highly, and to place our hope of salvation in him
  • Christ is God from eternity, and of one essence with his Father, maintained and defended against objections
  • stirs us to raise our hope
  • deters from household sins against the Son
  • that the Son is God of himself is demonstrated and defended

• The Son's Inheritance (Erffeniſſe des Zoons)

  • springing from his Sonship

• The Space Above the Heavens (Bovenhemelſche Ruimte)

  • see the Immensity of God
  • see Immensity

• Spirit — God as Spirit (Geeft)

  • why God is so called
  • that God is a Spirit is proven
  • in what sense God is a Spirit
  • see further Holy Spirit for the third Person

• Spiritual Prayers (Gebeden)

  • what spiritual prayers are

• The Spoken Law (Mondelyke Wet)

  • see Law

• The Stars (Starren)

  • their placement and positioning
  • the stars do not foretell future worldly events
  • their qualities: size, shape, movement

• The Strength and Power of God (Kracht en Macht Godts)

  • see Might

• The Strength of God (Sterkte Godts)

  • see Might

• Succession of Time (Tydvervolg)

  • has no place in eternity

• The Sufficiency of God (Genoegzaamheit Godts)

  • see All-Sufficiency

• The Sun (Zonne)

  • whether it stands immovably fixed in the heavens

• Surety (Borge)

  • the Son is a Surety, indeed a Surety of himself

T

• The Talmud

  • whether it has a divine and reverend authority, and whether it is more or less necessary to be read than the Old and New Testaments

• Teachers, Their Duty (Leraren)

  • their duty in handling theological matters

• The Teaching of the Holy Spirit (Lering des H. Geeſts)

  • [noted]

• That There Is a God (Godt — dat 'er een Godt zy)

  • proven: I. with eight reasons, taken from: 1. the subordination of things; 2. the creation of the world; 3. the preservation of the world; 4. the governance of the world; 5. the contemplation of the heavens; 6. man; 7. commonwealths and laws; 8. miracles and predictions. II. with a threefold kind of testimony: of conscience, of the world, and of God himself — objections to the contrary resolved

• That Which God Does Not Will (Nietwillentheit)

  • what it is in God

• Theology (Godgeleerdheit)

  • whether our religion is spiritual, examined
  • scholastic theology: what it is, and why it must be practiced
  • true religion is not overthrown by the predestination of particular persons
  • true theology must be distinguished from false, and all false theology avoided and shunned, with the persons bound to this duty identified
  • who is, and who is not, a true theologian, and the reasons, manner, and means
  • theology's nature shown; it must be learned in a certain order; zeal and practice for it urged, with the degrees of knowledge to be used
  • its object
  • whether it is contemplative, practical, or both; its parts are Faith and Love
  • its description and name; like-sounding and corresponding names
  • it is called a doctrine of living for God through Christ
  • its object does not exclude natural theology
  • that a natural theology exists is proven, though it alone is not sufficient unto salvation
  • its parts (A), a fourfold use and benefit (B), and a threefold misuse (C)
  • as a contemplative-practical habit/disposition
  • that heathen theology is not the true theology, demonstrated
  • whether the divisions of theology made by the Socinians and Arminians are sound
  • ministers of the Word, magistrates, and every Christian are urged to examine and practice Christian theology

• The Third Heaven (Derde Hemel)

  • various names for it

• To Live for God (Leven [Gode te])

  • is the object of saving faith
  • of election, of faith, of God's love, grace, and mercy
  • of nature and of grace, in various ways
  • what this life is, in general and in particular
  • nine motives to it
  • the manner of living for God, with six means to it

• To Walk before God's Face (Wandelen voor Godts Aangezichte)

  • what it is, and its motives

• To Walk with God (Wandel[en] met Godt)

  • what it is, and motives to it

• Today [Ps. 2:7] (Heden)

  • what this word means

• Traditions (Overleveringen)

  • see Scripture

• Translation of Scripture (Overzettinge der Schriftuur)

  • see Scripture

• The Truth of Scripture (Waarheit der H. Schrift)

  • proven with six evidences

• The Truthfulness and Faithfulness of God (Waarachtigheit en Getrouwigheit Godts)

  • God's general truthfulness and faithfulness is proven from Scripture and with reasons
  • what, and how many kinds of, truth there are in general, and how many kinds of God's truth there are
  • things contradictory to divine truth
  • the Reformed do not diminish the all-embracing truthfulness of God with their suppositions, as their adversaries slander, which slander is refuted

• Tzebaoth / Sabaoth (name of God)

  • what this name of God means

U

• Unbelief (Ongelovigheit)

  • its nature, in general and in particular: ignorance; unbelief; a not-receiving; mistrust; obstinacy and disobedience; fleshly-mindedness
  • the degrees of unbelief
  • nine causes of it
  • its evils and mischiefs
  • remedies against it

• The Unchangeableness of God (Onveranderlykheit Godts)

  • proven from Scripture, and confirmed with reasons
  • explained by pointing out its distinct kinds
  • whether God is in every way unchangeable, shown and defended
  • whether it may rightly be concluded, from the God-man and the suffering of Christ's human nature, that God himself changes
  • whether God's immutability implies that Christ's human nature has no true body — denied
  • practice concerning God's unchangeableness: for his glorifying; for a low regard of creatures; for the abhorrence of sin; for trust and comfort in every circumstance; for fleeing instability and fickleness; for the practice of steadfastness

• Unchastity (Ontuchtigheit)

  • what is meant by it

• The Understanding, Knowledge, and Wisdom of God (Verſtandt, Kenniſſe, en Wysheit Godts)

  • that understanding belongs to God is proven with Scripture and with reasons
  • what understanding is in creatures, and what it is in God
  • the divine understanding is known through five qualities
  • trust and confidence in God arise from his perfection and all-sufficiency
  • God's knowledge, considered as a single act, is called his omniscience
  • the various divisions and naming of divine knowledge: natural knowledge and free (voluntary) knowledge
  • the perfection of the divine omniscience
  • the knowledge of God is wisdom
  • what the wisdom of God is, and wherein it is manifest and active
  • the knowledge of God extends to all things, and to each thing in particular

• Ungodliness (Ongodiſtery)

  • see Atheism

• The Ungodly (Godloze)

  • what the word means

• Unholiness and Godlessness (Onheiligheit en Godloosheit)

  • we must hold these in abhorrence

• Unicorn (Eenhoorn)

  • noted [Scripture reference]

• Unity of God (Eenheit Godts)

  • proven by divine and human testimonies
  • the nature of the divine unity explained
  • the unity of God serves: 1. for the quieting and settling of the mind; 2. for the abhorring of idolatry, both the grosser and the more refined; 3. to bind our whole heart to the one God; 4. for the practice of ecclesiastical unity and concord, with motives and helps

• The Uprightness of Believers (Oprechtigheit der Gelovigen)

  • what it is

• The Use of the World and Worldly Things (Gebruik der Wereldt)

  • what it ought to be

V

• Vengeance (Wrake)

  • that the desire for vengeance belongs to God is proven from Scripture and with reasons
  • the acts of vengeance

• Vessels of Wrath and Vessels of Mercy (Vaten des Toorns; Vaten der Barmhartigheit)

  • what they are

• Virtue (Deugt)

  • what it is in God

• Virtues from which the Reprobate are most averse (Deugden)

  • listed and defended against objections

W

• Waters above the Firmament (Wateren [boven het Uitſpanſel])

  • must not be placed there

• The Ways of God (Wegen Godts)

  • what they are, and how unsearchable

• The Will and Volitional Affections of God (Wille en Wilsaandoeninge Godts)

  • a will is ascribed to God, according to the testimony of both Scripture and nature
  • what the human will is, and its acts
  • the object of the will is the good
  • in what respect will does not properly befit God
  • God does not will, by a decretive will, that all men and each individually be saved
  • what will is in God
  • God's will alone is not the cause of all moral good
  • the independence of God's will, and four consequences of it
  • proper passions and volitional affections do not fall within God
  • the will of God is the foundation of all Christian practices; it shows the perfection of divine sovereignty; it restrains, in the matter of particular predestination and particular redemption
  • the will of sign and the will of good pleasure; hidden and revealed will; unconditioned and conditional will, a double distinction
  • in God there is no will that depends on a condition to be established by creatures, with objections resolved

• The Wings of the Dawn [Ps. 139:9] (Vleugelen des Dageraadts)

  • what is meant by it

• The Wisdom of God (Wysheit Godts)

  • see Understanding

• The Word of God Is Infallible (Woordt Godts is Onfeilbaar)

  • see further Scripture

• The Works of God (Werken)

  • how God works all things according to the counsel of his will
  • the manner of working proper and particular to the divine Persons
  • the manner in which divine working extends to all things
  • the division of divine works
  • four points of difference concerning the works of God
  • God's powerful working: reveals his glory; rebukes atheism and godlessness; gives comfort in adversity; raises up and strengthens trust; binds us to God and to godliness

• The World (Wereldt)

  • whatever existed before it has existed from eternity
  • was created by God, as proven from Scripture and with reasons
  • could not have been created from eternity, proven and defended against objections
  • the naming of "world" among the Hebrews and Greeks, and the various meanings of the word
  • the parts or matter of the world
  • the connection of the parts, or the form of the world
  • there is only one world, and it is finite
  • the world is changeable
  • it was created good and perfect
  • in what way it was created in six days
  • the whole world was created for man
  • whether God completed the whole work of creation within a full 24 hours each day — denied, and defended against objections
  • whether God created by first bringing forth a thin substance and giving and sustaining motion in it during the last five days — the Cartesians hold this, the Orthodox deny it for four reasons
  • the world cannot be unboundedly infinite in its bulk, proven against objections
  • there could have been more worlds created
  • the world and everything in it was created for man, maintained against two objections
  • what one should hold concerning the constitution of the world
  • the consideration of the world counsels us: the acknowledgment and glorifying of the Creator; gratitude to the Creator, who made the world to serve mankind

• Worship (Aanbidden)

  • what the word means
  • the manner in which it consists

End of the index to Volume I.

Contemplative and Practical Theology

In which, throughout all the theological chapters, the exegetical, doctrinal, polemical, and practical parts are set forth, joined together distinctly, in one unbroken chain.

To which is added a complete brief compendium of Church History, a treatise on Moral Theology, and a sketch of Casuistic Theology, etc.

Written in Latin by Petrus van Mastricht, Doctor and Professor of Sacred Theology at the University of Utrecht.

Translated from the latest edition into Dutch, together with the Funeral Oration of the celebrated professor Henricus Pontanus on the death of the esteemed author. With a preface by the Reverend Cornelius vander Kemp, Doctor of Sacred Theology, Professor of Practical Theology at the Illustrious School, and Minister of the Holy Gospel in the congregation at Rotterdam.

Volume Two.

Rotterdam: Hendrik van Pelt, the Widow of P. van Gilst, Jacobus Bosch, and Adrianus Douci. And at Utrecht: Jan Jacob van Poolsum. 1749.

Index of Chapters Contained in This Second Volume

Continuation of Book Three, Of the Works of God.

VII. Of the Good Angels. Text, Heb. 1:7. — p. 1

VIII. Of the Evil Angels. Jude v. 6. — p. 34

IX. Of Man and of the Image of God. Gen. 1:26–29. — p. 64

Consideration I. Of the Creation of Man. — p. 70

Consideration II. Of the Image of God. — p. 96

X. Of God's General Providence. Rom. 11:36. — p. 123

XI. Of God's Particular Providence. Deut. 30:16–18. — p. 161

XII. Of the Covenant of Nature. Gen. 2:16–17. — p. 181

Book Four, Of Man's Fall from God.

I. Of the Breach of the Covenant of Nature. Text, Gen. 3:1–7. — p. 216

II. Of Original Sin. Rom. 5:12. — p. 250

III. Of Actual Sin. James 1:13–15. — p. 290

IV. Of the Punishment and the State of Sin. Rom. 7:24–25. — p. 322

Book Five, Of Christ's Redemption.

I. Of the Covenant of Grace. Text, Gen. 3:15.

II. Of the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace. Heb. 9:15.

III. Of the Names of the Mediator. Acts 15:26.

IV. Of the Person of the Mediator. John 1:14.

V. Of the Threefold Office of the Mediator. Heb. 3:1.

VI. Of the Mediator as Prophet. Deut. 18:15.

VII. Of the Mediator as High Priest. Ps. 110:4.

VIII. Of the Mediator as King. Ps. 2:6.

IX. Of the Humiliation of the Mediator. Phil. 2:6–8.

X. Of the Incarnation of the Mediator. Luke 1:35.

XI. Of the Life of the Mediator. 2 Cor. 4:10.

XII. Of the Death of the Mediator. Matt. 27:26–50.

XIII. Of the Descent of the Mediator. Ps. 16:9–10.

Book III: Of Contemplative-Practical Theology, Concerning the Works of God

Chapter VII: Of the Good Angels

On Hebrews 1:7.

"Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire."

The Explanatory Part

I.

We have considered the irrational creatures, in and through which the Creator intended to reveal the general glory and majesty of His wisdom, power, and goodness. There now follow the rational creatures, in and through which the Creator intended to reveal the glory and majesty of His predestination — that is, of His mercy and His avenging justice — namely, the angels and mankind, for whose sake the remaining creatures were made. We shall first consider the angels: both as they are good in themselves, by creation, and as they have become evil through their own fault. The Apostle gives us the principal matter for the first topic of consideration in Hebrews 1:7.

II.

In and with these words the Apostle, being about to prove and demonstrate the eternal Godhead of Christ, makes a comparison between the Angels and Christ, the first part of which serves to establish that Christ is greater than the Angels. In the description of the creation of the Angels, in order that in the second part he may give an account of the Angels themselves, there occur to us the following:

1. The Creator, expressed by the Greek relative pronoun "who" — referring to Psalm 104, from which this text is quoted, where in verse 1 He is called יהוה, Jehovah, and also יהוה אלהים, Jehovah God. It is accordingly God who is here indicated, theologically speaking, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, whose work alone it is to create all things; though in that psalm the Holy Spirit in particular is meant, here, however, by way of the economy of the persons, it is the Father who is meant, from whom the Apostle, throughout this whole chapter, clearly distinguishes the Son, vv. 1, 2, 3, etc.

2. The making, עשה, "making," or "who makes." As for the word עשה, "to make": that it means the same as ברא, "to create," is abundantly clear from Genesis 1, where "create" and "make" are generally used interchangeably; and the word עשה, "to make," has this further particular feature, that it means not only to bring something forth so that it exists, but also to work it out so that it is of a certain kind — hence not only to make, but also to fashion. We have already noted this above, concerning the preceding chapter, in the Explanatory Part. The Greek word ποιεῖν, "to make," carries the same force. Both words therefore mean not only to create something so that it exists, but also so that it exists for a certain, definite use — and consequently, that the Angels not only exist, but exist as spirits, and moreover that they are λειτουργικοί, ministering spirits, as will appear in what follows.

3. The creature, τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα, "His angels spirits." Here several matters are disputed: (1) whether the Greek word ἄγγελος, and the Hebrew מלאך, taken as a common noun, mean "a messenger," or, taken as a proper noun, mean "an angel"; (2) whether the Greek word πνεῦμα does not here mean "wind," as it seems to in Psalm 104, where the Prophet in verse 3 appears to be speaking of winds; (3) whether the word "His angels" forms the subject of the sentence, or rather its predicate; (4) whether the two half-verses of the text speak of two different things — for example, of winds and lightnings, or of angels and ministers — or rather of one and the same thing, such that the second half-verse is an explanation of the first. From these differing questions arise various construals of the words, and likewise various interpretations.

(a) Some think that the first half-verse describes the nature of winds, and the second half-verse the nature of lightnings, so that the sense would be: He who makes the winds His messengers, by which He announces His wrath to men through the stirring up of storms, and the lightnings His ministers, which He uses to punish the wicked. But taken this way, the Apostle's proof of the eternal Godhead of Christ, drawn from His excellence above the Angels, is thereby rendered largely powerless. (b) Others hold that the winds and lightnings are called angels because God uses them as if they were His excellent angels — so Maimonides and others on Psalm 104:4. (c) Others judge better and more rightly, that in both half-verses the nature of the Angels and Ministers of God is described, and that these are called spirits and flames of fire. This is taught us: (a) by the definite articles attached to the names, which indicate the subject of the sentence, cf. John 1:1, and further show that the words "angels" and "ministers" are taken not as common but as proper names. (b) By the usage of the words מלאכים and ἀγγέλων, by which are ordinarily meant those created spirits who are complete in their nature. For this reason too (c) the ancient Jews and the Septuagint translators understood these words of the Angels, as does the Targum likewise, rendering it thus: "who makes His angels swift as spirits." (d) This is also required by the aim of the Psalm, which comes to this: to exalt and celebrate God's glory and majesty from the works of creation and providence — a glory and majesty which here too shines forth with special excellence, in that He has made His angels spirits, and His ministers mighty and powerful like a flame of fire. Finally, (e) the context and aim of our Apostle teaches this most clearly and plainly of all. For indeed, what sense would his statements otherwise have? Verse 4: having become so much more excellent than the winds; verse 5: to which of the winds has He ever said..., etc.; verse 6: that all the winds should worship Him; verse 7: of the winds indeed He says, who makes His messengers winds. For all these reasons we rightly interpret the prophetic and apostolic words of properly so-called Angels. In these words, then, we find set before us:

1. The name of these creatures: ἀγγέλους in Greek, מלאכים in Hebrew. These words, by virtue of their original derivation, denote a duty or office of a messenger, envoy, or one sent — of whatever kind that may be, whether divine, human, or angelic — and in that sense these are common nouns; but by virtue of their customary use they denote, in a proper sense, such creatures as are purely spiritual. So Psalm 104:4 (though some later Jews take it otherwise), and in our text, where there is added the relative and backward-referring pronoun "His" — namely, the good Angels, doubtless for the sake of distinguishing them from the evil Angels.

2. Their nature: πνεύματα in Greek, and in Hebrew רוחות, "spirits." These words mean many things, as we have already noted at length in Chapter XXVII of the Explanatory Part, and likewise in the Doctrinal Part. Of these various meanings the Jews prefer, for their part, the meaning "wind," which we have just now refuted. They are derived from words meaning "to blow"; and therefore, if one looks to the words themselves, they apply in their primary sense to creatures; but if one looks to the thing signified, they apply in their primary sense to the Creator, and in particular to the Holy Spirit. Chiefly, however, the words denote a complete, immaterial substance — which God is, principally, though creatures are so called only by way of analogy and proportion. In this place they denote the essence of the good spirits.

3. Their office, which lies contained in the words λειτουργοί and משרתים, both meaning "serving, ministering." These words do not mean servants or slaves, but public or official attendants. They are used in Holy Scripture: (a) of civil magistrates, Rom. 13:6; (b) of the ministers of the divine Word, Rom. 15:16; (c) also of the Levitical priests, Luke 1:25; (d) further, of Christ Himself, Heb. 8:2; and finally (e) of the Angels, as here, Heb. 1:7 and 14 — just as the Hebrew משרתים in Psalm 104:4 always denotes an office or function, joined with honor. It is thereby indicated that the Angels, although in themselves they are honored and distinguished attendants, are nevertheless servants of God and of Christ, and therefore lesser and lower than God and Christ; and consequently, since among creatures they are the most excellent and worthy of all, whoever surpasses and exceeds them must be God — from which it finally follows and arises that Christ is God.

4. Their power and its mighty working, expressed in these words: πυρὸς φλόγα, "a flame of fire." In Psalm 104:4 stands אֵשׁ לֹהֵט, "a flaming fire," that is, mighty and powerful by nature — גִּבֹּרֵי כֹחַ, "mighty heroes," Ps. 103:20 — for a flame of fire is a mighty and powerful element; and moreover they are swift and quick, for which reason they are called winged, and indeed winged all around, on every side, Exod. 37:9, Ezek. 1:6, 8, 9, 11, where the כרובים, Cherubim, are spoken of, by which word the Angels are commonly meant. Hence they are also called שרפים, Seraphim, that is, "burning ones," Isa. 6:6, from שרף, meaning "he has burned with fire" — so as to indicate thereby both their power and their readiness in carrying out the divine commands, Ps. 103:20.

The Doctrinal Part

III.

It appears, accordingly, that God, besides the material substances of which we have spoken so far, has also created immaterial ones, which should be chiefly for His service. For this seemed to be required: (I) by the perfection of this universe — since in it are found merely material creatures, as well as such as are partly material and partly immaterial (as will appear in its place regarding man), it seemed fitting and proportionate that there should also be found creatures that are wholly and purely immaterial; chiefly (II) because this serves to increase and enlarge God's glory and majesty; and since (III) God's nature also seemed to require spiritual servants, who could not be hindered in their duty by material obstacles placed before them. Hence, although reason cannot demonstrate with certainty that such creatures exist, one can nevertheless infer and conclude this from it as more than probable — especially when (IV) there occur such operations as are produced neither by God nor by material causes; as also (V) from the oracles which have been given on many occasions; and (VI) from the frequent apparitions of spirits; and thus also (VII) from the testimonies of the heathen.

IV.

But from Holy Scripture this matter is beyond doubt in more than one way: not only (I) from the testimonies occurring everywhere — Ps. 103:20 and 148:1, 5; 1 Pet. 3:22, and a thousand others; not only (II) from their excellent and outstanding operations, of which we shall speak in their place; but also (III) from various appearances of them, Gen. 19:1, which we shall perhaps also mention in their place. Indeed, also, that they were created out of nothing, Ps. 104:4 compared with Heb. 1:7, Col. 1:16–17, since they could not have co-existed with the Creator from eternity — as we have demonstrated and defended in its place, in the chapter on the Eternity of God and in the following chapters on Creation and on the World; and likewise, that they are set over against the Creator and distinguished from Him, and are therefore necessarily creatures, for there is here no middle ground. Indeed, that they were created on the first day of creation, together with their dwelling-place, seems very probable from the fact that they are said to have shouted for joy and sung to God when He laid the foundations of the earth, Job 38:4–7. It is certain that they were not created before the first day of creation, since before that day there was nothing but eternity, in which no beginning is admitted; from which it follows that the expressions "to exist before that beginning" and "to exist from eternity" are, in Holy Scripture, equivalent expressions of the same force — although it has pleased most, down to the Council of the Lateran, that the Angels were created before the beginning of creation; and this still pleases the Socinians today, though with a more malicious aim. It is also certain that they were not created after man, whom they seduced; as Moses too, in his account of the creation of the heavens, though more obscurely, seems to indicate, Gen. 2:1, when he says that the heavens and the earth, and all their host, were finished by God — under which designation these spirits are generally included, Luke 2:13, 1 Kings 22:19, Neh. 9:6, Ps. 103:20–21 and 148:2.

V.

Those immaterial substances are designated in Holy Scripture by various names, when they are called children of God, Job 1:6 and 38:7; Elohim (gods), Ps. 8:6 compared with Heb. 2:7; Cherubim, Gen. 3:24 — among the Talmudists, as it were, כרוביא, "like a child, or youth," for the word רביא means, among the Chaldeans, a youth, according to the testimony of Buxtorf, Lexicon Talmudicum, s.v. כרוב (though I am not unaware that others prefer a different explanation) — from which it perhaps comes that they are sometimes read to have appeared in the form of young men, Mark 16:5. They are also called Seraphim, Isa. 6:2, as though kindled by a fire of divine love or righteousness, for which reason they are compared to lightning, Luke 10:18. Further, they bear the name of Watchers, Dan. 4:10, 13; of Morning Stars, Job 38:7; of Flames of Fire, Ps. 104:4, because they consume the wicked.

VI.

Most commonly and most properly they are called Spirits, Heb. 1:7, from Ps. 104:4, on account of their immaterial nature; and מלאכים, Angels, on account of their office, since this name properly means messengers, who speak and act on behalf of and in the name of another. Although this name is sometimes given to the Mediator — the Angel of the Covenant, Mal. 3:1, and the Angel of God's presence, Isa. 63:9, who went before the army of the Israelites, Exod. 14:19, in whose inmost being is God's name, Exod. 23:20–21 — it is sometimes also given to men, as to the prophet Haggai, Hag. 1:13; to the priest, Mal. 2:7; to John the Baptist, Mal. 3:1; and to the ministers of the churches, Rev. 1:20. They are also given their own proper names, such as Gabriel, Dan. 8:16 and 9:21, Luke 1:26 — a name meaning "the strength of God"; and Michael, Dan. 10:21 and 12:1, Jude v. 9, Rev. 12:7 — a name meaning "who is like God?" — though most commentators not unreasonably hold that by this last name only the Angel of the Covenant is meant, inferring and concluding this from the titles of honor attached to it, Dan. 10:21, 12:1, and 8:25, likewise from comparing Jude v. 9 with Zech. 3:2.

VII.

The Angels, then, are created spirits, complete in their nature. When they are called Spirits, they are thereby acknowledged, first of all, to be immaterial substances — that is, such as reject not merely a coarser or denser matter (as Tertullian, along with some of the Church Fathers, seems to have held) but all matter whatsoever; hence they are called spirits, Ps. 104:4, Heb. 1:4, Matt. 10:1, Eph. 6:12 — though they have sometimes assumed bodies for a time, not in order to carry them along forever, but to possess them for a time. Nevertheless they are only finite spirits, not that they are bounded by the extent of, and by being enclosed within, some body, but because they are bounded by and through the inward limits of their own being; and they are simple, insofar as they have no parts, although not simple in the highest degree as God is, since they are subject to a composition of substance and accident, as well as of faculty and act.

VIII.

Secondly, a life is ascribed to them, since there is no spirit properly so called that lacks life. For otherwise they could not hear God, announce His commands to men, or be fitting servants of God. Their life, however, is neither a vegetative nor a sensitive life, but, in keeping with their excellent nature, an excellent life — that is, a rational life.

IX.

Wherefore, thirdly, because they are spirits, they are also endowed with understanding, whereby they are wise, 2 Sam. 14:20, and behold the face of God, Matt. 18:10. And although their understanding is far more perfect than ours, since it does not depend on the images and impressions of the senses and therefore has more settled and constant thoughts, they nevertheless do not know and understand by their own essence, since that essence is by no means a pattern and cause of all things; nor do they know by the Being of God, as in a mirror, since the works of God are free. Nor do they know all things — this belongs to God alone; in particular they do not know future contingent things, except only by conjecture, and by long use and experience of things, Isa. 41:22–23; nor the hidden secrets of man's heart, Jer. 17:10, 1 Kings 8:39; nor the day of judgment, Mark 13:32. And whatever they do know, they know by intelligible forms — whether such as are inwardly present in them by creation; or such as have been revealed to them by God; or such as they have derived and obtained from the things themselves, by apprehension or by reasoning. So that there appears to be in them a threefold knowledge: (I) a natural or innate knowledge, John 8:44; (II) a revealed knowledge, Dan. 8 and 9, Rev. 1:1; and (III) an experiential knowledge, gained by seeing and hearing the things which they thereby know and understand, Eph. 3:20, 1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Pet. 1:12.

X.

And these things they know not only for themselves, but they can also make them known to others; hence a tongue is figuratively ascribed to them, 1 Cor. 13:1, by which they speak to one another — that is, communicate their conceptions to each other — although in what manner this is done we understand no better than how we converse with irrational animals. They also speak to men by moving and shaping the air in the proper manner, so that words may be formed in it; and on both sides they are addressed by men, and they also receive and assume the form of men, although the manner of this assumption is likewise unknown to us.

XI.

Hence, fourthly, since they are spirits, they are also endowed with a will, whereby they act freely, out of and with a preceding deliberation — obeying God freely and of their own accord, Ps. 103:20; rejoicing over the conversion of sinners, Luke 15:10; being eager to look into the mysteries of salvation, 1 Pet. 1:12. This will belongs to them as a faculty distinct from their essence, more perfect than ours, yet also more limited, because it is not so much disturbed by passions and bodily movements, and is therefore more constant and settled; but passions, so far as they are bodily, they do not have at all, and if any are ascribed to them, these are intellectual passions. Meanwhile their will is dependent on God, being, as regards its exercise, confined within a definite range of objects; and it is, finally, also changeable, and has in fact changed.

XII.

Finally, fifthly, they are complete spirits, which have no relation whatsoever to a body as a second essential part of their composition — in which respect they are known to differ both from the soul of man, separated from the body (which by and through its nature is fitted for composition with a body), and from a whole man, which signifies a body and a spirit together. Whether, moreover, there is between the Angels and our soul an essential difference in kind, is hidden from us; although from the difference of their operations something of this sort seems more than probable to be inferred.

XIII.

Among the qualities and attributes of the Angels is, first, their goodness, which was created in them, both natural and moral, whereby they were made fit and capable for their uses and their duties — from which very many have wantonly departed, John 8:44, Jude v. 6, of which more, and more fully, in its place.

XIV.

Second, their very great power and strength, on account of which they are called גִּבֹּרֵי כֹחַ, "mighty heroes," Ps. 103:20; also Principalities, Powers, and Rulers of the world, Eph. 6:12; likewise Angels of might, 2 Thess. 1:7 — which their astonishing works confirm, 2 Sam. 24:16–17, 2 Kings 19:35, John 5:4, Acts 5:19 and 12:7. We do not understand these to have been performed by their will alone, since there is nothing to contradict ascribing to them a strength and power distinct from their essence. Meanwhile, that they could do infinite things, or perform miracles properly so called, which surpass the nature of the universe, or at least their own, we by no means believe; though we do not deny that they bring about astonishing and wondrous things which surpass our comprehension, 2 Thess. 2:9.

XV.

Third, a place, in which they are present — which they occupy not merely in respect of acting, but by co-presence; not by circumscription, as though they were surrounded from without, as bodies are; nor by infinite fullness, or an infinite co-presence; but by definite location, whereby, on account of the finitude of their being, they are so confined to this place that they are not in another. Thus a legion is said to have been in one man, Luke 8:30.

XVI.

Hence, fourth, a local movement, whereby they pass from one place to another, Gen. 28:12; which, though very swift, since nothing in between offers resistance — for which reason they are compared to winds and fire, Ps. 104:4, and called winged Seraphim, Ezek. 1:6, being moved like lightning, Luke 10:18 — nevertheless does not occur in an instant, but over a succession of time.

XVII.

Fifth, the duration of their existence, and its measure, whereby they are not under time, by which such things are measured as by their nature admit both a beginning and an end; nor yet under eternity, which belongs only to Him who by virtue of His nature can have neither beginning nor end; but under an aeon (sub ævo), by which are measured those things which by their nature include a beginning but exclude an end. This aeon agrees with time in that it includes not only a beginning of duration but also a flow or succession of time; and it agrees with eternity in that it excludes an end of duration. It differs from time in that it excludes an end; and from eternity in that it includes a beginning and a flow of time.

XVIII.

Sixth, their number is indeed finite, but nevertheless very great, Dan. 7:10, Rev. 5:11, Ps. 68:17, Luke 2:13 and 8:30, Matt. 26:53, Heb. 12:22. In this they are distinguished and differ, not as distinct species — as the Thomists among the Papists hold, on the ground that there can be no individual subjects except through some marked and definite matter, which the Angels do not have — but as individual subjects, agreeing in the common nature of a spirit, a thing which is most evident in souls separated from their bodies.

XIX.

Hence, seventh, we readily acknowledge a certain order among them, which is made known through various designations — Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Powers, Might, Principalities, Archangels, Col. 2:15, Eph. 1:21 — especially of Archangels and Angels; not to mention the designation of the Prince of the Devils, Matt. 9:34 and 12:24, and likewise of the Devil and his Angels, ch. 25:41. But what that order is, and of what kind, since Scripture is silent, and it therefore does not concern us, we do not inquire, in accordance with the precept and command of Paul, Col. 2:18 — although I do not think it improbable that the difference of that order corresponds to the difference of their duties and functions.

XX.

Nevertheless they are all λειτουργοί, servants of God, πρὸς διακονίαν, for service, Heb. 1:7, 14, Ps. 104:4. This service and ministry is active: (I) with respect to God, in glorifying Him, Ps. 148:2 and 103:20, Isa. 6:3, and in a most ready obedience to and execution of His will, Ps. 103:20; (II) with respect to the Mediator, by worshiping Him, Heb. 1:6, by serving Him, Matt. 4:11, Dan. 7:10, by submitting themselves to Him, Phil. 2:9–10; (III) with respect to men — the good, whom they serve, Heb. 1:14, "ministering to the saints" — and that (1) with regard to temporal things: (a) by protecting them, Ps. 34:7, 91:11, by warning them beforehand, and by snatching and delivering them from the evils hanging over their heads, Gen. 19:12; (b) by providing for their sustenance, 1 Kings 19:5; (c) by making their efforts and undertakings prosperous and successful, Gen. 24:7, 10; and (2) with regard to spiritual things: (a) by revealing to them the will of God, and instructing them concerning what they must do, Acts 10:5, Zech. 1:9, 13, 14; (b) by comforting them in their adversities, Luke 22:43, Acts 27:23–24; (c) by rejoicing over their conversion, Luke 15:10; (d) by carrying their souls at death into heavenly joy, Luke 16:22; (e) by separating them, at the last judgment, from the reprobate, and by giving assent and applause to the Judge's final sentence, Matt. 13:41 and 25:31 — as well as with regard to the evil, by restraining their wickedness and malice, and by executing God's judgments upon them, 2 Kings 19:35, Gen. 19:11.

XXI.

When, then, they are to perform their ministry and carry out their service, they are for this purpose not only sent by God, Heb. 1:14, but we also read that on many occasions they have appeared to men for this end — whether in a vision, Gen. 28:12, Acts 27:23, Matt. 2:13, or by way of familiar address, being present among those present, Gen. 18:2. This has sometimes occurred in a true human body, assumed by them for this ministry at God's behest, and laid aside again after the performance of their task — perhaps even annihilated, Judg. 6:21 and 13:20, Acts 12:10 — with which body, however, they have never been united so as to constitute angel-men; rather, they have used it much more as an instrument, being themselves present, indwelling forms. Perhaps at times they have also appeared merely in the likeness of a human body, Zech. 2:3, and throughout the Revelation; and sometimes in a form differing from the human, as when they appeared winged, Ezek. 1:6. These appearances, moreover, are not noted as being very frequent: the first occurred immediately after the fall of man, Gen. 3:24; the second is recorded, two thousand years later, as having occurred to Abraham, Gen. 18; the third, after two hundred and fifteen years, to Moses, Exod. 3. From that time such appearances occur more frequently in Holy Scripture, down to Zechariah the Prophet, Zech. 1 and 2. After that they go unrecorded for four hundred years, until the Messiah who was to become man, Luke 1:11, 26, and who had already become man, Luke 2:13 — after which time they became more frequent, down to John in the Revelation, after which time, the sacred Canon having been sealed and the will of God sufficiently, indeed abundantly, revealed, such appearances have ceased. Although, invisibly, they are still present in the assemblies of Christians, and perform their service there, 1 Cor. 11:10, until at last, at the final Judgment, for the gathering together and the one separating-out of the elect, they shall be sent forth by the Judge, Matt. 13:41, 25:31, and the Lord Himself, accompanied by the angels of His might, 2 Thess. 1:7, shall come with the voice of the archangel, 1 Thess. 4:16.

XXII.

On account of all these duties, services, and benefits which, at God's command, they bestow upon us, we do not read that they deserve anything from God; nor has any promise of reward been made to them, just as they cannot, by the worthiness of their work, merit anything from God, Rom. 11:35–36. Meanwhile, they do deserve from us, on account of the worth and value of the benefits they bestow upon us, reverence, honor, and service, 1 Cor. 11:10, Matt. 18:10, Acts 10:4 — but only a civil honor, since God has reserved religious worship for Himself alone, Matt. 4:10, and they themselves too have on many occasions refused and rejected it, Rev. 19:10 and 22:9. Add to this that they are nothing other than ministering spirits, Heb. 1:4, serving the saints, Heb. 6:13.

The Polemical Part

XXIII.

The question is: (I) Are there Angels, that is, complete immaterial substances? The Sadducees — so called either from Sadok, a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, as the founder of this sect, or from the Hebrew word צַדִּיק, "a righteous one," as though "self-justifiers" — in order the more easily to undermine the resurrection of the dead, held that there are no spirits which could be reunited with the dead body, and therefore also no angels, Acts 23:8. So too, in our own time, the Libertines (Freethinkers), among whose number we may rightly count David Joris, from whom the Davidists arose, who held that good thoughts are good angels, and evil thoughts devils — almost in the same way as the Cartesians, when they hold that spirits are nothing other than thoughts, except that the latter have not called their thoughts substances, unlike the former, of which more in its place. Recently certain atheist philosophers — Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza (who became an atheist from being a Jew) — mocking the general truth of Scripture somewhat and making sport of it, have scoffed at the existence of angels. Certain Anabaptists too, in the preceding century, held this same folly. The Reformed, although they acknowledge that the existence of spirits cannot be demonstrated clearly and irrefutably by natural reasons alone, nevertheless hold that this existence of spirits can be taught with more than probable reasons, but most clearly and plainly of all from the testimonies of Scripture. This we have proven in §§III and IV of this chapter, and indeed by name against the Sadducees, who are said to have acknowledged the divine authority of the five books of Moses, from Gen. 3:24, likewise 18, 19, 21:17, 24:7, 40, 28:12, and 48:16, Exod. 3:2, etc. — by which passages and testimonies they are self-condemning judges of their own error. We add to this: (I) that Holy Scripture speaks of them as persons, messengers, servants, keepers, watchers, etc. — against the Libertines. (II) That it ascribes to them all the requisites of persons: substance, life, understanding, will, joy, personal actions, as well as rewards and punishments. Indeed also (III) that we are said hereafter to be like the angels, Matt. 22:30, Luke 20:36. Against all these proofs the Sadducees objected in vain, and without any reason, that: (1) when God exercises His power to punish, this is called an evil angel; but on the contrary, when He preserves, shelters, protects, and does us good, this is called a good angel — but this is without support from Holy Scripture, indeed against the very passages of Scripture noted in §IV. (2) On the passages relating the appearances of Angels, they said that winds, or a power of God, must be understood — but this is against the plain text.

XXIV.

The question is: (II) Were the Angels too created at the very first beginning of creation? Aristotle is said, along with his Peripatetics, to have taught that the Angels were never created, but have coexisted with God from eternity. The Socinians do acknowledge that they were created, but hold that they could have existed from eternity, so that the eternity ascribed in Holy Scripture to the Son and the Spirit need not conclusively establish the eternal Godhead of those Persons. The ancients, according to the testimony of Origen in his book called Peri Archon, "On First Principles," speak doubtfully of the creation of the Angels; that they were indeed created, all acknowledge, but when and in what manner, they doubt. Most of the Greek Church Fathers lean sufficiently toward holding that they were created before this world. (So Origen, Homilies I and II; Nazianzen, Sermon on the Nativity of the Lord, XXXVIII; Chrysostom, Homily XXII on Genesis; likewise Anastasius Sinaita, Hexaemeron I; John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith II.2.) Yet there have also not been lacking those who thought otherwise, such as Epiphanius, Haer. LXV, and perhaps also Theodoret. Among the Latins, before Augustine, most preferred to hold that they were created before this world, such as Novatus, Hilary, and others. Augustine himself dares to determine nothing with certainty, but thinks nevertheless that they are signified by Moses under the name of "light," and thus created on the first day — an opinion not displeasing also to Gregory the Great, Moral. XXXII, nor to Bede, nor to Cyril. On all this one may consult Vossius, De Idololatria I.7. The Anabaptists, although they acknowledge that they were created with the beginning of the world, nevertheless think, since as mere thoughts they have no relation to a place, that they could have been created before this world. Most of the Reformed hold that they were created on the first day, together with the third heaven, Gen. 1:1 compared with ch. 2:1. At any rate, that they were created before the founding of the earth seems clearly enough stated in Job 38:7. But that they existed beforehand, or could have existed beforehand, before this whole world, they steadfastly deny: (I) because Holy Scripture has not one jot or tittle of this, but says rather that the whole world, with all its host, Gen. 2:1–2 (by which the Angels are meant, Luke 2:13, 15), and likewise all things contained in the world, were created in six days, Exod. 20:11. (II) Because before the world there was nothing but eternity, and because, according to the style of Holy Scripture, "to be from eternity" and "to be before the founding of the world" are equivalent expressions of the same meaning, Ps. 90:2, Prov. 8:22, Eph. 1:4, 1 Pet. 1:20, John 17:24, Acts 15:18. (III) Because reason teaches that before the beginning of time there was nothing but sheer eternity, in which there is no earlier and later; they would therefore, according to the opposing position, have existed in eternity and eternally, and thus infinitely in duration, in presence and in being — something which belongs to God alone. (IV) Because every creature, being finite, is confined within its own "where," so that what is not in a "where" is nowhere, and therefore does not exist at all. If they now urge the opposite view: (1) that Moses passed over their creation in silence — we answer: (a) that it is wrongly and mistakenly concluded from this that they were created before the world, for this is merely a negative testimony and proof. (b) And that Moses does indeed teach, though implicitly, their creation within the compass of the six days, we have already shown above. If it is said (2) that eternal life is said to have been promised to us before the ages of time, Titus 1:2, and why could this not likewise be said of the Angels? We answer: (a) that from the existence of a certain promise before the creation of the world, no inference follows to the existence of the Angels, since that promise lay hidden in God's eternal election. (b) That it would likewise have to follow that men existed before this world, to whom that promise was made. Further, it is objected (3) that the Angels are more excellent than all other creatures. But we answer that it by no means follows from this that they existed before all other creatures, since man, who is the noblest of all visible creatures, was created after all the other creatures. And even if it be granted that they were created before all other creatures, it still does not follow that they were created before the whole world. A fourth objection is: that, on this view, God would have had no servants, until the creation of the world, by whom He might be praised and glorified. Answer: (a) It would follow from this that they were absolutely eternal. (b) There is nothing at all absurd in supposing that God did not have the service of the Angels from eternity, since in Himself He is entirely self-sufficient and most blessed. Indeed (c) for this very reason He did not will that they should coexist with Him from eternity, so that it might thereby appear that He has no need of the service of any creature. Finally, it is said: (5) that in this way, on the contrary, God's omnipotence seems to be weakened. Answer: (a) We do not deny that it could have come to pass, by God's absolute and unlimited power, that the first Mosaic beginning, and with it the world and the Angels, could have existed very many ages before our present time than they in fact have; though we deny that they could have existed before all beginning of time whatsoever, since before time there could be nothing but eternity. Nor do we deny (b) that there has been in God, from all eternity, that omnipotence whereby He actually created the world and the Angels in time; though we deny that the world and the Angels could have been created from eternity, since this involves a plain contradiction.

XXV.

It is asked: (III) Are the Angels substances that are absolutely immaterial? Very many of the Jews, according to the testimony of Sixtus Senensis, Bibliotheca Sancta, Book V, Annot. VIII, and of Vossius, De Idololatria, Book I, ch. 6, have not held them to be simply immaterial, but only comparatively so, in relation to our coarser bodies, so that in comparison with God they would be bodies. Some Jews think that at least the evil spirits are material — egregoroi, "watchers" or "wakeful ones" — since they are supposed to have been seduced by the charms of women among us, Gen. 6:1–2. And in our own time Trithemius, Abbot of Sponheim (who holds that the evil spirits are fiery, airy, watery, and earthy in nature, Ad Maximilianum, Quaest. VI), thinks them material. Likewise Vorstius and Socinus, with their followers, in order the more easily to maintain that God too is, in His own way, material, composite, and finite, say that the Angels are material. Augustine reproaches the Manichean Faustus for having held that the Angels sprang forth from the very substance of God. Origen ascribes to them bodies of air. Nor have there been lacking those who, from the names Uriel and Seraphim, have concluded that they were created out of light, as out of a corresponding matter. Against this, the Reformed hold that they are absolutely immaterial: (I) because in Holy Scripture they are consistently called spirits, both the good Angels and the evil, of whom the Savior says, Luke 24:39, that they have neither flesh nor bones, and therefore cannot be touched, which belongs to material things. (II) Because Holy Scripture nowhere ascribes any matter to them. (III) Because they would not be able to render God so fitting and suitable a service if they were material. Nor is there any weight in their objections: (1) from Gen. 6:2, that the sons of God looked upon the daughters of men, that they were fair, etc. — a passage which has misled most of the Fathers. Answer: it would have to be proven that "the sons of God" here means the Angels, since by "the sons of God" it is more fittingly understood the descendants of Seth, who made up the church, while by "the daughters of men" are meant the descendants of Cain, apostates, with whom it was not lawful for the sons of the church to enter into marriage, 1 Cor. 6:14. (2) That they are called flames of fire, Ps. 104:4, Heb. 1:7, and therefore fiery matter. Answer: this comparison does not concern the essence of the Angels, but rather their power and swiftness in carrying out the divine commands, since with respect to their essence they are clearly said to have been made spirits, as we have noted in the Explanatory Part. (3) It is objected that we are said hereafter to be like the Angels, Matt. 22:30, and therefore, since we are material, the Angels too are material. Answer: since we are said to be made like the Angels, it is sufficiently indicated that we are not now like the Angels, and therefore that the Angels are not such as we are, namely, material — nor does it follow that our future likeness to the Angels implies a likeness of substance, but only a likeness of state, with reference to the future immortality which is common to both. A fourth objection is that they have on many occasions presented themselves to men to be seen in human form, Mark 16:5, etc. Answer: God too has not infrequently appeared to the patriarchs, and yet He is not on that account a material substance, Gen. 18:1–2. They have therefore shown themselves visibly to men, not in bodies of their own, but in assumed bodies, being in themselves spirits — for which reason too, having accomplished their task, they have laid aside the assumed bodies again, Judg. 13:3, 6, 8, 9, 10, compared with v. 20.

XXVI.

It is asked: (IV) Does the essence of an Angel consist in a mere thought? The Davidists, as we noted in §XXIII, hold that good thoughts are good Angels, and evil thoughts evil Angels. Descartes and his followers — since he, awakening within himself from his boastful doubt, found only a thought, and concluded from this that in the whole of nature there is nothing but these two things, thought and extension — held that the Angels are not extended things, and, since they can then be nothing other than mere thoughts, as we have noted elsewhere, Book II, Chapter III, §XIX.

The Reformed do indeed grant that the Angels are thinking substances; but they do not grant that in an Angel there is nothing but a bare thought — no, but rather that in an Angel there is a substance, distinct from its thought, in which, along with the faculties and powers of thinking and acting, the thoughts and actions themselves have their source and origin. At any rate, that they are not mere thoughts we maintain with many arguments: (I) because, by the admission of all, the thought of the one is distinct and different from the thought of another; but this cannot be distinct or different through nothing, for then they would not be distinguished from one another — therefore it must be through something which is itself distinct and different from the thought. (II) Because one thought of one and the same spirit is distinct from another thought; and since this again cannot happen through nothing, it must happen through something which is present in the one thought and not in the other. (III) Because in a spirit, and in the thought of a spirit, there is a moral goodness and badness, which is distinct and different from the thought itself, by which the one spirit and the one thought differs from the other, as an Angel differs from the Devil; but goodness and badness are, by the agreement of all, something substantial. (IV) Because, by the unanimous admission of the Cartesians themselves, there is in thought a certain modification, according to which the thought or idea is manifold in any given spirit. This modification is again either something or nothing. If nothing, then it cannot multiply the thoughts; therefore there is in the thought or idea something distinct and different from the very essence of thought. (V) Because the common sense and common judgment of all men — which, on the Cartesians' own view, they hold to be the standard of all truth — conceives of thinking as a certain act, and at the same time understands that an act presupposes an agent, which is distinct from the thought or thinking itself. And thus there is in a spirit something distinct from its own acting. (VI) If there were nothing in a spirit but a mere and bare thought, it could in no way be understood that, and in what manner, all sorts of spirits — good or evil — are truly and properly in a place, which nevertheless both Holy Scripture and reason ascribe to them. How too could a spirit be moved from one place to another; ascend and descend; arrive and depart — all of which is generally ascribed to them in Holy Scripture? How, too, after the death of the body, could a pious and godly soul ascend to heaven, and a godless one descend into hell? (VII) If spirits are nothing other than mere thoughts, then it cannot be understood that, and in what manner, all spirits, both good and evil, can and actually do act outside of themselves — which nevertheless almost countless testimonies of Holy Scripture require; but of this more at the following question. Nor do they have anything to object except their false assumptions, namely: (1) that we have no idea of any single thing in a spirit which is different from its own thought or thinking. Answer: (a) suppose we have an idea of nothing else, it would still not follow from this that no such thing exists, since our soul, being finite, has no idea of everything, nor can it have. But (b) we do indeed have an idea of something which is distinct from the thinking in spirits, as appears from and through all the arguments already adduced; in particular, we have, besides and alongside the thought, an idea of an act, as distinct from the agent. It is said: (2) if there were something in a spirit distinct from thought, this would necessarily have to be an extension, since in the whole universe there is nothing but thought and extension. We answer: what is this but begging and repeating the question? We have abundantly shown and proven the contrary. (Cf. our Gangraena Cartesiana, Sect. II, ch. VI, §§4–5, and ch. XXIX, §9.)

XXVII.

It is asked: (V) Do the Angels work outside themselves by their own powers? Concerning this matter of the operation of spirits there has in recent years been much variously-conducted dispute, occasioned by a book of the Rev. Balthasar Bekker, which he entitled in Dutch The World Bewitched. Bekker himself distinguishes, first of all, spirits into those united with their bodies, such as human souls — which he acknowledges act upon their bodies by virtue of that union — and those which have no fellowship with bodies of their own, and these again into good and evil: further, that God employs the service of the good Angels in rescuing His people from His judgments, executed both against the good and against the evil, but only without and apart from their own powers; while the evil spirits work absolutely nothing. His Cartesian opponents hold that they do indeed act outside themselves, though not by their own powers, but that God wills that, upon such-and-such a thought of the spirits, such-and-such effects should be present, while God Himself immediately produces, not only the connection between such a thought of the spirits and such an effect, but also the thought itself, indeed the effect itself as well. A spirit, therefore, by its own powers, produces absolutely nothing. This opinion, prescribed for him by the Reverend Consistory of Amsterdam, Dr. Bekker too gladly and willingly adopted. The primary falsehood common to both parties consists in this, that a spirit is nothing other than a mere thought, and that one cannot understand how a mere or bare thought could, by its own powers, act outside itself. The Reformed opponents of Bekker, whom we shall, for the sake of distinction, call the Anti-Cartesians, hold that spirits are not mere thoughts, but substances, in which are powers by which they can act outside themselves — the reasons for which we have already shown above, at the preceding question. As for the view of Bekker's Cartesian opponents, we acknowledge: (I) that, according to God's eternal decree, there is, through creation, such a connection that such an effect is produced by such a cause; but such a connection as, at the same time, has also conferred upon the cause the powers by which it can truly act, or by which it can truly be a cause. But (II) that empty and vacant connection of theirs, whereby a cause, without any powers of its own, should be a cause, and should work what it cannot work, the Cartesian opponents have neither proven, nor attempted to prove. Moreover, (III) if, through that empty and vacant connection, a spirit, without powers of its own, were truly to act — in which God alone produces the connection between the willing and the thing willed, and likewise immediately produces the willing and the willed thing themselves — then that which God alone works would be said to be worked by the creature, with a plain contradiction; and therefore, by and through such a connection, they hold that a spirit truly acts, whereby in fact it acts not at all. Further, (IV) if, from such a connection alone, our soul were to do evil — for example, murder, adultery — and the evil spirit, by virtue of the said connection, were to tempt and seduce, would not God alone then be the true and properly-so-called cause of all these evils, and not the creature, to which, by virtue of this connection, nothing would belong except the bare removal of any real acting? Add to this, (V) that Holy Scripture, instead of that vacant and empty connection, ascribes to the Angels powers — indeed a great power, on account of which they are called "mighty heroes," strong in power, Ps. 103:20, and Angels of God's might, 2 Thess. 1:7. Likewise (VI) that Holy Scripture ascribes to them many mighty operations — for example, the slaying of the firstborn in Egypt; the slaughter of one hundred and twenty-five thousand in the camp of Sennacherib; the overturning and destruction of the house in which Job's sons and daughters were feasting; and many more such works. Likewise the announcement of the birth of Isaac, Gen. 18:10 and 22:11, and of Christ, Luke 1:11, 26; of His resurrection, Matt. 28; the announcement of the deliverance of Lot, Gen. 19; of the Apostles from prison, Acts 5:19 and 12:7; of Daniel, Dan. 6:23; a voice of the archangel, 1 Thess. 4:16; service toward the elect, Heb. 1:14, and countless other such operations. Against all this Dr. Bekker brings forward nothing except: (1) that in some of these passages "angels" means nothing other than men sent forth, and that this is the case in Gen. 18, contrary to Paul's interpretation, Heb. 13:2. (2) That in other passages what God has done immediately by a miracle is transferred to the Angels, according to the opinion of others, without a single jot or tittle of proof that this is so, Dan. 6:21–22, 2 Sam. 7:22, and elsewhere — a claim which examination of the passages themselves will refute. (3) That in other passages the divine Majesty is displayed after a courtly and stately fashion, as though enlarged and magnified by a multitude and abundance of bodyguards and courtiers, though inactive ones. That this is the case, for example, in 2 Thess. 1:7, Matt. 24:31. From all of which he finally draws two conclusions: (a) that nothing certain can be gathered from Holy Scripture concerning the operations of the Angels with respect to men; (b) that all this serves only to display the works of God toward men, by such manners of speech, after the fashion of a heavenly court. And what, in the end, is all this but a contemptuous mockery of most of the accounts of Holy Scripture concerning the operations of the Angels, treating them as embellishments and imaginings, meaning by them nothing less than what the words actually say? (Cf. our Epanorthosis addressed to the distinguished Bekker, §XIX.) If, further, his Cartesian opponents press their empty connection by saying: (a) that miracles are said to be performed by men — we shall reply that these are said to be performed by God alone, Ps. 72:19, Acts 3:12–13. If (b) they press that, without such a divine connection, the creature can do nothing — we shall answer that apart from that connection whereby God confers upon the creature that is to act the powers by which it acts, the creature works nothing; but by that empty connection of the Cartesians, the creature likewise works nothing at all — God alone works. (Cf. our Gangraena Cartesiana, Sect. II, ch. XXX, §§7–10.)

XXVIII.

It is asked: (VI) Are the Angels, as regards their essence, in a place? Dr. Bekker holds that, although they are not properly in a place, since a bare thought bears no relation to a place, they are nevertheless in whatever place they are thinking of, and indeed in that whole place, and equally throughout it; for example, if an Angel thinks of Rome, he is in Rome; if he thinks of Heaven, he is there; if he thinks of Hell, he is there; if he thinks of the whole universe, he is in the whole universe. His Cartesian opponents indeed profess that the Angels, properly speaking, as to their essence, are not in a place; yet they hold that they cannot be said to be in every place they think of, but that they are in the place where that thing is upon which they act outside themselves. They agree with one another on these points: (I) that spirits do not act except by thinking; (II) that spirits, by and with their own powers, do not act outside themselves at all; (III) that they are not properly and in themselves in a place. Yet they seem to differ in this, that Bekker says they are wherever the thing is that they are thinking of and about, while his Cartesian opponents say they are wherever the thing is that they are acting upon. But what difference is there between thinking and acting, among those who agree together that spirits are nothing but mere thoughts, and act only by thinking, and that by thinking they produce nothing outside themselves? The common view of the Reformed is that the Angels, being substances, are distinct from their thoughts or ideas, which are actions; that, with respect to that substance, they are truly and properly in a place, although in such a defined manner that, being in one place, they are not at the same time in another. For this view we have (1) already laid the groundwork at the fourth question, by teaching that the Angels are not bare thoughts or ideas, but thinking substances, to which a place doubtless belongs, in which they are, insofar as they exist at all. (2) What is not in a place or space, is nowhere; and what is nowhere, does not exist. (3) It involves a contradiction that the Angels should be in the world, that they should be parts of the world, according to the common judgment of nearly all men, and yet be nowhere. For this reason too (4) Holy Scripture generally ascribes to the Angels their seats, their dwelling-place, Dan. 7:10, and describes them as coming, going, ascending, descending — doubtless out of a place in which they are; to cite the particular Scripture passages relevant here would be superfluous and needless. Let me add (5), from the very assumptions of the Cartesians themselves: they think in a place, they act outside themselves in a place; therefore they are in a place. The foundation of the Cartesian view rests sufficiently on these four points: (a) that an Angel is nothing other than a bare thought — a thing we have already overthrown at length. (b) That a thought bears no relation to a place — which is contradicted by experience, according to which a thought is in the place where we are; likewise by the common judgment of men, according to which, if thoughts were nowhere, neither in heaven nor on earth, they would not exist at all; indeed the Cartesian assumption itself contradicts this, for if the Angels are in the place where they act, why should they not also be in the place where they think — especially since, on the same assumption, they act only by thinking? (c) That a place or space is a body, consisting of a threefold dimension: but if space is a body, then there would be a body within a body, since, by virtue of the notion common to all, a body is in a space. Moreover, a threefold dimension does not properly belong to a space, but to the body which is in that space. (d) That everything that is in a bodily space is a body. But this is as valid as saying that whatever is in a golden cup is gold, or that whatever is in a glass cup is glass, or that God, who co-exists with all bodies, is a body. (Cf. our Gangraena, ch. XXIII, §§1–4.)

XXIX.

It is asked: (VII) Does movement not belong to the Angels except in a very improper sense? The Cartesians, having on grounds already refuted denied the Angels a place, cannot but likewise deny them a properly-so-called movement. The Reformed, on the contrary, since they ascribe to the Angels a place on solid grounds, and overthrow the Cartesian grounds, as appears from the preceding section, hold also that they are properly moved from one place to another. Chiefly because Holy Scripture proclaims this everywhere, Job 1:7, Heb. 1:14, Luke 1:26, 1 Pet. 5:8, Luke 11:24, Ps. 91:11–12, Gen. 28:12, and elsewhere. Nor can anyone produce a single passage of Holy Scripture which teaches that the Angels are moved only in a very improper sense. (Cf. Gangraena, ch. XXIII, §§7–8.)

XXX.

It is asked: (VIII) Can one determine with certainty what the orders of the Angels are? The Platonic philosophers divide their "genii," or spirits, into celestial, super-celestial, and sub-celestial, according to the testimony of Iamblichus, On the Mysteries of the Egyptians. The Jews (not to speak here of their Sephiroth and Atsiloth — "Enumerations" and "Emanations," of which we have spoken above, Book II, Chapter V, §X, as divine attributes, though some have rather held them to be angels) reckon, according to the various stations and functions of the Angels, three classes of them: first, those of the "Attendants," who are most fully separated from matter, are never seen in bodily form, nor come down to earth, but constantly surround God's throne. Second, the "Ministering" Angels of service, who are sent into the world, and sometimes converse under human form, and otherwise govern the heavenly spheres, for which reason they are called the host of heaven. Third, the "Punishing" ones, called by them the Angels of death and destruction, who dwell in the sublunary realm, being ministers of divine wrath and justice on earth — of whom they also hold that, being distinguished by sex, they take food and have intercourse with one another, and even die. The good Angels they call, in particular: 1. Living Creatures of Holiness, 2. Ophannim, 3. Oralim, 4. Chashmalim, 5. Seraphim, 6. Angels, 7. Elohim, 8. Bene-Elohim, 9. Cherubim — under which they include the Ishim, the highest of whom stand beneath the throne of the divine Majesty, and the lowest of whom associate with men. (See Angelus de Burgo Novo, Commentary on the Cabalistic Zohar, and Francis Gregory, Problemata Sacra, vol. VI, sect. V, §173.) Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, following the Platonic philosophers, and the whole company of the Scholastics, reckon a threefold Hierarchy, that is, holy government: a super-celestial one, which is that of the Trinity; an ecclesiastical one, which is that of men; and a celestial one, which is that of the Angels — and these they further divide into a highest, a middle, and a lowest. These they distinguish generally: (a) by properties, order, knowledge, and operation; (b) by acts of holy government — purifying, illuminating, and perfecting — in particular, from the meaning of the names, such as Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Powers, Might, Archangels. Further, they posit nine choirs or orders, which they divide into three Hierarchies: namely, a first, which has the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; a middle, which has the Dominions, Virtues, and Powers; and a lowest, which has the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. All of which they set forth for this purpose, that the Papists might the more easily maintain and defend their worship of the Angels. The Reformed do acknowledge that there is a certain order among the Angels, since not only is God, their Creator, a God of order, 1 Cor. 14:33, 40, but also because various names of the Angels seem to give occasion for this — Col. 1:16, Eph. 3:10 compared with Ezek. 9:3, Isa. 6:2, 1 Thess. 4:16, Gen. 3:24, Jude v. 9; especially too since the particle "whether," "whether thrones, whether dominions..." Col. 1:16, seems to require a certain order among the Angels — not to mention that there is a certain order even among the evil spirits themselves, Matt. 12:24. But what that order among the Angels is, they believe cannot be determined by men in this state of imperfection: because (I) neither can nature reveal anything of this order, nor does Holy Scripture reveal it, as appears from examining all the passages which Dionysius and others are wont to adduce for that order. (2) Because Paul, Col. 2:18, condemns that curiosity for more than one reason: "let no one beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen." (3) Because the foundation on which that order is built, namely those nine names, is nothing but sand, since we read that not only those nine names, but very many others besides, are used of the Angels; for they are called morning stars, Job 38:7; watchers, Dan. 4:11, 17; the host of heaven, Luke 2:13; spirits, Heb. 1:7; Elohim (gods), Ps. 8:6; men, Gen. 18:2, etc. Not to mention that the proofs from the meaning of the words are far too weak to bear the weight of so great and so elaborate a structure. Moreover, Holy Scripture makes no mention at all of Archangels in the plural, but only of one Archangel. (4) Because the properties by which one tries to distinguish these orders from one another, drawn and derived from the names, are found to be common to all the Angels: for all are said to stand by or before God, Dan. 7:10; all are said to hear Him and execute His commands, Ps. 103:20; they are all ministering spirits, Heb. 1:14, Ps. 91:11. Nor do the advocates of this order have anything to offer for themselves except: (a) those various names, on which they build these orders, which we have already sufficiently dealt with; (b) the arguments drawn from fittingness and correspondences, of which the Schoolmen spoke so much (on Lombard's Sentences, Book II, Dist. IX) — arguments so insipid and flavorless that they do not deserve that we should trouble ourselves with refuting them; (c) the authority of Dionysius the Areopagite, who is supposed to have learned these mysteries from Paul. But that this Dionysius is nothing but a fictitious author has been demonstrated not only by our own, for example Illyricus, Catalogus Testium Veritatis, Book I, Beza on Acts 17, Scaliger, De Emendatione Temporum, Book VI, Rivet in his Critica Sacra, Cook in his Censura Patrum — but this has also been acknowledged by some among the Papists themselves, for example Erasmus in his Response to the Paris Censures, Tit. XXXI, Cajetan, and Lorenzo Valla on Acts 17. Of the same kind, too, is the Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, as Cook, Rivet, and Ussher have shown — so that some among the Papists here plead wrongly on the strength of its authority. More on such matters, pertaining to this subject, may be found in the celebrated Voetius, Disputationes, vol. I, De Hierarchia Coelesti.

XXXI.

It is asked: (IX) Are there guardian and protecting Angels, each assigned in particular to particular affairs, provinces, and persons? The heathen seem to have held something of this sort in former times, according to the testimony of Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus, De Perenni Philosophia, Book VII, ch. 18, and of Martin Del Rio, Disquisitiones Magicae, Book II, Quaest. XXVI, sect. 2. Likewise the Kabbalistic Jews, and what they teach on this matter concerning guardian angels, birth-angels, delivery-angels, and death-angels, may be seen in Buxtorf's Synagoga Judaica. The Muhammadans too hold this, according to the testimony of Lonicer, Chronica Turcica, vol. I, ch. XXIV. Gerhard Johann Vossius, on the authority of the Fathers, seems inclined to hold that every man has his own guardian Angel, De Idololatria, Book I, ch. VII; likewise Zanchius, De Operibus Creationis, Book III, ch. 13, and Ames, Supplementum ad Chamierum, De Ecclesia, Book V, ch. VII. Many, if not most, of the Fathers likewise seem to lean toward holding that every man has his own guardian and protecting Angel. The Papists, maintaining the worship of Angels, hold that, besides their seven Angels, standing before God and serving Him — whom Pineda, De Rebus Salomonis, Book V, ch. XV, calls the Overseers and Wardens of the Heavenly Court, God's Servants, and Mediators of men, whose names are said to be Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Sealtiel, Jehudiel, and Barachiel, as Nicolaus Serarius, Commentary on Tobit, ch. XII.15, would have it — besides those seven general guardian and protecting Angels, I say, the Papists hold that from the ranks of the lowest, some are set apart and sent forth (deputed) for a particular cause, to their particular office and function: for example, the Virtues, to ward off evil spirits; the Powers, to work wonders in bodily matters; some for nations, peoples, provinces, states, and cities; others to protect particular persons, both evil and good, both reprobate and elect; indeed also a certain evil Angel, whom they call the Tempter. The names of these Angels Pope Zacharias, at the Roman Council, with the exception of Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, declared to be the names of Demons. As for their offices toward their charges, some count four, as Bonaventure; others five, as Cornelius à Lapide on Exodus 23, or eight, as the same author does on Matthew 18:10; others twelve, as Gabriel Biel, on Book II of the Sentences, Dist. XI, who gathers them all together from Holy Scripture, namely: (1) to rebuke, Judg. 2; (2) to release from the bonds of sin, Acts 12; (3) to remove obstacles from the good way, Exod. 12; (4) to ward off evil spirits, Tobit 12; (5) to teach and inwardly enlighten, Dan. 9; (6) to reveal hidden things, Gen. 18; (7) to comfort the afflicted, Tobit 5 and 6; (8) to strengthen in and on God's way, 1 Kings 19; (9) to lead and guide on the way, Tobit 5; (10) to strike down enemies, Isa. 37; (11) to moderate and soften temptations, Gen. 32; (12) to carry prayers to God, Tobit 12. The Reformed believe that the Angels, in general, serve God for the salvation of the elect, since Holy Scripture testifies to this, Heb. 1:14, Ps. 34:7 and 91:11, compared with Matt. 4:6, Luke 15:10 and 16:22. But that particular Angels are assigned to particular affairs, provinces, and persons, they cannot believe with divine faith: because (I) Holy Scripture nowhere says this, and this cannot be known to us from elsewhere. Indeed, rather (2) it says the opposite, when it sometimes assigns more than one Angel to one person, and to many but one Angel, Gen. 28:12, 32:1–2, Ps. 34:7, 2 Kings 6:16–17, Luke 16:22. (3) Because this opinion dishonors and diminishes the dignity of Christ's mediatorial office and intercession, insofar as it puts the Angels in Christ's place, or at least makes them equal with Him. (4) Because it paves the way toward the worship of Angels. (5) Because this opinion agrees with the heathen, the Muhammadans, and the Jews, as we have seen. The objections to the contrary are of no weight whatsoever. (a) To the Scripture passages which Alsted, Zanchius, and the Papists use for this purpose — Matt. 18:10, Acts 12:15, Dan. 10:13, Isa. 37:36, etc. — we answer: (I) in general, that not even a single passage can be produced, or could be produced, which says that a particular Angel is given by God to particular persons. Therefore (2) if perhaps, to this or that person — for example, to Peter in his chains, or to children, because they cannot bear responsibility for themselves — or also for this or that particular matter, a certain Angel is sent by God, it does not follow from this that a particular Angel is given to all, and each in particular. In particular (b) on the passage Matt. 18:10, "their [the little children's] Angels...," we say that this speaks not of one Angel who is particularly proper to each individual little child, but of Angels who, without distinction, according to God's good pleasure, watch over their preservation, in accordance with their office and duty, Heb. 1:14. (c) On the passage Acts 12:15, "it is his Angel," we answer that this is said through a plain mistake and error, not by divine inspiration. (d) In Dan. 10 it is indeed related that an Angel was sent to Daniel, v. 11, yet he is not called "the Angel of Daniel." Likewise mention is made there, in v. 13, of the prince of the kingdom of Persia; but by this is not meant a certain Angel, but Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, a prince of Persia, an enemy of the Jews, who unknowingly opposed the efforts of the Angel sent to Daniel. Michael, too, is mentioned there as one of the chief princes. But it is not unfitting to understand Christ by this — He who is called "one," that is, the first and the Prince of the Angels, who, being compared with created princes, are very well called the first and chief princes, just as they are also called Principalities and Powers in heaven, Eph. 3:10. The remaining testimonies of Scripture carry not the least difficulty at all — no, rather, they are much more opposed to the Papists.

XXXII.

It is asked: (X) Are the Angels mediators and intercessors of men before God? The Platonists, since they had assigned a guardian Angel to every man, also made him a mediator and intercessor. (See Vossius, De Sectis Philosophicis, ch. XVI, and Horn, Historia Philosophica, Book VII, ch. 8.) This opinion of theirs seems to have crept into the Christian Church already in the Apostle's time, Col. 2:18. At the very least it is more than probable that from these the falsely-named Dionysius the Areopagite likewise drew this opinion for his "celestial hierarchy," his heavenly holy government. So too the Simonians, the Archontics, and the Angelici in the second century. From the muddy pools of these the Papists, in order the more effectively to bolster their worship of Angels, have likewise drawn this opinion. (See Pineda, De Rebus Salomonis, Book V, ch. 15.) The Reformed teach that this honor belongs to none of the Angels, but to Christ alone, 1 Tim. 2:5, 1 John 2:1, Heb. 4:14 — chiefly because it can belong to none but the Mediator, the God-man, as we shall see deliberately and at length in its place. Nor do the Papists have anything to allege for the contrary except: (I) from Tobit 3:15 — but this is an apocryphal book, overflowing with various errors. Indeed, even in this very passage the writer contradicts himself, when the Angel of this passage calls himself Raphael, though he had already earlier, in ch. 5:18, called himself Azarias, son of the great Ananias. (II) From Rev. 8:3 — but by this Angel none other can be understood than the uncreated Angel, the Angel of the Covenant, Mal. 3:1, the Angel of God's presence (properly, the Angel of the presences), Isa. 63:9, who alone, as the Priest of heaven, brings the prayers of the saints, laid upon Him as upon the golden altar, to God, Heb. 4:14, 9:24, 13:10, 15, 1 John 2:1. (Cf. Rainolds, Censura Librorum Apocryphorum, Praelect. LXII and LXIII.)

XXXIII.

It is asked: (XI) Is religious honor due to the Angels? Those who take the Angels for mediators or intercessors, whom we mentioned in the preceding section, do not hesitate to hold that they must be honored with religious worship; hence they institute feast days in their honor, build temples, make vows — indeed, the Jesuit Drexelius does not even scruple to invoke God through the merits of his guardian Angel. The Socinians, in order the more easily to maintain that Christ did not exist before His birth from the blessed Virgin, and that He was not that Angel — the Jehovah — before whom Abraham bowed down and whom he worshiped, Gen. 18:3 — so that our proof of the eternal Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which we draw from the religious honor and worship due to them according to Holy Scripture, might not stand and hold good; and finally, that Christ, in turning the Law into the Gospel, also improved upon the Mosaic Law in this respect — hold that under the Old Testament it was lawful to worship the Angels. With this, to favor the Socinians, the Apologetic Remonstrants agree, Episcopius, Institutiones, Book IV, ch. 35. The Reformed believe that a civil service and honor is due to them, 1 Cor. 11:10, 1 Tim. 5:21, as being the most excellent of creatures, Heb. 1:4; but that a religious honor is due to them, they do not believe: (I) because God nowhere testifies this in Holy Scripture; (II) because this is condemned by Holy Scripture, Col. 2:18; and (III) is rejected by the Angels themselves, Rev. 19:10 and 22:8–9, Judg. 13:15–16; (IV) because religious honor, presupposing the supreme excellence of deity, belongs to God alone, Deut. 6:13 and 10:20, Matt. 4:10 — for which reason God so solemnly testifies, Isa. 42:8: "I am Jehovah... my glory will I give to no other." Nor does it count in favor of religious worship of the Angels that Abraham showed the Angels who appeared to him a religious honor, Gen. 18:2–3, for he did not show the Angels a religious honor, but the Angel, v. 3: "Lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight..." — and that Angel is repeatedly called Jehovah, vv. 13, 14, 17, 20. (Cf. Chamier, Panstratia, vol. II, Book XIX, ch. 6, §§9–23.) More on this, and especially the assumptions of the Socinians, we shall have in their places.

XXXIV.

It is asked: (XII) Was the Church of the Old Testament exposed to the power and dominion of the Angels? The so-called Angelici, whom we mentioned above, built their worship of Angels upon their supposed power over, and, as it were, divinity in, the church. (See Epiphanius, Haer. LX, and Augustine, Haer. XXXIX.) Nor do the advocates of a celestial Hierarchy differ from this, nor indeed could they: for while they assign to particular affairs, provinces, and cities their own particular Angel, do they not thereby also assign them a dominion and power, and demand a subjection? The very celebrated Cocceius, in order to be able to infer from the punishment that the Old Testament church was under a still-outstanding guilt of punishment, and in order to elevate the privileges of the New Testament church above those of the Old Church, holds that the Jewish church, after the making of the golden calf, was under the power and dominion of the Angels, called gods, whom God is supposed to have taken to Himself for this purpose in the giving of the Law ("by the ordination of angels"), so that the people, through the Law, should be made subject to the Angels, as their servant and slave, the Angels being the avengers of the Law; under which servitude even Christ is supposed to have been for a time, having been made a little lower than the Angels, until He delivered the New Testament church from that servitude. The other Reformed do acknowledge that the Angels are called Elohim, gods, Ps. 8:6, that they were also present at the giving of the Law, Acts 7:53, and that the Law was delivered to Moses by the Angels, Gal. 3:19 — indeed, that God avenged the transgression of the Law through the Angels, by sending punishments — but they do not believe that the Angels were thereby made lords and, as it were, gods of the Old Church: (I) because Scripture nowhere says that the Angels are lords and gods of the church, to whom the church would have to be subject; (II) because, on the contrary, it describes the Angels as ministering spirits, sent forth to serve..., Heb. 1:14; (III) because, if they had been lords and so-called gods of the Old Church, a religious service would also have been due to them, and Paul would not so strictly forbid it, even with this very argument, that its advocates were intruding into things they had not seen, Col. 2:18. Nor is this dominion of the Angels over the Old Church established: (1) from the statement that God has not subjected the world to come to the Angels, Heb. 2:5 — for it does not follow with the least cogency from this that God subjected the Old Church to the Angels, especially since the Church is nowhere called "the world," or properly, "the inhabited earth." Nor (2) from the fact that Christ, according to His human nature, through His humiliation and self-emptying, is said to have been made lower than the gods, or Angels, Ps. 8:6 compared with Heb. 2:5 — for this does not indicate that the Old Testament church, and, with the church, Christ, was subject to the Angels; for to be lower than someone is not immediately to be subject to him. Much less (3) is this established from the fact that Christ is said to have stripped the principalities and powers and triumphed over them, Col. 2:15, since all interpreters have hitherto understood this of the unclean spirits, whose power over believers He has, by His death, rooted out, having despoiled them, Heb. 2:14. Finally, (4) this dominion is established by not the slightest thread of evidence from the fact that the Angels are called Elohim (gods), that they were present with God at the promulgation of the Law, and that it was given by the ordination of Angels, that they too sometimes exercised vengeance upon transgressors of the Law, etc., since all these things are wont to be done, not by lords, but by servants. More on matters of this kind we shall perhaps have elsewhere.

The Practical Part

XXXV.

The consideration of the blessed Angels shows us, first of all, the Majesty and Glory of the Creator, as being (I) seated and surrounded by so great and such a bodyguard of spirits, Dan. 7:10: "thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him." (II) With a bodyguard of such perfect spirits, who are endowed with such surpassing keenness and clarity of mind, readiness and swiftness, indeed with such great power, as we have said in the Doctrinal Part. All of whom (III) are wholly and entirely intent on obeying, attending to, serving, and glorifying their Creator and Lord (1) day and night, to which end they are stirred up, Ps. 103:19–21 and 148:2, which they do, Isa. 6:3, Luke 2:14, Rev. 4:8–9; (2) to carry out His commands, Heb. 1:14, Ps. 103:20. And this (3) with the highest (a) reverence, for they cover their faces, Isa. 6:2; (b) humility, for they cover their feet, ibid.; (c) readiness and swiftness in glorifying God and in executing His commands, for which reason they are called Seraphim; (d) intense zeal and burning fervor, when they are described as calling to one another, "Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts," and this with such great power that the posts of the thresholds are moved by the voice of Him who cries, ibid.

XXXVI.

Likewise, secondly, the Angels set before us an example, which we must not only follow, but in which, as it were, we must join hands with them — as David leads the way for us, Ps. 103:20–21, where, having stirred up and exhorted the Angels to praise God with obedience, he joins himself and his soul together with them, v. 22: "Bless the LORD, O my soul." Likewise the twenty-four Elders, Rev. 4:9–11: "And when the living creatures gave glory and honor and thanks to Him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, the four and twenty elders fell down before Him that sat on the throne, and worshiped Him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power." For if so many and such great spirits do this, what then should we wretched little men not do? And if we do not join with them in this here, we shall never join with them in it hereafter. Let us, therefore, betimes accustom ourselves: (I) to glorify God together with them, with heart, mouth, and deeds, Matt. 6:9–10; (II) to hear and do the will of God, ibid. — and this, as far as possible, with an equal (1) reverence for the divine Majesty, Exod. 3:6: "Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God" — namely, as the Seraphim, with two wings, covered their faces for the same purpose, Isa. 6:2. (2) With an equally deep humility, that we, with Moses, take off our shoes before the LORD, ibid., as the Seraphim, with two wings, covered their feet. Cf. Gen. 18:27. (3) With an equal zeal and fervor of readiness and eagerness, to burn, as it were, in obedience with the Seraphim, Rom. 12:1, Luke 24:32, Jer. 20:9. (4) With the exertion of all our powers, that we, like the Seraphim, may cry out so that the posts of the thresholds are moved: thus I say, let us do the work of our Lord with our whole heart, with our whole soul, with all our strength, and with all our powers, Matt. 22:37, Luke 10:27, Col. 3:23.

XXXVII.

Further, thirdly, the consideration of the Angels discloses to us the blessedness of Believers: (I) in their glory, that such glorious spirits are created and appointed for them, being sent forth by God for their service, Heb. 1:14, indeed, to serve the saints, Heb. 6:10. (II) In their calm security and certainty against every kind of danger, since the Angel of the LORD encamps round about them, Ps. 34:7, and God commands His Angels concerning them, to keep them in all their ways, lest they dash their foot against a stone, Ps. 91:11–12, Matt. 18:10, Dan. 3:25–26, Acts 27:23, 5:19, 12:7, 9, Gen. 16:7, 9, 11 and 19:12, Rev. 7:11, Gen. 31:11. (III) In their usefulness, whereby they derive all manner of advantage and comfort from this service of the Angels: for (1) with regard to the goods of the soul, they rejoice over their salvation, Luke 2:9–11, over the conversion of a sinner, Luke 15:7; they gladden them with the announcement of divine favor, Acts 10:4; they proclaim the Law, Acts 7:38 compared with Gal. 3:19; they announce the Gospel, Luke 2:10; they hinder and impede evil, Num. 22:22; they fight against Satan, Jude v. 9, Dan. 10:13; they stand by them in temptation, Matt. 4:11. And (2) with regard to the goods of the body, they provide them with necessary sustenance, 1 Kings 19:6, Gen. 21:17, 19. Finally (3) in their last things: in death they comfort them, Luke 16:22; after death they carry their souls into heavenly joy, Luke 16:22; at the last Judgment they will gather together those who shall be saved, Matt. 13:30 and 24:13, 1 Thess. 4:17; in heaven itself they will give them a most sweet and most pleasant company, Heb. 12:22. From all these things, and many others, there doubtless arises and flows the happiness and blessedness of believers.

XXXVIII.

And from this, fourthly, there is kindled in us a desire and zeal to obtain for ourselves the service, protection, and so many and so great advantages of the blessed Angels. This is accomplished: (I) By reconciling ourselves to, and gaining, the Creator and Lord of the Angels, whose ministering spirits they are, and by whom they are sent forth, Heb. 1:14, "who makes His angels spirits and His ministers," Ps. 104:4. (II) By obtaining for ourselves the protection of the Prince of the Angels, namely Christ, the Captain of the host of the LORD, Josh. 5:13, the Head of the Angels, Col. 2:10, 1 Pet. 3:22, whom all the Angels worship, Heb. 1:6, whom they serve, Matt. 4:11. Now both of these will obtain for us that they send us their Angels: (1) by a sincere repentance of sin, by casting away the foreskin of the heart, and by eating our Passover (not in the old leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, 1 Cor. 5:8), Josh. 5:8, 11 compared with vv. 13–14; (2) by a living faith in Christ (as being that ladder by which the Angels descend and ascend, Gen. 28:12), in whom God has gathered together again, or reconciled with us, all that is in heaven, Eph. 1:10; (3) by a holy manner of life and conduct, Exod. 23:20–22, Zech. 3:7, cf. Josh. 5:15; (4) by reverence and fear of God, Ps. 34:7–8; (5) by placing our trust and hope in God, Ps. 91:2, 9 compared with v. 11; (6) by fighting valiantly with God's enemies and ours, resisting and overcoming their temptations, Matt. 4:10–11; (7) by calling upon God to send us His Angels, Matt. 26:53. (III) By obtaining for ourselves the goodwill and favor of the Angels themselves — certainly not by religiously honoring and worshiping them, which the Apostle forbids, Col. 2:18 — but (1) by gladdening them, which happens through a sincere and unfeigned pursuit of our duties toward their Creator and Lord, namely, through a sincere repentance, Luke 15:7, 10; (2) by conforming ourselves to and with their pursuits and manners, through a diligent care to glorify God and obey His commands, Ps. 34:7–8 — for nothing so much stirs up anyone's love and affection as likeness of pursuits and manners; (3) by guarding ourselves against and from all those things by which they might be embittered and driven away, such as disobedience, rebelliousness, etc., cf. Isa. 63:9–10, Exod. 23:20–21; (4) by reverencing their presence, 1 Cor. 11:10, 1 Tim. 5:21.

XXXIX.

Meanwhile, fifthly, we must carefully guard against being made so covetous by these many and great benefits of the Angels that we hanker: (I) after appearances of Angels, because such appearances, since God has spoken to us by His Son, Heb. 1:1, occur more rarely in the church, indeed very rarely; and because, moreover, now that the doctrine of salvation has been sufficiently and fully revealed, they are by no means necessary, Gal. 1:8, Acts 20:27; and are therefore also, on account of the devil's deceptions, since he can transform himself into an angel of light, 2 Cor. 11:14, very dangerous — for which reason we find that they have deceived very many. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, ch. 15.) At any rate, those who, not being content with the revelations of Scripture, hanker and whine after such appearances, plainly expose themselves to the danger of being deceived, 2 Thess. 2:11–12. We must also (II) not hanker after extraordinary revelations that do not appear, for sufficiently the same reasons, and because the Apostle in particular seems to warn and safeguard us against them, 1 Tim. 4:1, Gal. 1:8, Col. 2:18, 2 Cor. 11:14 — chiefly because God nowhere promises that He will send His Angels to reveal to us things beyond the ordinary; cf. Rom. 10:15. On this matter, (III) should they perhaps appear to us, and reveal to us things to be believed, we must not therefore depend nakedly upon their word alone, but must compare it with what has long been revealed in the Word, Gal. 1:8, on account of the danger that hangs over our heads in this regard, according to what we have already said — unless perhaps in particular and singular matters, which are not so precisely determined in the Scriptures, and provided they at the same time give us sufficient marks of their divine commission, Luke 1:11 compared with vv. 18–20. Finally, (IV) even should they have shown sufficient marks of their commission, we must still take care that we never rise, on account of the majesty of the appearance, and on account of the benefits shown, or to be shown, by those who appear to us, to more than a civil honor, Gen. 18:2, and that we most carefully avoid rendering to them a religious honor, Rev. 19:10 and 22:9, Col. 2:18, as we have said in its place.

XL.

Finally, sixthly, the so great and such perfection of the Angels shows us the misery of the wicked, who, through their own fault, are compelled not only to forfeit the protection, service, help, and eternal companionship of the Angels, but must also, in addition, experience them as their adversaries and enemies, arrayed against them. Of which an example is at hand in the first-created human beings, Gen. 3:24; in the Sodomites, Gen. 19:13; in the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Ezek. 9:5–6; in Balaam, Num. 22:22; Sennacherib, 2 Kings 19:35; the Israelites, Isa. 63:9–10; Herod, Acts 12:23. And who, then, in the end, are those over whom this sad and miserable fate hangs? Answer: (I) those who set themselves against the commands of God; who, with the first humans, set fleshly pleasures and worldly honor above divine favor; who prefer to hear and obey Satan and men rather than God, Gen. 3. (II) Those who carry about a mind hostile to the church and to God's friends, as appears in Satan. (III) Those who exalt themselves above God, Exod. 5:2 compared with ch. 12; who are stubborn and obstinate against God's admonitions and warnings, as appears in Balaam, Num. 22:12, 19, 20, 22; who despise the true God and provoke Him with blasphemies, or, with Rabshakeh and Sennacherib, blaspheme the blessed name of God, 2 Kings 19:19, 21–23, 27–28, with v. 35; who, by rebelliousness and murmuring, with the Israelites, resist the Holy Spirit, Isa. 63:10; who seek and accept an honor which does not belong to them but is proper to God alone, which is evident in the first humans and in Herod. And to ward off and avert so great a judgment as this, there is no other remedy than in those means by which we seek to reconcile and appease God, and likewise the Mediator, indeed the Angels themselves, with us — which means we have already set forth in §XXXVIII, among which a true repentance of sins toward God stands out, Luke 15:7, 10, whereby every cause of discord and disagreement is removed.

Chapter VIII: Of the Evil Angels

On Jude verse 6.

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

I.

We have considered the Angels as they are in themselves, and as they have flowed forth from the hands of God; but they must also be considered as they have become through their own fault, and in what manner, and through what, they have become, from good Angels, evil Devils — in which matter the Apostle Jude, in the sixth verse of his Epistle, will instruct us.

The Explanatory Part

II.

In and with these words the Apostle, for an example to men, sets forth God's judgment upon the fallen Angels. In which there occur to us:

1. The Persons upon whom God has executed the Judgment, namely, the Angels. Certainly not all, but those who are signified and described by what follows. The word is ordinarily taken for good spirits; but here and elsewhere, Rom. 8:38, 1 Cor. 6:3, etc., for evil ones — who are called Angels either because they were good Angels when they were created, or because these too are sent by God to execute His judgments, 1 Kings 22:21–23, Job 1:12 and 2:6–7, or in order to heighten the force of his warning, namely, that He who did not spare the Angels — being spirits, and such great and excellent ones — when they had sinned, would certainly not spare men either, 2 Pet. 2:4.

2. The Judgment, namely, their fall, which was brought about — as to its cause — by negligence, or neglect of their duty, which they should have observed: who "kept not their own beginning," or dominion. For the Greek word ἀρχή means both a beginning and a dominion. Hence Oecumenius translates it by principalitas, that is, primacy, excellence — that, not having kept the dignity of their nature, they did not act in accordance with their rank and dignity. And Beza and Erasmus render it thus: that they did not persevere after their beginning — namely, in that state in which they had been created: they were created good, but they became evil. It matters little which meaning one prefers, and it will perhaps not be unfitting to combine both: namely, that they did not do that which is chief, that they did not act in accordance with their dignity and rank, and therefore did not remain standing in that first blessed state in which they had been created. "Not having kept" — from the verb τηρέω, which means "I keep watchfully," 1 John 5:18, as it were by the use of a guard, as one who keeps the night-watch at the door of a prison; cf. Acts 4:3 and 5:18. The word differs from another verb, φυλάττω, which means "I preserve, I guard," since this latter word denotes a safeguarding and preservation from evil, while the former denotes a preservation in good; and the latter looks to the end, but the former to the means. It is thereby indicated, then, the outstanding negligence and carelessness of these Angels, whereby they paid no heed to themselves, to their order and rank, and to their dignity.

Second, by misconduct: "but left their own habitation." They did not merely fail, through carelessness, to keep their original dignity, but they moreover, through wickedness and malice, left their appointed place. Οἰκητήριον, a dwelling-place, is where someone lives, that is, dwells constantly and habitually, as distinct from an inn, where one only stays and lodges for a time. By the dwelling-place of the Angels is meant the third Heaven, Matt. 18:10, where they continually behold the face of God. That they left their dwelling-place was certainly not of their own accord and willingly, but by doing that on account of which they were compelled to leave Heaven — in the same way that the first-created humans left Paradise. What sort of sin their sin was, we shall inquire into in its place.

III.

The punishment of the Judgment.

1. Their confinement in prison until the day of the last Judgment. "He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness." Concerning this confinement in prison, there occur to us:

a. The chains, or fetters, "with everlasting chains." There are those who hold that "with chains" stands for "into chains," just as "with cords" stands for "into cords," 2 Pet. 2:4, so that it would refer to the punishment rather than to the imprisonment. But I see not the least need for any such emendation — no, on the contrary, the Apostle's construction is far more fitting and natural, namely, that God has kept them with chains unto the judgment. But since the Angels are spirits, which can be bound and fettered by no chains and fetters, what then do the "chains" mean here? The will and power of God, whereby a spirit is bound no less than a body is with chains. Cf. Acts 20:22. The text calls these chains "everlasting," to indicate the unchangeable imprisonment and misery of these spirits.

b. The place of imprisonment, "under darkness," or in a dark place, such as nearly all places of imprisonment are. The Greek word ζόφος means the thickest darkness, indeed darkness itself. In a spiritual sense it denotes a dreadful and terrifying condition, Isa. 50:10, Ps. 23:4, to be found in a terrifying place — which Peter seems to indicate by the word "having cast down to hell" (ταρταρώσας), 2 Pet. 2:4. But what, in the end, is this place of imprisonment of the evil spirits? There are those who understand by it a thick, dark air, in which the devils are kept until the day of the last judgment; but rather, it is hell itself. Cf. Matt. 22:13.

c. The confinement in prison, or the detention, "He hath kept." The force of the Greek word we have already shown above, namely, that it indicates that they are, by the will and power of God, kept as prisoners in such a way that they can never escape from their imprisonment, Ps. 139:7–8. This, however, must not be understood as though they were so shut up and bound in hell that they would never be here on earth outside of it, or that, by tempting and seducing, they would do nothing with respect to men — which Peter plainly contradicts, 1 Pet. 5:8 — but that they, wherever they are, are kept bound as with chains by the divine sentence, to this end, that they can never escape the execution of their sentence, although in the meantime, as it were in chains, they roam about, tempting and seducing men, by the permission and allowance of the Judge.

2. The punishment, "unto the judgment of the great day." Something which in other manuscripts is the same as "unto the day of the great judgment." But I do not know what reason would compel or necessitate this alteration, since the day of Judgment is elsewhere too called a great day, Acts 2:20, Joel 2:31: "and the day is great, and the judgment shall be great." Here we find:

a. The punishment, "unto the judgment." The root word κρίσις here means not a judging, or the act of judging, but the thing judged — and not an acquitting judgment, but a condemning one. Hence the words κρίσις, "judgment," and κατάκρισις, "condemnation," often mean one and the same thing, John 7:24, James 5:12, 2 Pet. 2:4, John 3:19 — so that by the punishment of the fallen Angels is left nothing but an unavoidable and unchangeable condemnation and damnation of them.

b. The time of punishment, "of the great day." These words seem to have been added, distinctively, to indicate that what is meant here is not a punishment of any and every kind of judgment and sentence, such as could still be interrupted or postponed, and which might be revocable, but rather the determining and final punishment of that last judgment. "The great day": Luke adds, Acts 2:20, "and notable," and terrible — all of which words describe a day that is illustrious, wonderful, terrifying, dreadful, fearsome, awful. That day is called great because it will be the day of the general judgment of and over all mankind.

The Doctrinal Part

III.

There are, accordingly, among the spirits some who, though created good by nature, and also righteous, have by their own wicked willfulness and wantonness irrevocably deprived themselves of righteousness and of blessedness. That such exist, Holy Scripture presupposes, through all the designations and appellations which we shall bring forward a little later. That they were created by God appears from the preceding chapter: for if good ones were created, then so too were the evil, since they were good at their creation — especially since it is, for all, more certain than anything certain, that they are not the Creator, and consequently are creatures; not to add that otherwise God would have no right or dominion over them at all, since that extends only over His creatures. That they have become evil through their own fault, Holy Scripture indeed teaches, when it says that they did not stand fast in the truth, thereby presupposing that they had at some time been in the truth, John 8:44; and a little more clearly, when it teaches that they did not keep their beginning, and left their dwelling-place, as also when it says that they sinned — with which right reason also entirely agrees, according to which it cannot happen, by virtue of God's nature, that He should bring forth a creature which is morally evil, for otherwise God would be a cause of sin. And that they have, by their own fall into sin, deprived themselves of all righteousness is evident from the text, in which they are said, on account of their sin, to be under an extreme and utter darkness, by which it is known that a thick ignorance is meant, Col. 1:13, Eph. 4:18 and 5:8, 11, Rom. 3:12; and they have deprived themselves not only of their righteousness, but also of their blessedness, for which reason they are said to be kept unto the judgment of that great day. And finally, that this has befallen them irrevocably and unchangeably is indicated by the chains of darkness.

IV.

But it is worthwhile to speak of these things a little more distinctly. The fallen Angels, of whom we now treat, are sometimes called, simply, spirits, 1 Kings 22:21, Matt. 8:16, on account of their immaterial nature, which they have in common with the good Angels; but, for the sake of distinction, generally with some qualifying addition — lying spirits, evil, wicked, unclean, cruel spirits, Eph. 6:12, 1 Sam. 16:23, Luke 8:2, 2 Kings 22:22(?), Prov. 17:11. Sometimes they are named from the punishing God who works through them, spirits of the LORD, 1 Sam. 16:16 and 18:10; again, from their office and end, being formerly natural to them, simply "Angels," 1 Cor. 6:3, and, with a defining qualifier, "evil Angels," Ps. 78:49, "Angels of Satan," 2 Cor. 12:7, Rev. 12:9. Yet they are never called "Angels of the LORD," although they too very often execute the LORD's judgments. Again, they are named from the knowledge natural to them, "Demons," Matt. 8:31, Mark 5:12, which the profane writers nevertheless divide into εὐδαίμονες, good demons, and κακοδαίμονες, evil demons; cf. Acts 17:18. Again, from their power, "strong ones," fully-armed ones, Matt. 12:28; then, "princes of the power of the air," Eph. 2:2, likewise "principalities and powers," Eph. 6:12, Col. 2:15. Again, on account of their sworn enmity against God and men, "Satan," that is, an adversary, Luke 10:19, 1 Pet. 5:8, Rev. 12:9, Matt. 4:10, and "a murderer of men," John 8:44; "Apollyon," that is, a destroyer, Rev. 9:11; or "Shed," that is, a devastator, Deut. 32:17 compared with Ps. 106:35, which name the Septuagint translators render by δαιμόνιον, "an evil spirit"; this name derives from שרר, "shadad," to devastate. Their euphemistic names we shall insert here and there in their places. Among the Jewish masters the Devil is called Sammael, who is said to have ridden upon a serpent to seduce man, as it were שר מאל, "sar mael," that is, "one fallen away from God."

V.

That most shameful transformation, whereby they became, from good Angels, the most wicked and worst of Devils, they have doubtless themselves been the cause of, for themselves, through their sin, 2 Pet. 2:4, and consequently through the transgression of the divine Law; since sin is nothing other than ἀνομία, lawlessness, unrighteousness, 1 John 3:4. But what sort of law was laid upon the Angels, we shall say in its place, in the chapter on God's moral providence. What their sin was, and what the very first motion toward it may have been, Holy Scripture does not so precisely determine. Wherefore some ascribe it to an error of the understanding, whereby it did not stand fast in the truth, John 8:44, and by which the first humans too were led astray from truth into error; others ascribe to them a lustful sensuality, wrongly drawing on the passage Gen. 6:2 for this; more probably, others name pride, since this is called "the condemnation of the devil," 1 Tim. 3:6, for which reason they still so eagerly aspire to divine honor, and incite men to the same. By this pride they sought their own excellence with such great zeal that they attempted to be made equal to God Himself, or even set above Him (for which reason too they specifically tried, through their temptation, to bring the first-created humans into this same crime) — or at least refused to be subject to His laws and dominion. Unless one wishes to add here also envy — either against God, on account of the dignity of Godhead, which belongs to Him alone; or against other Angels, who may have been above them in order and rank; or against man, who together with them had received the image of God. But this disordered striving after, and love of, their own excellence, they seem to have derived from an error of the understanding, in the choosing of means to that end — perhaps in the same way that Ames, Medulla, Book I, ch. 51, §7, shows in regard to men. As for myself, since Holy Scripture is silent, I would not wish to determine anything rashly.

VI.

And although that sin was committed with God's foreknowledge, and according to His eternal decree, and through the co-operating influence of His providence — without which neither would He Himself be independent, nor the Angels dependent in all things — nevertheless none is to be called the author and cause of it except the sinning Angel himself, who, through his own lust, and through the abuse of his free will, fell away from God. For he who willed it has fallen; and he was able to fall, because, according to the nature of created things, he was created mutable. Although, considered simply in himself, apart from the establishment of God's decree and providence, he was sufficiently endowed with powers by which he could have persevered and stood fast in his original state.

VII.

The place where the sin of the Angels was committed is not expressly stated in Holy Scripture, though it is not improbable that it was heaven, the natural dwelling-place of the Angels, which they are also said to have left through their sin. From this it may perhaps be that the great Dragon and that old Serpent is said to have been cast to the earth, and his Angels with him, Rev. 12:9. Nor is the time of the sin committed expressly stated any more than this: at least it is false that it was before the creation of the world, for at that time there was no time at all, but pure and sheer eternity — though the Socinians would have it so, to favor their assumptions. How long they persevered in obedience, or whether it was during the first six days of creation, cannot be conclusively determined from Holy Scripture. At any rate, it cannot be said from this that it happened on the second day, as some Jews hold, since this view has no particular approval; nor that they fell away at the very moment of their creation, from the fact that the Devil is called "a murderer of men from the beginning," John 8:44, since that "beginning" can fittingly enough be derived from the seduction of man. This one thing is certain, that the fall of the Angels preceded the fall of man, since the Devil was the seducing cause of the latter.

VIII.

The number of these apostates has doubtless been very great, as appears also from the words of this text, Mark 5:9, Luke 8:30 — though it is rashly determined to be a third part of them, from Rev. 12:4, 9: "and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth... and the dragon stood before the woman... and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were cast out with him," since the sense and meaning of that vision seems to be something quite different altogether. Whether each one of them sinned separately for himself, or one in the place of all; likewise whether they all committed one and the same offense, or each his own, Holy Scripture does not precisely say. Damascene, Book II, On the Orthodox Faith, thinks that one chief Angel, having fallen, drew with him an infinite multitude, for which reason that one would be called the Prince of the evil spirits, Matt. 12:24 and 9:34, and the rest his Angels, Matt. 25:41, 2 Cor. 12:7, Rev. 12:7, 9. But since ἄρχοντες, "princes," are also mentioned in the plural, Eph. 2, and it is nowhere said that this princedom already existed before the fall, we say nothing further on this here — although it seems more certain that this princedom, if any existed then, did not originate from any natural dependence (in the way that the first man is the head of the whole human race, in whom all have sinned), since neither reason nor Scripture teaches that one Angel should be the prince and head of another Angel by virtue of their nature. Though we would not wish to deny that, through the persuasion and example of one certain Angel, the rest consented of their own accord to the same crime, and that, by this consent and imitation, they came to be enslaved and made subject, by God's righteous judgment, to the dominion of that one first Angel — which seems to be inferable from 2 Pet. 2:19.

IX.

By that fall the apostates have brought upon themselves, as it were, two things: first, an utterly complete and hopeless corruption, on account of which they are evil and unclean spirits, as we have already said above — their understanding being wholly and entirely deprived of all knowledge of God and of divine things, at least of a practical and experiential knowledge; for which reason they are called the power of darkness, who are bound and fettered with the chains of darkness. Cf. Eph. 4:18 and 5:8. Their will is utterly and entirely averse to God, and to the divine image in man; for which reason the Devil is generally called Satan, an adversary, an accuser of the brethren, a tempter and a seducer; their will, too, is turned toward, and given over to, every kind of villainy, cruelty, tyranny, hatred, and wrath; for which reason the Devil is called an enemy, Matt. 13:25, 39, Gen. 3:15, likewise a roaring lion, 1 Pet. 5:8, the red Dragon, great, seven-headed, seven-horned, Rev. 12 and following; a murderer of men from the beginning; indeed, given over to every kind of wickedness, for which reason he is called ὁ πονηρός, "the evil one," 1 John 2:13, Matt. 6:13 — in which corruption and ruin they have become so hardened that they neither will nor can desist from any of it, being, as it were, fettered fast to it with everlasting chains and fetters. Secondly, they have also brought upon themselves an extreme and unchangeable misery — already for a great part long since inflicted upon them, but for the greater part still to be inflicted upon them — for which reason they are said to be kept unto the judgment of that great day, so that, just as they excel here in wickedness, so they may hereafter excel in misery.

X.

Meanwhile, however, they remain by nature, and continue, imperishable and immortal, though in death and unto misery: they are endowed with understanding, with a knowledge of natural, indeed also of divine things, so exceedingly great that we have called them δαίμονας, Demons; see James 2:19. Namely, they are endowed not only with a very great natural knowledge, insofar as a spirit is not only naturally sharper and clearer, but also independent of the errors and prejudices of the bodily senses; but they are also endowed with a very great experiential knowledge, which they have gained through long use of time — for which reason Luther calls the Devil not a newly-graduated but a most experienced Doctor — and moreover with a very great revealed knowledge, which God reveals to them, 1 Kings 22:22. But their knowledge nevertheless does not extend to future contingent things, which God reserves for Himself alone, Isa. 41:26. Hence the astrologers, with all their instruments, could not interpret the dreams of Pharaoh, Gen. 41:8, nor of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 2:10–11 and 4:7 — except perhaps by conjecture from natural causes, just as wise statesmen can conjecture approaching wars. Their knowledge likewise does not extend to the hidden secrets of man's heart, for the same reason, Jer. 17:9 — except insofar as the Devil sees through us, from the drives, affections, and pursuits of men, or also from all manner of very evil thoughts, which he himself injects into men, 2 Cor. 4:4. And that knowledge which they have of God and divine things is merely speculative, and idle and unfruitful.

XI.

Likewise they are endowed with power and strength, whereby they are strong, Matt. 12:28, as fully-armed ones, Luke 11:21, and roaring lions, 1 Pet. 5:8 — which they show by their operations, Eph. 2:2, Job 1:19, Matt. 8:32; when they blind, seduce, and corrupt men's understanding; incite their will to sin; terrify the inner senses with dreams; entice the outer senses to desire unlawful things, as appears from the history of the fall, Gen. 3; likewise when they abuse men's locomotive power, Matt. 17:15, Mark 5:3–4; restrain the reasoning faculty, Mark 9:17, Luke 11:14; hinder good deeds, 1 Thess. 2:18, and on the contrary promote evil ones; possess bodies, and afflict them miserably in one way or another. They also have much power over the elements, over storms, and over growing creatures, Job 1:12, 16, Rev. 7:2–3. Their power, however, is not infinite, but circumscribed within certain limits, Job 1:12, Matt. 8:31–32, Exod. 8:18, Rev. 9:14. In particular, and by name, they are unable to perform miracles properly so called, which surpass either the whole of nature, or at least their own — since this belongs to God alone, Ps. 136:4. Nevertheless, through nearby or available naturally-acting subjects (whose powers and operations they know most precisely), they can do and bring about, upon such passive objects, astonishing and wondrous things, which surpass human comprehension, because we do not know their causes.

XII.

As for what particularly concerns man: they can contribute and do a great deal, both on his body, by impairing its health, and by sending bitter afflictions, Matt. 4:5, 8, Luke 13:11, 16, Job 2:7, Luke 9:39 with Mark 9:17, and following; indeed also, by God's permission, by wonderfully agitating the natural bodily humors, and by disturbing, unsettling, and overturning the shapes of things in the brain; they can bring a man to raving madness, Matt. 8:28 — with which raving madness, wild savage manners, and that sorrowful melancholy, which is thought to be a kind of lycanthropy, are often coupled. For to change men into the shapes of wild beasts, or into wolves, and to clothe that noblest of creatures with the forms of beasts, and to change the natures of things, seems to exceed their powers; likewise upon man's soul: for although Satan does not seem to be able directly to fall upon and steal into the chief faculties of the soul itself, the understanding and the will, and to address them inwardly, and fill them with all sorts of forms and shapes; yet he can, by means of and with the help of the power of imagination, and through the outward senses, powerfully affect them, terrify them, blind them, and in all manner of ways falsely present himself as an angel of light, 2 Cor. 11:14 — most of all by doing moral harm through deceptions.

XIII.

In particular, he is also accustomed to appear to men, to deceive with apparitions, and to encounter them in an assumed body — whether by merely feigning an outward shape in the air, or by entering into the dead bodies of the deceased, and carrying them about. To this belong all manner of oracles, murmurings, devilish whisperings, and divinations, which were common among the heathen — all of which things are known, not only from Scripture (Gen. 3:1, 1 Sam. 28:14, Matt. 4:3, Lev. 19:31 and 20:6, 27, 2 Kings 1:2), but also through experience. That he cannot, however, produce true human bodies, the Savior seems to presuppose, Luke 24:37–39; and that he can far less raise the dead, or call forth and summon up the souls of the departed from their dwelling-places, and show them again on earth, seems to be inferable from Luke 16:26.

XIV.

Furthermore, he can also form his own for magical arts, having entered with them into a tacit, or an explicit, Covenant, whereby they are enabled either to foretell future contingent things, which is called divinatory sorcery, or to work marvelous things without the use of any natural causes — or, for the most part, such things as are unfit and powerless (such as certain marks and signs, words, herbs gathered at a certain fixed time and with a certain fixed ceremony, and other ridiculous and godless things) — which is called operative sorcery; or also to attack and trouble others through poisonings, as Hecate, Circe, and Medea did. Although there are also those who, from an imagined covenant with the Devils, seem to perform many things by themselves, while yet, their brains being possessed and filled with the strongest melancholy, they in fact accomplish nothing of the kind — such as are commonly the so-called white witches and nightmares. Cf. Perkins, Basanologia, that is, a Treatise on Witchcraft; and what we shall say deliberately and at length on witchcraft in its place.

XV.

In particular, however, they are accustomed to exercise their power and cruelty in bodily possession (for there is also a spiritual possession, an example of which appears in the Betrayer, John 13:27, which is indeed far more dangerous, though not as terrifying), when they take over a man's body, use its members, tongue, and hands according to their pleasure and desire, torment the man miserably, and drive and impel him to such things as could not naturally be said or done by him — of which more frequent mention is made in the Gospel history at the coming of Christ, Matt. 4:24, 8:16, 28, 9:32, 12:22, and 15:22, Luke 24:36, Acts 13:8 — perhaps because the Savior Jesus wished to show and reveal His power over the Devils, not only with respect to men's souls, but also with respect to the body, in healing those who were possessed by the devil. Such persons are commonly called energumeni, "possessed ones," afflicted by the Devil, because Satan worked in them in a particular way; and they seem to be distinguished into the possessed and the lunatic, John 10:20, Matt. 17:15 compared with Luke 9:39, because Satan very often abused the lunar humors for his own purpose. The causes of this evil seem to be traceable both to the wickedness of the devil and to the sinners' own deserts, whereby they had already beforehand made themselves spiritual slaves of Satan; and also to God's righteous wrath, whereby He seems to have dealt out that judgment upon Saul; perhaps also to His grace, so that they might feel the bitterness of sin, and might be turned from it to better thoughts, 1 Cor. 5:5. (Cf. Voetius, Disputationes, De Obsessis.)

XVI.

There remains yet the power, and the mighty operation, of Satan in leading men astray, on account of which he is called, by a particular appropriation, the Seducer or Tempter, Matt. 4:3, and a roaring lion, going about and seeking whom he may devour, 1 Pet. 5:8. By which he does not compel mortals to sin — which he cannot do — but incites and entices them by tempting them with cunning and crafty suggestions, whereby, under the appearance of the true and the good, he attempts to lead them astray into the false and the evil. In doing so, he magnifies the good which he promises will be obtained by sinning, as a very great and supreme good; the means which he indicates for obtaining it, as easy; the danger of evil which seems to threaten from sinning, he sets aside, or minimizes. Of which artfulness this thousand-artificer has shown and given proof and example in both Adams — in the first, Gen. 3, and in the second, Matt. 4. To which he sometimes adds an extraordinary kind of temptation, both in confused and melancholic terrors, with which he seems to have plagued Saul, 1 Sam. 16:14, and in blasphemous suggestions, with which he most often torments the godly — which seems to have been that σκόλοψ, "sharp thorn" (or sharp stake), in Paul's flesh, while Satan, as with buffets, struck his soul, 2 Cor. 12:7. In order to discern and distinguish safely the promptings and suggestions of ordinary temptations, there seems to be no surer mark than this: that in ordinary temptations the flesh conspires along with them, whereas the mind of a believer has, toward the other kind — as toward buffets of Satan — a horror and abhorrence. Of this too we shall have to treat at length in our practical, duty-admonishing Exercises.

XVII.

As for the preventive remedies against these snares and stratagems of the Devil that hang over our heads, as well as the healing remedies which we must use to drive them out once they are already present — these are not of any bodily kind, but spiritual, as the Apostle admonishes, 2 Cor. 10:4: "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds"; namely, they consist in prayers, in the struggle, indeed in that whole armor of God which the Apostle commends, Eph. 6:12 and following, and of which we shall admonish more distinctly in the Practical Part.

The Polemical Part

XVIII.

It is asked: (I) Are there evil Angels? The Sadducees deny it, Acts 23:8. (Epiphanius, vol. I, Book I, ch. 14; Nazianzen, Oration on the Holy Spirit.) Some heathen have indeed admitted Demons, but such as by their nature have an aversion to all evil — with whom Plato agrees (in the Cratylus and the Epinomis), and his followers, Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and others, confusing good and evil Angels, gods with Demons. (See Augustinus Steuchus, De Perenni Philosophia, Book VIII, chs. XXXI and XXXIII; Heinsius, Introduction to Hesiod's Works and Days, ch. X.) David Joris holds that devils are nothing other than the corruption of the human will. Aristotle, Avicenna, and Averroes, with their followers, acknowledge no devils, and twist all their works either into fables, or into natural causes — in which latter course the recent author of The World Bewitched follows them. The Reformed unanimously acknowledge that there are evil Angels: (I) because Scripture steadfastly teaches this with thousands of testimonies. (II) Because there are apparitions, which perform such things as belong neither to God,

...nor can they be attributed to the good angels, on account of the lies and godless deeds involved in them; nor be brought back to natural causes, whose reach they surpass — the force of which proof the ancient Heathens, Muhammadans, and other foreign peoples acknowledge. (III) Because the oracles, which are recorded to have been given from the clefts of the earth, from trees, and from statues, confirm this, in keeping with the force of the foregoing proof. (IV) Because the possessed, and their workings and effects, likewise confirm this with the same force. (V) Because sorcery, and its magical and malicious effects, aim at the very same thing, and with the same force of proof. (VI) Because this is the common opinion of wise men of every sect at once — of Jews, Muhammadans, and Heathens (whose testimonies Eugubinus recounts in the Perennial Philosophy, Book VIII), and also of Christians.

Nor do I see what could be said against this, even with any appearance of truth or reason, except that the author of the recent Bewitched World tries with great force to render all the testimonies of Scripture powerless and ridiculous, and to prove that many of these testimonies are stated according to the mistaken opinion of others — although in the meantime he does not appear willing to deny outright that there are evil spirits. Of which we shall see more, more broadly and fully, in what follows.

XIX.

It is asked: (II) Whether the evil angels are spirits, that is, absolutely immaterial substances? The Heathens formerly believed that the souls of the godless were changed into shades, ghosts, white women, and specters, wandering about, terrifying, and doing harm, and were on that account material (Isidore, Orig. Lib. VIII); with which opinion the Jews of old agreed — see Josephus, Jewish War, VII.3.33. Plato (in the Epinomis) makes the demons material, indeed counts them even among the animals, and assigns to some bodies of air, to others heavenly bodies. The Talmudists and Kabbalists, whom Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel follows (de Creat. Probl. XXII), hold that the devils are corporeal, and are affected by corporeal things, that they eat food, beget, and die, just as men do: compare especially Muntterus, in his notes on Levit. XVII. The Messalian heretics said the devil to be corporeal; very many of the ancient Fathers, together with the Platonists, expressly held that the devils are corporeal, and are affected by corporeal things. (See Justin Martyr, Quæst. Græcan.; Origen, Peri Archon, in the Prologue; Tertullian, de Carne Christi, Cap. VI, and cont. Marc. Lib. III.9; Lactantius, Lib. II. Cap. 15; Augustine, de Civit. Dei, Lib. VIII. Cap. 15.) — except that Pamelius (in his Paradoxa) tries to excuse Tertullian on this point, saying that by the word "body" he intended nothing other than a substance. Dorstius and the Socinians, so as not to have any single being that is absolutely simple and immaterial — not even God — hold that both the angels and the devils are absolutely material, though they are called spirits comparatively, with regard to their fineness and thinness.

The Reformed hold unanimously that the evil angels, no less than the good, are absolutely immaterial substances: because (I) throughout the Gospels they are everywhere called unclean spirits, Matt. 12:43, 45; Mark 1:23, 26, 27; 3:11, 30; 5:2, 5, 8, 13; 7:25; Luke 7:21; 8:29; 11:24, 26; John 5:16; 19:12; Eph. 6:12; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 4:1; Rev. 16:13, 14 — from whom the Savior seems to deny materiality, Luke 24:39, saying that they have no flesh nor bones. (II) Because such workings are ascribed to them as do not so much agree with material causes, such workings as are recounted in the Gospels concerning the possessed and the bewitched. (III) Because this opinion in particular lacks not the agreement of the Church Fathers — namely, of those who hold the spirits to be incorporeal, for example Cyril, on John, Lib. II. Cap. 10; Nazianzen, Oration II, de Theol., and Oration XXXVIII, de nat. Chr.; Chrysostom, Oration I, de Provid.; Theodoret, de curat. gr. aff., Serm. III, and on Gen. Quæst. XXXVI; Dionysius the Areopagite, Damascene, and others. For the contrary opinion one will scarcely, indeed hardly at all, hear any proofs. Manasseh ben Israel (de Creat. Prob. XXII) tries to gather from Ps. 104:4 that they are composed of fire and air — but that passage has nothing to do with the devils, but with the good, spiritual angels, of whom it is said that God makes them spirits, and, in a transferred sense, with regard to the swiftness and effectiveness of their works, flames of fire. Nor can any such thing be concluded from the fact that they move about in the air, Eph. 2 and 6:12, since one cannot very solidly infer the nature of the inhabitant from the place of his abode and dwelling.

XX.

It is asked: (III) Whether God is the Creator of the evil angels? The Heathens formerly believed, as we have already noted in the preceding section, that the souls of the godless are changed into shades, ghosts, and the like. The Jews, together with some Christians of whom mention was just made, hold that the devils originally arose from a fleshly union of the angels with human beings, or from the marriage of Adam with his first wife Lilith, who among them is the mother of the evil spirits; or from the union of Adam with female demons, for one hundred and thirty years, during which time he — on account of his roughness and grief over the death of Abel — is said to have abstained from intercourse with his wife Eve; and likewise that Eve, during that time, bore offspring from union with male demons. (Bereshith Rabba, Sect. XX & XXIV; R. Solomon Jarchi on Ps. 89:33.) This last source, however, states it a little differently, namely, that they were born from the emission of Adam's seed by night, while he was separated from Eve. The Valentinians and Archontics taught that the devil was born from the thirtieth Aeon. Very many of the ancients, misusing the passage of Gen. 6:2, believed that the angels begot giants or demons upon women. (Philo, de Gigantibus; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. Lib. III; Tertullian, de habit. mulier. Lib. II. Cap. XV.) Others hold, through that same misuse, that the "sons of God" — by which name they call the demons — being corporeal like men, beget demons. Others, by misuse of the same passage, have believed that the demons, lying on their backs, received a very strong and potent seed from very strong men, which they afterward, lying face-down, poured out into very strong and vigorous women. (Vales., Philosph. S. Cap. VIII.)

The Reformed consider the evil angels either with respect to their being, and in that regard they acknowledge that God is their Creator, no less than of the good angels, because there is no intermediate between the Creator and the creature; or with respect to their wickedness, and in that regard they acknowledge no other cause of it than those very evil spirits themselves, who, having abused their free will, fell away from God, and thus have been to themselves the causes of all their subsequent and worse wickedness; or with respect to their misery or punishment, and of that those angels themselves are the deserving causes, but God the justly punishing cause. Further, since they are spirits, we say that no propagation must be allowed with regard to them, whether active or passive, since that belongs only to bodies. Therefore God is by no means the cause of the devils, insofar as they are what they are: (I) Because God created everything very good, Gen. 1:31. (II) Because a moral evil cannot be produced except by transgression of a law, for it is ἀνομία, lawlessness, 1 John 3:4; but God stands under no law. (III) Because the devil, according to Holy Scripture, is alone the cause of his own fall and of his wickedness, Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2:4; John 8:44. (IV) Because God is not the cause of it through creation, since He created nothing but what was very good, and nothing but angels of light, not the power of darkness, Col. 1:13; nor through His decree, since that produces nothing distinct from God, it being an immanent act of God; nor through His permitting providence, since to permit is not to produce; nor through His ordaining providence, since that tends nowhere but to the good, inasmuch as it follows upon the fall. More on this will perhaps come up in the chapter on Providence.

From what has been said, whatever might be objected to the contrary will be sufficiently refuted: (1) from the divine decree — that this is not the cause of the fall of the angels themselves, but only of the future outcome, which is distinct from the fall itself, just as that which is eternal is distinct from that which is temporal. Or (2) from God's efficacious permission — that this does not produce, but only permits. Or (3) from His ordination — that this inclines only toward that which is good. Or (4) from the influence of divine providence, since that does not occur in the fall itself, insofar as it is a lawlessness, but only in its underlying act, which in itself is good — as, proportionately, will be said in its place concerning the fall of man.

XXI.

It is asked: (IV) Whether the evil angels work outside themselves by their own powers? That controverted and disputed point has recently been introduced with great vehemence and force by the author of the Bewitched World. His Cartesian opponents determine, in general, concerning the working of created spirits, that they indeed do work, but certainly not by their own powers, but only insofar as God has willed that upon such thoughts of theirs, such effects should follow; while He Himself, meanwhile, would not only have made that connection, but would also immediately produce their thought itself — indeed, even the very effect or product produced — while they themselves, meanwhile, by their own powers, do nothing: but in particular, concerning the workings of the evil spirits, they touch scarcely at all, as can be seen in their great and thick books on this matter — for example, from the Supernatural Physics of Henricus Groenewegen, published deliberately and intentionally on this very point; also from the great book of Johannes van der Wayen, published against the author of the Bewitched World; and from all the other writings which have been published on this matter. For they saw that they could not maintain that God would have made that connection between the evil thoughts of the evil spirits and their evil effects; nor that God could produce those evil thoughts, nor even their evil effects themselves, without becoming, in the plainest way, a cause of sin. But the author of the Bewitched World gladly granted that God used the service of the good spirits to execute His judgments, both against the good and against the evil, insofar as He made that connection between their good workings and produced their good thoughts themselves; but since He could not, without open blasphemy, apply this to the evil thoughts of the evil spirits, He preferred to deny to the evil spirits all outward working whatever, and to bring the whole controversy down to this one point: that God has assigned the evil angels who led mankind astray to eternal damnation in such a way that He no longer, since that time, permits them any working toward the leading astray of man — the lust (once kindled by the devil in the first temptation, which has corrupted the whole heart of man) being the proximate cause of all lying, sin, and seduction that is in the world. These are his own words, in his satisfactory Articles to the Reverend Classis of Amsterdam.

The first falsehood among them all consists in this: that they suppose a spirit to be nothing other than a bare thought, in which, therefore, there are no powers by which it could work outside itself. The Reformed anti-Cartesians hold that the evil spirits are substances, in which powers are inherent, whereby they can not only think within themselves, but also work outside themselves — tempt, seduce, harm, and so forth. (I) Because the evil angels are, by their nature, spirits just as much as the good, of whom we have shown in the preceding chapter that they are substances which have powers, by which they truly and properly work, both within and outside themselves. (II) Because Holy Scripture testifies that the devil led astray the first-created humans, Gen. 3; tempted Christ, Matt. 4; disputed and contended with Michael over the body of Moses, Jude 9; incited David to number Israel, 1 Kings 21:1; and afflicted Job most miserably, Job 1 and 2. (III) To this we shall add the collection of Scripture passages which the Bewitched World itself sets against itself in order to answer them, Book II, Chapter XVIII, §1, in these words: "The adduced Scripture passages, on closer examination, describe to us the devil — of what nature he is, what he is capable of, what he does, the manner of his working, and what lot awaits him. (1) As to his nature, Holy Scripture says that he is a liar, as one who led Eve astray by his cunning, 2 Cor. 11:3; that he has such depths as are not easily fathomed, Rev. 2:24; hence he is the father of lies, John 8:44. (2) As to his powers, that he holds the sinner under his power until his conversion, Acts 26:18; and for this reason he also has the power of death, Heb. 2:14. (3) As to his work and activity: in general, (a) to work evil, 2 Thess. 2:9; (b) to steal away God's word secretly, Mark 4:15; (c) to hinder and tempt God's people, 2 Cor. 12:7, 1 Cor. 7:5; (d) to accuse day and night, Rev. 12:9, 10. In particular he has done much harm — as to the soul, when he (a) sought to sift the apostles as wheat, Luke 22:31; (b) when he entered into Judas and into Ananias, Luke 22:3, John 13:27, Acts 5:3; (c) when he hindered Paul in his journey, 1 Thess. 2:18; (d) when he had his followers at Smyrna and at Pergamos, Rev. 2:1, 13. (4) As to the manner of his working, that he often disguises himself as an angel of light, 2 Cor. 11:14. (5) As to his present state, that he is God's prisoner, Rev. 20:7. (6) As to his approaching ruin, when he shall fall down from heaven, Luke 10:18, Rom. 16:20 — which shall be followed by the punishment of the eternal fire prepared for him and his angels, Matt. 25:41." Thus far the Bewitched World.

The author acknowledges that all those passages can well and fittingly enough be understood of the devil himself alone, who is the head of the evil spirits — but from this we reason thus: to whomever all the aforesaid things belong, he truly and properly works upon men, etc. Yet he retracts all his own statements, on the ground that, in his view, the devil is but a single one, in whom all those things said cannot properly hold; but, being forgetful of himself, he refutes this very point himself, Chapter XVI, §3. "First," he says, "one must know that the word devil, said of one, does not necessarily denote only one person: for just as a Canaanite, an Amorite, Gen. 15:19, 20, 21, signifies a certain whole people and race, so it can also happen here." Having laid this foundation, the Bewitched World then girds itself to twist its adduced Scripture passages into a perverse and improper sense — to which we have tried to answer, in our corrections upon that book, fully, and, in our judgment, with sufficient care; whereupon the author himself, though challenged, as he supposed, on some point of weight which had been passed over by me, having been admonished and warned either to retreat or to answer modestly, although he had promised to do so, has nevertheless up to now not answered. We therefore think that enough has been done concerning the whole matter of this controversy. Meanwhile we add (IV), for further proof, the general agreement — the common notion of the whole world, through all ages and among all sects — which the Bewitched World itself sets before itself in its first Book. Nor has he anything to object against his own opinion, except that he is not bound to prove it, since he maintains nothing but a negative opinion — which openly contradicts his own position, already proposed beforehand — although the universal assent and agreement of the whole world, to contradict it either without reason or without Holy Scripture, according to the consent of all, is rash and reckless. And insofar as he objects out of his own head something concerning godliness and piety, against which the common opinion should be supposed to stand — we have answered this point by point, and in detail, in our above-mentioned Epanorthosis [Corrections].

XXII.

It is asked: (V) Whether there is such a fellowship and intercourse of the evil angels with men, whereby they could perform wonderful things, or practice sorcery? That fellowship and intercourse, together with the effects thereof, is what I have wished to signify, in a more general sense, by sorcery, divination, and witchcraft — whether it be to tell hidden things, or to foretell, or to bring about perverse things. Now this intercourse with the devil, at least on the part of the one who divines, Varro counts, according to the number of the four elements, into four kinds — namely, that which occurs by fire, and is with him fire-divination; that which occurs by air, air-divination; that which occurs by water, water-divination; that which occurs by earth, earth-divination. From Holy Scripture one counts eight kinds, namely, Deut. 18:10, 11: "There shall not be found among you anyone that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire," or one that "useth divination" (קסם), or "an observer of times" (מעונן), or "an enchanter" (מנחש), or "a witch" (מכשף), or "a charmer" (חבר), one who deals with charms, or "a consulter with familiar spirits" (שאל אוב), or "a wizard" (ידעני), or one that "seeketh unto the dead." And Num. 23:23: "For there is no enchantment (נחש) against Jacob, neither is there any divination (קסם) against Israel," etc. Some distinguish these kinds thus: those called קסמים, among the Latins Divini, that is, diviners, are those who, through intercourse and fellowship with Satan, tell or foretell hidden and secret things; אבות, among the Latins and Greeks Pythonici, that is, those said to have a Python, namely, a familiar or household spirit; ידענים, necromancers, among the Greeks Nekromantici, that is, those who divine by the dead; מעוננים, from which word perhaps come, among the Latins and Greeks, the Magi, that is, wise men — so named the astrologers and mathematicians, who try to foretell future things from the observation and consideration of signs, places, and stars, and their positions and aspects; מנחשים, among the Latins commonly called Magi, diviners and soothsayers who, by means of certain fixed and marked figures, lines, and strokes, and by superstitiously muttering certain fixed words, [divine]; ידענים, among the Latins Arioli, that is, soothsayers, diviners, who, as one says, foretell good fortune, of which sort among us are the dream-interpreters and wall-gazers, formerly among the Latins called Exstipes and Oscines; מכשפים, among the Latins Præstigiatores, that is, jugglers, enchanters, who deceive by charms and mere illusions and deceptions of the eyes; חברים, among the Latins Sortilegi, that is, casters of lots, sorcerers. So Danæus (de Sortiariis).

Whatever there may be of all these things, at least it is required for sorcery that there be an intercourse and fellowship of evil angels with men, whether this happens by an outward and express covenant, or by an implicit one — of which little has been determined, except only that the effects occur through Satan's help; and those effects are astonishing and wonderful — such as appear to surpass the understanding and powers of those who perform them; yet not miracles, which surpass nature itself, and belong to God alone. The question now is: whether there is such sorcery? With the Sadducees and Atheists we shall not concern ourselves for the present. Recently a certain Reginald Scot, a Scotsman by birth, in his Dæmonologia, that is, Discourse on Devils, and at the beginning of the Reformation Johannes Wierus, have openly denied this. The author of the Bewitched World, Book III, Chapter I, §7, does not indeed deny that there is sorcery, whereby, either through deceit, or through cunning shrewdness and craft, or through a hidden malice of men, wonderful things are done; but that they should be done through intercourse and fellowship with the evil angels, and by their help, he openly denies. His first falsehood consists in this, that he has held that the evil spirits are nothing other than mere thoughts, which come to work outside themselves neither by their own powers, nor by a divine connection, of which we have spoken in the preceding section. The Papists, in favor of their Purgatory, in heaping up such magical workings, go much too far, as appears in the Scholastics. The Reformed, although they ascribe almost nothing to the Papists' nearly endless old wives' fables, without any foundation whatever, nevertheless maintain this: that there are sorcerers who, by the help of the evil angels, carry out their divinations and their malicious works.

In this they rely on various presuppositions. They presuppose: (1) That the evil angels work outside themselves by their own powers, and in particular upon men, which has been shown in the preceding section. Then (2) that there is a certain intercourse and fellowship between the evil spirits and men, they prove from 1 Cor. 10:19-21: "What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils (κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι). Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." What is clearer? Likewise Levit. 19:31: "Regard not them that have familiar spirits (אבות, Python), neither seek after wizards (הידענים, the observers of birds)" — our Dutch translators render it "devil's artists" — with this added reason: "I am the LORD your God." Likewise Hos. 4:17. And if you also want examples of that fellowship, consider the first temptation, from which the Bewitched World derives all the wickedness of men — was there not an intercourse and fellowship between the devil and the first-created humans, Gen. 3? Or, further, the temptation of Christ, Matt. 4? We have defended these passages deliberately and at length against the foolish and absurd distortions of the author of the Bewitched World.

We proceed: (III) It having been presupposed that the devil works outside himself, and likewise presupposed that there is a certain intercourse and fellowship between him and men — what, then, shall now stand in the way of there being some covenant, whether express or implicit, between him and them? — especially since mention is made of this, Isa. 8:19-12; for what, indeed, is meant in that passage by "hell"? Certainly not the place, but the gates of hell, as the Savior speaks, Matt. 16:18. Although in this covenant we by no means place the protection and defense of our present position, it being enough that it stands firm that the fortune-tellers and sorcerers work through Satan. Let us now (IV) add the sorcerers, חרטמים, who were summoned together by Pharaoh, Gen. 41:8; also the summoned חכמים, wise men, מכשפים, jugglers, חרטמים, sorcerers, etc., Exod. 7:12, 22, and 8:7, 18, 19. Let us add to this the sorceries and enchantments of the Moabites and of Balaam, Num. 22, 23, 24; Deut. 23:4; 2 Pet. 2:15, 16; Jude 11. Let us add the Philistines and priests and קסמים, diviners, 1 Sam. 6:2, 7. Let us add the sorceress at En-dor, אשת בעלת אוב, a woman that had a familiar spirit, 1 Sam. 28:7, 8. Let us add Manasseh, 2 Chron. 33:6: "He practiced juggling, and observed the flight of birds, and used sorcery, and dealt with a familiar spirit and a wizard." The sorcerers and astrologers of the Babylonians, Dan. 1:20; 2:10, 20; 4:7, 9; 8:12. Let us add various examples of sorcerers and books of sorcerers, 2 Kings 23:24; of Simon, Acts 8:9, 24; of Elymas, Acts 13:6-10; of the Pythonic servant girl who had a divining spirit, πνεῦμα πύθωνος, Acts 16:16, 18, to which spirit Paul said, "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And the exorcists, Acts 19:13, who called the name of the Lord Jesus over those that had evil spirits, saying, "We adjure you..." (v. 15), but the evil spirit answering said, "Jesus I know..." (v. 16), and the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and, overcoming them, prevailed against them. Let us add the divine laws which have been given with such great strictness against sorcerers and sorceries, Exod. 22:18; Levit. 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut. 13:1; 18:10, 11, 14 — with this added reason: "I am the LORD your God," Levit. 19:31, but not those evil spirits with whom the sorcerers conspire, together with the added exhortation: "Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God." Let us add the various passages concerning sorcerers and sorceries which occur throughout both Testaments — for example, Isa. 3:2, 19:3, 44:25, 26, 47:12, 13, 9:19, 29:4; Jer. 14:14, 27:9, 10; Ezek. 21:21, 22, 13; Gal. 3:1, 5:20; Rev. 18:24, etc.

Now, if we join all these things together — that the evil spirits work outside themselves; that they have fellowship and intercourse with men; that there is also a covenant with hell; and that so many and so great things are recorded of sorcerers — will there not arise, from this joining together, an unshakable proof for us that there is such an intercourse and fellowship of evil spirits with men, whereby they can do wonderful things, that is, such things as surpass their own natural powers? Especially since, to all this, we further add (V) the experience of all ages, the common opinion of the whole world, the confessions of sorcerers themselves, the most careful and exact judgments and verdicts of the courts, the laws that have arisen from these, the writings of wise men, etc. What more, then, would you desire or require?

But what does the Bewitched World say against all these things? (1) The evil spirits, being mere thoughts, can work outside themselves neither by their own powers, nor by any divine connection — a point already refuted above. (2) There is no sorcery-covenant. Answer: Let it be so, for we care not to dispute much about that; only that there be a certain other intercourse and fellowship, which we have just now proven. (3) The demons do not, in Holy Scripture, signify the evil angels — for what reason? Because among the Heathens the demons were demigods, mediators? Not so in Scripture either? That would have to be proven — that Holy Scripture acknowledges demigods distinct from the evil spirits. Moreover, the Heathens had both their good demons (ἐνδαίμονας) and evil demons (κακοδαίμονας), which they, without distinction, called demons; they held them all to be spirits. Those whom they called evil demons are, with theirs and with Scripture's, one and the same as evil spirits. Therefore, since they had evil demons which produced such and such workings in and upon men, they had, in fact, that which Scripture calls δαιμόνια, evil spirits or devils. (4) The words of Scripture — Chartumim, Mecashephim, Kosemim, Oboth, Iidonim, Meonenim, Ashaphim, Gozrim, Menachashim, Chasdim, Cholemim, Choverim, etc. — do not signify such sorcerers as work by the help of evil spirits — why? Because Scripture, in speaking of them, nowhere mentions the devil, by whose help their workings would have been carried out. Answer: since their divinations and other workings were performed neither by their own powers, nor by the power of God or of the good angels, it is rightly presupposed that they proceeded from demons, or evil spirits, since there is no fourth possibility. (5) That all these workings of these sorcerers were performed either by deceitful tricks or deceptions of the Heathen priests, or by natural powers, through a natural sympathy and antipathy, the Bewitched and Bewitching World tries to show in the whole XXII. Chapter of the III. Book. Answer: (a) I do not at all doubt that, in this same way, one could also come to attack and mock all the miracles of Moses, of the Prophets, of the Apostles, indeed of Christ Himself, plausibly enough, just as has been done by some of the followers of Descartes's suppositions. (b) That those sorcerers whom we have named knew those deceptions, and worked by them, the author of the Bewitched World has not yet proven, and will not be able to prove. (c) How much more fitting and proper is it, for those who hold that the evil spirits work outside themselves by their own powers, to attribute all these workings to the evil spirits? I shall not even add (d) that it can never be proven or shown that all these workings are brought about by the powers of sympathy and antipathy. Finally, the Bewitched World says (VI) that the received opinion concerning the workings of the evil spirits is, in many ways, contrary to godliness and Christian practice. Answer: We have already shown and proven, above, in our Epanorthosis [Corrections] on the author of the Bewitched World, that the common opinion is in no way contrary to godliness — no, but on the contrary, that the opinion of the Bewitched World is, in many ways, contrary to godliness; but that the common and received opinion serves most powerfully for the furtherance of godliness. These things we have set forth a little longer and more fully, on account of the newfangled opinion of the Bewitched World.

XXIII.

It is asked: (VI) Whether it is in the power of the evil spirits to raise up, in some manner, the departed bodies of believers? The Papists, both for the sake of the Fathers' Limbo and for the sake of Purgatory — namely, in order to establish such things, if not by Scripture, then at least by the experience of appearing souls — adopt the positive opinion, and bring forward as an example Samuel, raised up by the sorceress at Endor, 1 Sam. 28:14. The orthodox deny that the bodies (at least of the godly) are in the power of Satan, Jude 9 — much less their souls: wherefore Abraham also holds forth, in the great gulf, through which it was not even possible for a wise man like Abraham to send Lazarus out of his bosom, Luke 16:23 — not to add that the use of that raising up and calling forth, in defense of the Limbo and of Purgatory, is idle and far-fetched.

That Samuel was actually raised up by the sorceress, several considerations refute. For that which appeared, having been raised up by the sorceress, was (I) under the power of the sorceress, but not Samuel. (II) Had he been sent by God, he would not have complained of being disturbed by the sorceress, just as Moses does not complain, Matt. 17:3. Also, the true Samuel would (III) not have approved, by obeying it, the sorcery of the sorceress. Nor also (IV) would he have suffered himself to be worshipped by Saul. Also, he (V) never came into the company of the godless Saul, which nevertheless that apparition, speaking to Saul in his form, ascribes to him: "Tomorrow shalt thou be with me." I add (VI) to this: to him to whom God would not answer, neither by a vision, nor by a Prophet, nor by Urim and Thummim, to that same man the Prophet Samuel would not have wished to answer either. Finally, (VII) the true Samuel would, at least after his death, not have lied, Heb. 11:23, as the counterfeit "Samuel" does, when he says that Saul had raised him up, disturbed, and troubled him. (Compare Rainold., Censur. Libb. Apocryph., Tom. 1, Cap. 75.) Therefore those things which are there recounted must be ascribed to a devilish apparition, which, godlessly lying that it was Samuel, foretold that Saul would descend to him the next day. Nor does it help Bellarmine that the text steadily calls it "Samuel," since nothing is more customary in Holy Scripture than to call "gods" those who were nothing less than gods, 1 Cor. 10:19, 20 — just as also the angels who appeared to Abraham are called "men," Gen. 18:2 and 32:24.

XXIV.

Then (VII) it is asked, concerning the remedies which we ought to set against all kinds of attacks and cunning devices of the evil spirits, whether spiritual means alone — prayer, struggle, and the whole apostolic armor — are sufficient; or whether various outward means must also be added, such as holy water, the pronouncing of the name of Jesus, the use of relics, the sign of the cross, all sorts of consecrated things, namely a wax image in the shape of a cross, blessed images, and especially devil-banning [exorcism]? The Papists maintain this, in favor of their superstitious devil-exorcisms. The orthodox deny it: (I) because Scripture prescribes us no other means than spiritual ones, which we have already listed, Eph. 6:12 — indeed (II) it also expressly rejects all others, 2 Cor. 10:4; and (III) because also no bodily things can work upon spirits. They object: (1) that in the name of Jesus, devils are recorded to have been cast out, Mark 16:17; Acts 16:18. This I will grant — yet not through the bare pronouncing of that name, but through the authority and power of Christ, Matt. 8:31, 32; Mark 1:32 and 9:25; since also the devils themselves named and mentioned that name, Luke 8:28, and those who addressed them in the name of Jesus, without that authority, were themselves attacked, Acts 19:15, 16. They (2) say that Saul, through David's harp-playing, was delivered from the evil spirit — so I shall deny that Saul was properly possessed, but only that he was, in one way or another, troubled and disturbed, and thus was somewhat relieved and refreshed by David's harp-playing. To this they (3) add, out of Tobit, that Raphael counseled the young Tobias that with the heart of a fish, together with the gall and the liver, laid upon glowing coals, he would drive away every kind of evil spirit — to which we shall answer, that this was an apocryphal, and, among believers, a superstitious counsel.

The Practical Part

XXV.

As for the practical application: we see, first, in the evil spirits themselves, the majesty of God, who not only sits in heaven, attended and surrounded by ten thousand times ten thousand faithful and believing servants, Dan. 7:10; Matt. 26:53; but who also, on earth, indeed in hell itself, is furnished with so many officers of justice, who — however great and however hostile to Him they may be — are ready to punish and torment the wicked, and before whom, willing or unwilling, they must bow their knees, Phil. 2:10; indeed, who offer themselves to His commands, even if only as it were feignedly, 1 Kings 22:19, 21, 22, 23; Job 1:11, 12; 2. Moreover, we acknowledge in them God's glory — in particular, the glory (I) of His Holiness, whereby He has not been able to endure, in heaven, in and under His sight, these spirits, however excellent otherwise in their nature, but has cast them out of the highest heaven, on account of their sin, down into the lowest hell, 2 Pet. 2:4; compare Isa. 14:11-15; Matt. 11 — for He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, Hab. 1:13; Ps. 5:5, 6. (II) The glory of His avenging Justice, whereby He has not spared even the angels who sinned, but, having cast them into hell, delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment, 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; compare Rev. 15:3. On the contrary, (III) the glory of His Mercy toward us, whereby He has taken hold, not of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham... [Heb. 2:16]; compare Rom. 2:21, 22, and Ps. 103:11, 18. Furthermore, (IV) the glory of His forbearance, patience, and longsuffering, whereby He has borne, for so many thousands of years, His sworn enemies, who are wholly against Him — whom He could destroy with a single bare nod — and even now bears with them, reserving them unto the judgment of that great day, bound with everlasting chains. Finally, (V) the glory of His power and dominion, which God Himself sets before and displays to Job, who had answered against Him, in the Behemoth and the Leviathan, Job 40 — by which two beasts very many understand the devils, though without my full assent. And that He holds those roaring lions so bound with the chains of His Providence, that they, however much they might wish to do something contrary to God, can nevertheless do not the least thing, Job 1:12; Matt. 8:31; Mark 5:12.

XXVI.

Then, second, this doctrine discloses to us the misery of those who are under the power of the evil spirits, Heb. 2:14, 15; Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18; 2 Tim. 2:25, 26. If we think of the power, cunning, cruelty, persistent endurance, and countless multitude of them, Eph. 6:11, 12; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 12:12 — this ought to stir us up: (I) that we, with gathered strength, indeed with the calling-in of the aid of God's power, endeavor and strive to be uprooted out of his snares, by conversion, 2 Tim. 2:25, 26; by faith in the Redeemer, Heb. 2:15; by the use of the ministry of the Word, Acts 26:18; Mark 1:15; Matt. 10:1; by prayers, Mark 9:29; by praying and fasting, Matt. 17:21 and 15:22. (II) That, for those who have been delivered, this doctrine raises them up to love toward the Redeemer, Mark 16:9, compared with Luke 7:44; to thankfulness toward and the glorifying of the Redeemer, Luke 8:33, 39, compare Ps. 107:14, 15; to watchfulness, that they not again become entangled and ensnared in the snares of Satan, 1 Pet. 5:8.

XXVII.

Further, third, this doctrine warns us to guard ourselves most carefully from the sins of Satan, by which he fell away from his origin and beginning, lest we, cast down in the same judgment with him, be compelled also to leave our dwelling-place along with him: for if God spared not the angels that sinned, we too must well take heed lest He spare not us either. Whether that sin was a despising of the truth, or envy, or pride and haughtiness, or was compounded of all these — at any rate, their sin has been an apostasy from the truth, and a neglect and carelessness whereby they did not keep that which ought to have been kept; also a lust for novelty, whereby they did not keep their own origin and beginning, but left their own dwelling — and whatever other outrages and abominations besides may have been wrapped up in this one fall. Let us, I say, guard ourselves therefore from this, lest, through fellowship in the crime, we also draw upon ourselves a share in the judgment — since, by God's own Justice, these two things are sufficiently bound to one another: for if He spared not the angels that sinned, etc.; compare 1 Tim. 3:6 — lest we be bound and fettered together with them, here already with the chains of darkness and of sin, and hereafter with the chains of misery and everlasting ruin; and, being doomed to hell in both, be kept, as it were with bonds, unto the judgment of that great day.

XXVIII.

In particular we must, fourth, guard ourselves — as against something than which nothing worse can be — from taking on the image of the devil, which the Jews did, John 8:44. And this occurs: (I) when we follow after and imitate his desires; (II) when we set ourselves to lying, 1 Kings 22:22; Acts 5:3. Likewise (III) through murder, and all that belongs to it, John 8:44 — whence they are called children of Belial, as many as have had a hand in the murder of Naboth, 1 Kings 21:13. Also (IV) through unclean lusts, by virtue of which the devil is called an unclean spirit, Luke 11:24. In particular also (V) through pride, haughtiness, and ambition, whereby, not content with our own lot, we, together with him, aim and strive after a glory that does not belong to us, Isa. 14:12-14; Rom. 11:20; 1 Tim. 6:17. Finally, (VI) through envy — taking pleasure in another's harm, and through persecutions, whereby we, with Satan, being grieved at the advantages and good fortune of our neighbor, lay snares for him, Gen. 3. Through all these, and yet many other sins, (1) we — who were created after the image of God — draw upon our faces the countenance of Satan; and how shameful, how miserable is this! For if it is wretched to be turned, from a king, into a brute beast without reason — as happened to Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 4:12, 13, 22 — is it not even more wretched and more shameful to become, through imitation of his abominations and outrages, a devil, out of a child of God and, as it were, a demigod upon earth? John 6:70. At the very least we become, (2) we who are children of God by Creation, thus made into devils, and him into our father — according to what the Savior says, John 8:44: "Ye are of your father the devil," namely, because ye will do the desires of your father — since you have made yourselves like him through lies and murders, and since you do the works of your father, v. 41. Of which every one who makes sin his business is said to be of the devil, 1 John 3:8, as one who sins already from the beginning; and the godless are commonly called children of Belial — for example, the seducers, Deut. 13:13; the Sodomites, lustful, unclean, Judg. 19:22; the drunkards, 1 Sam. 1:16; the irreligious, with regard to observance of the service of God, 1 Sam. 2:12; the cruel, who are devoid of all love, 1 Sam. 25:17; the stubborn rebels, 2 Sam. 20:1; the sorcerers, Acts 13:10; and very many others of that sort besides. Consider now with me, within yourself: (a) what it is, and how shameful it is, to be a child of the devil — to have such a father, whose dwelling-place is hell and the abyss, who lies there as it were fettered with chains of darkness, doomed to be cast out and destroyed, kept unto the judgment of that great day; (b) a father who is so cruel, that he leads and drives his own about in his snares, into the very worst and most godless things, 2 Tim. 2:26; indeed, what is worse, (c) who makes his sons into servants — indeed, into bond-slaves; for whoever a man is overcome by, of the same is he brought into bondage, 2 Pet. 2:19; compare John 8:34.

XXIX.

But above all things, fifth, let us guard ourselves most carefully against all those arts and practices which cannot be exercised except by Satan's help, and through intercourse with him. Such are: (I) all bewitching and juggling arts, whereby men try to deceive others; (II) all divinations, in whatever manner they may occur, which Peucer (in his book de Divinatione) and, following him, Casmann (Angelographia, Part II, Cap. 13) recount and enumerate; (III) all sorceries, whereby one tries to bring about wonderful things by the devil's help; (IV) all poisoning arts, whereby one tries, moreover, to harm others; (V) all those things which can be expected from a familiar spirit, as it is called; (VI) all those things which, in any manner, require some fellowship, intercourse, familiarity, and communion with Satan; (VII) all conjurations, whereby we swear away, dedicate, and hand over our neighbor, ourselves, or all sorts of other things, to Satan; finally, (VIII) all those things which can breathe and savor of a certain kind of intercourse and fellowship, and not of resistance and struggle. Because (1) God has most strictly forbidden all these things, even on pain of temporal death, Deut. 18:10-12; Levit. 19:31, and 20:6, 27. (2) Because these things transfer that religious faith and trust, which belongs to God alone, to His sworn enemy — and by these means one gives faith to Satan, hopes for some good from him, places one's trust in him, and, in that regard, loves him, and thus transfers the whole natural service of God to Satan. (3) Because one thereupon enters into the very intercourse and fellowship with Satan which, by faith, is usually entered into with God. Consequently, (4) because that union and fellowship, which by faith is usually sought with Christ, is instead obtained and acquired with Satan. Finally, (5) because with all these things there can be, and can be hoped for, absolutely no intercourse with God, nor any fellowship in the benefits of Christ. All of which points, it may here suffice to have touched upon as it were with the finger — they will, God willing, be spoken and treated of elsewhere, deliberately and at length.

XXX.

Let us rather, sixth, with the straining of all our powers, set ourselves against the devil's wiles and assaults — as the Apostle prescribes this to us, 1 Pet. 5:8; Jas. 4:7; 1 Tim. 6:12 — and as the example of the saints lights our way in this, 2 Tim. 4:7, 8; Phil. 1:30 and 4:3; 1 Thess. 2:2; Heb. 11:34 — together also with the example of the good angels, Rev. 12:7 and 20:1; Dan. 10:8, 13, indeed even that of the Archangel, Michael, the Angel of the Covenant Himself, Jude 9; Matt. 4:1-12. To this end we ought to be spurred and pressed by the multitude, power, cunning, and persistence of our enemies, Eph. 6:12 and 2:2, and also the weight and importance of the matter — for it is a struggle and a contest not over worldly treasures and honors, and other such trifles, but over the eternal salvation of our souls, that they not be devoured by the devil, 1 Pet. 5:8; but that we, having fought the good fight, may obtain the crown of righteousness, 2 Tim. 4:8. We shall then withstand, and fight, and indeed also overcome: (a) through watchfulness, Eph. 6:18 and 5:15; 1 Pet. 5:8, whereby we try (1) to know and discern our spiritual enemies, 2 Cor. 2:11; then (2) also our own weakness, so as to set it against so great and so many enemies, Rom. 12:14, 18, 21, 23, 24; 2 Cor. 12:9, 10; Isa. 64:6; further, (3) to conduct ourselves prudently and carefully in all things, Eph. 5:15; and (4) always to be occupied with good and holy exercises, so that our enemies not surprise us idle, careless, and unwatchful; and to that end to walk unceasingly with God, Gen. 5:24; Ps. 16:8. (b) Through an excellent and good fight, 1 Cor. 16:13; Phil. 4:7, in which we must lay to heart and practice: (1) that we be of a brave and stouthearted spirit, setting our trust upon the promises of the divine presence and help, 1 Pet. 5:9; Eph. 6:10; Ps. 23:4. (2) That we be armed with the whole spiritual armor, which the Apostle prescribes, Eph. 6:11, 2; 2 Cor. 10:4, 5, etc. Then (3) that we carefully guard ourselves from all conspiracy, intercourse, conversation, and, in general, from everything that does not serve to fight the enemy. On the contrary, (4) that we, as soon as the arrows are shot at us, valiantly shoot and cast them back again upon the enemy himself, Eph. 6:14 and 4:27; Matt. 4:10. In particular also (5) that we may be girded with the spiritual sword, which is God's Word, so as to have ready, against every kind of temptation, one saying or another of Scripture, Eph. 6:17; Matt. 4:7. Finally (6) that our last refuge be in and unto prayer, that we be not led into temptation, Matt. 6:13, and, being led into it, may be strengthened and enabled to fight and to overcome, Ps. 119:133 and 138:3; 2 Tim. 4:7, 8. Of which more elsewhere, and more fully.

XXXI.

Finally, seventh, let not the consideration of so many and so great enemies, who day and night lay siege against us, cause our courage to grow faint, to despair, or to give way — as happened to the Israelites, through their thinking upon the Canaanites, Num. 13:32, and also to Jether, the son of Gideon, Judg. 8:20; 2 Kings 6:15. For our comfort, we ought also to consider: (I) that, although our enemies are many, and mighty, and cruel, yet they are not infinite nor almighty; that their rage and fury lie under the most exact bounds of divine Providence, Job 1:12; Luke 11:21, 22 and 8:29. (II) That those very ones who are such fierce and enraged enemies to us are also enemies of God and of the blessed angels; and therefore, if God be for us, who can be against us and stand? Rom. 8:31; Ps. 33:4; 2 Kings 6:15, 16. Further, (III) that those who fight against us are fought against, rebuked, and reproved by God, Zech. 3:1 — with the promise that they shall be overcome, Hos. 13:14. Also (IV) that in this struggle we have a stronger Captain, who has been able to spoil the house of the strong man, Luke 11:21, 22; who has been able to command the enemies, Mark 1:23; Luke 8:29; who has also been able to impart to His own the power over the unclean spirits, Matt. 10:1; indeed, who has come into the world for this very purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil, 1 John 3:8; and who has not only come, but has also, in deed, broken and destroyed them — thus triumphing openly enough over them, Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:15 — and has delivered us from the power of darkness, Col. 1:14. Let the evil spirits, then, be ever so much stronger than we; they shall not be stronger than our Captain-Leader, Luke 11:22; Ps. 110:1. Let them be more cunning and crafty than we; yet they are not more understanding or wiser than He who has become to us wisdom from God, 1 Cor. 1:30, who is our Counselor, Isa. 9:6. Let them be princes of this world; yet they are judged and condemned by Him, and have no power at all over Him, John 14:30. Let them be gods of this world; yet He that is in us is greater than the world, 1 John 4:4. Let him be a roaring lion; our Samson has torn him apart, Judg. 14:5; our David has slain him, 1 Sam. 17:49; our Lion of the tribe of Judah has overcome him, Rev. 5:5. Let him be that great Dragon, Rev. 12:3; our Jesus shall be his plague, Hos. 13:14. Let him be a Leviathan and a serpent; our Captain has a hard, great, and strong sword, to visit Leviathan, the piercing serpent, the crooked serpent, and He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea, Isa. 27:1. Let him be the Behemoth, whose bones are as strong pieces of brass, and his bones like bars of iron, Job 40:18; nevertheless our Hero, as if with a hook and a cord (v. 24 there), having caught him, holds him fast bound with everlasting chains of darkness, Jude 6. And lest we should despair of the victory, let us (V) consider that our Captain has Himself been tempted in all things as we are, who therefore can and will help those who are tempted, Heb. 2:18. Meanwhile (VI) that our very struggle shall be so governed by our Lord and Captain, that some advantage and some benefit shall come to us out of it, 2 Cor. 3:9 and 7:11; Rom. 8:28.

Chapter IX: Of Man, and of the Image of God

Upon Genesis 1:26, 27, 28, 29.

And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. And God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him: male and female created He them. And God blessed them, etc.

The Doctrine concerning Man

I. We come at last to man, who is the end, and at the same time an abridgment, of the whole Creation, in whom God has set Himself forth, in order to reveal, in a most excellent manner, the glory of His Predestination, that is, of His Mercy and of His Justice. With whose creation, fall, restoration, and salvation the whole Trinity is occupied, and upon which the whole of Holy Scripture, and the whole of our theology, proceeds and issues.

The Explanatory Part

II. Moses relates the forming and adorning of this man, in the text set before us, in three parts.

1. The preceding deliberation, verse 26: "God said, Let us make man...." He does not say, as in the other works, "Let the earth bring forth"; but, with a preceding deliberation concerning man's forming, adorning, and exalting, He gives us to know his excellence and worth. In this deliberation, then, there come before us:

1. The deliberating Persons: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, "and Elohim said." The word "said," being of the singular number, signifies the unity or oneness of the deliberating Persons; and the plural name Elohim, the plurality of the same. From which the ancient Fathers — Hilary, Augustine, Fulgentius, and others — and after them most theologians of our day, most soundly deduce, against the Jews, the Socinians, and other anti-Trinitarians, the mystery of the Trinity from this passage. But so that the opposing parties might evade this proof, they turn themselves into all sorts of contortions. For there are (1) those who hold that God addressed the angels, out of a kind of condescension, so that they should not burn with any envy or dislike against man, whom He had determined to create in their likeness. Yet to call them creators — how unreasonable, how unbecoming to God is that! There are (2) those who hold that God addressed the four elements, and stirred them up, as if He said: "You give the body, I will give the soul." There are (3) those who hold that God here speaks in the manner of the Great, out of royal dignity. Now although the Hebrews indeed allow this in the second and third person, yet they allow no example whatsoever of it in the first person — namely, that a certain particular and singular subject should speak of itself in the first person of the plural number — according to the remark of Aben Ezra on Gen. 1:26. There are (4) those who hold that God speaks in the plural in order to express man's excellence, as if He said: "Let not the earth, not the water, be occupied in the creating of man, but we ourselves" — that is, God and the angels. But we have already, above, excluded the angels from any share in the dignity of Creation. There are (5) those who translate the Hebrew word נַעֲשֶׂה, na'aseh, not by "let us make," but by "man is made," or "has become," "is made" — but Aben Ezra ridicules and refutes this, as also those who say that these words, "in" or "after our image," are not words of God, but of Moses. The most ancient Hebrews (6) hold that God here speaks to the house of His court, according to the testimony of Drusius. And what is the house of God's court, other than the household of the three Persons?

2. The deliberation itself, or the act of deliberating, which the word "said" or "hath said" expresses, after the manner of men. The word אָמַר, "to say," differs from the word דָּבַר, "to speak," because the former word is always joined to another; but the latter, without any connecting relation to another — as R. David Kimchi says. And thus it would signify that the one Person said to the other. Furthermore, the two words אָמַר, "to say," and דָּבַר, "to speak," are used, according to Maimonides (in the Moreh Nebuchim, Cap. LXV), (1) of speech which occurs with the tongue, Exod. 19:19; (2) of a certain thing, conceived and formed in the understanding, without any outward utterance, Eccles. 2:15; Prov. 23:33, etc.; (3) they are also used of the will, 2 Sam. 21:26. Thus God "said," not with speech, but with His understanding and will.

3. The matter deliberated, or the content of the deliberation: "Let us make man," etc. Here is signified:

a. The work to be formed, namely man, in Hebrew אָדָם, Adam, whether the word be taken here in a proper sense, as it is used, 1 Cor. 15:22; Hos. 6:7; or in a common, appellative sense, as it usually is — since it was the proper as well as the common appellative name of the first man; on which little turns — although I would rather prefer the latter, since here it is used not of one man, but of two, man and woman. Only let it not be taken, according to the Jewish fable, for a man who is a man-woman, or hermaphrodite. It seems to be said thus, by way of anticipation, of that which is more particularly explained below, in Chapter II, verse 7.

b. The work regarding the work, or regarding אָדָם, Adam, which is twofold, namely his:

a. Formation: נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם, "let us make man" — which the LXX translators mistranslate as ποιήσω, "I shall make," or "let me make," lest Ptolemy Philadelphus should conclude from it that the Jews acknowledged more than one God. "Let us make" — elsewhere it stands "He created" — so that we might know that the distinction between בָּרָא, "to create," and עָשָׂה, "to make," does not always hold; unless you would rather have it that by עָשָׂה, "to make," here is meant not only the bringing forth of man, but also, in addition, his adorning.

b. His adorning: בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ, "in our image, after our likeness" — in which image the chief ornament, and the chief advantage, of man consists. Some distinguish these words, holding that the "image" lies in the natural gifts, but the "likeness" in the gifts of grace; others merge them, through a manner of speech called Hendiadys, whereby one thing is expressed by two words, which manner of speech is very common in Holy Scripture; others bring these two words together into an intensification, to signify an image that is exceedingly, wholly alike; others bring them to a diminishing, that "tselem," an image, signifies a shadow, or a shadow-like likeness — not such a one as is complete and perfect, but rather a fading one, such as there is in a shadow — and the second word, דְּמוּת, they translate as "a likeness," or "a concept," which we form in our understanding.

c. Man's exaltation to a very great dominion: "That they may have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Here is expressed by these words:

†. The dominion, וְיִרְדּוּ, "and," or "that they may have dominion." It is believed that the root word is compounded of the conjugations Kal and Piel. Wherefore R. Solomon Jarchi expounds it both actively and passively, as if God said: "If men shall have lived well, they shall have dominion over them; but if ill, then the beasts shall have dominion over them." Others render the word by "let them spread abroad," because the power and authority of a lord is extended and enlarged over his servants.

†. The things subjected to this dominion, namely the fish of the sea, the fowl of the heaven, the cattle, indeed the whole earth, and all sorts of earthly things — to use them according to the prescription of God and of right reason. Man's dominion is therefore extended over the waters, over the air-heaven, and over the earth, but by no means over the starry heaven, nor over the third heaven.

II. The forming itself, which followed upon this deliberation, verse 27: "So God created man in His own image," etc. Here is signified:

1. The act of forming: וַיִּבְרָא, "and God created." This act God had, just before, called עָשָׂה, "to make"; now Moses uses the word בָּרָא, "to create," in order that it might thereby be signified that God not only brought man forth, but also adorned him. He created man, in order to prepare his body from red earth, and to breathe into it חַיִּים נִשְׁמַת, the breath of life, Gen. 2:7 — that is, the breath or soul of a threefold life, namely, of a vegetative, sensitive, and rational life.

2. The manner of forming: "after His image; in the image of God created He him." This latter half-verse seems to be an explanation of the first, whereby it is signified that man was created after the image, not of the angels, but of God alone. By אֹתוֹ, "him," is meant, by virtue of the correspondence of the preceding and following words, not the one indivisible subject of Adam, but each and every one — that we might understand that not only the man, but also the woman, is a human being.

3. The being formed: "male and female created He them" — אֹתָם, "them." Certainly not at the same time, as we have heard the Jews dream; but in succession of time — namely, that they might be fit for the propagation of their kind, and that we might understand that not only the man bears the image of God — as some wrongly conclude from 1 Cor. 11:7 — but also the woman; although with respect to the general dominion, even over the woman, only the man is called by the Apostle "the image of God."

III. The fourfold consequence of this forming, verses 28, 29. Namely:

1. The blessing: "And God blessed them." The root word בָּרַךְ signifies "to greet" (which of old was done with a slight bending of the knee), "to congratulate," "to wish well," whether for good or for evil; it corresponds with the Greek εὐλογεῖν, which signifies to say good or well of someone — and thus we bless God and our neighbor, by praising and extolling them, Ps. 103:1; Eph. 1:3; or for someone, and that is to pray for someone, or to intercede and speak on someone's behalf, Num. 6:24, or to do good to someone. And thus it is used either of man toward God, and signifies to honor God in a godly manner, bowing before Him, as it were, the knees of body and soul; to love Him, by wishing and granting Him all good things; to glorify Him, to give Him thanks, Deut. 8:10; Eph. 1:3; or of God toward man, Gen. 1:28; Isa. 19:25, and thus it signifies God's benevolent will, whereby He wishes man all sorts of good things, and also, at the same time, is conscious of and brings them about — whereby, for man's sake, He gives to all things their power and capacity, and the fitness and ability for their use, and, having given these, also raises up and stirs up, Matt. 4:4, from Deut. 8:3.

2. The making fruitful: "Be fruitful, and multiply." These words can have (1) an imperative sense, in which manner the ancient Jews hold that here a general command is given to all men, to enter into marriage, which they call מִצְוַת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה — which command, if anyone does not comply with, he has, they say, no part in the world to come. But thus this command would also apply to the irrational animals, since the same is said of them, v. 22. Thus it would also be a command to have dominion over the fish, etc.: "have dominion, rule, over the fish of the sea." (2) A permissive and allowing sense, as Gen. 2:16; Deut. 14:11, 20. Finally (3) a promissory sense, so that the imperative moods here stand in place of future-tense verbs: "be fruitful," for "you shall be fruitful," etc. — so that God promises the fruitfulness, the capacity, and the desire, to propagate their kind; wherefore it is said only of fruitful creatures, not of the air, the stars, the plants, etc.

3. The subjecting of the earth, which comprises in itself:

a. A duty which man is to perform with regard to the earth: "and subdue it" — namely, to you. For although God, by the preceding making-fruitful, had promised man the fruitfulness of the earth, He nevertheless requires the duty of tilling the soil, which, certainly, in the state of uprightness, would have been accomplished without hardship or fatigue, yet not without labor, which man would apply to the earth during the first six days of the week, so that he might arrange and spend the seventh in sanctification and rest. According to the preceding words, the Creator means not only Paradise, which indeed would have sufficed for the first-created humans alone, but the whole habitable earth, which was given to their descendants, according to the preceding words.

b. The benefit following upon the duty: "and have dominion," or "have rule," of which we have already spoken above. This dominion now extends itself even over the fish in particular — although man had given them no names, as he gave to the animals, as a token of his dominion. "And over the fowl of the heaven, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" — so that man might have a general dominion over all earthly creatures, of which we have already spoken above.

c. The provision of food: "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." From which the ancient Church Fathers, in general, and others also conclude, that the eating of flesh was not yet in use in the state of uprightness, being permitted only after the Flood, Gen. 9:2 — flesh being, for a long time, reserved only for the sacrifices, and only the hides or skins, milk, and cheese of the animals being left for men. Otherwise it pleases others, however, especially Bochart, on the grounds that (1) Abel would not have offered up the same to God, had he believed that it was unlawful to eat it; (2) that he would then have fed and pastured sheep and lambs in vain; (3) that the distinction of the animals into clean and unclean seemed to teach that some were permitted, but others forbidden. Let each one use and follow his own judgment here. Meanwhile, here is distinctly signified:

a. The divine grant, which is the foundation of the right and of the use: "I have given you" — so that God, by this very act, claims to Himself the supreme dominion.

b. The gift, namely: "every herb bearing seed," etc. — nothing excepted. So that the Apostle does not conclude wrongly from this, "all is yours," 1 Cor. 3:21.

c. The use of all these creatures, for food — that you might sustain your life and health, and gain strength to carry out your affairs and occupations.

First Speculative Article

Of the Creation of Man

The Doctrinal Part

III. Two matters must, accordingly, be treated from the text: namely, of the Creation of man, and of the Image of God in the created man. God, then, created man in an absolutely singular manner. That He created him is said many times, and it is with especial emphasis affirmed, Isa. 43:7, that He created, formed, and made him, Ps. 89:4; 95:6; 100:3; 119:73. And from this He is also called our Father, Isa. 64:8; Matt. 6:9; our Maker, Isa. 45:9; Rom. 9:21; our Workman and Potter, Rom. 9:20; and we are called the work of His hands, the labor of God, and His offspring, Job 10:9. Nor can it be otherwise, since man can be neither of himself, nor from eternity. That He created him in an altogether singular manner appears chiefly from these three points, namely: (I) that He created him, as it were, after a preceding deliberation — "let us make man" — whereas all other creatures came into being through a bare "let there be," or "let it come forth." A deliberation, I say, not with the angels, as it pleases the Jews, out of hatred against the highly-praised Trinity, to hold — for the angels also cannot create, and we are nowhere said to have been created after the image of the angels — but with the three Persons, who have elsewhere been shown to be among themselves; so that we might understand that three Persons have been engaged, together with one another, in creating us, Ps. 33:6. (II) That in one man was created the whole race of mankind, Acts 17:26, so that they should all either stand or fall in that one, Rom. 5:12. (III) That God created man on the last day, and after all other creatures, as being the end, and the abridgment, of all the creatures, Ps. 8:7.

IV. Also, God has not created man rashly or in vain, but for His own glory, Ps. 89:48; Isa. 43:7; Prov. 16:4 — namely, that He might (I) bring, as it were, into one sum all that was created, in man; and, through an astonishing masterstroke, exhibit the sum and substance of this vastly extended universe in so small a compass, and as it were in a little world. (II) That He might portray Himself in man, and, as in a mirror, behold Himself — just as man has within himself that whereby he can see God, as his archetype, John 14:9. (III) That He might have someone through whom all things which had flowed forth from Him might flow back again to Him — one who, as it were His steward on earth, should receive the revenues of all creatures, and, acknowledging that they had come forth from God, might, with a due and grateful thankfulness, restore and return them to Him, Rom. 11:36. For although both an angel and man are endowed with reason, to acknowledge their Creator, and the creatures as flowing forth from the Creator — yet man alone is fit and able to experience within himself the goodness of all creatures, and therefore to bring it back to God with thankfulness. Further, (IV) that the irrational creatures might have a lord, through whose agency and working they might be governed and directed, Gen. 1:26 — for which reason they are all brought to man, as to their lord, to receive names and offices, Gen. 2:19. Finally, (V) that we might acknowledge, in the three Persons, who have worked together as it were toward our production, the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, 2 Cor. 13:13.

V. For all these things He created man (hominem, so named ab humo, that is, from the earth, just as in Hebrew אָדָם, Adam, from the red earth) in such a way that He first, as it were, used His own hands to form the most beautiful body of the first-created man out of the earth, or out of the clay, Job 10:8; Ps. 139:15, being a most contemptible material — so that we might thereby more clearly discern the artistry of the Maker, and also that we might not be proud on account of the beauty of our body. A most beautiful body, I say — not only (I) through a most exact good constitution, above all others; nor also merely (II) through its upright shape, whereby it would be, as it were, οὐρανοσκόπος, a beholder of heaven, from which it is also called in Greek ἄνθρωπος, Anthropos, as it were ἄνω θεωρῶν, looking upward, as Lactantius (de Opificio Dei, Cap. 8) beautifully notes: for God, he says, having determined to make man alone, of all the animals, heavenly, and all the rest earthly, has therefore made man stand stiffly erect, and two-footed, namely, that he might look thither, whence his origin is. And not only (III) with a wholly wondrous συμμετρία, a proportionate correspondence of the parts, to which — as to the rule and standard of Polycletus — builders bring everything: temples, houses, buildings, structures; but also (IV) with and through ease of use, in that this body afforded a most fitting instrument to the soul, for eliciting natural, moral, and spiritual workings, Rom. 6:13; 12:1. Also (V) as a most artful abridgment of the whole universe, which Laurentius (Anatom. Lib. I, Cap. 2) portrays; and (VI) in and through a most complete age and stature. Meanwhile it is related that God dealt a little differently in the forming of the male body than of the female: that He prepared the man's out of red earth, so that the man, insofar as he is such, might understand that he depended upon God alone; but the woman's body out of a rib of the man, so that the woman might acknowledge that she, under God, depended upon the man, and might learn to be subject to him, as to her lord — which is the reason why the Apostle says that the man was created after the image of God, 1 Cor. 11:7. And hence also God says, Gen. 2:18, אֶעֱשֶׂה לּוֹ עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, "I will make him a help meet for him."

VI. But that, second, He added to this most beautifully formed body a soul, in infinitely more excellent ways still. The history of the soul stands, Gen. 2:7: "And the LORD God had formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." This soul, if one considers its essence, is nothing other than a spiritual substance, by whose help the ensouled being works of itself. It is (I) a substance — not an idle name, as Dicaearchus foolishly held; nor properly a mixture of the vital humors, as Galen thought — for thus the passions and impulses of the mind, which arise from an intemperance of the humors, could not be corrected by the soul; nor also a bare thinking or thought, as Descartes thought, since thinking is an act, and presupposes an acting cause: but, I say, a substance — since man, by means of it, differs in his whole kind from all other creatures, and the soul also subsists on its own after death. It is also (II) a spiritual or immaterial substance, since it comprehends immaterial things, and also does so in an immaterial manner, through comparison, abstraction, reasoning, observation. (Cf. Zanchius, de Operib. Dei, Part III, Lib. II, Cap. 2.) It is further (III) an incomplete substance, fitted for a composition with a body, whereby it is known to differ from the essence of the angels. It is finally (IV) given for this purpose, that the ensouled being might, by its help, come to work of itself, that is, to live — from which it is called נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים, the breath of life; thus named in the plural, not that there is a manifold soul in each individual man, but because, by one נְשָׁמָה, soul, a threefold life (or rather a threefold degree of living) is signified: namely, (1) a vegetative life, whereby we merely live — which life comprises within itself a nourishing life, a growing life, whereby we increase and become larger, and a propagating life, whereby the species is sustained and preserved. (2) A sensitive or feeling life, whereby we, moreover, sense, perceive, and comprehend, by means of the five outward senses — touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight — and of the three inward ones, the common sense, the imaginative faculty, and the memory, to comprehend and judge the things that fall under the senses. From which also proceed the locomotive faculty, the sensitive appetite and desire, and the animal passions and affections. (3) A rational life, by which alone we differ from the remaining created creatures, whose faculty is indeed twofold: to comprehend the true, which belongs to the understanding, by first simply apprehending the object; then by compounding or dividing, or by affirming or denying it; and finally by reasoning and inferring, whereby we deduce and conclude the less known from the more known things.

In this last consists judgment — both the speculative, which only pronounces upon the bare truth of the matter, and the practical or applied, which, moreover, passes judgment upon the goodness of a matter — and that either only in general, as to what in general is good or evil; or in a particular case, as to what, for me, here and now, all things considered, ought to be considered such: then the faculty of desiring, or of rejecting, the good or the evil, which belongs to the will, which, with regard to the end, is necessarily engaged, but with regard to the means is, at least by its own nature, indifferent. From both these faculties, of comprehending and of desiring, are born both free choice, or free will, which is nothing other than a faculty of doing and acting out of premeditated counsel, or with a rational deliberateness — which can indeed allow a certain natural indifference, in a divided sense (in sensu diviso), as one says, but consists by no means in an indifference — and the affections, passions, or feelings, which in man seem indeed to be nothing other than acts of the will, although they also depend much upon the disposition of the humors, of the bile, of the blood, etc., as well as upon the sensitive impulse and desire. And these are either desiring (concupiscibiles), which arise from the apprehension either of something good, such as love, longing, joy; or of something evil, such as hatred, avoidance, sorrow; or they are irascible (irascibiles), such as hope, boldness, anger, mercy, envy, jealousy, remorse, ambition, bashfulness.

VII. From the constitution of the human body and of the human soul, and of its understanding and will, arises the faculty of speaking, or of reasoning, which belongs to man absolutely alone — that is, the faculty of exhibiting and representing the concepts and apprehensions of his soul, by signs, or by various sounds formed in the air. For whatever Apollonius of Tyana, according to the testimony of Philostratus in his book, boasts of concerning the speech and interchange of the birds, whereby they should make known to one another the whereabouts of the absent — if it is not fabricated and fictitious, it seems to have proceeded from Apollonius's sorceries, and from Satan's revelation. For although the dumb animals, through human instruction, have the faculty to form those sounds, whereby men are accustomed to represent their concepts to one another — yet they have no concepts or apprehensions which they would thereby represent, nor understanding nor will, which are nevertheless necessarily required for speech or discourse. From which the Chaldee Paraphrast, in expounding the words of Gen. 2:7, though less felicitously, nevertheless, if one looks to the substance of the matter, expounds it truly: יְהִי בְאָדָם רוּחַ מְמַלְּלָא, "there was in Adam a speaking spirit" — for it is inseparable to be rational, and to speak.

Meanwhile it is very difficult to determine exactly whence Adam had the faculty of tongue and words, whereby he gave names to the animals, each in particular, Gen. 2:19. Wherefore some among the Jews ascribe this to nature; others to an agreement and institution; and finally others to a revelation of God alone, and to a heavenly instruction. Since, then, no speech and language seems to be natural to man — inasmuch as words signify everything, not by nature, but only by institution and use, which use, in the first creation of man, as yet had no place — most take refuge in a divine revelation, and bring in God as the Founder of the first language, who instilled it into Adam, either wholly, or at least with respect to its chief first principles, which he himself, by his own ingenuity, would then have to adorn and perfect. For although one does not read that God beforehand traced out for Adam the outward sounds, there is nevertheless nothing standing in the way of God's having instilled into his understanding that faculty, whereby he gave names to all sorts of things, according to his wisdom and will.

VIII. Among the properties and qualities of the soul, the first is its own unity. Concerning this there are various opinions, both of Philosophers and of Theologians. There are those who ascribe to all men who have ever been, are, and shall be, one common soul. There are those who allow more, yet not as many as there are men, since one and the same soul, through a transmigration of souls, would pass from the one to another. There are those who ascribe more than one soul to a single man — and that either at once, in which the three faculties of the soul, the vegetative, sensitive, and rational faculty, constitute just as many souls; or in succession of time, so that a child in the mother's womb is endowed first with a vegetative, then with a sensitive, and finally with a rational soul. There are, finally, those who assign to each individual only one soul — which is by far the most, indeed in my judgment altogether, in accordance with Holy Scripture (which everywhere ascribes to each individual only one soul, Gen. 46:26; Acts 7:14; Rom. 13:1; Ezek. 18:4; and records that only one soul was breathed into the first-created man, as the fountain of a threefold life, Gen. 2:7; likewise, that only one soul is given at birth, Eccles. 12:7; and also, that finally only one soul is separated in and through death, Ps. 31:6; Matt. 27:50; Acts 7:59), and with right reason, which allows only one essential form, whereby a given thing is that which it is, in an indivisible subject. If you also ascribe one common soul to all — will you then not also ascribe knowledge and ignorance, virtues and defects, reward and punishment, eternal life and eternal damnation, to one and the same subject? If you ascribe three souls at once to particular subjects, will not then each individual, at death, bring three souls either into heaven or into hell, since none of them can perish or die? Matt. 10:28. If you ascribe as many in succession of time, will man then not first be a plant, then an irrational animal, and finally a man? Cf. Zanch. Lib. II, Cap. 4, de Operib. sex dier.

IX. The second property or quality of the soul is its immateriality, whereby it is entirely free from all matter — not only from a thicker and grosser matter, but also from the most thin and subtle (such as Vorstius and the Socinians, with some of the ancients, ascribe to it). This immateriality is taught, with the Scriptures, Eccles. 12:7; Luke 24:39, by reason itself: for since its rational workings are neither bodily nor instrumental, attached to a certain fixed and particular instrument, as the sensitive workings are — it follows that the rational faculties themselves are also not bodily, and consequently the very essence of the soul is also not bodily. (Cf. Zanch. Part III, Lib. II, Cap. 2.) From this immateriality flows, of itself, its simplicity, whereby it is without any least composition out of essential parts, matter and form, or out of completing parts or members; likewise its invisibility, since visibility, arising from the location, position, and shape of parts, is proper only to bodily things; further its indivisibility, for that which is not composed out of parts cannot also be divided and separated into parts; finally its immortality, indeed also its incorruptibility — of which, God willing, more at length in the Polemical Part.

X. Let there now follow the Union of the essential parts, body and soul, which God has brought forth through the breathing of the living spirit into the nostrils of the body. By this union the soul is not a mere subsisting form of man, like a helmsman of a ship, as Plato absurdly thought; but an informing one, whereby man is placed within and under this species of things. Nor does it inform only one part of the body — whether the brain, as the Platonists would have it, or the heart, as the Stoics would have it — but the whole body, of whatever nature and size it may be, so that it is entirely in the whole body, and entirely in each of its parts in particular; for, because it is spiritual and indivisible, it touches all the particular parts of the body — and that not only through its power and workings, as Vorstius, and also Descartes, holds — but through its essence, so that a given part of the body is said to be ensouled by virtue of the soul subsisting together with it. Nor does this union occur through some intervening bond, but immediately, in a manner to which nothing can be represented as equal — although many theologians think that the union of light with air is a most fitting likeness of it: for just as those two are most closely united, and yet immediately and unmixed, so also the soul, being personally united with the body, does not change its own nature, nor does it take away the nature of the body — just as also the whole light is in the whole air, and wholly in each part of it, so also the soul in the body; just as, when the air is disturbed or infected by winds and impurities, the light nevertheless is not disturbed or infected — so, when sicknesses and pains attack and assail the body, the soul is not thereby injured or wounded; just as the air, without light, grows dark and cold, so the body without the soul; just as the light shines without the air, but not likewise the air without the light, so the soul lives without the body, but not the body without the soul; finally, just as the light is from the sun alone, so the soul is from God alone. Did. Zanch. de Operib. Dei, Lib. II, Cap. 6; Tilen., Syntagm. Part I, Disput. 28, §§33-34.

XI. As to the origin of the soul, there are various opinions, both of the ancients and of the more recent, which Zanchius, Lib. II, Cap. 5, recounts and enumerates: the chief point comes to this — that all souls, not only of the first-created humans, but also of all who followed, are of God, is confessed sufficiently by nearly everyone; but whether they are of God immediately, or mediately, on this there is dispute. Of those who hold it immediately, some hold that the essence of the soul is originally from the very Essence of God — the good soul from the essence of a good God, the evil soul from that of an evil God, as from a matter; thus held of old the Stoics, Manicheans, and Priscillianists; others derive the origin of the soul more correctly from the creation of God, as the sole efficient cause; others again hold that origin to be mediate — of whom some ascribe it to the angels, some to the powers of the heavenly bodies, others to the seed of the parents, and this again with various differences of opinion, which to explain, indeed even merely to mention, would run out longer and more broadly than the requirements of an abridgment allow — should anyone nevertheless desire to know them, let him go where there is to be found a particular treatise on the origin of the soul. There is one who holds that souls are propagated from souls, according to Zanchius and Robert Baronius, in his Philosophia Theologiae ancillans, just as light is kindled and lit from light.

We presuppose here, from Scripture, that all human souls are of God, Gen. 2:7; Eccles. 12:7; Heb. 12:9; Jer. 38:16 — and yet not as from a material cause: for thus God would be a material substance, entering into composition with something else, and thereby be less perfect than that whole; also thereby every man would be God — not to add that, on this view, the essence of God would be subject to the same alternations and turns of power and act, of knowledge and ignorance, of virtue and vice. And therefore we hold that souls are of God, as of their efficient cause, and that indeed through creation, without any pre-existing matter — since they are immaterial substances, which can be brought forth in no other way than through an immediate creation, and indeed without any instrument, whether spiritual or bodily, since creation, because it works upon nothing, excludes every instrument. And this has occurred, not from eternity, since, before that beginning of creation, there was nothing but God, John 1:1, 3; Gen. 1:27, compared with Chapter 2:7. Nor are they all created at once, from the beginning, and packed together as it were in a bundle, out of which they would, at conception, be released and sent forth into bodies; nor, again, outside the body, but in the body, Zech. 12:1. The propagation of souls from the seed of the parents we shall, in its place, contest and refute in the Polemical Part.

XII. From all that has been said we may conclude and derive the highest excellence of the whole of man, Ps. 8:6. (I) Because he has been created through and according to a particular decree and provision of the Holy Trinity. (II) Because he has been created as the end and aim of all creatures, and all things for his sake, Ps. 8:7, therefore also after all other creatures. (III) Because he has been created in a particular manner to the honor and glory of the Creator, Isa. 43:7, as one who, from all the creatures, should acknowledge, extol, and praise the Creator's wisdom, power, and goodness — to such a degree that God, without and apart from man, would have created most things in vain. (IV) Because he displays an abridgment and a small composite of the whole world — of the spiritual creatures with respect to his soul, and of the bodily with respect to his body. (V) Because his body was, as it were, formed by God's own fingers, and consequently (VI) with a most beautiful proportion, fitness, and aptitude, to render its service to God and to the soul. (VII) Because man's soul is a spiritual, heavenly, divine, indivisible, immortal, incorruptible nature, nearest to the angels, indeed to God. (VIII) Because that soul is blessed with the noblest faculties, understanding and will. (IX) Because he, in all these points, displays God his Creator, as an image displays its exemplar — of which a little more shortly hereafter.

The Polemical Part

XIII.

It is asked: (I) Whether all men owe their origin to the one Adam? The Philosophers — among whom also Aristotle — being deprived of the divine Revelation, since they could not reach back to the first man, devised an infinite succession of men, and, for that very reason, the eternity of the World. Democritus is said to have held that men, like little worms, crept forth out of the earth. Epicurus said that man is composed of a chance concourse of indivisible particles, and that even now, in the manner of mushrooms, men are born out of the earth, and are, by a certain determinate laying of the stars, daily animated. Paracelsus, besides men who are descendants of Adam, set up four other kinds of men, not descended from Adam, and attached these to the four particular elements: namely, to the bowels of the earth he attached the Pygmies; to the waters, the Nymphs and water-goddesses; to the air, the Wood-gods and the Melusines; to the fire, the Vulcans and Salamanders — and that it is still uncertain to which kind of men the true faith in God has been given, and salvation revealed. The Kabbalistic Jews, who deduce and conclude, from the letter Beth (whence the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) in the first word of Scripture, בְּרֵאשִׁית, Bereshith ("in the beginning"), that this our world is the second, have no reason why, in that first world, there should not have been men. Isaac Peyrère, or Peyrerius, a Frenchman, published in the year [16]55 of this century a treatise on the Pre-Adamites, in which he — whether out of an itch for novelty, or, what is worse, in order the more forcefully to attack the divine authority of Scripture, or in order to overthrow, as with one stroke, the whole order and mystery of man's redemption — attempts to maintain and defend that there were men before Adam.

The Reformed hold that absolutely all men owe their origin to the one Adam: (I) Because Moses, in explaining the origins of the World and of the Church, not only makes no mention whatsoever of Pre-Adamites, but also mentions Adam as the first Father of the human race, in such a way that before him there was no man to till the ground, Gen. 2:5. (II) Because he calls Eve, Adam's wife, the mother of all living, Gen. 3:20. (III) Because the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15:45, calls Adam the first man. And from this (IV) he preaches, before the Athenians, that of one blood the whole race of men (πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων) was made, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth. And (V) he says that by one man, without doubt that first Adam, 1 Cor. 15:45, sin entered into the world... and that death passed upon all men, Rom. 5:12. Let me add (VI): if the world had already, before Adam, been filled with men, to what purpose would God have created a man anew? To what purpose would a wife have had to be created for Adam before, out of his rib, with this reason added: "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him"? Gen. 2:18. To what purpose would the naming of the animals have been brought to Adam? Gen. 2:19. I will proceed further: (VII) death came into the world through the sin of Adam, Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:45 — therefore there was no death before Adam, and consequently those Pre-Adamites would still be alive to this day. Hence (VIII) men are everywhere and constantly called בְּנֵי אָדָם, children of Adam, and, with the article, בְּנֵי הָאָדָם, children of this Adam, children of this man, Deut. 32:8; Eccles. 3:21; Jer. 32:29 [sic]; 1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 12:1, and elsewhere throughout. Moreover, (IX) the Savior says, Matt. 19:4, 5, that God made man and woman ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, "from the beginning"; likewise, that Satan is a liar and a murderer of men ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, "from the beginning," John 8:44 — certainly from that Mosaic beginning, which was one and the same as the beginning of the world. Finally, (X) if those Pre-Adamites sinned, against what Law did they sin? Since sin is nothing other than ἀνομία, unrighteousness, properly, lawlessness, 1 John 3:4. Or, if they sinned, then surely they sinned in Adam, Rom. 5:12, compared with 1 Cor. 15:45. If they did not sin, how then have they obtained eternal life through Christ, since without Him no man comes to the Father, John 14:6, and there is salvation in none other, Acts 4:12, etc. To these testimonies of Scripture and of reason there comes also, as if to help, the whole history of the whole of antiquity, and the agreement of nearly all peoples, among whom the memory of the first man, however corrupted and wrapped up in fables, has nevertheless not been entirely extinguished.

Meanwhile, there is no lack of far-fetched little arguments. It is objected (1) that a twofold creation of men is recorded, Gen. 1:27 and 2:7, so that the first would be the creation of the Heathens, the second that of the Jews. Answer: No twofold creation is recorded; but the creation, which was recounted in the first Chapter, is, in the second Chapter, explained a little more distinctly — which is even clearer than the sun from this one point, that, before that fabricated second creation, it is said, Gen. 2:5, that there was no man to till the ground — which certainly could not be true, if the creation of man, recorded in the first Chapter, had, according to this author's view, preceded the second by nearly an infinite number of ages. From this the Expositors translate the word וַיִּיצֶר, Vaiyetser, Gen. 2:7, commonly by the perfect tense: "and the LORD God formed man"; but it is better rendered by the pluperfect tense: "and God had formed" — namely, according to the correspondence of the two preceding verses: "For the LORD God had not caused it to rain... but there went up a mist from the earth, and had watered the whole face of the ground" — and then it follows: "and had formed [man]."

(2) A second cover for his fiction he seeks in Rom. 5:12, 13, 14, and pretends that sin and death are said by the Apostle to have been in the world before the first transgression of Adam; but that, since the transgression, sin was first imputed — from which he then infers that there were, before Adam, also men in the world, who were subject to sin and to death. Just as if the Apostle were speaking of that first positive Law which had been given to Adam — which our Pre-Adamite ought carefully and diligently to have proven, if he had wished to gain anything from this for his Pre-Adamites — and not rather of the Law which was given by Moses to Israel at Sinai, before which both the Law, and sin, and death were in the world. Our Pre-Adamite indeed cannot defend his cause from this passage without several shameful suppositions, repugnant to the truth: for he is compelled to say: (a) that sin and death first came into the world through Adam in such a way that already infinitely many ages before Adam there had been sin and death in the world; (b) that from Adam onward death has begun to reign in such a way that it had already long held an absolute dominion among his Pre-Adamites; (c) that these have sinned in Adam, in an imputative manner, and yet that no sin, before the times of Adam, was imputed to anyone; (d) that another's sin was so imputed to them, that they nevertheless incurred no guilt of punishment from their own sins; (e) that these were nevertheless sinners before God, though they were guilty of no violation of the divine Law; (f) that they were so guilty of, and subject to, death, which is a punishment of sin, that yet no sin was imputed to them; (g) that they were so men and rational creatures, dependent upon God for their being, that they yet received no laws from God, according to which they might approve their obedience; (h) so mortal, that their souls after death went neither to heaven nor to hell; (i) so redeemed — which is more — by Christ, and shall, at the end of the ages (which shall never be) (k) be brought to a blessed life, though they never believed in Him, and have heard not the least about Him. I could relate many more monstrosities of errors, which this man has mixed into his explanation of Paul's passage (Rom. 5:12, 13, 14), which overthrow altogether the very redemption through Christ. Thus speaks forcefully and pointedly the most celebrated Maresius, in his Refutation of the Pre-Adamite Fable, page 171. We would make all these things still clearer, did not the proportion and symmetry of our composition prevent it. There are yet a few other proofs of his; but so slight and trifling that they scarcely deserve to be mentioned, much less refuted; should anyone nevertheless desire to see them, let him go, besides to the aforementioned Refutation of the Pre-Adamite Fable by Maresius, also to Turretin, Heidegger, Saldenus (in his Otia), who have treated of this matter at length.

XIV.

It is asked: (II) Whether the essence of the rational soul consists in bare thinking? That the Sadducees acknowledge no spirits, which would be substances distinct from the body, but bare thoughts, whether good or evil; and that the David-Georgians hold nearly the same opinion as the Sadducees, we have already noted more than once above. Descartes, with his followers, because he, as a philosopher, rising up out of his boastful doubting, could find nothing within himself except extension and thinking, and since he could not hold our soul to be an extension, has preferred to hold that it is nothing other than a bare thinking — in order thereby to maintain that in the whole nature of things there is nothing but extension and thinking, and from this, that all spirits, whoever they may be, are not extensions, cannot be anything other than bare thinkings.

The Reformed indeed grant that the rational soul is a thinking substance — that is, a substance which has the faculty of thinking, from which the act of thinking proceeds — but they do not allow that its essence should consist in a bare thinking, whether by this is understood the faculty, or the act, of thinking; and again, whether this be taken in general, as a thought, or in particular, as this or that thought, matters little to them. Because Holy Scripture, and likewise the whole of Antiquity, and the common opinion of men, down to Descartes, have (I) held the soul to be a spirit, but never a mere bare thinking or thought; (II) held it to be a substance, not the one or another doing. While also (III) right reason perceives such absurdities in this opinion as are utterly unworthy of sound theology: (1) that the soul would not properly be in a place, and thus also not in a body; (2) that it consequently could also not be separated from the body; (3) nor migrate to heaven or to hell; (4) nor also be mortal or immortal, since to live and to die is not proper to a doing, but to a doer; (5) moreover, that it also would not be most simple, since in it we would acknowledge absolutely nothing except a thinking or a thought; (6) likewise also not indivisible, since in a bare and mere thinking nothing can be taken away, and something remain; (7) further, that there could be no sin except an actual one, since the thinking or thought, in which the sin consists, is nothing but a doing; (8) nor virtue or vice, since these are settled dispositions, whereas the soul, on this view, is nothing but a doing. And whatever else of that sort there may be. (Cf. Gassend., c. Cartes., Cap. XXV, §§12 & 14.) The foundation of this error — namely, that Descartes, through his doubting, could find nothing else but extension and thinking, and that therefore the soul, since it is not an extension, must be a thinking or a thought — we have several times overthrown, in the chapter on the Essence of God, Book II, Chapter III, §§19, 20, 21, and on the good angels, Book III, Chapter VII, §26.

XV.

It is asked: (III) Whether man lives by the union of the rational soul with his body? Descartes, with his followers, counts in man two souls, an animal one and a rational one; and he then holds that the human body lives only through the first, so that the body's own life, and its living operations, must be understood as being produced by that, as distinguished from the rational soul. The Orthodox, on the contrary, although they carefully distinguish the whole man's derivative life from the original life of the soul, nevertheless make all the life of man — the vegetative, the sensitive, and the rational — depend on the one rational soul, and on its union with the body. Because (I) Holy Scripture makes the חַי, the living, that is, their נְשָׁמָה, breath or soul, which God breathed into man's nostrils — without doubt the rational soul — the very thing on which they depend, and indeed in such a way that man thereby became לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, a living soul, or a living creature, whereas before that the soulless body neither lived, nor felt, nor was moved, Gen. 2:7. In just that same sense (II) Elijah prayed, when he was about to raise up the son of the widow of Zarephath: "O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived" — so that, as long as the soul was absent, the child was dead, 1 Kings 17:21, 22. The same is also confirmed (III) by the vision of Ezekiel 37:5-10: "Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live... but there was no breath in them... Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live... Then breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army." Likewise Acts 20:10: "his soul is in him." From this one finds (IV) that when the rational soul is too much occupied and engaged, the body wastes away, is worn down and exhausted, and finally becomes entirely corrupted. Let me add (V) that, from and according to Descartes's supposition, the very worst outrages — theft, lying, adultery — would be nothing but acts of the body. Likewise (VI) that the body, deprived of the rational soul, could still live.

The foundation of this error lies in these points: (1) That the body and the soul, and the workings of the soul and of the body, must be carefully distinguished — which we acknowledge and embrace; but (2) that these are mixed and confounded, if one makes the life of the whole composite depend on the life of the soul — which has no more truth in it than to say that one makes the life of the soul depend on the life of God. Further (3) that the life of the body, and the life of the soul, differ in their whole nature. But let them differ, as the life of the Creator and of the creature differ, although this depends on that. Finally (4) that the life of the body consists in the motion of the blood and of the vital spirits: this I shall grant, with respect to certain secondary acts of life; but with respect to the first act, that life does not consist in the motion, but in the union of the body with the soul. But the foundation on which this Cartesian opinion rests lies in this, that a bare thinking does not work upon the body by its own powers, but only by virtue of a divine connection — which we have described, and also refuted, together, §XXVII of the VII. Chapter of this Book.

XVI.

It is asked: (IV) Whether there is, in each individual man, only one soul? Descartes, with his followers, as we have said, acknowledges in each individual man a twofold soul: an animal one, which with him consists in the warmth and motion of the blood and of the animal spirits; and a rational one, which with him consists only in a bare thinking. The Reformed acknowledge indeed three faculties — a vegetative, a sensitive, and a rational one — but only one soul. Because Holy Scripture, in more than one way, contradicts more souls, as often as it (I) calls it יְחִידָה, a single, a lonely one, more than once, Ps. 22:21 and 35:17; (II) when it makes mention only of one soul, Matt. 16:26 and 10:28; 1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Kings 17:21, 22; Job 34:14, 15.

Nor does it help them: (1) that Holy Scripture makes mention of a certain soul which consists in the blood, Gen. 9:4; Levit. 17:13, 14; Deut. 12:23. For Holy Scripture there speaks of the soul, not of men, but of beasts — not to say that the warmth of the blood can, in every respect, be nourished by and through the union of the soul with the body. So little does it help them (2) that eating, drinking, generating, etc., are bodily workings. For these are indeed excited by the body, formally speaking, as one says, but by the soul, effectively speaking — just as those same workings are also produced by God.

XVII.

It is asked: (V) Whether the rational soul, by and through its own nature, is immortal; and whether this appears, not only from Holy Scripture, but also from natural Reason? The Atheists, Sadducees, Epicureans, Somatists, the θνητοψυχῖται (those who hold the soul to be mortal), the Arabians, and the Hobbesians, since they sufficiently place the essence of the soul in κρᾶσις, the temperament of the body, as Galen said, hold that the rational soul is mortal. The Socinians, because they hold that the soul is something composite, although not finer or thinner than the body; likewise, because they think that man, through death, passes over into a state of non-existence; and finally, because they hold that the composite is without feeling, and capable neither of pain nor of joy — hold, in effect, that the soul is, by and through its own nature, mortal — except that they think that, after the last resurrection, it shall return to a state of existence, and that from that time on, souls, at least of the believers, shall be immortal, but only by and through pure grace, and that this appears only from Holy Scripture. To this same view the Anabaptists also incline, when they hold that souls, until the resurrection, sleep. The Cartesians indeed confess the immortality of the soul, but from this angle and for this reason, that they hold it to consist only in thinking or thought, which in fact is capable neither of life nor of death, since death does not arise except from the separation of things which had been joined and united together.

The Reformed hold that the rational soul is immortal, and that not only by grace, but also by and through its own nature; and that this appears to us not only from Holy Scripture, but also from its nature, and from natural reasons: (I) Because the essence of the rational soul, being purely spiritual, is not subject to dissolution, and therefore has no principle of death in itself, as I have already shown above, §VIII. (II) Because it cannot occur, by virtue of divine justice, that it should not fare differently with the good, and differently with the evil, than as commonly happens in this life. (III) Because it also seems most contrary to God's wisdom, that men and beasts should have one and the same outcome, whose origin we have already shown to be very unequal. Not to add (IV) that all religion would totter and fall to pieces, if one believed that nothing remains of man after death except his body, which shall so soon turn to dust.

But also from the Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and of the New Testament, the immortality of souls is altogether beyond doubt: (1) Because the Covenant of Grace, which was entered into between God and the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is eternal, and it is therefore necessary that the covenant-making Parties be eternal — certainly not according to their body, therefore according to their soul, Exod. 3:6, compared with Matt. 22:32, 33. (2) To this can be added yet other proofs, taken from the Image of God in man, Gen. 1:26, 27; from Abraham's reward, which is the eternal God Himself, Gen. 15:1; from the murder of Abel, which cries out for vengeance, Gen. 4:10; from the taking up of Enoch, who was carried over to God, Gen. 5:24; from the faith and trust of the dying Jacob, Gen. 49:18; from the promise which is added to the second Commandment, Exod. 20:5, 6; from Balaam's wish, Num. 23:10; from God's continual care, which preserves and protects His own as the apple of His eye, Deut. 32:10; from the life and death, the blessing and the curse, set before Israel, Deut. 30:15 and following. All of which things can by no means be held to be temporal, without disgrace to God, and without the mockery and derision of the whole of religion. So that, from all these — though not with an equally clear evidence — the Sadducees might be convinced that the immortality of souls was known and understood even by Moses. Nevertheless there are (3) still clearer testimonies in the New Testament: Luke 16:26; Matt. 10:28; Phil. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:1, 2; 1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 6:10. From which passages and testimonies it appears most clearly that souls, separated from the body, are not deprived of activity, and therefore also not of existence. Compare Zanch. Lib. II, Cap. 8; Tilen., Syntagm. Part I, Disput. 31; Anton. Sirmundus, de immortalitate animarum; and among the Fathers, Arnobius, Athenagoras, Lactantius, Eusebius, and others.

Nevertheless our opponents dispute against this, not only with reason, but also with Scripture. (a) From Job 14:7-10: "A man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?" Answer: There it speaks of man, not particularly of the soul. (b) From the same passage: "Man lieth down, and riseth not." Answer: "Till the heavens be no more," as the text has it, or as ours render it, "until the heavens are no more," that is, until the last judgment. (c) From Eccles. 3:18-20: "God shall manifest them (namely, the sons of men), that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts... they have all one breath, so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast." Answer: There it speaks of man, not of the soul; and man is said to be like the beasts with respect to mortality, which is common to both. (d) From Eccles. 4:2, 3, where he who has not yet been born, and thus has not yet existed, is deemed better and more fortunate than one living and one dead — which would be harshly said, if an eternal happiness were to follow for the dead. Answer: He is called better and more fortunate with respect to the miseries of this life, which one not yet born has not felt or perceived (and has not yet seen the evil work that is done under the sun, v. 3), as a living person notices and feels, and a dead one has noticed and felt. (e) From Eccles. 9:5: "The living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing... neither have they any more a reward." Answer: The Preacher speaks of those things which happen in this life, and of temporal rewards and recompenses, as is seen from vv. 6, 7.

Our opponents also wish to appear armed with a show of reasons. For they object: (a) that all things which we ascribe to the spiritual soul come to be produced by matter and motion. Answer: (*) Thus every soul would be superfluous. (**) It is at the very least false that reasoning comes to be produced by matter and motion. (b) That the rational soul, in its workings, depends on its object, and works agreeably to it; consequently, that it is material, and therefore corruptible. Answer: (*) Even if it depended on that, it would not therefore immediately become material — for why should not an angel be able to comprehend and perceive something of material creatures, without thereby immediately becoming material himself? But (**) that all the workings of the human soul depend on a material object is altogether false, although it can give the soul an occasion and opportunity to work — just as sin gives God occasion to punish; for the rest, the elicited workings of the understanding and of the will by no means depend on matter. They object (c), and say: an immaterial cause does not work on material things, on account of the disproportion and inequality; but the soul works on the body; therefore, etc. Answer: God, working on material things, refutes, more clearly than by any evasion, the premise of this reasoning. Indeed, if a material cause, which is weaker, can work on a body, why then could not also a spiritual cause, which is stronger, work on a body? And if the body should fail to work on the spirit, that would arise and proceed not from a disproportion and inequality, but from its own weakness. Finally, they say (d): whatever comes into being, passes away and perishes. Answer: that is, it can be corrupted and annihilated by God, but it cannot and will not therefore immediately be corrupted by its own nature.

XVIII.

It is asked: (VI) Whether the souls, after the death of man, sleep, or at least feel nothing, whether of pain and sorrow, or of joy and gladness? What the Mennonites and Socinians hold on this point, and on what suppositions, and with what mind and intent, we have already disclosed above, at the controverted question concerning the immortality of the souls, §XVII.

The Reformed hold that the souls, after the death of the body, not only remain, but that they, without sleeping, feel and are aware — as well of joy and gladness, as of pain and sorrow — according as they have been, in the life of man, believing or unbelieving. (I) Because Scripture testifies this everywhere, Matt. 22:32; Luke 16:22, 23; Phil. 1:23; Heb. 12:23; 1 Pet. 4:6; 2 Cor. 5:1, 2. (II) Because right reason leaves sleep to the animals alone. And (III) when it teaches that that which feels nothing, either of pain or of joy, is dead — which conflicts with the immortality of the soul, which has been proven in the foregoing section. (IV) When it teaches that it is contrary to the nature of a spirit properly so called, not to live, and to feel nothing.

If they object: (1) that the departed are sometimes said in Scripture to sleep — we answer, (a) that Scripture nowhere teaches that the souls sleep, but that man, with respect to the body, is as it were asleep. (b) That this must be understood only in a figurative sense. They say (2) that souls, in their feeling and workings, depend on their objects. Answer: (a) In some respects, but by no means in all. Also, (b) there is nothing standing in the way of the separated soul's being able to work upon those things which it has formerly taken from the [remembered] images. Compare, against this error, Calvin (Adversus Psychopannychitas), Hoornbeek (Gangraen. Anabaptist., Disput. 28).

XIX.

It is asked: (VII) Whether the soul of man, having been separated from the body, passes over into another body? The Atheists, Sadducees, Somatists, and others of that sort, whom we have named §XVII, hold that the soul, through death, perishes altogether, like the soul of the beasts. Pythagoras, Empedocles, Plato, and others — since, being deprived of the divine Revelation, they could not climb up or reach back to the first man, and also could not, by reason, allow either the mortality of the soul, nor yet the eternity of the world — having noted more readily that, if to each individual man a particular immortal soul were left, the number of those souls would have to be increased and extended to infinity, and that from this the eternity of the world would also follow — have therefore preferred to hold that the soul, after the death of man, passes from one body into another body. Among the Jews, some, namely the Sadducees, deny — I know not for what reason — that our soul is a spirit; others, namely the Pharisees, seem to have acknowledged the transmigration of souls, whereby the soul, after death, passes into another body.

The Reformed acknowledge, for each individual man, one particular immortal soul, which through death passes to its place, until its reunion with its body at the last resurrection: (I) Because Scripture has nothing of that transmigration of souls, nor can nature teach it either. (II) Because, according to the suppositions both of Scripture and likewise of reason, by virtue of the correspondence with divine Justice, to each individual soul, according to the requirement of its works, belong either rewards or punishments. (III) Because it conflicts with God's Goodness and Mercy, at least with His avenging Justice, that what has been done in the body — whether good or evil — should not be rewarded or punished in the body; and thus there must be, for each individual body, its own soul.

If you object: (1) from Scripture, the passages of Matt. 16:14, that some said that the Son of man was John the Baptist, others Elijah, others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets — compare Matt. 14:1-3 — I shall answer: (a) The disciples do not declare their own opinion, but only relate the opinion of others, namely of the Jews, in particular of the Pharisees among them. Moreover (b) they make not one word's mention of a transmigration of souls, but they seem to understand their words of a resurrection of those named men, as appears from Luke 9:19, that some Prophet of old had risen again. The same must be said (c) of the opinion of Herod the Tetrarch, Matt. 16:1, as Luke points out, Chapter 9:7. And what, besides, would it prove, even if Herod had believed in the transmigration of souls? So (2), if one objects with Pythagoras that, by the contrary opinion, souls would be multiplied to infinity, and that thus the eternity of the World would also have to be allowed — as Aristotle seems to have allowed the same, for this very reason — the answer will be easy for Christians: namely (a) that God has shown and pointed out to them, in His Word, the first man; (b) that reason itself does not allow either an infinite number of souls, or the eternity of the world; and therefore, although the Heathens could not determine who the first man was, they could nevertheless have determined, and ought to have determined, that there was a certain first man. This error, now sufficiently buried, has been clearly and forcefully refuted by Justin Martyr (in his Dialogue with Trypho, in his Refutation of Greek Questions), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Lib. VI), Irenaeus (Lib. II), Athanasius (to Trophilus), and Augustine (Of the City of God, Book XII, Chapter 20).

XX.

It is asked: (VIII) Whether the rational soul comes to each individual man only through God's immediate Creation, whereby it is brought forth within man? Various opinions concerning the origin of souls Jerome recounts (Epist. ad Marcellinum, Tom. 2), and after him Zanchius (de Operib. sex dier., Lib. II, Cap. V). Pythagoras and Plato, with the Academics, held that God created the souls in a certain fixed number, having their abode beforehand in heaven, to be admitted from there into the formed body — being of a heavenly and thus incorruptible substance, out of the soul of the world. Origen, with some other theologians, taught, according to the testimony of Jerome, that all the souls of all men were created out of nothing in the beginning, and are kept, as in God's storehouse, until they are sent out into bodies. The Stoics, Manicheans, and Priscillianists held that the souls were created out of the very essence of God. Carpocrates, Seleucus, Hermias, the Galatians, and the Messalians held that the souls were made, not by God, but by the angels, out of fire and spirit. Apollinaris, and not a few other Bishops, together with the greater part of the learned men in the Western churches, held, according to the testimony of Jerome, that the souls, being spirits, are propagated in a spiritual manner, like one light from another light. Others taught that the first soul was created by God out of nothing, and that from it the other souls, together with the propagation of the body, are propagated by a certain seed of the parents — and consequently held the soul to be corporeal. Most of the Lutherans, and, among the Reformed, some — Sohnius, Peucer, Combachius — embrace the opinion which we have just now attributed to Apollinaris, because they could not otherwise satisfy themselves concerning the propagation of original sin.

The Reformed, with Jerome, and the common opinion of the Church of that time (Hieron., Apol. ad Rufin., Lib. 2), teach that new souls are daily created by God out of nothing, and that these are, each in particular, united with their particular bodies within man: (I) Because God, without the intervention of any matter or of a second efficient cause, breathed into our first father the breath of life, Gen. 2:7, and thereby, by the very act, taught what He would do, in the future propagation of men, regarding their soul. (II) Because Eccles. 12:7, compared with Heb. 12:9 and Zech. 12:1, ascribes something particular to God in the production of souls, in contradistinction to the production of other living creatures. (III) Because Christ, who, in the same manner as we, has partaken of soul as well as of body, Heb. 2:11, 14, 17, did not receive His soul from a certain soul-seed (traduce) — since He, on that view, according to most, would have had to have had a father; and if one holds that this occurred from the soul-seed of Mary, He would have had to be subject to original sin — and consequently He obtained it through an immediate creation. (IV) Because a body is unfit to produce a spirit, for the thing produced would, in its whole nature and kind, be more excellent than its cause. (V) Because, if the generation of the body were the producing cause of the soul, then also the corruption and defilement of the body would be a cause corrupting and defiling the soul. Not to add (VI) that, through this transmitted seed (traducem), the soul would become material (having one part which is retained by the begetter, and one part which is transmitted to and into the begotten), and consequently also divisible, and therefore also corruptible and mortal.

Among the reasons of the opposing party, the chief one is (1) that, by the help and means of such a transmitting soul-seed, the propagation of original sin can more easily be explained — for it does not happen through the body, and it cannot happen through the soul either, without a transmitting soul-seed. Answer: (a) Be it so, that the manner of that propagation is not clear and easy to see through; it is enough that the propagation itself is clearly and plainly taught in Scripture. Also (b) the manner of that propagation will be taught clearly enough in its place, as also Rob. Baron (Exercit. 11, Art. 6), Molina, Anatom. Arminianism., Cap. 10, and Zanchius, Part 3, Lib. 2, Cap. 5, have taught. (2) A reason coming closest to this is made up by the opposing party out of Gen. 1:22, 28 and 5:1, from a comparison of natural suppositions: a man generates a man; likewise, it is a most natural work for a living thing to generate its like; therefore man also generates the soul. Answer: Certainly man generates a man, but not, specifically, the soul. A man, I say, insofar as he prepares the body, with which the soul can be united, and in which it can work; and in this way man generates a man. So Baronius, Art. 4 & 5. Not to add that the Virgin Mary truly conceived Christ, although she did not conceive His soul.

The Practical Part

XXI.

Since, therefore, God has created man in a particular manner, this is, in particular, man's obligation: that he strive to know himself, Ps. 9 [sic]:21 [likely a mis-citation of a related Psalm]; 2 Cor. 13:5. This is that divine maxim, γνῶθι σεαυτόν, "know thyself," which not only the Christians have recommended to their own, as the second chief point of heavenly wisdom (Calvin, Institutes, Lib. I, Cap. 1), but also the Heathens — according to Juvenal, who says that this γνῶθι σεαυτόν fell down from heaven; and that Simonides, the philosopher, praised and recommended it to Pausanias, as a matter of the greatest art: μίμνησο ἄνθρωπος ὤν, "remember that you are a man." And Philip of Macedon had himself called out to, every day, according to Aelian: Φίλιππε ἄνθρωπος εἶ, "Philip, you are a man."

This indeed is, as coming from a most excellent origin, the most excellent wisdom — for what would you rather, what more usefully, know than yourself? Yet not every kind of knowledge is such; but that first, whereby you (I) not only see through your nature in a philosophical manner, what you are, and who; but also (II) your state — who you formerly were, by Creation; who you have become, through the Fall; who you can become, through grace; and who you shall, along that road, hereafter be, in glory. Namely (III), how excellent with respect to the soul; how mean with respect to the body; how happy and blessed hereafter; how wretched and poor for the present. Moreover, how vile, transient, perishable, and mortal by nature; ignorant and erring in understanding; wicked and perverse in will and affections; forgetful and slack of memory; weak and sickly in strength and powers. And this (IV) not only with a speculative knowledge, which hovers only in the brain, far from the heart, far from practice; but with a practical knowledge, which from and out of the head penetrates into the heart, and warms it, moves it, and forms it to practice — which awakens thankfulness and submission to the Creator; courtesy and friendliness toward one's neighbor; and finally virtue, moderation, and chastity toward ourselves. Such a knowledge, I say (V), whereby we are — or at least strive to be — what we know we ought to be; whereby it is not enough for us to be called men, but to be so, so that in deed we are those who are called such.

Whereby we then (VI) guard ourselves from running out into the manners of unreasoning beasts — through unreasonableness and dullness, into mules, Ps. 32:9; through pride and puffed-up strength, into lions, Ps. 22:14; through uncleanness, into dogs and swine, 2 Pet. 2:22; through deceptions and cunning, into serpents, 2 Cor. 11:3; through unchastity, into horses and asses, Ezek. 23:20; through cruelty, into leopards and bears, Jer. 5:6; through devouring greed, into caterpillars and locusts, Joel 1:4; finally, through rapacity, grasping, and tyranny, into wolves, Matt. 7:15 and 10:16; Acts 20:29. But let us rather (VII) think that those things which we notice, in irrational animals, to be, in their way, human, apply to us with much more right — for example, the exactness of the stork, the swallow, and the crane, in observing their season, Jer. 8:7; the knowledge and understanding, as it were, of the ox and the ass, Isa. 1:3; the mutual love and concord of even wild and fierce beasts, within and toward their own kind — let us, I say, think that these things apply to us much more. Again (VIII), let us know and acknowledge that we are not kings, mighty men, learned men, rich men, but that we are men.

Much less ought we (IX), with Herod, Acts 12:22; with the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:4; with Babylon, Isa. 14:13; with Tyre, Ezek. 28:2, 9, to regard and view ourselves as gods — by aspiring to divine honor, Acts 10:26 and 14:15; or by arrogating to ourselves divine things, such as divine power, strength, self-sufficient credibility, and whatever other such things there may be. For obtaining, then, a sensible contemplation of man, it will be useful and advantageous: (1) A wondering at him, Ps. 8:4. (2) A diligent zeal, especially in an exact comparison of our threefold state — namely, who we have been by Creation; who we now are through sin; who we shall be, both through grace and through glory. (3) A sensible and careful comparison of the great world with the small world, whereby one seeks within oneself, in the small world, that which one sees outside oneself and observes in the great world. (4) A diligent and exact examination and testing, 2 Cor. 13:5. (5) A going to, taking counsel with, and asking counsel of the wiser. (6) Prayers, that God may direct and guide us to and in the knowledge of ourselves, so that we, with Augustine, may pray and beseech: Da mihi nosse te et me — that is, "Grant me to know you and myself."

XXII.

Secondly, this doctrine invites and calls us to thankfulness toward our Creator, Ps. 100:1, 3; Eccles. 12:1; Isa. 1:2; Deut. 32:5, 6, 28, 29. Namely: (I) That He has created us, whereas He could have let us lie forever in a state of non-being. (II) Not soulless or irrational — serpents, toads, etc. (III) That, by creating us, He has, undeserved and gratis, bestowed on us all that we are, whether as to body or as to soul. (IV) That He has created us most excellently, above all sublunary things, with, as it were, a divine soul, 2 Pet. 1:4, and has graced us with His image. And (V) that He has done all this, moved and prompted only by His benevolence and love, being otherwise all-sufficient in and for Himself, Rom. 11:35.

We shall show ourselves thankful: (1) When we, with our heart, are mindful of our Creator, of our first origin, from our youth onward, Eccles. 12:1 — namely, that we do not take our origin by chance, as Epicurus would have it; nor from an accidental concourse of indivisible particles, as Democritus held; nor in the manner of rain-generated mushrooms; but from God — so that we also dedicate and give over ourselves, and all that is ours, to Him alone. (2) When we, with our mouth, extol and praise God's highest wisdom, almighty power, and goodness, shown and demonstrated in creating us, bursting out: "O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! What is man, that thou art mindful of him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor," Ps. 8:1, 4, 5, and Ps. 103:1, 2. (3) When we, in deed, as much as is in us, try to make requital to God, Ps. 116:12. Which occurs: (a) if we follow after God, who through Creation has become a Father to us, as true children, with all honor, love, and submission, Mal. 1:6; Isa. 1:2; Deut. 32:18. (b) If we strive and set ourselves to display, through virtue and conduct, this our Father, who is in every way most perfect, and to be conformed to Him, Matt. 5:48, so that we, as wise sons, may be, as it were, a joy to our Father, Prov. 10:1. (c) If we conduct ourselves, ourselves and all that is ours, so thankfully toward the divine Creation (1 Cor. 4:7), that we are ready and prepared, for the honor and glory of our Creator, whether to live or to die, Rom. 14:7; whether to possess, or to give back again, Job 1:21. (d) If we so acknowledge and accept the Creator's — by virtue of Creation — absolutely unlimited right and power over us, as of a Potter over His clay (Jer. 18:6; Rom. 9:21), that we depend in all things on His will and good pleasure, Ps. 104:5 and 123:2, and submit ourselves to Him most heartily and willingly, Acts 4:19. Finally, (e) if we, out of the Creator's first and original affection and benevolence, in all adversities and troubles, take up hope and comfort concerning the future — that we are the work of His hands, He our maker, our former, and our Father, Rom. 9:20, 21, who will therefore indeed have compassion on us, Ps. 103:13; Isa. 49:15 and 66:13 — so that we, with Job, can and may hold fast to Him: "Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay," etc., Job 10:9.

XXIII.

This doctrine warns us, thirdly, to consider seriously — reflecting on our first and original excellence — our present misery. So that we may repeatedly bring to mind that word from Rev. 2:5: "Remember from whence thou art fallen"; and that we earnestly compare who we have been, so blessed, and who we now are, how wretched. In particular, and in these points: (I) How great, then, the Creator's affection toward us was, when He created us as such, Prov. 8:1; and how great, at present, His hatred against us is, Eph. 2:3; 8:8; and 5:10; Isa. 1:24, 25, 35. (II) How great, formerly, was the beauty of our body; how great the temperateness of the vital humors; the proportionate correspondence of the parts; the beauty, health, strength, and vigor of the whole body — compare Phil. 3:21 — how great an ugliness and deformity has come in its place, how many sicknesses, etc., so that we are now perhaps worse and more wretched than almost all other animals. (III) How great, formerly, was the wisdom and clear-sightedness of our understanding; how great the rectitude of our will and affections; how great the splendor of the image of God; how great the dominion over all the creatures of God; and how great a folly, dullness, and blindness

...of our understanding now beset us; how great a depravity of the will and affections; what a shameful, disfigured face of Satan; and what a great bondage and slavery under all sorts of creatures. And these things we must compare and weigh, in order that we may earnestly lament and bewail our present wretched condition. For if Job, by drawing the most doleful comparison between his former blessed state and his present misery, laments and weeps so grievously (Job XXIX and XXX) only on account of his lost goods, health, standing, and honor — which were but so small a spark of our original happy estate — what then should we not do, who have been robbed at a single stroke of the whole of blessedness, both outward and inward, both of body and of soul? If Rachel, driven and cast out with her children from her Jewish fatherland into the Babylonian captivity, weeps so grievously over so small a portion of miseries that she is unsatiable in and by her tears (Jer. 31:15), what should we not do, who have been carried away out of Paradise, as our fatherland, and at the same time out of all blessedness, into a prison of all sorts of miseries? (2) That we, considering the lost crown of our dignity, cast ourselves down before God's highest excellence and majesty in the most humble and lowly manner (Rom. 7:24; Gen. 18:27). (3) That we conceive an unceasing and insatiable desire and longing to become partakers again of our old and first dignity, in part in this life through grace, and wholly in the life to come through glory. Indeed, not desire and longing alone, but also an endeavor corresponding thereto, and the utmost zeal and diligence, to recover our original happiness and lot, of which we shall speak at once expressly and at length. But let us meanwhile (4) hold in honor and reverence the remnants and footprints of that original excellence bestowed upon us, as they appear in our neighbors — those who excel us either in standing and authority, or in gifts of wisdom, prudence, sharpness of mind, godliness, righteousness, and the like — and from those remnants take the measure of, and lament, our loss. And also (5) bear the faults and blemishes of others, as witnesses of the lost common excellence, with a gentle and moderate mind.

XXIV. Further, in the fourth place, the wonder and admiration over man's first and original excellence must awaken and rouse us to strive, with all zeal and earnestness, that we may regain what we have lost. Compare Rev. 2:5: "Remember therefore from whence you have fallen, and repent, and do the first works." For what does it help to cry out: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me?" (Rom. 7:24) if nothing more follows upon it? And if gamblers try, even with a fresh stake, to win back what they have lost through play, should we not then, with far greater zeal and earnestness, seek to recover our loss — that certain and infallible blessedness lost through sin? If a woman who has lost one coin out of ten lights a candle, and sweeps the house, and searches diligently until she finds it (Luke 15:8), with how much greater zeal and diligence ought we then to seek to regain that far greater happiness which has been lost through sin? For (1) if you consider the thing lost, it is not a little coin, not one sheep out of a hundred, not earthly treasures and the like, but it is our whole happiness, our whole welfare. If (2) you consider the outcome, we shall not seek uncertainly, with an uncertain result, but we shall certainly find (1 Cor. 9:26). And if (3) some difficulty or weariness should attend the seeking, let us then remember the surpassing excellence of what is to be regained (2 Cor. 4:17; Rom. 8:18), and let us not believe that we seek in vain, and that the thing shall never be regained; for it shall as surely — indeed more surely than anything that is certain — be regained again, if not wholly, at least in part. It shall be regained in part in this life (Eph. 4:23, 24; Col. 2:10; 1 Cor. 13:9-13 [rather: 9-12]), but wholly, and with an infinite increase, after this life (1 John 3:2), both with respect to the body (Phil. 3:21) and with respect to the soul (Eph. 5:27), as well as with respect to state and dominion (Matt. 19:28). Meanwhile it lies upon us to use the means diligently, namely: (1) since Christ is the first and chief cause of this restoration (Col. I; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 5:25, 26), it is therefore our duty, before all things, to embrace Him with a true and living faith, that we may be united with Him, and in Him be made perfect in every way (John 17:23; Col. 2:10). (2) Since the whole cause of our loss is sin, we must, through a true, sincere, and unfeigned repentance and reformation, strive and endeavor by degrees toward the first and original excellence (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:8, 9, 10). Meanwhile (3) let us do this with unwearied endeavors, and spare no labor (Phil. 3:13, 14, 15), being fully assured that if we have here, and by these means, striven and labored toward that first and ancient excellence, we shall at last certainly regain it (1 Cor. 9:25, 26). Finally, (4) let us be driven, with many and continual groanings, toward and unto that most desired deliverance from the bondage of corruption, unto the liberty of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:19-25).

XXV. Finally, in the fifth place, since there remain in us as yet such remnants of the dignity bestowed upon us at creation, that we surpass all other creatures except the angels alone, let us above all things take heed and beware that we do not further pollute and defile — by outrages and abominations, by misusing it for sin, or by directing it to trivial and frivolous ends — that most excellent of creatures which we ourselves have already so greatly dishonored and marred through sin. For this would be: (1) against God, a most shameful and dreadful trampling of the Divine Majesty — namely, to expose His own image itself, His most excellent masterwork, to outrages and abominations, and, as it were, to make it a mockery and derision even to the Devils themselves (just as the first man, by the first sin, gave himself over to God, and God gave the first man over to others, to be mocked, Gen. 3:22) — indeed, even to waste and destroy it (Rom. 14:20). (2) Against ourselves, dreadfully and terribly — namely, not merely to profane a strange thing and another's work (which in itself would be excellent), but to profane, violate, and destroy oneself, for the sake of things that are nothing, and to rob oneself of all excellence, both of body and of soul, and that forever. Compare 1 Cor. 6:18. (3) This would be to bring upon oneself the heaviest of God's threatenings (1 Cor. — cf. also 1 Cor. 4:17), indeed even those dreadful judgments which He executed against the heathen philosophers (Rom. 1:24-27). Now this workmanship and masterpiece of God is dishonored and disgraced: (1) In general, by every sin, through the defiling of the flesh and of the spirit (2 Cor. 7:1). (2) In particular, by pride, unbelief, disobedience, ingratitude, gluttony — sins by which our first parents robbed both themselves and us of our innate and original dignity, and cast us down into that misery which we, alas, experience daily. (3) Most particularly, by fornication (1 Cor. 6:18), by giving offense (Rom. 14:20), by manslaughter (Gen. 9:6), and the like.

Second Consideration: Of the Image of God

The Doctrinal Part

XXVI. But the chief excellence and highest privilege of created man consists in the image of his Creator (Gen. 1:26, 27; and IX. 6; 1 Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9). For whereas in all the other creatures — the angels alone excepted, below whom God made man a little lower (Ps. 8:6), and whom Job XXXVIII. 7 calls sons of God — indeed, who, being furnished with wisdom of understanding, and with holiness and righteousness of will, which are the chief parts of the image of God, are as fully, and even more, provided with these than men are, and are for that very reason no less than man bearers of the image of God — He has, as it were, only impressed a footprint of Himself, so that from it one might read the presence and power of the Creator, or, as the Apostle speaks, understand and perceive His eternal power and Godhead (Rom. 1:20); yet He has blessed man alone with His image, by and through which man is able not only to know and acknowledge that there is a Creator, but also who, or of what nature, He is.

XXVII. And this (1) so that He might behold and delight in Himself, as it were, in man, as in a most exact likeness and in a most clear mirror — whence His delights are said to be with the sons of men (Prov. 8:31). (2) So as to propagate Himself, so far as this could be done, in man, as it were. For this is indeed the nature and property of the good, that it communicates itself; whence almost all things that are good seek their propagation, and in this their propagation consists their good in the most perfect degree. For this reason God, because He could propagate on earth nothing that would be like Him in one and the same kind — that is, nothing that would be God — willed at least to propagate an image of Himself; or, to speak more properly, He willed, with respect to His nobler and more excellent qualities and endowments, to express and communicate Himself to man. (3) So that He might have on earth one who might know, love, honor, and serve Him and what is His — which could not be obtained apart from and without the image of God, as will appear in its place. (4) So that He might have a man with whom He might live in the most blessed fellowship forever, and with whom He might associate as with a friend; for such an association and friendship has place only among those who are like one another. Hence man has no association or friendship with irrational beasts, nor even with a man wholly unlike Him; for like loves and seeks its like, and nothing more awakens mutual love than agreement and likeness of character. In order, therefore, that God might come to dwell and associate with man forever, He has willed that man should in some manner be like Him, and bear His image — that is, be wise, holy, and righteous with and alongside Him (2 Cor. 6:14, 15, 16). (5) So that, on the other side also, man might have in himself something by and through which he might know his Creator, not only with respect to his existence, but also with respect to his noblest and chief perfections. For to this end serve images — namely, to bring us to the knowledge of the original subjects that are pictured in them. Now this consists in this: that we learn to know God's simplicity, invisibility, immortality, understanding, will, wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and dominion from the contemplation of ourselves; yes, also, by thinking upon ourselves, continually keep our God in remembrance — just as images are made sufficiently for this end, that they may bring the absent and the past back into our memory and thoughts. Finally, (6) so that God might show Himself to be a cause not of any evil, but of all good, and thus, in punishing man for his sins — man being absolutely without excuse — proportionately and according to his deserts, might show forth the glory of His righteousness; with which purpose He is said to have made even the wicked for the day of evil (Prov. 16:4).

XXVIII. An image — called Imago among the Latins, as though one said imitago, that is, an imitation — is called among the Hebrews tselem, demuth, words which the Papists distinguish thus: that the first denotes the likeness of nature or form, and the second the likeness of qualities; but in Holy Scripture they are joined together, and are of the same signification, yet so that the joining of these two words, according to Hebrew usage, increases and enlarges the meaning — so that to be created after an image and likeness is nothing other than to be created after a most exactly resembling image (Gen. 5:3). Now in an image there generally concur three things: (1) A likeness and agreement in a certain and definite third thing; for that which is not alike is no image. (2) Its dependency; for a likeness alone is not sufficient to be an image, but there is required such a likeness as is drawn and derived from the exemplar — wherefore an egg, though it be like another egg, is nevertheless not an image of an egg. (3) The species-forming shape, or a certain most noble and excellent perfection, in which the exemplar and the copy agree and concur together. For a concurrence, agreement, or likeness of kind, though joined with a dependency, is not sufficient to constitute an image; for otherwise a worm born in man would be his image, being, together with man, an animal, and also depending on him as its cause. Nor is an agreement in one and the same common accident sufficient here; for a white color painted after a white color is not thereby an image of it. But here is required a dependent agreement in the species-forming shape, in which way the son of a king may be called his image; or in a most noble and excellent perfection of both, which is, as it were, a species-forming distinction and difference — such as exists between God and man in the fellowship of understanding and will, and the highest perfection of these faculties, namely wisdom, holiness, and righteousness. And from this there arises, sufficiently, the distinction between an image and a footprint: because a footprint displays only a common form and shape.

XXIX. Now the image of God belongs to man: (1) Not with respect to the distinction, arrangement, and shape of the parts of the body and of its members — as, alongside the Anthropomorphites (the shapers of God's form), the Manichaeans dreamed. For God is a spirit (John 4:24), utterly without parts, limbs, or shape (Luke 24:39). Nor (2) because man was to be depicted and formed after the human nature of Christ, assumed in an extraordinary manner at the time when man was to be created, as a certain one of the ancient Fathers held; for that opinion has not only no foundation whatever in Holy Scripture, but is also sufficiently contrary to Scripture, which says that we were created after the image of God, but not after the image of Christ, and that Christ, through His incarnation, was made like us in all things, sin excepted (Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:12, 17). Nor do we (3) bear an absolute and in every way perfect image of God, such as Christ bears according to His divine nature (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3), but a certain image that is in some measure similar, not the same or perfectly equal.

XXX. The image of God in man is nothing other than a conformity of man, by which he displays, in his own way, the highest perfection of God. It is, I say, a conformity in which man agrees with a footprint, and through which the whole likeness of God in man converges unto the image, whereby man in his own way displays God — that is, displays and makes manifest such things as he has, in some manner and by way of proportion, in common with God. And this, finally, in a certain most noble and excellent perfection, which is seen both in man's very being, and in the primary faculties of the soul, and finally in the virtues of these faculties.

XXXI. The first conformity, therefore, consists in man's very being, indeed in his whole being, in body and in soul — wherefore the image of God is generally ascribed to the whole man (Gen. 1:26, 27, compared with 1 Thess. 5:23); consequently the image of God is also in the body of man, whence God forbids the body to be harmed, because man is created after the image of God (Gen. 9:6), and the body too is said to be restored after the image of God (1 Thess. 5:23). But of what sort, then, is the conformity of our body with the most simple and most spiritual God? Certainly not in the material bulk of our members, but in their formal perfection: for all imperfection being wholly withdrawn from them, and the excellence of a highest perfection being put in its place, our members — or rather the virtues and powers of our members — belong to God, not indeed in a formal manner, as one says, but in a more excellent and more eminent manner. In which respect, and for which reason, most of our members are generally ascribed to God throughout Holy Scripture: face, eyes, ears, hands, heart, feet, and the like. For the power of the eyes to see, of the ears to hear, of the hands to work, belongs to God without the least imperfection, and with the highest excellence of perfection, in every way and absolutely (Ps. 94:9). Indeed, it even seems that He gave man this variety of members for this very purpose, that in them He might show, piece by piece as it were, that infinite perfection of His, by which He accomplishes all things by one single and most simple act — which we accomplish by the roundabout ways and circuits of so many members (see Zanchius, de Operibus Dei, Part III, Book III, Chapter 1). Nor does it stand in the way here that, in this manner, the image of God might seem to be, at least in part, ascribed to irrational animals as well; for the agreement of one or another feature is not sufficient for an image, and the animals lacking reason, on account of their community of members, are not said to bear the image of man. Meanwhile we see the image of God far more fully in the being of the soul; for is it not the case that spirituality, simplicity, invisibility, and immortality are seen on both sides — in God and in man — though with an infinite disparity between us? Compare Acts 17:28, 29. Thus far, and in this respect, the image of God has not only been natural to man, but has been his very nature itself.

XXXII. The second conformity of the image of God consists in the faculties of the soul, understanding and will, which are, on both sides, acknowledged by all to belong both to man and to God. And also the diversity of the faculties in the one being of the soul seems to shadow forth — though it cannot be proved or demonstrated — the plurality of the Divine Persons in the one Being.

XXXIII. The third and chief conformity of the image of God consists in the gifts, or the natural perfection, of these faculties. Such are, in the understanding, wisdom, or a perfect knowledge of divine and human things (Col. 3:10), which the newly-created man immediately manifested in this, that he gave to all the animals names agreeing with their nature; likewise in that he immediately, and at first sight, recognized his wife Eve, formed as she was out of his flesh and his bones. Without wisdom, too, he would have been unfit to exercise dominion over the things beneath the moon; unfit also to know, acknowledge, praise, and glorify the Creator from and through the creatures, and therefore unfit for the purpose for which he was made, and consequently he would have been not good, but evil. In the will, holiness toward God and righteousness toward his neighbor (Eph. 4:24) — namely, that he might be as well disposed and capable of desiring the good, as of apprehending the true, and might not only know his Creator, but also love Him, and might exercise, over the creatures subjected to him, not a tyranny but a dominion; indeed, so that in every matter, whether well or ill performed, he might be liable both to reward and to punishment. There was also, in the affections, an obedient virtue and power, by which they were inclined and disposed — indeed ready — to admit and receive the command of right reason with respect to the desires and passions; and thus there was a most sweet agreement between them and right reason, without any conflict (Gal. 5:17).

XXXIV. From all these features together arises that famous and much-disputed original righteousness. This, if the word be considered, is called a righteousness or justice in a general sense, insofar as it denotes a general and habitual conformity of the whole man with God and with His Law; but it is called original in a distinguishing manner, with reference to all of Adam's descendants, insofar as his righteousness was the origin of all the righteousness and rectitude of the whole human race that was to follow from it. For it was conferred upon Adam, not as upon a private, but as upon a public and common person — or, what is the same thing, upon the whole human race in Adam. Wherefore it would have been propagated by him to and upon all his descendants. It is also called an original righteousness in contradistinction to the actual righteousness which flows from it — whether that be a habit, a virtue, an actual deed, or a good work. This original righteousness is not a substance, as Illyricus foolishly dreamed, but a quality, spread as it were through the whole substance, and thus common to the body and to the soul, likewise to the understanding, to the will, and to the affections. By this righteousness man was fit and equipped to be under God, and to persevere in complete obedience to Him — if he willed, that is, although the willing itself, and thus the very act of persevering, required besides this another, and a certain second, grace, namely one by which that first grace should be roused, and brought from capacity into act, and sustained and preserved: for God works both the willing and the working (Phil. 2:13), and in Him we first live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:28). In its place, after sin, there came an original and innate unrighteousness, which, having been transmitted from Adam to all his descendants, is the root and the fuel of all actual unrighteousness (Ps. 51:7; Eph. 2:3; Rom. 5:12). This same righteousness also belonged to the angels before their fall (Jude v. 6), excepting, however, the condition and provision for propagation — after which image they are, without doubt, called sons of God (Job XXXVIII. 7).

XXXV. Finally, the fourth conformity of man with God is seen in a certain state common to body and to soul, which comprises in itself the immortality of the human composite, man's dominion over earthly things, and his paradisal happiness. First, I say, the immortality of the whole man: (1) because Holy Scripture attributes death to sin as its cause (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:56). (2) Because death is a ruin and destruction of nature, and consequently not natural to man. (3) Because, apart from sin, there was no cause of death — certainly no proximate cause: neither an internal one, no imbalance of the humors, or lack of innate warmth and moisture, whence come sicknesses and diseases; nor an external one, no corruption of the elements, no lack of food, no violence or cruelty of men or beasts; nor whatever else has, with respect to death, the appearance of a cause — consequently no mortality, at least no proximate mortality. (4) Because, upon perfect obedience, nothing else could follow, according to the promise of the Lawgiver, than a perfect life (Lev. 18:5; Luke 10:28) — consequently, for disobedience, no death or mortality. And yet we do not here understand an absolute immortality of man, by which he would have been utterly unable to die, which is contrary to the very composition that is natural to man, as also the death that afterward occurred cries out against it; but such an immortality by which he would have been able not to die, and also would not have died, had he not sinned.

XXXVI. Besides this immortality of man, the state of the image of God comprises the dominion over all God's earthly creatures (Gen. 1:26; Ps. 8:6-9; 1 Cor. 11:7, where the dignity of the image of God is ascribed to the Man above the Woman, only with respect to this dominion, which belongs to him even over the Woman. For (1) to what does it point, that the animals came to him as to a lord, and received their names from him — as denoting their offices — which were so many testimonies of the homage they rendered him, seeing it is the work of a lord and ruler to give names (Gellius, Book 17, last chapter; compare Casaubon, ad Baronium, Exercit. XIII, Sect. 13). Likewise here belongs (2) the general power and freedom to use all sorts of creatures according to pleasure, excepting only the one tree of the knowledge of good and evil (1 Cor. 3:21). To this also points (3) the fact that man can tame and subdue the most savage passions of wild beasts (Jas. 3:7). As likewise (4) the general excellence of man above all other creatures (the angels alone excepted), which even now, after sin, remains with respect to its remnants. For although, taken separately, with respect to this or that quality, we see that man is surpassed and outdone by this or that irrational animal — for example, by the lynx in sharpness of sight, by the horse or the elephant in size and strength — yet, all being taken together, he surpasses them all. This dominion of man extends: (1) To the unensouled creatures, the elements and what belongs to them, insofar as they all serve and are useful to man, whether for his life, or for his health, pleasure, convenience, and the like. (2) To the ensouled creatures, whether they be without feeling, herbs and fruits, or have feeling — whether they be without reason, all sorts of irrational animals, or endowed with reason: for one man, even if not subjected to another, was at least in every way useful to him, and thus served him, even in the state of rectitude. This dominion also comprises not only χρῆσιν, a use and utility of all these creatures, but also κτῆσιν, a possession of them and a property in them (Ps. 8:6; 1 Cor. 3:21, 22) — yet under God, who conferred this dominion; compare 1 Cor. 15:27, 28. The foundations, finally, or the titles of right to this dominion, are: (a) the gracious gift of the Creator; (b) the natural excellence and preeminence of man above all creatures, for, as reason itself dictates, the less perfect is subject to the more perfect; (c) the Divine Providence, which has conferred on all creatures the capacity to obey; (d) God's honor and glory, unto which man must bring back everything he has received from God.

XXXVII. Finally, the image of God comprises, with respect to man's state, his paradisal happiness (Gen. 2:8). This was a garden in Eden, watered by a river which divided into four heads, and which many suppose to have been the Euphrates (see Ortelius, under the words Euphrates and Tigris). Moreover, it was a most pleasant place, whence it is called Eden, τόπος τρυφερός, a delightful and pleasant place, containing in itself every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food; therefore also very fruitful, not only in things necessary of every sort, but also in things desirable. In particular there was in it also the tree of life, so called either because it bore a fruit naturally fit to nourish life, and given for the purpose that it might procure and promote immortality, as pleases very many; or rather, that it might seal to obedient and steadfast man that blessed and eternal life (Rev. 2:7; Prov. 3:18). There was, moreover, also the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so called not on account of some inward form by which it would have been endowed with reason, knowing good and evil, nor on account of some physical effect, as though it were in itself productive of knowledge (scientifica) or had a power to give and hasten the use of reason and of the will, nor finally on account of the lying promise of omniscience by which the serpent deceived and seduced the Woman (Gen. 3:5); but on account of the outcome — namely, an experiential knowledge of good and evil, which God foretold and assured would follow by means of this tree, if man, by sinning, departed and fell away from God: namely, how great a good he would lose, and how great an evil he would draw down and bring upon himself through his disobedience. This Tree was therefore: (1) A testimony-sign, both of dominion with respect to God — for it signified that the power and the right belonged to God to give laws according to His own will and pleasure, for which reason God also chose so small a token of this, namely the prohibition of eating the fruit of this tree, that He might thereby disclose and make manifest His wholly absolute and unlimited power and dominion — and of a general subjection and obedience with respect to man, since this sign obliged him to depend wholly and in all things upon God's beck and will, and thus, by this very sign, to profess exactly that. (2) A Sacrament — partly probationary, whereby God willed to test and prove the use and the abuse of man's free will, and also to make manifest its instability in the good; partly forewarning, namely foreshowing and depicting a sorrowful outcome if man did not, at God's command, keep himself from that tree; partly also dissuading, insofar as this Tree dissuaded and warned man against acquiring for himself, by eating of it, so harmful, indeed so deadly, a knowledge of good and evil (see Drusius on Gen. 2:11). These two trees were, therefore, so many Sacraments of the Covenant of Works, of which the first most powerfully strengthened and confirmed man's faith, and nourished and increased his hope of a wholly blessed life, and the second his obedience, by virtue of the threatening and sealing of the penalty.

XXXVIII. Man, now, being placed in this place, which was filled with all these things, led (1) a religious life, whereby he lived not only for himself and for the other creatures, but especially also for the Creator, in and through faith and obedience. For faith, being the first act of all religious life, nourished God through and with the promise of life, and was strengthened by the Sacrament of the Tree of Life — for both of these looked to this, namely, that man, through faith, might lean the more securely and confidently upon the Word and upon the faithfulness of God. Further, upon faith followed Hope, whereby man awaited, with entire certainty, the life which had been promised to him if he remained obedient, together with all its consequences. Upon these two followed Love, not only on account of what was promised, but also on account of the life already conferred, with respect to body, soul, and state. Now Obedience God expressly prescribed, both toward the natural laws written in man's heart (Rom. 2:15), and toward the positive Law, to be shown by abstaining from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil — which obedience God at that time urged as a condition of the Covenant of Works, that by means of it eternal life might be obtained. There was also joined to this natural service a certain instituted service, which was to be exercised by the sanctifying of the seventh day (Gen. 2:2), namely by abstaining from his daily labors and business, and by sanctifying that day, more expressly and more fully, through religious exercises. This would have been man's religious life in Paradise. But (2) he also led a Civil life, insofar as he did not live unmarried but married, wherefore also his marriage is described (Gen. 2:22, 23, 24). In this marriage man led (1) a contemplative and philosophical life, occupied wholly in the contemplation and consideration of God and His works. (2) An active life, engaged, on the one side, in the exercise of faith and obedience and of the instituted service, and on the other side, busy in governing and ruling the creatures subjected to him. (3) A productive life (vitam factivam), occupied with the tilling and working of the garden — and this only until, a certain fixed time having elapsed, he should be carried over to better things and better places, namely to the heavenly Paradise.

XXXIX. The image of God, of which we have spoken, is neither wholly lost through sin, nor wholly remaining since sin. It therefore still to some extent remains (Gen. 9:6; Jas. 3:9; 1 Cor. 11:7), where, without doubt, it speaks not of man's former, but of his present, state. This, I say, still remains, insofar as it consists: (1) In the very nature of man's body and soul. (2) In the natural faculties of the soul, understanding and will. (3) In some gifts of the understanding and of the will, insofar as even in the very worst there is still detected some use of reason, and also an inclination toward what is good, indeed even morally good (Rom. 1:19; and II. 15; 1 Cor. 5:1). Further, (4) at least some remnants of the old dominion (Gen. 9:2). All these portions of His image God has willed to remain in us after the fall, both that they might be indelible witnesses of His goodness toward us, and that they might be, as it were, seeds from which the image of God, through the grace of restoration, might afterward sprout up and reflourish; likewise also to render the unbelieving and disobedient forever without excuse. Yet the image is lost with respect to its most excellent parts, namely: (1) original righteousness, since we are now all born children of wrath, dead in sins (Eph. 2:1, 2, 3). (2) The absolute immortality of natural, spiritual, and eternal life. (3) The perfection and completeness of dominion (Rom. 8:20). (4) Paradisal happiness (Gen. 3:23, 24).

The Polemical Part

XL. Now we shall proceed to dispute. And indeed (1) we shall not revive the long-buried dreams of the Jews concerning Adam as two-bodied and having two foreheads; nor those concerning man created after the image of the Angels; nor the blasphemy of the Anthropomorphites concerning the image, by which man would show God to be corporeal; nor the fiction of certain ancient Fathers and Anabaptists, who held the human nature of Christ to be the depicted subject of the image of God in man; nor the improper and inhuman sportings and trifles of those who exclude the Woman, as from humanity, so also from the image of God. All of which positions refute themselves by their own absurdity.

XLI. The question is asked: (II) Whether the original Righteousness that constitutes the image of God is man's own substance? Flacius Illyricus, otherwise a very learned man, being carried away by zeal in disputing against Strigel and Victorin, and in maintaining that original sin is man's very substance, is forced to hold, in consequence, that the opposite of this — namely, original righteousness — is likewise man's very substance. The Reformed indeed grant that the image of God is also to be discerned and observed in the very being and substance of body and soul (§ XXXI), but they teach, nevertheless, that original righteousness is not a substance, but a quality of the substance, though one natural to man. For according to Flacius's view: (1) man would be righteous and holy by his essence, which belongs to God alone, as He alone is a most simple act. (2) Thus the very essence of the soul would be corrupted by sin. (3) Unrighteousness (ἀνομία) would be a substance, and consequently God would be the cause of it, as being the author of substance (Rom. 11:36). (4) The Devil, or equally man, would be the Creator, as being in fact and in truth the cause of sin. (5) The Resurrection of the dead would thus be vain and useless; for either sin itself would rise again, since, according to Flacius's supposition, our substance has, through the fall, been changed into sin; or a new substance would be produced through the resurrection — but then how shall that which was not dissolved rise again? Nor do those Scripture passages help Illyricus in which original corruption is called flesh, the old man, a body of sin, members, and the like; since this occurs by a transference of the name of the container to the thing contained, because original corruption is spread over the whole man, and over all his faculties and members, so intimately that it seems, as it were, to have passed into his very being and substance, and is on that account laid aside with as much difficulty and hardship as the being and substance of the body and of the members themselves (Matt. 5:29, 30; Mark 9:47) — concerning which perhaps more will be said in its proper place.

XLII. The question is asked: (III) Whether man was created with original righteousness? The Pelagians and Socinians, in order the more strongly to oppose original defilement, or hereditary taint, and the more forcefully to maintain the powers of the free will as still remaining with respect to what is spiritually good, and finally to establish that nothing but a moral and advisory grace is needed for man's regeneration, hold that man was indeed created innocent and guiltless, but without any righteousness whatsoever, so that even in the state of innocence there was in him a continual conflict of flesh against spirit. The Reformed teach, on the contrary, that man was created not only innocent and guiltless, but also endowed with original righteousness, and therefore free from all rebellion of the flesh against the spirit — which they prove and demonstrate most chiefly by these reasons: (1) Because man is said to have been created upright (Eccl. 7:29), and good, indeed very good (Gen. 1:31), with a goodness not only common and merely natural, but proper and moral to man, whereby he would be fit to acknowledge and love his Creator, and to serve Him according to the prescription of the Law — which truly cannot happen without such an upright habit; for as the tree is, such is the fruit (Matt. 7:18). (2) Because man is created perfect in his kind, no otherwise than the Angels (1 Pet. — cf. Jude v. 6), for here there is no ground for an unequal reasoning. But how shall he be called complete and perfect who lacks wisdom, holiness, and righteousness? (3) Because, since the lack of holiness and righteousness in a rational creature can be nothing other than sin (Rom. 3:23), God, in creating man with that lack and defect, would necessarily be the cause of sin — not to add that the disorderliness of the flesh warring against the spirit and being wanton, which Paul calls a law warring against the law of the mind (Rom. 7:23), and with which flesh this heresy supposes man to have been created, is, beyond all doubt, sin; and therefore I do not see how its adherents could escape a blasphemy by which God is made the cause of sin. (4) Because we are plainly said to be created unto that knowledge, holiness, and righteousness unto which we are being renewed (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:23, 24). (5) Because man could not have governed and exercised, wisely, holily, and righteously, that very dominion to which they limit the image of God — through his understanding and will — without wisdom of understanding, nor without holiness and righteousness of will; for actual righteousness presupposes a habitual one, just as an act presupposes a power; nor can he act righteously who is not himself righteous. And yet the other side seems to have something to object. Namely: (1) That man received, through creation, nothing but natural goods. Answer: (a) Wisdom, holiness, and righteousness were likewise natural to man at that time, as we shall presently demonstrate against the Papists. (b) But if by "natural" they mean something that is not moral, they will thereby simply be begging the very point in dispute, since that is exactly what is denied. They object (2): Thus man would not have been able to sin, being subject to no error and to no rebellion of the flesh. Answer: It only follows that he would have been unable to sin without being able not to sin; but it does not follow from this that he could not have sinned, since no creature can be created unchangeable, and therefore that power and capacity of not sinning had to be sustained and upheld by a certain second grace, in order not to sin in the act. They say: (3) That the righteousness by which they remained free from sin up to the point of the sin committed would have been an actual, not an original, righteousness. Answer: That lack of sin is not, with us, the original righteousness, but rather that most fitting rectitude and harmony of understanding, will, and passions, by which they were able to remain free from all actual unrighteousness. For that lack of sin is something negative, whereas with us original righteousness is something positive. They say: (4) If man was righteous before the sin he committed, then he was so either because he had done nothing against God's command, or because he had done nothing against his conscience; but the first cannot be said, since he then had as yet no command, nor the second, since Scripture says nothing of it. Answer: (a) This reasoning bears against actual righteousness, not against original. But (b) it is false that he had no Law, for he had that inborn and innate Law of which Paul speaks (Rom. 2:15). A fifth objection is this: The understanding of the first-created man, they say, was without wisdom, since man did not know that he was naked, nor did he know good and evil; his will was without righteousness, since, for a most trifling cause, he fell away from God to the Devil; finally, his passions and affections were without holiness, since he obeyed the lust of his eyes, his gluttony, and other passions, against reason and against the Law of God. Answer: (a) To his understanding is ascribed not an ignorance that diminished, but one that increased, his wisdom: he is credited with an ignorance of his nakedness only insofar as that included the shame arising from sin, not an ignorance simply — for that would have been a defect of his eyes, not of his understanding. Thus also he did not know good and evil simply and merely, but by experience and trial. (b) The cause by which his will departed and fell away from God was not a light and trifling one, but the heaviest and weightiest temptation of Satan: "You shall be as God." (c) The lust of the eyes, gluttony, and the like, were not natural, innate, and original to man, but came from without, and were actual — and these do not prejudice the original righteousness which preceded the temptation. They proceed further, and say: (6) Flesh and spirit are by nature contrary to one another; therefore the desires and lusts of the two are also contrary to one another, and consequently the discord and difference between them is natural. Answer: They were indeed distinct and different, but subordinate, not contrary — for subordinate things do not conflict. And in this very subordination consists original righteousness, as we have taught above.

XLIII. The question is asked: (IV) Whether created man was mortal? The Socinians, in order not to be forced, from the death of little children, to acknowledge original hereditary sin, nor forced to acknowledge that Christ's death was a punishment for our sins and thus satisfactory, deny that man was created immortal, but say that he would have died even had he never sinned. To what extent the Reformed grant, and to what extent they deny, the immortality of newly-created man, and with what arguments they deny it, we have already noted above (§ XXXV). The arguments of the other side prove no other mortality than that more remote one by which he could die — which we grant — but not that proximate mortality by which he would in fact have died. For example: (1) That he is called earthly and animal (Gen. 2:7; and III. 19; 1 Cor. 15:45) proves not that he would have died in fact, but only that he would have been able to die. So also (2) that he would have made it his work to beget children (Gen. 1:28, 29), and that he would have used food (Luke 20:35, 36; 1 Cor. 6:13). If this indicates anything beyond that more remote mortality, it will be nothing other than that the immortality in the state of glorification is distinct from that which had place in the state of creation, but not that man, even apart from sin, would have died. Thus (3) that he was created of contrary elements, mutually opposed to one another, proves nothing more than that he could have been dissolved again, but by no means that he would in fact have been dissolved. Likewise (4) that he needed the tree of life, as also food and drink: these things served to ward off death, but by no means asserted a future death. They add finally (5) that Christ, who has removed all the consequences of sin, has nevertheless not removed death, whence it follows that death is not a consequence of sin, but of nature. Answer: He has removed it insofar as it is a punishment of sin and a curse, but not insofar as it is a benefit, and insofar as it is the way to the blessing and to the eternal life (Gal. 3:13, 14; Rom. 8:13).

XLIV. The question is asked: (V) Whether the original righteousness was natural to man? The Pelagianizing Papists, in order to establish: (1) that concupiscence — whose second acts alone, not the first, would take away original righteousness — is no sin, and that therefore, notwithstanding it, man comes in this life to be perfect; (2) that man was created in pure naturals (in puris naturalibus), that is, by nature neither righteous nor unrighteous; (3) that man's natural endowments remain wholly and completely after the fall — hold that man indeed has a certain natural righteousness of soul, which the Papists suppose to be superadded beyond nature to restrain and curb the natural difference and strife between flesh and spirit; but meanwhile they do not deny that this same conflict was born with man, and would even have helped him in his natural faculties. The Reformed, although they do not acknowledge (as Flacius held) that original righteousness is man's very nature, nevertheless maintain that it was natural to man, insofar as it was owed to a complete and upright nature, so that this nature could not have been complete and upright without it. For (1) if it had been supernatural, then its opposite — the fleshly concupiscence, or rather the difference and discord between flesh and spirit — would have been natural to man, and therefore good, and of God, which is contrary to Holy Scripture (Rom. 7:7, 8; 1 John 2:16). (2) Thus the rebellion of the flesh against the spirit would have been natural to man, without any preceding demerit, brought upon him by God by virtue of his nature, and consequently God would be the cause of sin. But (3) blessedness, as the end, was natural to man, and therefore also righteousness and holiness, without which he would not have been able to obtain blessedness (Rev. 21:27; 1 Cor. 15:56). The arguments of the Papists against original righteousness agree for the most part with those of the Socinians; for they allege: (a) The natural contrariety of flesh and spirit, of body and soul, and consequently the rest. Answer: This we have already, long since, denied against the Socinians to have had place in the state of rectitude, where a most perfect harmony prevailed, up to the sin. (b) That the gifts first conferred upon man are called honor and glory (Ps. 8:6), which, without doubt, are external and come to man from without, and are not natural. Answer: (1) The Psalmist does not so much name original righteousness as man's dominion over the earthly creatures, honor and glory. But also (2) in a sound sense, original righteousness is honor and glory (Rom. 3:23), insofar as it is the foundation of all honor and glory, and in that respect it is not something that comes to man from without, but is indeed something internal. Bellarmine has still other proofs, but of no importance whatever; whoever wishes to know them may consult his opponents, Ames, Pareus, and others.

XLV. The question is asked: (VI) Whether Paradise still remains in the World, or whether it was destroyed by the waters of the Flood? Some of the ancients hold that it, untouched and unharmed by the Flood, still remains — for example, Irenaeus, Book V, Chapter 5. The same is the opinion of most of the Jews, according to Manasseh ben Israel, De Creatione, Problem XVII — namely, that it serves as a receiving- and dwelling-place for souls, until the day of the last judgment. The same is held by Bellarmine as an article of faith, in order that those two witnesses, Enoch and Elijah, who are to be killed by the Antichrist, may return from there, and that on this account the Pope may not be the Antichrist. But, on the contrary, others among the Papists, and not insignificant men either — for example, Cornelius à Lapide, Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus, Pererius, Jansenius, Ambrosius Catharinus, Suarez, Oleaster, and others — hold, with the Reformed, that it was lost through the Flood: (1) Because nowhere are any traces of it found remaining. (2) Because we read that the whole globe of the Earth, and therefore also Paradise, perished through the Flood (Gen. 7:19). (3) Because, on the fiction concerning Enoch and Elijah, it would otherwise be in vain (compare Rivet, Exercit. XXIX on Genesis). The arguments of the other side rest partly on certain testimonies of the ancient Fathers, partly on the supposed return of Enoch and Elijah from there, to fight against the Antichrist and to be killed by him (Bellarmine, de gratia primi hominis, ch. XIV; likewise de Pontifice, Book III, ch. 6) — resting on testimonies against which other testimonies of equal authority may be set in opposition. And the fiction concerning Enoch and Elijah rests on no foundation at all in Holy Scripture, as even Bellarmine's own opponents teach (against his de Pontifice, Book III, ch. VI).

The Practical Part

XLVI. As for the practical application: the contemplation of the image of God leads us, first, to the knowledge of God, as the original exemplar whom we are to know and acknowledge from the contemplation of ourselves — since for this purpose images are made, and are called by the Papists "Books of the Laity." So that, consequently, he who sees himself sees God; compare John 14:9. Now we know God from the image: (1) With respect to His existence, that He is. For God is not only the efficient, but also the exemplary, cause of man; and therefore, since no effect exists without a cause, and nothing can be expressed or depicted except from a pre-existing original image, it remains beyond denial that, the image of God being present, God also is present. Moreover, just as we conclude, as surely as anything is certain, that our soul, formed after God's image — though never seen by anyone, nor visible — is nevertheless present and exists; so we also conclude from the works, both within us and outside us, that God, thus absolutely, as the exemplary cause of our soul, though never seen by anyone (John 1:18), nor able to be seen (1 Tim. 6:16), nevertheless is and is present, as surely as if we saw Him with our own eyes. (2) With respect to His being, what He is. For since, according to the settled rule of the Philosophers, the cause is never inferior, in its whole kind, to its effect, and since we know that our soul, formed after the image of God, is of a spiritual, simple, invisible, and immortal nature, endowed with understanding, will, and free choice — all of which things, without doubt, denote a perfection — why then shall we not acknowledge such a spiritual, simple, invisible, and immortal being to exist, in an eminent degree, in God? (3) With respect to God's attributes, at least the communicable ones, of what sort they are. For since we see the image of God so richly adorned and endowed with so many perfections of every kind — namely, reason with so many intellectual faculties, understanding, wisdom, foresight, arts; the will with so great holiness and righteousness, and with so many moral virtues; and finally the body with so much variety of members, each of them adorned with its own particular faculty — must we not, and shall we not, ascribe all these things, all imperfection nevertheless being removed from them, with the highest excellence, to God, as being the original exemplar of them all? Finally, (4) with respect to His subsistence, who He is — namely, three in Persons, one in Being. For although we neither know nor can prove, from man alone and apart from Holy Scripture, indeed cannot even so much as suspect — much less perfectly define and describe — nevertheless, revelation being presupposed, we can to some extent explain and clarify it from man, created after God's image; namely, insofar as we, from this, comprehend, if not the actual existence, at least the possibility of three Persons in the one Being. For just as the rational soul, though one and simple in being, is nevertheless observed to have distinct faculties, and, as it were, essential parts; so we see that God, in one most simple Being, subsists in more than one Person. Further, just as the being of our soul is distinguished from its faculties, understanding and will, so also in God the Being is distinguished from the Persons: thus the Father — being the origin and fountain, both of the Godhead, and of Creation, and likewise of restoration, whence He is called the Father of lights, Jas. 1:17 — is, as it were, the understanding God, distinguished from the Son, as the understood God, and from the Holy Spirit, as the beloved God; and just as the understanding is distinguished from the will in one and the same soul, so also the Son and the Spirit are distinguished. For the Son is begotten of the Father as by an act of the understanding, whence He is preeminently called the image of the Father, likewise the Word and the Wisdom of God, in Holy Scripture; but the Holy Spirit proceeds by an act of the will, or of love, whence He is, by a particular appropriation, called Spirit. Observe now, and see, what and how much we can know concerning God, from ourselves, from His image. But what sort of knowledge of God, then, ought we to strive to obtain for ourselves? Not that alone whereby we merely know God, and know that there is a God; but that whereby we (1) always and everywhere carry God about in our hearts, and have and hold Him present before us — so that, as often as we think of ourselves, we are, by that very act, reminded of God's presence, and walk and converse everywhere as under His eye; just as we are wont to keep before us the likeness of our parents, or of those who are especially dear and precious to us, in order to renew continually the remembrance of the absent or the deceased. (2) Such a knowledge whereby we are moved unto the love, reverence, and service of God with a holy and godly delight, pleasure, and readiness. For to this end not only the Heathen and the Papists have their images, in order, by the contemplation of them (though wrongly), to arouse and incite themselves to the love and service of the depicted subjects; but also in civil life every man loves the likenesses of those who are dear and precious to him, that by beholding them, with an honest delight, he may nourish his love and service toward the depicted persons. Indeed, to this very end God Himself, moved by love toward Himself, has made man like Himself — that is, has blessed him, alongside Himself, with understanding and will, as well as with wisdom, holiness, and righteousness — that not only might He love and honor Himself in us, but also that we might love, honor, and serve Him in ourselves, and might be able to associate and converse with Him in a holy friendship. For like loves and seeks its like, and between things wholly unlike one another — for example, between a man and a beast, between one perfectly righteous and one wicked — no firm and lasting friendship can have place (2 Cor. 6:14, 15). (3) Such a knowledge whereby we follow God, as the exemplary image of our creation, so far as possible, and conform ourselves to Him (2 Cor. 3:18). For in this consists the perfection of an image, that it express the perfection of its depicted subject — that is, that we, according to God's wisdom, holiness, and righteousness, with all zeal and earnestness, strive, labor, and press forward (Matt. 5:48; Eph. 4:24). But of this, more fully in its place.

XLVII. Again, second, the contemplation of the image of God leads and brings us to the knowledge of ourselves. For the image of God belongs to the class of relative things, which, as they depend on one another in being (in essendo, as one says) — that is, in existing and being present — so also depend on one another in knowing (in cognoscendo). And just as man is subject to a fourfold state, so the image of God, compared with each state, makes man knowable and visible in a fourfold manner. First, if you compare the image of God with the state of rectitude, as being complete, you shall have and behold man as most excellent. Second, if with the state of the fall, as being lost, you shall have and behold man as most wretched. Third, if with the state of grace, as being restored, you shall find man greatly adorned. And finally, fourth, if with the state of glory, as being perfect in every respect, you shall have man as most glorious. With reference to these last three states — each to be treated in its own place — we shall consider the image of God as it was constituted in the first state, and this under a twofold relation: namely, insofar as, on the one side, it agrees with the original exemplar, and thereby proves man to be most excellent; and, on the other side, insofar as it differs from the exemplar and depends upon it as the depicted copy (so to speak) depends upon the pattern, and thus proves man, with all his worth and excellence, to be altogether subject to God. If, then, I say, you consider and weigh the image insofar as it agrees with the original exemplar and displays it, you shall see man shining with such great glory, splendor, and honor, that he is nearest to Elohim, to God (Ps. 8:5, 6). Just as Joseph, bearing the image of the Egyptian king, and his rings and seal, was held glorious and excellent throughout all Egypt (Gen. 41:42-44), so man, being a lord of the World, and, as it were, a second god, a subordinate god and God's Viceroy, is resplendent with the most splendid seal and ring of God's image — adorned with the most excellent jewels of divine knowledge (Col. 3:10), of human wisdom (Gen. 2:20), of righteousness and perfection (Eph. 4:24), of holiness (ibid.), of immortality (Gen. 2:17), of dominion (Gen. 1:26), and the like — and is rightly held to be the most excellent thing on the whole face of the earth, and greeted as nearest to God. On the other side, if you consider the image of God as it stands over against its depicting exemplar, and depends upon it, not only as upon an exemplary cause, but as being, if not wholly unlike it, at least, in wisdom, holiness, righteousness, glory, and majesty, unequal to it — then man shall have cause and matter, not only to prevent and hinder all pride toward the Creator, which would otherwise very easily arise from the highest majesty of the image, but also to cast himself down most humbly at His feet. Let us therefore, in the contemplation of the image of God, apply ourselves not only to the knowledge of God, but also of ourselves. But to what sort of knowledge of ourselves shall we apply ourselves? Answer: to such a knowledge as, through the contemplation of our original majesty and excellence, (1) shapes and forms us unto thankfulness toward God, who has conferred it upon man, as we shall see in the following §. (2) restrains us, that we do not, through sins, assume the most hideous, disfigured face of Satan, nor make ourselves like the beasts — of which likewise in the following §. Finally, (3) that we, with all our worth and excellence, now to some extent restored through regeneration, conduct ourselves always and everywhere with the utmost modesty and lowliness, being mindful that in this consists not the least part of the image of God.

XLVIII. Again, third, the godly consideration of the image of God shapes and forms us unto thankfulness toward the Creator, as being such a gracious bestower and giver of so excellent a benefit. In this consists the beginning, the middle, and the end of the Eighth Psalm. For motives, it will be useful and profitable to weigh seriously these four points: (1) The origin of this benefit, namely solely and only the Creator's love toward us. Is it not a certain singular sign and proof of a certain singular benevolence and affection, to receive the likeness of a king or a prince from his own hand? Is it not likewise also a singular sign of God's excellent and singular affection, that, having created all things for man's sake, and having withheld and denied to all the other creatures the likeness of His own wisdom, holiness, righteousness, dominion, and the like, He has bestowed it upon man alone? Is it not so great that it ought also, in return, to kindle and awaken in us an affection — indeed a most ardent and burning one — so that we might say with the Psalmist: "I will heartily love you, LORD, my strength," etc. (Ps. 18:1, 2)? (2) The weight and excellence of this benefit — that He has conferred and bestowed upon us not merely a shadow, as upon the other creatures, but an image, not of the Angels, but of Himself; and has thus raised the needy from the dunghill, to make them sit among princes, that He might make them inherit the throne of glory (1 Sam. 2:8). This is that golden plate, bearing the inscription "Holiness to the LORD" (Exod. 28:36), with which the High Priest of the Testament so greatly adorned and displayed himself. Does not so great a benefit, as the previous § requires, call for an excellent and abundant thankfulness? (3) The end and purpose of this benefit — for to what end has God blessed man with His image? Certainly not so much for His own sake as for man's sake. Namely, that not only man, being like God, but also, in turn, God — man being His image — might be able to love him, unite with Himself, admit him to His everlasting fellowship, and impart to him an eternal blessedness and joy. For a familiar association, and a firm and lasting friendship, though sometimes observed between unequals, is nevertheless never observed between those who are wholly unlike one another — namely, in kind and in character. For there is no communion and close association between men and beasts; likewise no firm and essential friendship between the godly and the wicked (2 Cor. 6:14, 15). Consequently, God admits no one into the fellowship of eternal life and of eternal blessedness, except him who is in some manner like Himself. Whence He has not only created man after His likeness, but also, man having degenerated through the fall and been stripped of his likeness, does not receive him again into glory before, and until, He has restored His image in him through grace. For just as the unlikeness of character, brought in by our sins, separates us here from grace (Isa. 59:2), so it will separate us forever from glory (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Rev. 21:27). Finally, (4) the use and profit of this benefit, being various and excellent, both for confidence and for consolation, in all sorts of adversities. For whether you be poor and needy, and stripped of all the means of life, think that you were nevertheless created after the image of God, and that you shall therefore be far less forsaken by God than the rest of the irrational and dumb creatures (Matt. 6:25, 26). Whether you be despised and scorned, think that you nevertheless bear the image of God, which is the quintessence, the very substance, indeed the summit, of the highest worth and standing. Whether you be generally hated, indeed sought unto death, think that you were created after God's image, and that thereby, as with a divine hedge, you are held most holy (Gen. 9:6, etc.). You see, then, various and excellent uses and benefits of the image of God. And would not all this, to anyone not wholly devoid of reason, form and dispose him unto thankfulness toward his Bestower and Benefactor? The manner of this thankfulness consists of a threefold kind of duties. Namely, (1) immediately toward God: (a) through love and affection of heart, since He has not only loved us, but has loved us in such a way that He has given us His image — indeed, in order that we might in turn come to love Him, has created us like Himself. (b) By praising, extolling, and glorifying Him with mouth and voice, so that we break forth with the Psalmist: "The LORD has done great things for us, [wherefore] we are glad" (Ps. 126:3). Finally, (c) and indeed most especially with deeds: when we (a) surrender ourselves wholly to God, whose image we bear (Matt. 22:20, 21); (b) when we strive and endeavor to conform ourselves, more and more, to God, our depicting exemplar — in general, through wisdom of divine and human things (Col. 3:10), through righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24), but also in particular through sincerity and completeness of character. And most especially, and in particular points, that we display the unity of the Divine Being in the plurality of Persons through the unity and agreement of our minds (John 17:11); God's spirituality, through love for spiritual things (John 4:24); His simplicity, which gives ἁπλῶς, liberally — properly, simply — (Jas. 1:5), through simplicity and sincerity of our own mind (Ps. 25:21), which is hence called εἰλικρίνεια Θεοῦ, the simplicity and sincerity of God (2 Cor. 1:12); His eternity, through a desire and longing for those things which are eternal (John 6:27); His infinity, through an unceasing... [and] His omnipresence, through our being everywhere present with God, whereby we walk in every place with Him, in His presence, and under His eyes and sight (Gen. 17:1; Ps. 16:8); His almighty power, through steadfastness and perseverance in the practice of godliness, through the strength and power of faith, by which all things are possible (Matt. 17:20; Phil. 4:13); His unchangeableness, through a diligent constancy in the practice of godliness; His goodness, through beneficence (Matt. 5:44, 45); His mercy, through mercy (Luke 6:36); His righteousness, through righteousness (Ps. 35:24); His omniscience, through an insatiable desire and meditation upon divine things (Ps. 1:2); His liberality, through readiness and promptness to do good to our neighbor (2 Cor. 9:7); His truthfulness, through truthfulness (Eph. 4:25). (2) Mediately, with respect to ourselves — so that we, being mindful that we bear the image of the most gracious God, watch over ourselves most carefully, so as not (a) to bear, in particular, the image of the world (Rom. 12:2); (b) nor that of Satan (John 8:44); finally (c) nor that of the irrational and wild beasts (Jude v. 10). For what greater shame and dishonor could there be for man, or what more base and shameful misery, than that he, having lost this his glory of the image and likeness of God, should fall into the unadorned and irrational likeness of irrational animals? asks Ambrose, De Dignitate humanae conditionis, ch. 3. For what, beyond this, would (a) tend more to the dishonor of the image of God? (b) be more unbecoming to ourselves? (c) be more harmful to body and soul? Then also (3) there are required duties toward our neighbor — namely, that we, out of love and reverence for the image of God which he bears alongside us, embrace him with an inward affection, and show it in deed: on the one side, by refraining from all injury and harm, (a) to his body and life (Gen. 9:6), (b) to his honor and good name (Jas. 3:9) — being mindful that it is not swine, not donkeys or cats, with whom we have to do, but such as bear the image of God; on the other side, by striving with all endeavor for the good and profit of our neighbor, and providing him, as is fitting and proper, with both food and covering (Matt. 25:35), as one who bears the image of God, and who is, for that very reason, our own image as well — especially since we see that the Papists, together with the Heathen, in the service of their lifeless images, are so excessive and prodigal — even to idolatry itself — that Cassander (in Consultatio ad Augustanam) not unjustly says: "It is best, the people, especially in this time, being brought over to better things, and a moderate use of images being preserved for the sake of peace and quietness, to invite them to the service of the true image of God — that is, of man, who is created after the image of God" — a service which consists in the succoring of the poor, who represent and display to us not only the image of God, but also the life and person of Christ.

XLIX. Fourth, let the contemplation of the image of God stir us up (1) earnestly to bewail and lament our fall, by which act we have lost the worth of this image, and have become, from the most blessed, the most wretched. For just as Athaliah, having become rebellious, was not only herself put to death, but also all the images of Baal, the idol of the Israelites, were broken (2 Kings 11:18); so we, in our first parents, having become rebellious against God, were not only ourselves struck down with every kind of death, but also the image of God, with which we were adorned, was broken. Now we must, first and above all, grieve over the damage and the loss caused by the fall — namely, over the loss and the robbing of the image of God, in which the chief worth of man consists (Rom. 3:23). Second, over the most base grimaces of Satan brought upon our souls, according to which we are with all right called a brood of vipers (Matt. 3:7), indeed even children of the devil (John 8:44), instead of children of God, and of such as are like God. And not only this, but we have also become unfit and useless for all spiritual and saving good, and, on the contrary, inclined to every evil (Rom. 7:18, 19). Third, over the very evil fruits that have followed from this loss — namely, both with respect to the present life, in place of the use, and of an absolute dominion over all God's creatures (Gen. 1:26; Ps. 8:6-9), a most wretched bondage and slavery (Rom. 8:20, 21), whereby we are now the meanest and most despised slaves of Satan, of the world, of our own flesh, and of fleshly lusts and pleasures; as also, with respect to death, in place of a most desired immortality, an unavoidable, and withal most harsh, death (Rom. 6:23; Heb. 9:27); and finally, with respect to the state after death, in place of a most blessed fellowship with God, and the enjoyment of an eternal blessedness and joy (Ps. 16:11), the feeling of unbearable pains of hell (Matt. 25:41, 46). Are not all these things such, and so great, that they must and ought to draw the bitterest tears from anyone who seriously considers them, however hardened he still be? Yet (2) in what manner ought we to grieve and mourn over all this? Answer: (1) That we know and acknowledge our loss with our heart, and have a deep sense of it (Luke 18:13). (2) That we confess and lament it with our mouth (Rom. 7:24). (3) That with our affections and desires we most ardently seek and beg for the restoration of the lost image (Ps. 51:10). Finally, (4) that with deeds, with all our strength and powers, we press on, strive, and labor after that restoration (Ezek. XVIII), but these last particulars shall be treated more fully in the following §.

L. Finally, in the fifth place, the godly contemplation of the image of God obliges us to seek with all our strength to regain its restoration (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24). That this restoration is not only possible, but that it shall certainly come to pass in all the elect, we here take for granted, as being very clear and evident, both from many testimonies of Holy Scripture and likewise from experience: this alone we admonish — that this restoration begins in this life, in and through grace, by several degrees (1 Cor. 13:12), whence we, considered without qualification, are called only children, though we may, comparatively speaking, already be men (Phil. 3:13, compared with v. 15); that it is carried forward after this life, in and through death, at least with respect to the soul; and finally, that it is wholly and entirely completed, with respect to the whole composite, in the resurrection (Phil. 3:21). Wherefore, I say, we must here weigh these points: (1) In what manner the restoration of the image of God takes place — that is, how it is both accomplished by God and obtained by us. For, without any doubt, God is, both of the bestowal and of the restoration, if not the sole, at least the chief efficient cause, according to the promises (Ezek. 11:19, 20; XXXVI. 25. 26. 27) — how not only the efficient, but also the exemplary, cause, so that this takes place, Matt. 5:48. And God is not the cause of it in general only, but each Person in particular also appropriates His own part to Himself. And indeed the Father, being the origin and fountain both of the Godhead and of Creation, so also of restoration, whence He is called the Father of lights (Jas. 1:17); the Son, being, according to His nature, the most perfect image of the Father (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3), is the exemplary image and pattern of this restoration (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:3; 1 Cor. 11:1); finally, the Holy Spirit puts the last hand to it (2 Cor. 3:18). (1) Through Regeneration (John 3:5, 6), whereby the image of God, as being the soul of the soul, is restored to the soul — whence spiritual life arises, just as, from the lost image, by virtue of sin, comes spiritual death. Through this regeneration the understanding is enlightened and irradiated with the original wisdom (Col. 3:10); the will is endowed with holiness and righteousness (Eph. 4:24); the senses and passions are amended, so that they submit themselves to God and to right reason (2 Cor. 10:5). (2) Through Sanctification, whereby, on the one side, the blemishes of the image are, as it were, wiped away and blotted out, and, on the other side, the former splendor and luster is more and more renewed and restored (Eph. 4:22, 23, 24). (3) Through the Word (Eph. 5:26). (4) Through the Sacraments (ibid., and Titus 3:5). Thus, then, takes place and is accomplished the restoration of the image of God. Now, that this may be received and accepted by us, it is necessary: (a) That we, most carefully and attentively weighing the excellence, worth, and usefulness of the lost image, and the most shameful ugliness of the image of Satan that has come in its place, may thereby be terrified from the one, and earnestly desire and seek back the other. (b) That we strive and press toward saving faith, whereby hearts are cleansed (Acts 15:9), whereby we receive and put on Christ, who is the very substantial and most perfect image of God (Gal. 3:27), and are united with Him, as with a head, with a stem, with a vine, and the like, so that He dwells in us (Eph. 3:17), lives in us (Gal. 2:20), and makes us conformed to Himself through death and resurrection (Rom. 6:5). (c) That we fix the eyes of our soul wholly upon the Lord's glory, that we may behold it as in a mirror, so that we may be transformed into that same image (2 Cor. 3:18) — namely, as one who is going to paint often looks at and considers the living, proper original. That is, that we diligently and carefully practice and consider God's wisdom, righteousness, and holiness, and so practice and consider them that we strive, so far as possible, more and more to express and display that image and that glory of God (Matt. 5:48; Eph. 5:1). (d) And since God is invisible, let us look upon Christ, who is the most perfect radiance of God's glory and the express image of His substance (Heb. 1:3), so that, seeing Him, we see God (John 14:9). Let us, I say, behold His virtues, His obedience (Phil. 2:8), His love (Eph. 5:2), and His gentleness (1 Pet. 2:21, 23) — and behold them in such a way that we follow Him (Matt. 11:29). (e) Let us diligently and steadfastly attend to the means which the Holy Spirit is accustomed to use for the restoration of the divine image — for example, the hearing of the Word, and the like. (f) That we cleanse ourselves more and more from all the stains and defilements of sin, whereby the image of God is polluted, darkened, and befouled (2 Cor. 7:1). (g) On the contrary, that we, through the exercise and practice of wisdom, holiness, righteousness, and all sorts of other Christian virtues, adorn, perfect, and complete the image of God from day to day (ibid., and Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:22, 23, 24). Finally, (h) let us seek from God, for all these things, by godly prayer, the desired outcome and blessing, with the Psalmist (Ps. 51:10): "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." Now we must (II) here consider for what reason this restoration of the image of God must be sought by us with such great zeal and diligence. Namely: (1) On account of the most absolute necessity of this matter, a necessity clearly made known by God's command and precept, repeated so often, and with so much earnestness and zeal, in the Old and New Testament (Ezek. 18:31; Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:10, etc.). (2) On account of the highest worth and excellence of this image, by which alone we sufficiently differ from the irrational animals, whence also the Most Blessed Trinity employed a consultation for man's creation alone: "Let us make man in our image" — and by which we come nearest to God, as His Vicegerents, and, as it were, as under-gods upon the earth (Ps. 8:5, 6), indeed by which we are made partakers of the fellowship of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). (3) On account of its general usefulness, both in the present and in the future life, of which image of God it can no less be said than of godliness — which consists in the image of God — that (from 1 Tim. 4:8) "it is profitable unto all things." Finally, (4) on account of the shamefulness and dishonor of that image which stands opposed to the image of God, the image of the irrational animals (Ps. 32:9), or of Satan (John 8:44).

Chapter X: Of God's General Providence

On Rom. 11:36: "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to Him be the glory forever. Amen."

I. Thus far we have examined that outward working by which God brought things forth — namely, that kind of it called Creation. Now follows that working of His by which He cares for and provides for the things He has brought forth, namely, Providence. Which, since it is occupied, in general, with all sorts of things, in a natural manner; in particular, with the rational creatures, Angels and Men, in a moral manner; and most particularly with Man, in a, as it were, political manner (more politico), by way of covenant-making — invites and calls us to those three chief heads, which we shall examine separately in these chapters, we shall in this Chapter speak of the general or natural Providence, which the Apostle sets forth briefly indeed, but forcefully and powerfully, in Rom. 11:36.

The Explanatory Part

II. In this passage is contained a certain doxology, with which the Apostle concludes the whole doctrinal part of this Epistle, signifying that the whole consideration of all the theological chapters consists in the glory and glorification of God; and here he lays the foundation for this in the explanation of the Divine Providence. Two things, therefore, here present themselves to us:

1. The Divine Providence, or, as we have said, the foundation of the doxology: "Of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things" — concerning which we find here:

1. The Author, who is signified not by one, but by a threefold-repeated pronoun: "of Him," "through Him," and "to Him," whereby God is designated — namely, δημιουργὸς καὶ προνοητὴς τῷ κόσμῳ παντός, the builder and provider of the whole world, as Justin says. Whereby, on the one hand, is signified the unity of the Divine Being, in that one and the same demonstrative pronoun is used, to show that there is one God who is the author of Providence; and, on the other hand, the trinity of Persons, in that the same pronoun is repeated three times. By this very thing is likewise signified the economy of the Trinity in the matter of Providence, through the threefold repetition, and with a distinguishing name for each — so that Providence is of the Father, as Lord and Householder; through the Son, as Steward and Provisioner of the household; unto the Holy Spirit, as the Dispenser and Executor. In which manner also Cyprian expands and explains the Apostle's words in Acts 17:28: "In the Father we are, in the Son we live, in the Spirit we move." Thus too do very many of the ancient Fathers explain this text, since Holy Scripture itself also attributes Providence, distinctly, to the Father and to the Son (John 5:17), and to the Holy Spirit (Ps. 104:30).

2. The three acts of Providence, which are perhaps signified by these three prepositions: ἐξ ("of"), διά ("through"), and πρός ("unto"): namely — a. Ἐξ, "of," seems to signify the preservation or maintenance, unless you would rather, by that word, understand the bringing forth of Creation. At any rate, this "of" denotes not the matter, but the author of the being that is to be preserved, or the principle, or first efficient cause, as in 1 Cor. 1:30 and VIII. 6, and elsewhere. b. Διά, "through," denotes the influence by and through which all the Persons of the Trinity work in Providence — a preposition which here does not signify an instrumental cause, but the influence, or cooperation, or the very working itself, of the Persons in Providence. c. Εἰς, "unto," denotes the government or direction whereby the Divine Providence directs and governs all things unto their end. Εἰς, "unto," for διά, "on account of, because of" (2 Cor. 11:12), just as the Latins use ad ("unto") for ob ("because of, on account of") — thus ad memoriam, that is, "for a memorial"; and in hoc factum est, pro ad hoc, that is, "this happened for this," that is, "on this account it came to pass."

3. The object of Providence: τὰ πάντα, "all things" — namely, those things that have a true existence, all things that are in heaven and on earth, great and small, necessary and contingent, natural and voluntary — indeed also, in their own way, evil things, whether sorrowful (Amos 3:6; Isa. 45:7) or shameful (2 Sam. 3:12; Acts 4:28; and II. 23) — unless you would rather understand by τὰ πάντα, "all things," those new works which He performs in His elect, or that whole dispensation of grace of which the Apostle had, until now, been treating.

II. The doxology which is founded upon this Providence: αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν. "To Him be the glory forever. Amen." Here it is signified that the whole of Providence, and all its acts, tend to the glorification of God, as to their supreme end. Here are marked:

1. He who is to be glorified: "to Him," and to no other, because He will give His glory to no other (Isa. 42:8). Αὐτῷ, "to Him," in the singular number — for although he had signified three by a threefold pronoun, and also by a threefold preposition, ἐξ, διὰ, καὶ εἰς, "of, through, and unto," yet here, by using but one demonstrative pronoun, he seems to signify that these three, with respect to their Being, are one; and likewise, that to these three, from the work of Providence, one and the same glory belongs.

2. The glorification itself: ἡ δόξα, "the glory" — understand there the substantive verb "be," so that thereby is signified a wish, or an act of glorifying. Such acclamations and doxologies we have in Rom. 1:25 and IX. 5. Δόξα, "glory," signifies (a) Majesty (Matt. 6:29; Rom. 1:23; Acts 7:2); (b) Brightness, splendor, luster, an overflowing light (Luke 9:31; and II. 9; Acts 7:55; Heb. 1:3); (c) Excellence, preeminence (2 Cor. 3:10). The glorification comprises in itself both the glory, or inward excellence, which lays the ground for the glorification, and the glorification itself, whereby that glory or excellence, which is the ground of the glorification, is acknowledged with the heart, proclaimed and praised with the mouth, and honored with the deeds. Compare the Chapter on God's Glory.

3. The duration, or perpetuity, of the glorification: εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, "forever," "unto the ages." The Greek word Αἰών, "Aion," as though one said ἀεὶ ὤν, "always being," "always existing," just as also the Hebrew olam, signifies various things; but here, an unceasingness, and a purpose of a glorification which shall never end.

4. The concluding word of the doxology: Ἀμήν, "Amen." The Hebrew word amen is retained many times in the Greek New Testament, and is likewise generally kept by most Interpreters. It expresses a testimony of assent (1 Cor. 14:16); likewise a desire and longing of the heart, or a wish: "Oh, that it be so!" (Matt. 6:13; Rev. 22:20); sometimes the certainty of some matter, being the same as ἀληθῶς, "truly, verily" (compare Matt. 16:18 and Mark 9:1). These three meanings of the word may fittingly concur here, so that it signifies: "it is so," "oh, that it be so," "that shall certainly come to pass" — and that we are thus admonished that the Divine Providence tends, in a particular and preeminent way, unto the glory of God, and that all men, after Paul's example, must be directed to that end, as will appear more fully in the Practical Part.

The Doctrinal Part

III. There is, therefore, a certain Providence of God, whereby He sustains, moves, and governs all things. This Holy Scripture attests in many ways: when it teaches it in general (Job 34:21; and X. 12; Ps. 147:8, 9; Prov. 5:21; and XV. 3; Matt. 6:26; and X. 29. 30; Acts 17:26); indeed, when it devotes and applies whole chapters to its explanation (Job XXXVIII. XXXIX. XL.; Ps. VIII. XIX. CIV. CVII.). Likewise when it teaches, part by part, the preservation, the cooperation, and the direction, as we shall note in their proper places. Finally, when it everywhere calls God a King (Ps. 10:16; XCV. XXIV. 7. 8; XLIV. 5; XLVII. 3. 7. 8. 9; LXXIV. 12; and XCV. 3; Isa. 33:22; Micah 1:7), and also Jehovah, and δεσπότην, a Lord and Master (Ps. 16:2, and elsewhere). For it is proper to kings to defend and protect their subjects, to lords their servants, to householders their household — to preserve them, to move them, by and through their authority, unto good, and to govern them by and according to their laws.

IV. This right Reason confirms, whereby (1) God cannot be an independent, all-wise, almighty, all-good Being, if He does not care for and provide for all things. (2) That order and agreement among the creatures, which is often so very much at variance with itself, cannot exist, except through a certain omnipresent, powerful, and all-wise Providence of God. (3) The outcomes could not, with so great a diversity and difference, coexist with one another, nor follow one another, except through the disposing and ordaining of a Divine Providence (Prov. 8:15; Dan. 4:14).

V. With this, moreover, agrees the testimony of the wisest of the Heathen. Thus Homer calls Providence σειρὴν χρυσείην ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, "a golden chain from heaven," and Seneca, with the Stoics, derives all the fortunes of all men from on high, when he says: "Whatever we mortal men suffer; whatever we do, comes from on high" (Seneca, Tragedy, Oedipus). Not to add the general consent of all the ancient Fathers, according to which Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 45, says: "There is absolutely nothing, of all the things that have happened, and that are happening, and that shall happen, unknown to God; but that, through His Providence, each one of these things receives, and has received, its own particular form, and order, and number, and magnitude," etc.

VI. The word "Providence," among the Greeks πρόνοια, among the Hebrews hashgachah, does not indeed occur, at least in this sense and of God, in so many words in Holy Scripture — unless perhaps in the corresponding passage of Ps. 33:13, 14. It appears to be called God's eye (Gen. 22:8; 1 Sam. 16:1), likewise a care (1 Pet. 5:7; Ps. 34:16). Among the Church Fathers it commonly occurs under the name of a counsel, a guidance, a care, a forecare, a disposition, an ordaining, a direction, and other such words. Sometimes it denotes the providing of counsel; sometimes the very care and provision itself, whereby, in accordance with that providing of counsel, provision is in fact made and care in fact taken (Acts 24:3; Rom. 13:17; 1 Tim. 5:8); sometimes both these things together.

VII. And thus the Providence of God is nothing other than that outward act of God whereby He provides for and cares for the creatures — already existing — in all things, according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). It is called an outward act, as also is Creation, not that it differs really from the one who acts, but because it is such a decree of God whereby something outside God either is brought forth, so that it may exist — which is called Creation — or is sustained and governed, while it already exists — which is called Providence. It is the same as the Being of God, except that it further implies and includes a relation to the creature.

VIII. The act, or deed, of Providence is, definitely and by name, to provide, to care for, to look after (Ps. 33:14) — which includes and comprises three things: (1) Preservation (Ps. 36:6; Neh. 9:6; 1 Tim. 4:10; Acts 17:25, 28; Ps. 104:28-30), whereby God causes all things to persevere and remain standing, so long as it pleases Him, with respect to their existence, being, and powers — an act not unfitly called by the Scholastic teachers manutenentia, that is, a holding-fast by God's hand, with which the Apostle agrees (Heb. 1:3). For whatever is created is created unto a certain end and use, unto which it must be directed and governed, and must therefore be preserved, being of itself somewhat prone to fall away. Indeed, this preservation and safekeeping must necessarily proceed from God, since every creature, in every respect, with regard to its being made, its being, its subsisting, its enduring, and its working, depends necessarily upon its Creator — so that it would instantly revert to that nothing out of which it came, were it not that God Himself sustained it and kept it standing (Ps. 104:29). And if any creature could preserve itself, then truly not a single one would perish, which runs counter to all experience. God now preserves certain creatures immediately — namely, those which stand under Him alone, such as all sorts of immaterial creatures, likewise the Heavens, the first matter, and the elements. Their preservation corresponds entirely with Creation, except that it excludes that newness of existing which this latter includes, and thus might not unfittingly be called a continual, ongoing Creation — wherefore it is also very often joined together with Creation (Neh. 9:6). Some creatures God preserves mediately, through the intervention and by means of other creatures on which they depend — thus the living creatures, the vapors, and others: yet so that here too God's inward and immediate efficacy must be acknowledged, as much as in the wholly immediate preservation. The creatures preserved immediately subsist in one and the same individual subject; but those preserved mediately subsist in one and the same species.

IX. Set over against preservation stand both the destroying or laying waste, whereby God takes from a lasting thing its completeness — either wholly, or in a certain part (Jer. 18:7) — and annihilation, whereby He takes away a thing wholly and entirely, with respect to all that belongs to it. This is accomplished not by any positive act, but only by a withdrawal or refusal of an act; for otherwise God would, by a positive act, be extending Himself toward a nothing — indeed, the thing, even though all God's sustaining power should cease, would nevertheless still be able to exist, and in that respect would be independent. Annihilation, therefore, is nothing other than God's almighty will that the thing exist up to a certain time, and no further.

X. Then, providing also includes (II) the Influence of God, whereby the second causes are powerfully aroused, incited, and advanced unto action and working (Jer. 10:23; Prov. 21:1; Phil. 2:13; Acts 17:25). This is generally called Cooperation, though this word defines it too narrowly. Through this influence, therefore, the second causes, whatever and of whatever kind they be, are, first, aroused and predetermined, insofar as this brings into act that which was previously in the creature's capacity (apart from the communication of power, and its preservation) — in causes not only working naturally but also willingly, this is absolutely necessary. And indeed the latter also, not merely by moral persuasion, but by a natural inclining and bending (Prov. 21:1; Phil. 2:12, 13). For otherwise some creature, or some act of it — namely, that whereby it determines itself unto action — would be independent. Nor is a mere cooperation sufficient here, whereby God would only help the free will's own self-determination through His influence, since the determination itself would, in this way, remain independent, and God would then not be, in this way, the beginning and the end of all things, but only an accompanying cause of a creature equally disposed toward Him. I add further: neither is a general influence and premotion sufficient — indifferent as to its working, as, for instance, the Sun — which would be determined by the creature itself; but there is required, in particular, an influence and a premotion which predetermines every creature to work thus, and not otherwise (2 Sam. 16:10); for otherwise the particular predetermination would be independent — all of which we shall establish more fully in its place, in the Polemical Part. Through this influence, second, the power and capacity of the creature is applied to a certain determinate object with regard to which it is occupied in working (Ezek. 21:21, 22, etc.) — for example, that a thievish highwayman and robber commits this act, and not another. Finally, third, [the creature] is governed and directed — that is: (1) that bounds and limits are set to the act (Job 1:12; and II. 6; and XXXVIII. 10. 11); (2) that some good is drawn and extracted out of the evil (Gen. 50:20; Rom. 8:28).

XI. Providence includes (III) a Direction and Government, whereby God, like a King (Ps. 145:13), and like a Helmsman (Acts 17:26), (1) applies each and every thing, in particular, to and upon certain determinate objects (Isa. 10:5, 6, 7, 15; 2 Sam. 16:10, 11; Ezek. 21:21, 22, 23; Job 1:12; Acts 1:26; Ezek. 21:12, 13, compared with the history of Ahab's death and downfall, 1 Kings 22:34); (2) directs and governs them, most precisely, unto their ends (Isa. 55:10, 11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 10:5; Luke 2:1, etc.; Prov. 16:9; Gen. 49:10). Thus, then, the creatures must necessarily be governed and directed by God; for they would never, with any certainty, attain the end for which they were created, were they not directed by the same power by which they were created. Indeed, it would also betray an imperfection if God, like a craftsman and maker of a device, were to leave the work which He has made to the direction of others.

XII. This direction includes in itself not only the fitting and appropriate means, each unto its own end, but the very efficacy of the means, indeed also the very attaining and obtaining of the end. Hence the order of this direction is certain, unmovable, and indissoluble — such that no creature can ever withdraw itself from the whole order of the Divine direction, although it might escape this or that particular means under that order (Gen. 50:20).

XIII. This threefold Providence of God, then, is, according to Holy Scripture, active and occupied, first, in general, with regard to all and every creature (Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:3; Eph. 1:11; Ps. 145:15, 16; Prov. 16:9, 33; Exod. 21:13). For unless we should hold something, apart from God, to be independent, and thereby infinite — indeed, to be God — it is necessary that all things, even down to the very least, be subject to the Providence of God, since even that being, however slight and feeble it be found in itself, has all the more need of God's support and direction. Providence, therefore, is the general and the particular cause of all things — itself determined by no cause, and determining all — for all the being that is found in the effects, though it be also ascribed to second causes, nevertheless comes from God alone, and proceeds from His Providence.

XIV. Second, and in particular: (a) with regard to inanimate and lifeless things — the heavens, clouds, rains (Ps. 147:8), winds and waters (Job 28:25), fire, hail, snow, vapors (Ps. CXLVIII. 8), the sun (Matt. 5:45). Wherefore Augustine (Book V, De Genesi ad literam, ch. 21) says: "Nothing seems to be so much rolled along by chance as all those stormy, disturbed, and turbulent qualities, by which the face of this lower heaven is changed and turned about; but because the Psalmist has added, 'who performs His word,' he thereby shows sufficiently that the order of these things too, being subject to the Divine dominion and government, is rather hidden and unknown to us, than that it is lacking to the nature of the Universe." (b) With regard to things that grow and spring up out of the earth (Ps. 104:14, 16; Matt. 6:28, 30; 1 Cor. 15:38). (c) With regard to irrational, living creatures (Job 39:1, 2, 19-21; Ps. 36:6, 7; and CIV. 27. 28; and CXLVII. 9; Matt. 6:26; and X. 29; Luke 12:6, 7). (d) With regard to living creatures endowed with reason (Ps. 36:6; Acts 17:28), who stand under God's Providence: (a) With respect to their life, and thus (*) with respect to their entrance into this life, or their forming in the womb (Job 10:8-12; Ps. 139:14, 15) and their birth (Ps. 22:10); (**) with respect to the progress and course of their life (Deut. 30:9; Job 10:12; Ps. 56:9; and CXXXIX. 2; Prov. 22:2; Matt. 10:29, 30); (***) with respect to their departure from this life, or death, whose limit and appointment is with God entirely fixed, determined, and unmovable, together with all its circumstances (Job 14:5; Ps. 139:16; Matt. 10:30; John 7:30; Ps. 39:6; 1 Sam. 26:10); (b) with respect to their works, not only good but also evil, of which more, and more fully, in its proper place.

XV. Finally, third, and most particularly, God's Providence bears care, among men, for the elect, the believing, the godly — who make up the pith and marrow of the human race, and for whose sake this world, great as it is, was created — and for their union and their common body in the Church, unto the depicting and outlining of whose household government the whole of Holy Scripture runs; in particular, compare these passages: Deut. 32:9; Ps. 77:20; and XCI. 11; 1 Tim. 4:10; and the examples in Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 22:12), in Jacob (Gen. 33:4), in Joseph, indeed throughout the whole of his life (Gen. 50:20; Acts 7:9), in David (1 Sam. 23:26, 27), in Elijah (1 Kings XVII), in the Jewish Church (Esther VI. and VII. 10), in Daniel with his companions (Dan. VI), in Peter (Acts XII), in Paul (Acts 21:30, 31), and countless others besides. So that the Psalmist says very well: "He has made His favored one wonderfully [guided]" (Ps. 4:4; and LXXIII. 24): "You have guided me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me with glory."

XVI. In and concerning all these aforesaid points, Providence is active and occupied, not only with respect to necessary things, which have a natural connection with their causes (Jer. 33:20, 25), but also, first, with respect to contingent things, which have an uncertain, chance, and accidental connection — either with the existence and nature of God (in which respect all things outside God exist contingently and by chance, being unable to exist of themselves), or with their proximate, contingently- and chance-working causes, or with the free will of man. That such contingent things stand under the Divine direction and government, Holy Scripture teaches everywhere (Exod. 21:12, 13; Deut. 19:5; Prov. 21:31; Ps. 127:1, 2; and XLVI. 9. 10. 11; Dan. 11:11), down to the very least and smallest things — such as the falling of a hair of the head (Matt. 10:30), the workings of the locusts and the lice (Exod. 8:17; and X. 12; Joel 1:4; Acts 12:23). By and in which, therefore, their natural contingency is not thereby destroyed, because they are directed and made to happen, certainly and infallibly, by the first cause — a thing which appears particularly in the lot (Prov. 16:33), whereby God settles disputes by means of purely contingent and chance outcomes (Judg. 6:37, etc.; Josh. 7:14, etc.). Likewise in the fixing of the term of man's life (Exod. 21:12, 13; Isa. XXXVIII. 5).

XVII. Second, with respect to voluntary acts, which spring from a free preceding decision and deliberation. That these too stand under the Divine determination (and indeed a physical, not merely a moral, determination) appears both from Holy Scripture (Prov. 16:1; and XIX. 21; and XXI. 1; Gen. 43:14; Exod. 4:11; Phil. 1:12) and from Reason — because otherwise the free will would be independent, at least with respect to the act of determining itself; and that things, nevertheless, remain free, is as undeniable both from Holy Scripture (1 Pet. 5:2; Heb. 10:26) as from experience. Now, in what manner the freedom of our will coexists with that Divine predetermination is not so difficult and hard to grasp (as many suppose), if we but consider that the Divine influence, and its predetermination, does not prevent man from acting with a preceding deliberation, consideration, and rational choice, and thereby determining himself — being otherwise undetermined, and unable to be determined by any created cause. I would add, moreover: if God, by determining the will and thereby producing the volition or inclination, took away freedom from the will, then the will too, by determining itself and causing the volition, would take away freedom from itself — which is contradictory; but if the will, by determining itself, does not take away freedom from itself, then neither does God, by doing that same thing, take away freedom. Wherefore the Providence of God, in determining our will, neither takes away, nor injures nor impairs, the freedom of our will.

XVIII. In particular, third, with regard to moral acts, both good and evil, which — since they are, on account of this determination of the Divine Providence, no less free — are likewise no less our own: for however much God, insofar as they are entities, is the efficient cause of them (Acts 17:25, 28), man nevertheless remains their formal cause. God indeed brings forth faith in man, and yet it is not He who believes, but the man. But the chief difficulty here concerns those workings which are morally evil — in what manner the Divine Providence can efficaciously exercise itself with regard to them. Two things, undoubted from Holy Scripture, must here be firmly held: namely, on the one side, that the Divine Providence is, even efficaciously, occupied with such evil workings (2 Sam. 16:10; Exod. 4:21: "I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go"; and IX. 12; 1 Kings 22:20, 23: "You shall persuade him, and shall also prevail: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets"; Ps. 105:25: "He turned their heart, that they hated His people"; Isa. 19:14: "The LORD has mingled a perverse spirit in the midst of them"; Exod. 14:17; and X. 1. 20; 1 Kings 12:15; Acts 3:18; Rom. 1:24) — and, on the other side, that God is not the cause of sin (Ps. 5:5, 6, 7; Deut. 32:4), since He is the highest good, a light with no darkness at all (1 John 1:5), in which and from which no darkness can be. These two points being laid down beforehand, although we, on account of the weakness of our understanding, cannot bring them into full accord, yet nothing thereby is taken away, either from the Divine independence, whereby He alone is of Himself, or from His holiness and pure cleanness, whereby He cannot be the cause of sin. And yet we can bring these two points sufficiently well into agreement, if we only distinguish, in sin, its material aspect — namely, the bare habit or act of evilness, to which, since it is in itself, considered naturally, good, God cannot but cooperate as the efficient cause, without any loss of His independence (Acts 17:28; Rom. 11:36) — from its formal aspect, namely, the unlawfulness (1 John 3:4), by which the act or habit becomes sin: of this God cannot be the cause, because He cannot transgress the Law, being set above all Law; nor does He, through His Providence, become the cause of it, because that unlawfulness is nothing other than a defect of the working, of which He cannot be the efficient cause, but only the withholding and abstaining cause — in which manner alone the creature is the cause of sin, as such, by transgressing the Law.

XIX. Although, therefore, the Providence of God is occupied with sin — not by effecting it, as it is occupied with all that is good, and with the material aspect of sin itself — yet neither is it occupied merely and bluntly by permitting it, the way we permit those things which we either do not know of, or cannot, or also do not wish, to prevent; but rather by permitting it — yet efficaciously — that is, in such a way that, although not by any hard necessity (for Providence compels by no hard necessity), yet certainly and infallibly that comes to pass which is permitted. In particular, and in six respects, God's Providence is occupied with sin: (1) By always forbidding it, as being hateful to Him (Ps. 5:5), and contrary to His preceptive will. (2) By sometimes restraining and preventing it from taking place (Gen. 20:6; and XXXI. 7; 1 Cor. 10:13; Acts 18:9, 10). (3) Often, too, by permitting it (Ps. 81:13; Acts 14:16) — not indeed in a moral manner, as in the case of certain other things, by not forbidding it, but in a physical manner, by not preventing it. (4) Always, however, by ordering and governing it — that is, partly by determining it (Job 1:12; 1 Cor. 10:13), partly by directing it unto some good end (Gen. 45:7, 8; and L. 20; Josh. 11:20; 1 Kings 12:15). (5) By always punishing it (Exod. 34:7; Ps. 5:5, 6, 7; Rom. 1:32).

XX. In a certain particular and singular manner, however, God's Providence is active in blinding (Rom. 1:21; Isa. 6:9, 10; 2 Thess. 2:10, 11, 12), whereby He brings this upon the sinner's understanding, and in hardening (Rom. 9:17, 18), whereby He gives the will over to its own lusts (Rom. 1:24, 27). Both of these things God indeed does not effect, nor does He pour blindness and hardness into the sinner — compare Jas. 1:13, 14, 15 — and yet He neither takes away the blindness and hardness, either by not circumcising the heart (Jer. 6:10, 26; Acts 7:51), or by not bringing spiritual light to the understanding and pliancy to the heart (Matt. 13:14, 15; Isa. 6:9, 10). But, beyond this, (1) He takes away, or diminishes — on account of former committed misdeeds, in a righteous and holy manner — whatever remains to the sinner of wisdom and moral goodness; indeed, He also increases and aggravates the original blindness and hardness. And this is what Holy Scripture calls "making the heart fat" (Isa. 6:9, 10), giving it over to its own lusts (Rom. 1:24-28), sending a strong delusion (2 Thess. 2:10, 11). (2) He gives Satan, the world, and its seductions loose rein, as it were (2 Thess. 2:9): "whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders." He sends a lying spirit (1 Kings 22:22, 23). (3) He offers opportunities to turn themselves — both outwardly, through manifold admonitions, awakenings, promises, threatenings, and examples (which, however, they would abuse, Exod. 5:1, etc.; Isa. 6:9), whence the Gospel becomes to some a savor of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16); as also inwardly, through the suggesting of honest thoughts, through the pricking and gnawing of conscience, whereby they might be drawn back from atrocities and stirred up to good — which, however, they would suppress and quench (1 Thess. 5:19; Jude v. 10; 2 Pet. 2:12), whence they are called past feeling (Eph. 4:19). (4) He adds to this outward benefits and blessings — the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and longsuffering, which they, according to their hardness and unrepentant heart, would despise (Rom. 2:4, 5). And likewise (5) outward punishments and judgments (Jer. 5:3: "O LORD, do not your eyes look upon the truth? You have struck them, but they have felt no pain; you have consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: they have made their faces harder than a rock, they have refused to return.")

XXI. And since this blinding and hardening always, or at least generally, follows upon preceding misdeeds, as their righteous return, that working of Providence also becomes clear whereby God, according to the law of retribution (Ps. 18:26), often punishes sins with further sins (2 Sam. 12:12; 1 Kings 11:26; Judg. 9:23, 24, compared with v. 20; Rom. 1:21-28) — namely, when God, for someone's punishment, orders, directs, and governs sins, whether his own or another's, yet so that only that which is punitive and grievous in them is thereby ascribed to Him, but not that which is culpable and blameworthy. In such a case those sins carry the character of a punishment, insofar as, through them, (1) the sinner's nature is beaten down, corrupted, made meaner and more contemptible (Rom. 3:23), and his shamefulness increased; (2) insofar as, by this very thing, the punishments of sins — death, and every sort of misery — are also increased (Lev. 26:14, 15, 18).

XXII. In all these things, both good and evil, God, through His Providence, provides for matters according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11; Acts 2:23; and IV. 28) — that is, according to His eternal decree and plan, according to which the whole is carried out. Wherefore that decree, insofar as it exists in the mind, or is the foreknowledge and purpose [not yet executed], would be called a virtual, depicting, and exemplary Providence; and the execution or the outworking of it, an actual Providence.

XXIII. The Divine Providence, however, does not provide for all things in one and the same manner, whence there arises, as it were, a certain distinct classification of it, according to which the Providence of God is: first, either immediate or mediate. By the first, God provides for things by Himself, being of them, absolutely, the sole cause — as He thus sustained Moses on Mount Sinai (Deut. 9:9, 18), called him to his ministry (Exod. 3:6, etc.), and spoke to him many times (Num. 12:8). In like manner He called Paul immediately to the Apostleship (Gal. 1:1). By the second kind, He provides through the use of means — thus He fed Elijah by means of bread and water (1 Kings XVII, etc.; compare Ps. 104:13, 14, 15; Hos. 2:22; Isa. XXXVIII. 21; Heb. 1:14; Ps. 91:11; and XXXIV. 8). Immediately, God indeed works all things which happen, both with respect to their power and capacity — all of which touches their effect and outworking (Deut. 8:3; Isa. 28:29), with reference to all the being that is found therein — and with respect to the subject, with reference to that being which it has, insofar as it is an entity (for in this too God Himself works, immediately, in all things, being always and to all things inwardly and immediately present); but, with respect to those things in which the second working causes bring forth their effects by the power of their own form, God is said to work not immediately, but mediately, since He works through the intervention of the subjects and of the powers of the second causes. One must not therefore suppose that God uses means as creatures use them — namely, in such a way that a power belongs to the principal cause distinct from the power of the instrument, as a craftsman uses his tool: for God touches all things immediately (Acts 17:28; Ps. 127:1, 2). Whence all the works and effects of everything are ascribed to the Divine working (Isa. 28:29), so that no single means can, without His working, accomplish anything (Matt. IV; Lev. 26:16; Hagg. I. 6).

XXIV. God, therefore, uses means not on account of a lack of power, but on account of the abundance of His goodness — namely, in order to communicate to them the dignity of some efficacy, and to make Himself, in this, still more clearly visible: for with the LORD there is no hindrance to save by many, or by few (1 Sam. 14:6). For which reason He also, very often, in order to bring forth a most excellent effect, uses very weak and very slight means (1 Cor. 1:27, 28; 2 Chron. 24:24), and, on the contrary, renders the most powerful means powerless and fruitless (Ps. 33:16, 17; Hos. 4:10) — indeed, not seldom works even against the nature of the means (Dan. 3:17, 21, 24) — and, however often He uses fitting means, their power, and the arousing and application of it to the object, depends absolutely and immediately upon Him.

XXV. God's Providence is, second, either ordinary or extraordinary. By the first, God follows the order that was conferred upon things in the beginning — an order which requires, by its very manner and reason, that, this or that being posited, the other should follow (Hos. 2:22; Jer. 31:35, 36), through the power of that capacity which He conferred upon the cause. This order is nothing other than the law of nature, common to all creatures, or the nature of things itself, as it is made firm by a certain determinate order, proceeding from the power and efficacy of that never-fruitless command of God, "let there be, let it be, so let it be" — which, expressing the force of something future, signifies duration, constancy, and steadfastness, and, by its power, works out all the things which ordinarily happen with respect to those matters. This law of nature, therefore, is a certain communication of the Divine Law and will (Job XXXVIII. 12). To which, further, is added (1) a natural inclination, or principle of working according to the law of nature (Job 5:7); and also (2) a natural instilled instinct, or particular propensity of certain creatures toward more noble workings, with some appearance or footprint of reason (Prov. 30:24, 28; Jer. 8:7); finally, (3) a certain obedient capacity, whereby all creatures are made fit to be subject, submissive, and obedient to their commanding Creator (Ps. 119:91; and CXLVIII. 8) (Ames, Medulla, Book I, ch. 9).

XXVI. By the latter, or extraordinary, Providence, God works against, or above, the order established in things. You have examples of this in Exod. 16:13, 15; 1 Kings 17:6; Acts IX; and countless others, scattered throughout the whole of Holy Scripture. Now, whatever kind of things are brought forth in such a way that they carry men away in astonishment are called wonderworks, whose nature and essence consists in this: that they surpass nature — either the nature of the Universe as a whole (as, for example, the annihilation of a spirit), or of this or that particular kind (as when, for example, a she-ass speaks), or of this or that individual subject and its age or condition (as when, for example, a young child spoke clearly and distinctly in all sorts of languages, and a virgin gave birth). Of such wonderworks, therefore, none can by any means be the cause whose powers do not surpass nature — that is, none who is not God (Ps. 72:18; and CXXVI. 4; Acts 3:12, 13, 16) — since all creatures are subject to the order of nature, and display and perform powers that are circumscribed and bounded by the laws of nature. Although they may be moral instruments, insofar as they either, by prayers, obtain of God that He perform wonders through them, or make known that God wills to perform wonders (Acts 3:6, 16; John 9:29, 30). And yet we do not deny that they can be causes of wonderful or unusual things which do not surpass the powers of nature, but conceal them — such as appear in the false Prophets (Deut. 13:2), likewise in the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:9), and in the magic arts.

XXVII. Finally, third, the Providence of God is either general — touching all creatures, which we have hitherto explained — or particular, touching the rational creatures, such as some are accustomed to call natural Providence, and others moral, which we shall relate and explain more fully, with express purpose, in the following Chapter.

The Polemical Part

XXVIII. The question is: (I) Whether there is such a Providence of God, whereby He provides for, cares for, and governs all things, and each thing in particular, according to the counsel of His will? The Philosopher Epicurus acknowledged no Providence of God whatever, and ascribed all things to chance and fortune. Their view C. Velleius sets forth, in Cicero's De Natura Deorum, Book I: "You," he says, "are accustomed to ask of us what kind of life the gods lead, and what manner of time is reckoned theirs — namely, one above which nothing more blessed, nothing more overflowing with every kind of good, can be conceived: for God does nothing, is entangled or burdened by no cares, undertakes and performs no works, but enjoys and delights in His own wisdom and virtue, being assured that He shall always be, alike in the greatest and in everlasting pleasures. This God we may, and rightly may, call blessed; but yours, a most laborious and much-troubled God." Aristotle indeed seems to have acknowledged Providence, but he confined it only to general things, leaving the care of particular matters to the heavenly intelligences and to the heavenly bodies. Most of the Stoics put a Fate in the place of the Divine Providence — that is, a general and indissoluble bond and connection of all creatures and of all causes, to which God Himself is subject. Plato, with his Academy, seems to have been the first to acknowledge the Providence of God — which, however, he did not extend to all things and to each in particular, especially not to free causes, to their free choice and rational workings. The Atheists and Spinozists, because they in fact deny God, and confound Him with nature, take away God's Providence all the more. All Christians indeed confess with one mouth the Providence of God; but with respect to its nature, various men err in various ways. The practical Epicureans, who are spread abroad in very great numbers among all sorts of sects of Christians, indeed accept God's Providence with the mouth, but in deed and in practice, nothing less. Their view Holy Scripture shows us (Job 22:12, 13, 14): "Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the highest stars, how high they are. And you say, What does God know? Can He judge through the thick darkness? Thick clouds are a covering to Him, that He sees not, and He walks about upon the circuit of heaven." This view he calls, in verse 15, "the way," or "the path" — that is, the theology of the age which wicked men have trodden. Likewise Ps. 10:11; and LXII; and XCIV. 7.

The Reformed accept God's Providence alone, but such a Providence whereby God freely provides for, cares for, and governs all things, and each thing in particular, according to the counsel of His will. This view we have built (§ III and IV) upon Holy Scripture and upon reason, and we add nothing further but only one proof, for the benefit of the Epicureans, taken from their own hypothesis: they acknowledge that there is a God, and indeed such a one, above whom nothing wiser, nothing more blessed, nothing more overflowing with goods, can be conceived. But now, how can (1) He be God, who is not an absolute first Being, who is not independent, and on whom not all things, with respect to their existence, being, and workings, depend? (2) How can He be all-wise, who can display no acts of wisdom in the direction of things? (3) How is He furnished with the highest and greatest power, who, idle, sluggish, and empty, neglects everything? (4) How is He most overflowing with all sorts of goods, who is bereft of the wisdom, power, and will of a general direction, and of its fame and glory? So that, according to the judgment both of Holy Scripture (Ps. 94:8, 9, 10, compared with X. 4. 11. 12, and LIII. 2. 3) and of the matter itself, he who denies Providence also denies that there is a God. The little arguments with which they might try to play run thus, against them: (1) The Divine blessedness is not injured by the working of Providence, but far rather by idleness. For just as there is, in God's resting, no laziness, sluggishness, sloth, or weariness (Isa. 40:28), so also there is, in God's working, no labor, striving, or exertion — He knows how to work while resting, and to rest while working, says Augustine, in his City of God, Book XII, ch. 17. Especially since He directs all things by one single and eternal beck of His will, without which He would not be most overflowing in perfection. (2) Nor does the Divine Providence take away the contingency, or the freedom, of our will, since He (according to Augustine's City of God, Book V, ch. 9) governs and directs matters in such a way that He lets them have their own proper motions. For the Divine Providence does not, in fact, prevent certain things from happening through causes which, by their nature, are not determined to this or that effect, and are thus contingent and by chance, or through the counsel and deliberation of a created will, or free choice — no, but all of this proceeds, nevertheless, from the Providence of God alone. (3) Nor do those disorderly, confused, evil, and worst of things, which commonly occur in nature, prove that they are not directed by a most wise, almighty, and most gracious Providence — since all these things, although they deviate from this or that particular order, do not nevertheless deviate from the general order, nor do they happen outside of or against the intention of the general cause; which failings and defects of the second causes God directs, most wisely, most powerfully, and most graciously, unto the glory of His name, unto the salvation of His own, and unto a righteous punishment of the wicked (John 9:3) — so that, by this and through this, God's most wise Providence is rather confirmed and strengthened than weakened and rendered powerless. Much less (4) does God, through this Providence, become the cause of sins and abominations, since He, insofar as they are transgressions and sins, only permits them, and, having permitted them, directs and governs them, and punishes what has been committed by the most free wickedness and malice of evil and wicked creatures. Furthermore, the Divine Providence (5) lets no sins pass without punishment, for He punishes them either in the sinner or in his Surety, either here or hereafter. Also, (6) He does not provide ill for the good and well for the wicked; for besides that it is (at least to us) uncertain who are truly good or wicked, it is also not a true good which is rendered to the wicked — being that which discharges itself in their ruin and destruction — just as it is likewise not a true evil which comes upon the good — being that which always works together for their good and salvation (Rom. 8:28). And although it may sometimes seem, even here, that it goes well with the wicked and ill with the good, it shall nevertheless not be so hereafter and in eternity. Also, God (7) never punishes a righteous man together with the unrighteous, since before Him not one is found who is absolutely righteous, and he who, with respect to this or that particular transgression for which others are punished, is himself righteous, may nevertheless, on account of very many other misdeeds, be unrighteous — in which sense God threatens (Ezek. 21:3): "I will cut off from you the righteous with the wicked."

XXIX. It is asked: (II) Whether there is, in Providence, a certain physical (physicè) influence of God, whereby...

...absolutely determine all causes to their acting and working? The Epicureans allowed no influence of God at all, as we saw in the preceding section. Aristotle and his followers acknowledged none with respect to particular things. The Stoics, for their part, subjected God Himself to a chain of second causes, and so allowed no influence of God upon all things by which He would, in a purely natural way, absolutely determine all causes to act. Durandus acknowledged only such an influence as preserved the second causes, each with its own powers within its own being; above this he acknowledged a general influence, leaving the particular determination to those causes themselves — much as the sun works generally and uniformly upon all things, which then determine themselves to this or that operation according to their own nature; or as a piper sees to it that wind flows into his pipes, while he himself, with his hand, determines what sort of peculiar workings and sounds are to be produced.

The Pelagians and Socinians grant that God's providence flows into natural things; but as to voluntary things — at least as regards their predetermination — they deny it, in order to preserve the independent indifference of the free will. The Semi-Pelagians, Jesuits, and Remonstrants grant an influence upon the free effects themselves, but deny it with respect to the free cause as such, for that same supposition of the free will's independent indifference. All of them, Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians alike, grant a moral, advisory influence by which the free creature may determine itself or not, according to its own independent good pleasure; the latter further acknowledge a concurrent and simultaneous influence, which they call a concursus, whereby, once the free creature has set out upon its course after determining itself, God helps it bring the effect to completion — but they deny any praecursus, a preceding influence, so that the independent indifference of the free will may remain intact and unimpaired.

The Reformed believe in such an influence as predetermines every cause — whether natural or voluntary — to act and to work. This they hold: (I) because Holy Scripture testifies that God works all things in all, 1 Cor. 12:6, and therefore also the very first determination of the free creature to its own operations; and that in Him we live, move, and have our being, Acts 17:27-28; that from Him, through Him, and to Him are all things, and therefore also the voluntary ones, Rom. 11:36; Isa. 26:12, "You have wrought all our works for us"; and ch. 45:7, "I the LORD do all these things"; Eph. 1:11, "who works all things according to the counsel of His will."

(II) Because God is said, through His providence, to determine even chance events — for example, the lot, Prov. 16:33, an example of which is found in Josh. 7:14, 18 — and voluntary things as well, Phil. 2:13, "He works the will"; Prov. 16:9, "the heart of man devises his way, but the LORD directs his steps." So too with sins, Acts 2:23 and 4:28: "whatsoever your hand and your counsel determined before to be done."

(III) Because otherwise that first determination would be independent, and thus would itself be God — since to be independent belongs to God alone.

(IV) Because otherwise no lordship over that determination, nor over any of its consequences, would belong to God. And therefore (V) on that ground no service, no gratitude for good received, and no invocation for obtaining good would be owed to God — so that they themselves fall into the very trap they try to set for us on this point. Indeed (VI) on such a view God would not even be God, since not all things would depend on Him; rather He Himself would be compelled to depend upon that self-determination. And finally, (VII) on this supposition man, in the matter of his conversion, would be the architect of his own happiness, possessing something he had not received, and would thus distinguish himself — against the express word of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4:7.

Nor do our opponents have anything of substance to bring forward for the contrary opinion, beyond this little: (1) that by such an influence all contingency of things is removed, and everything is pressed under a harsh necessity; (2) that by that same means freedom is taken from man's will — indeed the will itself, and even his humanity; (3) that by such an influence God is made a cause of sin. These objections, however, we shall answer more fully in what follows, under the particular points of controversy, so that we may grasp all the more distinctly how the contingency of things, the freedom of the will, and God's perfect holiness are to be reconciled with His providence.

§XXX. Whether the Influence of Divine Providence Removes the Contingency of Things and Presses All Things under a Harsh Necessity

Epicurus and his followers, having banished all providence of God, allowed nothing but contingency, chance, and fortune. Joined with them in the early church were the Simonians, Carpocratians, Gnostics, and others. The Platonic and Aristotelian philosophers, though acknowledging divine providence in general, nevertheless held that in matters concerning us — that is, in voluntary matters — there is only bare contingency. These are followed by the cruder Pelagians, who, along with the Socinians, allow nothing but a mere contingency in matters touching our will, since they do not even acknowledge that God has any fixed and certain foreknowledge of future contingent things. The Semi-Pelagians, Jesuits, Remonstrants, Lutherans, and Mennonites, though they likewise allow nothing but contingency in free acts themselves — such that the thing might be or might not be — nevertheless acknowledge in God a fixed and certain foreknowledge of the same.

The Stoics, on the other hand, loudly proclaimed a general providence, yet subjected all things to a harsh necessity, which they called Fate (Fatum), whose nature Cicero describes in these words: "I now call that fate which the Greeks call Εἱμαρμένη, that is, an order and sequence of causes, in which one cause, joined to another, produces from itself an effect: this is a truth eternally flowing from all eternity" (De Divinatione, Bk. I). And Chrysippus (as cited in Gellius, Noctes Atticae, Bk. VI, ch. 2) calls fate an unavoidable succession, bound together by an eternal order of consequence.

Such fate is godless. Yet if by that "fate" or bond they mean to derive the word (à fando, that is, from "to say" or "to speak") from the divine decree, then there is no reason why they should be censured or condemned for it; hence the word Fatum, properly meaning "that which is spoken," has in this sense been accepted by very many Christians, both older ones — for example Minutius Felix (in his Octavius), Augustine in The City of God (Bk. V, ch. 8), Gregory Nazianzen (On Fate), Isidore (Origines, Bk. VIII, last chapter) — and by some later Scholastic teachers and men of letters. The Reformed, however, do not adopt the word, because it carries an evil connotation.

The Arminians, Jesuits, and others of Pelagian sympathies, not knowing what sort of fate it is that they are trying to avoid, fall into a fate more Stoic than the Stoics' own, when they hold that future contingent and voluntary things have existed from eternity prior to the divine will and decree. For if that future coming-to-be does not derive from the will and decree of God, then it can derive from nowhere else than either from itself or from an irresistible chain of causes, from which those future things would then be produced.

The astrologers, mathematicians, nativity-casters, and Chaldeans, in order to be able to prophesy, likewise make contingent things — for example, the laws of birth, marriage, children, fortune, and the condition of each and every person — depend on the positions of the stars, as things bound to happen of necessity, and predict them accordingly.

The first lie and root error of all these mistaken opinions is that they do not define with sufficient precision the contingent and the necessary, when they hold that the necessary is that which simply cannot but happen, and that the contingent is that which cannot but happen either.

The Reformed hold, rather, that a thing is contingent or accidental when it happens outside of and beyond the aim and intention of its cause; and since there are two kinds of cause — a first and supreme cause, and a subordinate one — they maintain that, since nothing can happen outside of or beyond the intention of the first cause, nothing can happen accidentally with respect to that cause; but since very many things happen outside of and against the intention of subordinate causes, many things do happen accidentally, notwithstanding the predetermining influence of God. Or, to put it another way: something is contingent or accidental when it comes about through a cause which, by and from its own nature, is not determined to it — as, for example, when a farmer, ploughing his field, happens by chance upon a hidden treasure.

Conversely, they hold that a thing is necessary when it comes about through such a cause as is, by and from its own nature, determined to that very effect: thus the sun necessarily shines, fire necessarily burns, and a heavy body necessarily sinks downward.

On this supposition, they say that many things happen accidentally, even though the influence of divine providence determines that they occur — outside of and beyond the intention of the subordinate causes, yet predetermined by God's influence — or are brought about by such subordinate causes as by their own nature have no necessary connection with those effects.

They hold, meanwhile, that all effects, whether contingent or necessary, occur certainly, unavoidably, and irresistibly, only that the causes of these effects have been aroused and predetermined by the divine influence. From this they conclude, finally, that since on the one hand predetermining providence is necessary in order to act, as we have shown in the preceding section, while on the other hand many things repeatedly occur, both in Scripture and in daily experience, that are truly contingent and accidental, this predetermining influence therefore does not remove contingency, nor does it bring with it a general necessity. Rather, that influence is itself the cause of all contingency, in that it joins and predetermines such causes to such effects as occur outside of and against the intention of the causes, and which by their own nature have no necessary connection to them.

Let me add that even with respect to subordinate causes it is not unusual for one and the same effect to be, in different respects and relations, both accidental and necessary. For suppose that two servants are sent out by one and the same master, both to return to him by one and the same road: these servants, with respect to the master who sent them out, will necessarily meet one another on the road, but with respect to the servants themselves, they will meet by chance. And I see nothing that our opponents can, with any semblance of reason, set against this.

§XXXI. Whether the Influence of Divine Providence Removes or Impairs the Freedom of Man's Will

All the parties opposed to us mentioned above — philosophers as well as theologians — hold firmly to this (which is their first root error and falsehood): that they locate the freedom of the will in a bare, independent indifference, such that if the influence of providence were removed, freedom itself would at the same time be removed along with it. The Reformed, on the contrary, though they acknowledge a certain indifference in the will — namely, a natural indifference, whereby the acting subject is not, by and from its own nature, determined to this particular action, and by which the acting subject cannot, in a purely natural way, be determined by any subordinate cause — nevertheless do not concede that freedom consists in bare indifference, still less in an absolutely independent indifference, which could not even be removed by the first cause.

In what, then, do they locate the nature of freedom? I answer: in that power of the acting subject by which it acts ἐκ προαιρέσεως, according to a preceding and deliberate counsel, and with a rational satisfaction and good pleasure, whereby it determines itself, under God, to act.

Since, then, it has pleased God to work upon and predetermine free or voluntary causes through the influence of His providence, so that they may, with deliberate counsel and reflection, determine themselves to this or that operation, to which by their own nature they are indifferent, it follows that this predetermining influence does not remove true freedom, nor does it impair it. Their reasons are: (1) that in Holy Scripture many free acts are recorded, to which God nevertheless determined their causes — for example, all the evil that the Jews, Pilate, Herod, and the soldiers wickedly and godlessly committed against our Saviour, which they committed freely, by the admission of all, and yet the hand and counsel of God are said, by a figure of speech called hendiadys (that is, when one thing is expressed by two words), to have predetermined them to do this, Acts 4:28. Likewise Paul, beyond all doubt, freely preached the gospel, 1 Cor. 9:17, and yet he says that he could not do otherwise, since Christ worked this in him, Rom. 15:18-19. Similarly the Gentiles freely believed through Paul, and yet he says that this came about through the power of the Holy Spirit, v. 12; indeed he confesses that he was unfit to think anything good of himself, but that all his sufficiency was from God, 2 Cor. 3:5.

Further (II), the king's heart — that is, his will — undoubtedly works freely, and yet Holy Scripture says that it is in the hand of the LORD, who inclines it wherever He wills, Prov. 21:1; likewise ch. 16:1-2. Moreover (III), the will certainly acts freely, and yet God is said "to will" (τὸ θέλειν) — not the mere capacity but the very act of willing — and "to work" (ἐνεργεῖν), just as much as the working itself, Phil. 2:13. And (IV), if freedom consisted in bare indifference, where indeed would freedom be found? Not even in God, who, in accordance with His decree — which has existed from eternity — has never been indifferent as to whether or not to bring about the thing decreed. Likewise (V) the angels would not act freely, since they are already determined to the good and are therefore not indifferent. Nor (VI) would the devils or the unregenerate, since they are determined to sin by their inward corruption. Where, then, would the freedom of the will be found — unless perhaps in the regenerate, who can do both evil and good, though even in them it is God who works the willing.

Nor do our opponents have anything with any plausibility to bring against this, except: (1) that necessity and freedom are contrary to one another, so that a preceding influence must involve a necessity, and thereby remove freedom. We have already denied, in the preceding section, that this influence involves any such necessity. (2) That what has already been determined beforehand by the divine influence cannot determine itself by its own free choice or counsel. Answer: God's influence excites and predetermines the will in a natural way, so that the will, through its own counsel and deliberation, may determine itself, under God, in a moral way. (3) That once indifference is removed, the freedom of the will ceases. Answer: once all indifference is removed — in particular, natural indifference — freedom does indeed cease; but it does not cease when only an independence-indifference is removed.

§XXXII. Whether This Predetermining Influence Makes God a Cause of Sin

Julian of old maintained this connection and consequence, out of hatred against Christians. Likewise the Pelagians and those of Pelagian sympathy — Socinians, Jesuits, Remonstrants, Mennonites, and Lutherans — with the intent of blackening the Reformed church, allege the same connection and consequence, and add slanderously that the Reformed teach such an influence of providence whereby God incites and drives Satan to tempt and deceive men, whereby he moves man to sin by some hidden power, and whereby God, together with us — indeed more than we — works the sin, as if we were merely instrumental causes while He were the principal cause.

The Reformed, however, distinguish three things concerning sin: (1) A certain habit or act of the rational creature, in which the moral evil is present — for that evil is not a substance existing by and of itself, as the Manicheans imagined. (2) The anomia, the lawlessness or wickedness, which is present in that habit and in that act, and in this alone they locate the entire essence of sin. (3) The composite whole made up of both of these preceding elements together.

As to the first — namely the underlying habit or act — they hold that, considered naturally, it is something good, and therefore dependent on the first and highest good; and so they extend the influence of divine providence to this, because Holy Scripture clearly teaches it, Acts 17:28, Rom. 11:36, and because the surpassing excellence of the Godhead itself demands it: for if God did not flow into it, He would not be the absolutely first cause, and therefore would not be God at all. As to the second — the lawlessness or wickedness — since this is not a positive entity but merely a defect or privation, which admits no efficient cause but only a deficient one, they hold that the influence of divine providence does not touch it but only permits it — yet in such a way that sin certainly follows upon that permission. As to the third — the whole composite of sin — they hold that divine providence is occupied with it in various ways: morally, by forbidding it, and naturally, by governing, determining, and punishing it.

Therefore (1), since the entire nature of sin consists only in its lawlessness, and the influence of divine providence does not touch that lawlessness, it is clearer than the sun that God does not, through the influence of His providence, become a cause of sin. Then (2), sin cannot be produced except through a transgression of the Law, and since God, through the influence of His providence, does not and cannot transgress the Law, it follows that God does not, through that influence, become a cause of sin. Further (3), since on the one hand, according to Holy Scripture — for example Ps. 5:5 — as well as according to the very nature of God, who is the highest good, God cannot be the cause of sin (which all acknowledge), and yet on the other hand we read that God, by and through His providence, has variously been occupied with sin — for example, Acts 4:28 and 2:23, Gen. 50:20, 2 Sam. 12:11-12 and 24:1 — He has nevertheless not thereby become a cause of the sins. We shall not press further points of this kind for the present.

Our opponents object: (a) that even so, that influence which determines a man to sin is itself the cause of the sin. From what has been said, the answer follows readily: that the influence is the cause only of the act, in which the sin is present, but not of the sin itself. If they say (b) that, granting such a predetermining influence, man cannot but sin — the answer is: this may nonetheless hold true through and by virtue of a power or capacity of causation, and in a divided sense, as they say, insofar as man is not, by and through his own nature, determined to sin; though he cannot avoid it by a power or capacity of effect, and in a composite sense — yet on this account sin is not an effect of that influence, but only a consequence of it. They say (c) that the influence which rouses man to sin is nonetheless the cause of that particular sin of his. Answer: if some theologian, following Holy Scripture — 2 Sam. 24:1, Ezek. 14:9, 2 Thess. 2:11 — speaks in this way, he means, in keeping with Scripture, nothing other than that God has aroused men to that act to which sin is added through man's own doing, and hence He is not the cause of the sin itself.

(d) It is objected that the influence upon man's sinful act — being the principal cause of that act — ought rather to be called the cause of his sin, rather than the man himself, who is merely the instrumental, or lesser, cause of it. Answer: God, through His influence, is indeed the principal cause of the act itself; but man alone is the cause of the sin itself, which is present in that act. (e) It is said that some Reformed theologians, on account of this influence, plainly and expressly call God a cause of sin. Answer: if they do speak this way, more harshly than they ought, they mean nothing other than that God is the cause of the act as such, from which alone the creature derives the lawlessness in which sin consists; but not one Reformed theologian can be shown who has said that God is the cause of the lawlessness or sin, insofar as it is sin.

§XXXIII. Whether There Is in Divine Providence a Certain General and Indifferent Influence upon All Creatures, Which Is Then Determined by Each Particular Creature

Aristotle and his Peripatetics, since he acknowledged God's providence only with respect to general things, denying any care for particulars — especially those things which touch upon us or lie within our power and depend upon our free will — likewise admitted no other influence of divine providence than a general one, rejecting any particular influence. The Pelagians and those of Pelagian sympathy, the Jesuits and the Remonstrants, in order the more easily to maintain an independent indifference of the free will, while yet not thereby making man absolutely independent, acknowledge on the one hand a certain cooperation with, or influence upon, all things; but on the other hand only a general and indifferent one, which causes being, life, and motion in all things (Acts 17:28), but which is then determined and particularized by the particular creatures according to their own nature, and in particular by man according to his own free will. Just as, for example, the sun spreads its rays generally and in a uniform manner over and into all things beneath the moon, for the production of things in general, yet these rays are determined and particularized by the individual receiving creatures — whence one is accustomed to say that the sun and a man beget a man, the sun and a lion a lion. Nor are there wanting among them some who wish to extend this even to evil deeds; but even those who do so covertly, and most of them openly, extend it equally to both good and evil things.

The Reformed, just as they acknowledge no general decree, as we have seen above in the chapter on God's decree, likewise acknowledge no general influence of providence, but only such a one as determines all things, indeed each thing in particular, and nothing is left undetermined. (I) Because the whole tenor of Holy Scripture, and what we have already established above in the doctrinal part, teaches that there is a particular providence — for example, with respect to Adam, Noah, Abraham, and so forth — and consequently the influence too is particular. (II) Because we read that this same influence determines the particular movements of the will, Prov. 21:1 and 16:1 — which is illustrated by examples, as in Esau, Gen. 33; in the Egyptians, Exod. 11:1-3; Ps. 105:25; Acts 4:27-28. This is also why the saints have been accustomed to pray to God that they might find favor in the eyes of this or that person, Gen. 43:14, Neh. 1:11, compared with Exod. 4:21. (III) Because the divine influence in the sinner's conversion is active, by a particular grace, upon his understanding and will specifically, Phil. 2:13, John 6:65, Acts 16:14, Gal. 1:15-16, and therefore not through a merely general influence. (IV) If it lay within man's own power to determine the general influence of God according to his own free choice, then the will would be independent, and man self-sufficient, and the sole author of his own happiness. Also (V) God's decree would then be uncertain, and His foreknowledge deceptive, since it would not know whether or how man's will would determine God's general influence. And (VI) neither good nor evil would then be done, since this would depend on man's indifferent determination of God's general influence — for indeed God could then dispense neither punishments nor rewards, if He only flowed indifferently into all things, as the heavens and the heavenly bodies do into things here below.

Consequently (VII) He would then be nothing to be invoked, feared, or glorified — no more than the sun and the heavens, on account of a like influence. Indeed (VIII) that general influence would thus become dependent on each particular working proceeding from it, and would likewise be variable, and would not remain a purely simple and most elementary act — something wholly unbefitting God. Nor does it help the opposing view to say: (1) that God is a general cause of all things; for He is not so through a general and indifferent influence, but rather through a particular influence, insofar as this touches and determines all things, and each thing in particular. And (2) it is not true, as they allege, that by such a particular influence (a) the freedom of man's will is removed; since God so flows in and determines that man, through his own counsel, deliberation, and good pleasure, brings forth the effect — as we have already shown and demonstrated above. Nor (b) does that influence remove the contingency of things, since God so flows in that many things happen outside of and against the intention of the nearest agent, and also through such a cause as by its own nature is not determined to that particular effect. Nor is it (c) true that this influence makes God a cause of sin, since the influence extends only to the underlying subject-matter of sin — that is, to the act as act — to which the wickedness and lawlessness is added by the sinning man himself, as we have already taught fully and expressly above.

§XXXIV. Whether Divine Providence Is Occupied with Sin in No Other Way than by a Bare Permission, or Mere Inactivity

The ancient Pelagians extended that bare permission to every operation of our will, good as well as evil — whence the Pelagian Julian reasoned this way, cunningly: just as God conducts Himself with respect to evil wills, so He conducts Himself likewise with respect to good wills; but in evil wills He works only in a permissive manner — and so forth. The modern Pelagians and those of Pelagian sympathy seem to limit that permission to sins alone, under the pretext that God should not become a cause of sin, but in fact in order to preserve unimpaired the independent indifference of man's will. Hence they hold that through this permission God neither does nor wills to do anything, but rather leaves sinners to themselves, so that they may freely bring the indifferent power of their will into effect, and thus either commit or not commit the sin.

The Reformed acknowledge that, with respect to the lawlessness or wickedness of sin — in which alone the whole nature of sin consists — God is not active otherwise than by permitting, Ps. 81:12, Acts 14:16, 1 Cor. 10:13; but nevertheless, with respect to the whole composite of sin — insofar as this signifies together both the underlying subject-matter and the lawlessness — they hold that God is active also by doing, insofar as He wills the future coming-to-be of the sin, and insofar as, by His exciting influence, He rouses the powers of the man who is about to sin to such an operation as brings the lawlessness upon him through the sinner himself — such that, this divine action being posited, sin does not indeed necessarily, but nevertheless certainly and infallibly, follow. Wherefore they wholly reject the Pelagians' bare permission and mere inactivity.

By this position of theirs, the Reformed are sufficiently supported by these reasons: (1) because Holy Scripture teaches that God is occupied with sins by willing their future coming-to-be, Acts 2:23 and 4:28, Rom. 9:18, 1 Pet. 4:19, and therefore not by bare permission. (2) Because it teaches that God incites to sin, 2 Sam. 24:1; that He commands sin, 1 Kings 22:22; indeed that He does it, 2 Sam. 12:12. These expressions, though they must be understood in a holy and wholesome sense, nevertheless prove, at the very least, that God is not occupied with sins merely by a bare, empty permission. (3) Because the expressions of blinding, hardening, and giving over to sin, which we have explained in the doctrinal part as applied to God, neither say nor imply a bare permission. (4) Because God is said to permit sin in such a way that upon that permission sin certainly and infallibly follows, Ps. 81:12, Isa. 63:17, Acts 14:16 — which is truly not a bare and empty permitting. (5) Because the powers of the man who is about to sin — which must necessarily be raised up by God, Acts 17:28, in order that the sin may be committed — are by no means raised up and stirred by a bare permission. Nor will I press (6) that to govern, determine, and direct sins — which we have above, in the doctrinal part, ascribed and attributed to divine providence — does not consist in a bare, empty permission.

If our opponents object: (1) that Scripture nevertheless speaks, as we ourselves have said, of a permission with respect to sin — this, however, poses no difficulty for the Reformed, who gladly acknowledge a permission with respect to the lawlessness of sin, while at the same time believing that with respect to the whole composite of sin, and in particular with respect to its abstract underlying subject-matter, divine providence exercises various operations, and moreover such a permission upon which sin unavoidably follows: they reject, therefore, only a bare permission. If our opponents (2) allege that to permit men something is nothing other than not to act — the answer follows readily, that no inference from a human permission to a divine permission holds. If (3) they say that upon efficacious permission, and likewise upon the governing and directing of sin, sin unavoidably follows, and that God thereby becomes a cause of sin — we have already shown above at length that this is false.

§XXXV. Whether Divine Providence Fixes Immovably the End, Measure, and Manner of Man's Life

The Pelagians and those of Pelagian sympathy, Socinians, Arminians, Mennonites, and Lutherans, the more forcefully to support the independent indifference of man's free will — since some men can, by violently laying hands upon themselves, or by other means, shorten the end of their life — hold that divine providence does not fix for any given man an immovable end of his life. The Reformed, just as they acknowledge that the end of human life, as set by nature, can be altered, likewise deny that the end which God sets, by His decree and providence, can be altered.

This they prove: (1) by those passages of Scripture which subject all things, and each thing in particular, to divine providence, Eph. 1:11, Acts 15:18. (2) By those which subject to it even the very smallest things, down to the grass, the sparrows, and even the hairs of one's head, Matt. 6:26, 28, 30, and 10:29-30 — how much more, then, the end of man's life? (v. 31). Indeed (3) by those passages of Scripture which subject man's life to it in particular, Job 14:5 and 7:1, Ps. 39:5 and 90:3, Acts 17:26. (4) Because everything that happens in time was foreknown as future from eternity; now if it was not foreknown as future by God and by His providence, it must have been so from itself, and thus would be subject to a fate more Stoic than the Stoics' own. Then also (5) if the end of life were not predetermined by God, it could not be certainly foreknown by God either — the contrary of which Scripture demonstrates by very many examples: of Moses, Deut. 31:14; of David's child, 2 Sam. 12:14; of Jeroboam's son, 1 Kings 14:12; of Ahaziah, 2 Kings 1:4; of Hezekiah, Isa. 38:1; of Peter, John 21:18, 2 Pet. 1:14; of Christ, Luke 18:32, John 12:33. Indeed (6) we read that even the manner of death — which of all things seems most accidental — is determined by God, Exod. 21:13-14, Deut. 19:3-6, Josh. 20:2-3.

Nor does it stand in the way of this: (1) that the lengthening of life is made contingent upon conditions, Exod. 20:12, Eph. 6:2, Deut. 30:20, Prov. 3:1-2, as likewise its shortening, Lev. 26:25, Deut. 30:18, Ps. 55:23. For this is made contingent upon a condition through the promise or the threatening; but that condition itself, together with the conditional matter, is already predetermined from above, from eternity, in God's eternal decree. (2) That various examples seem to confirm the alterability of man's lifespan — in Hezekiah, 2 Kings 20:1ff.; in the Ninevites, Jonah 3:4; in the Israelites in the wilderness, Num. 17:12-13; in David, 2 Sam. 24:15; in Paul's companions in the shipwreck, Acts 27:20, 24; in the Sodomites and their neighbors, Gen. 19, compared with ch. 18:32; in Absalom, 2 Sam. 18:14; in Ahaziah, 2 Kings 1:2. Answer: Hezekiah, David's companions, and Paul's companions would have died according to the order of second causes, but not according to the determination of God's decree and providence. To the Ninevites destruction was announced under a condition of repentance, which was understood, and which God, by that stern threatening, sought, as it were, to wring from them. The men before the flood, the Sodomites, and others would have prolonged their lives had they repented — which God had not decreed to grant them. The example of Nebuchadnezzar is similar, Dan. 4. It is said (3) that on this view all use of medicine seems to be wholly banished. Answer: not at all, since God's decree and providence extend life, through the use of medicines, up to its appointed and fixed end, as is evident in Hezekiah's case. (4) That on this view those who lay violent hands upon themselves, or who perish through their own crimes and outrages, would seem foreordained to sin by a divine decree, and God would thus become a cause of sin. Answer: He does not thereby become the cause of it at all, since He has decreed only the future coming-to-be of that criminal act, which is to be committed by the sinner as its sole cause; nor does He flow into its abstract, underlying act. (5) That on this supposition no one would kill himself freely. Answer: he does so absolutely freely, since one who lays hands upon himself kills himself out of his own counsel, purpose, and design, even though the future coming-to-be of that very death, by force of the divine decree, occurs absolutely certainly and unavoidably.

The Practical Part

§XXXVI. Divine Providence Reveals to Us, First, God's Glory

According to Rom. 11:36: "Of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever, Amen." See also Exod. 9:16, Ps. 19:1-2, 104:1, and 145:1. Since providence foresees, governs, and directs all things, and each thing in particular — the greatest and the smallest, the necessary, the contingent, the voluntary, the good and the evil — according to the eternal counsel of God's will, it discloses in particular the glory of His wisdom, His power, His goodness, His holiness, His righteousness, and His sovereign might and authority.

It discloses (1) His Wisdom: full of eyes, according to the vision of Ezekiel, ch. 1, upon which God sits; those eyes of God with which He is said to run to and fro through the whole earth to behold it, 2 Chron. 16:9, Prov. 15:3. (2) His Power, which, as in providence, Scripture repeatedly joins with His wisdom, Job 36:4-5, Ps. 147:5, whereby God does whatever pleases Him, Ps. 115:3 — "He is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working," Isa. 28:29. For that so many and so great things — indeed all things and each thing in particular in this whole universe — cannot be carried out and accomplished without an infinite power, is easily seen by all. (3) His Goodness, whereby, in providing for all things, He pours out His goodness upon all: so that the whole earth is said to be full of His goods, Ps. 104:24, 27-28; compare Ps. 147:1, 8-9. (4) His Holiness, whereby, in all His ways — even when He is occupied with evil — He is holy and altogether good, Deut. 32:4: "He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He." (5) His Righteousness, whereby in His whole providence He gives to each his due, Rev. 15:3 and 16:5, Exod. 24:7, Rom. 1:18-19, 2 Thess. 1:6, Heb. 6:10. (6) His Might, Authority, and Sovereignty, by virtue of which Jehovah, through His providence, is said to sit as King forever, Ps. 29:10 — since He most wisely, most mightily, and most graciously governs and directs all things and each thing in particular.

This doctrine of providence discloses and explains itself to us to this end: (1) that we should acknowledge it, Ps. 100:3; (2) that we should marvel at it, Isa. 28:29, Ps. 104:24, Rom. 11:33-35; (3) that we should praise and extol it, Ps. 66:16, 9:2, 15, and 145:6; and finally (4) that we, so far as lies in our power, should display God's wisdom, goodness, holiness, and righteousness, by imitating these virtues in our own providence — that is, in our own care and diligence — concerning our service to God, our dependents, and our own salvation, 1 Cor. 7:32-34, 1 Tim. 5:8, 1 Pet. 5:2-3, Phil. 2:12.

§XXXVII. This Doctrine Warns Us, Secondly, to Guard Ourselves Diligently against Sinning in Any Way against God's Providence

Hosea 14:9. This happens: (1) By denying God's providence, with the Epicureans, atheists, and the godless, who set fortune or fate in its place — a matter which we have already noted and refuted above in the polemical part, §§XXVIII and XXXIII. (2) By doubting, whether of the truth or of the universality of divine providence — something that befalls not only the godless, Ps. 73:11ff. and 94:7-11, but sometimes even the pious and godly themselves, Num. 11:18-24. (3) By accusing and reproaching providence, and disputing with it, 1 Sam. 2:10, Isa. 41:11 and 45:9, Ezek. 50:9 [sic], Rom. 9:20-21 — as though God, in our judgment, favors the wicked, Job 21:7, Ps. 73:2-3, 13, Jer. 12:1-2, while on the other hand treating the good ill; and as though God permits so many confused and perverse things — even wicked, cruel, and abominable ones — and that unpunished. (4) By neglecting providence — Deut. 4:10 — or by neglecting to contemplate God's providence and works, Isa. 42:20, Ps. 92:6-7, Isa. 5:11-14 — or also by neglecting the use of it, when we attribute the outcomes of affairs, prosperous or adverse, to any manner of other chances and accidents rather than to divine providence, Jer. 17:5, or make them depend on our own wisdom, strength, valor, riches, and the like, Dan. 1:16 [sic], Ps. 52:7. (5) By setting ourselves against it, and resisting it, by murmuring, when something does not turn out quite according to our own mind and liking, Lam. 3:39, or by kicking against it, as it were, Acts 9:5, striving against it, Acts 5:39. (6) By turning away and departing from divine providence toward a reliance on means, Jer. 17:5 — as though God depended on means, and it were not all one to Him to help by many or by few, 1 Sam. 14:6; by means, or without them, Ps. 105:40, Jer. 32:27; by weak means as well as by mighty ones, 1 Kings 17:14, Matt. 4:4 — as though it were not equally within His power to render the mightiest means powerless, fruitless, and vain, Ps. 33:16-17, Hos. 4:10, Ps. 127:1-2, and, on the contrary, to make the weakest means prosper, Dan. 1:15, 2 Kings 4:42-44; or also to work and to deliver through unwilling and reluctant means, Dan. 3:17, 22, 25, John 9:6, 11, 15. Or (7) by despising, on the contrary, the use of means, Isa. 38:5, compared with Matt. 4:4. Whichever of these ways it may be, if we stumble against divine providence, we make ourselves not merely useless to it in every circumstance, but its adversaries and opponents, Ps. 52:7-9, Jer. 17:5-9.

§XXXVIII. Thirdly, This Doctrine Urges Us to Take to Heart the Various Courses, Ways, and Turnings of Divine Providence

And to observe them diligently, Ps. 111:2 and 123:12-13, Exod. 8:19 — indeed also to bring them to the remembrance and thought of others, and to renew them there, Ps. 66:5. This applies especially to the ways of that ordinary or common providence, by which God is at work, without distinction, concerning creatures of every sort, according to the example of Ps. 104 and 8. In particular, concerning rational creatures — both the wicked, through the ways of righteousness and justice which God observes, as God requires, Deut. 7:18-19, and according to the examples of Job, ch. 5:3-5 and 21:17-19, and of David, Ps. 37:35ff.; and the good, partly through acts of correction, Ps. 89:30-32, Deut. 32:9, Jer. 7:12, 10:11, partly through acts of prospering, blessing, and comforting, Ps. 37:25-26, 37, Prov. 6.

Especially, however, ought we also to call to mind the instances of God's extraordinary and unusual providence — for example, when God (1) beyond and above all hope, by absolutely unusual means, exalts one, Ps. 113:7-8, Gen. 41:14, 41, and 45:9, and casts another down, Eccl. 4:14; or (2) when He, in an entirely tangible way, snatches and rescues His own from present and utterly grievous ruin, Judg. 5:20-21, Josh. 10:11, 13, Ps. 48:8 and 46:6, 1 Sam. 18:26-28; or (3) when He punishes and avenges the wicked with His wrath, as an example to others, Joel 1:2-3, Jer. 3:3, Hag. 1:5-6.

Most of all, however, this doctrine calls us to consider most diligently and carefully those acts of divine providence by which He provides for His elect in a special way, and at the same time for His church — concerning which the whole eighty-third Psalm treats at length and expressly, as does Deut. 33:11, Exod. 13:21, Isa. 58:8, Esther 6:1, etc.; to which belongs that wonderful economy of God in gathering, preserving, protecting, increasing, delivering, and saving His church, which the whole of Holy Scripture expressly and at length represents — and each true and genuine member of it, as may be seen, for example, in Abraham and Isaac, Gen. 22:12; in Joseph, Gen. 50:20, Acts 7:9-11; in David, 1 Sam. 23:26-27; and in countless others, who appear throughout all histories, sacred, ecclesiastical, and even secular.

Above all, however, we must with all care and diligence observe the workings of divine providence with respect to ourselves, Job 5:27, Prov. 3:6, Ps. 66:16. This concerns (1) our soul, or the spiritual part: (a) in converting and translating it from the state of sin to the state of grace, 1 Cor. 15:10; (b) in raising it up, restoring it, and comforting it in adversities, Ps. 119:50, 94:19, 2 Cor. 1:3-4; (c) in revealing Himself and His countenance to it, Job 42:5, Ps. 4:6-7, Rom. 5:5, 8:16; (d) in imparting and bestowing upon us the goods of His house, Ps. 84:1-4, 10, 119:103, 63:1-2; (e) in hearing and fulfilling our prayers and desires, 1 Sam. 1:27-28, Ps. 10:17.

(2) Our body, or the earthly part — both in prosperity, in how He has favored and showered us with His blessings, in respect of our life, health, calling, marriage, household, children, and all manner of prosperous outcomes, Ps. 103:4-5, Gen. 32:9-10; and in adversity, in how He (a) has provided for and cared for us in our need and poverty, Ps. 3:5, whether immediately — as Israel, through the sending of manna and the bringing forth of water from the rock — or by means of friends and neighbors, or strangers, Acts 28:7, 10, or through enemies, Ps. 106:45, or through irrational creatures, 1 Kings 17:6, or by blessing the little store of provisions we had, so that they sufficed us for our needs for a long time, 2 Kings 4:1-8; (b) how, in doubtful and hazardous circumstances, when everything had come to the utmost extremity, He has stood by us with His grace, 2 Tim. 4:16-17, how He has sometimes wonderfully delivered us, Gen. 48:15-16, when all seemed desperate, Gen. 22:12-14, 2 Cor. 1:8-10; how He has directed temporal and bodily evils to a spiritual good, Ps. 119:67, 71, Job 42:12; how He has, through very many adversities, brought us to honor and esteem and to the highest and greatest tranquility, as is manifest in Joseph, David, Daniel, and others.

All these things and the like we ought to observe and consider in such a way that we (a) gather them together in the storehouse of our memory, and preserve and lay them up, that they may never flow out and away, according to God's command, Deut. 8:2, 11 and 6:12, and according to the examples of the saints given to enlighten us in this, Ps. 103:2 — who, that they might not let these things slip away, were accustomed, in various ways, to nourish and sustain the memory of them all: by repeating them frequently, Ps. 77:5-6, 10-12 and 145:5-6; by erecting all manner of memorials, 1 Sam. 7:10-12; and also by giving to the events particular commemorative names, 1 Sam. 1:20, Gen. 22:14, Esther 9:26. And (b) that, having thus gathered and stored them up in memory, we turn them to our use and profit — namely, to (*) glorify God, Exod. 15:11, 2 Chron. 6:14, Ps. 34:3-4, 6, compare §XXXVIII; (**) to strengthen and encourage our own minds in every condition, whether of prosperity or of adversity, 1 Sam. 17:37, 2 Cor. 1:10, 1 Tim. 4:17-18; (***) to build up others in every circumstance, 2 Cor. 1:3-4.

§XXXIX. In Particular, Fourthly, This Doctrine Admonishes Us to Ascribe All Our Fortune, Welfare, and Prosperity — Bodily as Well as Spiritual — to Divine Providence

As the first and principal cause thereof, Ps. 103:2-5, 1 Cor. 4:7, 15:9-10. On this account: (1) to exalt and extol God, and to humble and diminish ourselves, Ps. 115:1, Gen. 32:10; (2) to love Him most tenderly, Ps. 116:12 and 73:25; (3) to repay Him with the most fervent and earnest thankfulness, Ps. 103:1-3, Judg. 5:1ff., Exod. 15:1ff., 1 Sam. 2:1, Ps. 34:1-2, Joel 2:26; (4) to obey Him in all things with the readiest and most willing spirit, by devoting our own works and endeavors to Him and for Him, as one who will recompense the benefits shown to us, 2 Chron. 32:25, Ps. 116:12.

§XL. On the Contrary, Fifthly, in All Manner of Adversities and Afflictions — Spiritual as Well as Bodily — Divine Providence Strengthens Our Minds

Against all anxious cares, Matt. 6:25-33, 1 Pet. 5:7, Ps. 37:5-7. (1) When means fail us that would be fit for our desires, or when those we do have prove powerless and, as it were, withered and dead — the means, whatever they may be, are of no avail, but divine providence alone is sufficient and able to fulfil our desires, Ps. 107:9. (2) When the means work against us, and the outcomes are contrary, Jer. 14:19 — if only God and His providence are for us, what then can be against us? Rom. 8:31; since God can turn everything, even that which is most against us, to work together for our good, v. 28. (3) When our provisions fail, so that it seems to us that we must perish through hunger, thirst, and the like, 1 Kings 17:12, Mark 8:4 — the providence of God cares for us daily, Matt. 6:34, 1 Kings 17:4-6, 14-15. (4) When a heap of pressing and successive evils, as it were, casts us to the ground, Job 1:15-20 — these come from nowhere else than from God's fatherly providence, Job 5:6, Amos 3:6, by whose working we are appointed to afflictions, 1 Thess. 3:3 — which providence, meanwhile, can turn and change all things, even the very worst, to our good, Heb. 12:11 [sic], Ps. 119:71 and 94:12.

And thus, in every such matter, the contemplation of divine providence is powerful to dispel all our anxious cares and worries. In particular, we consider that such cares and worries are (1) not only most bitter and sharp, casting down the soul, Luke 10:41, Prov. 12:25, 17:22, and 15:13, Ps. 42:11 — so that one spends and consumes the days of one's life in sighing and groaning, Prov. 15:19 — whereas, by contrast, one who casts and rolls his cares and worries upon the providence of God is, in every encounter, evenness of mind, glad and cheerful, Ps. 37:3-5, 2 Sam. 10:12. They are also (2) not only vain and useless, Matt. 6:27, since a happy outcome depends solely upon the providence of God, Ps. 127:1, Mark 4:26, 1 Cor. 15:37-38; but even (3) harmful, being the cause that divine providence, being reckoned little, indeed as nothing, does not bring about the hoped-for happy consequences and outcomes, 2 Kings 7:2, compared with Matt. 14:28-30. Let me add (4) that they are superfluous, since God has long since taken the care for us upon Himself, Heb. 13:5-6, 1 Pet. 5:7, Ps. 37:5. For He indeed knows our lot and our condition and circumstance most exactly, Exod. 3:7-8; He knows what we need, Matt. 6:31-32; He is also able to help, Ps. 115:3, Eph. 3:20, 2 Pet. 1:9 [sic]; He is willing to do it, as Father and as Shepherd, Heb. 13:5, Ps. 23:1-2 — indeed, He must also do it, by force of His promise and covenant, Isa. 43:2-3; and He has always done it steadfastly, and never failed or deceived, Ps. 34:11 and 37:18-19, 25.

On the contrary, (5) such anxious cares are wholly dishonoring to God and to His providence, since we thereby, as it were, arrogate and appropriate to ourselves and to our own cares what is His, and therefore sacrifice to our own net, Hab. 1:16, and make ourselves into gods, 2 Chron. 16:7-9, Num. 14:11-12. And finally (6) they render us unfit for all service to God, Matt. 13:22, Luke 21:34 and 10:40, Matt. 6:32.

§XLI. Sixthly, This Doctrine Therefore Advises Us to Depend, at Rest, upon the Providence of God Alone in All Our Affairs

That is: (1) that we entrust and commend our lot and our undertakings, of whatever number and magnitude, to the will, wisdom, and power of God's providence, and rely upon it, Ps. 37:5, 1 Pet. 4:19 and 4:23 [sic], 2 Tim. 1:12; (2) that we subject all our thoughts, affections, and desires to His most wise direction, being content in all things as God shall have ordained, 2 Sam. 15:25-26, Matt. 6:10 and 26:39; (3) that we never hasten overmuch, or push forward our wishes and desires prematurely, Isa. 35:4 and 28:16, nor set boundaries or limits to divine providence, nor prescribe to it its time or manner, Ps. 78:41, John 2:3-4, nor by improper means strive to force our desires, 1 Sam. 26:10-11; (4) nor be overly anxious about the future outcome of our efforts and undertakings, Ps. 42:11 and 43:5.

Whence it follows that (5) we should, in every way, not only calmly and sweetly acquiesce in divine providence, whatever it may be toward us, but even rejoice in it, Eccl. 3:12-13, and give thanks to God for it, Job 1:21. And in order that we may in all these ways depend upon God's providence, it will be helpful and profitable to consider: (1) that, since we must depend on something outside of ourselves, being creatures, there is no one on whom we can more safely depend than on God, who alone is independent, most wise, most mighty, and most gracious — whereas all creatures (since they depend elsewhere and possess only a limited wisdom, power, and goodness) offer us a deceptive and slippery foundation on which to lean, or from which to depend, Ps. 62:10, 12. (2) That there is likewise no surer means, for obtaining our wish and desire, than to depend upon God and His providence, Prov. 3:6, Ps. 37:5, 30, 40. And, on the other hand, (3) no surer cause of being deceived than to seek elsewhere the attainment of our desires, Ps. 52:9, Jer. 17:5. Then (4) that no one has ever been deceived by such dependence, Ps. 25:3 and 22:5; and (5) that whoever has once experienced, from his tenderest youth onward, the security of resting in God's fatherly care, has done so repeatedly, Ps. 22:9-10, 1 Sam. 17:37. (6) That He has given up His own only-begotten Son to secure our eternal salvation, Rom. 8:32. And (7) that He who cares for the sparrows and the lilies — would He not much more provide for man, who depends upon Him wholly and solely? Matt. 6:26, 30.

§XLII. In Particular, Seventhly, the Godly Contemplation of Divine Providence Ought to Bind and Oblige Us

To cling unmovably and inseparably to God, to walk with Him without ceasing, neither turning aside from Him to the right hand nor to the left; and never to allow ourselves, by the hope of obtaining any good elsewhere, or by trusting to ward off any evil, to be drawn a nail's breadth away from Him — since all creatures are so subject to Him and so dependent on the beck of His providence that, if He does not command it, they can bring us not the least thing, whether good or evil, Lam. 3:37-38, Isa. 45:5-7. In this way God bound and obliged Abraham to Himself, Gen. 17:1, when He declared and showed Himself to be God Almighty ("El Shaddai") — who would be to him a shield to ward off all evil, and an exceeding great reward, sufficient to bestow and grant every necessary or desirable good — and thus He entices him and stirs him up to walk with Him and before His face, and to be upright.

§XLIII. Moreover, Eighthly, God's General Providence over All Things, and His Particular Providence over His Own, Provide the Most Powerful Comfort

In all manner of visitations, adversities, and afflictions — spiritual as well as bodily — however great these may be. Namely: (1) that God devotes His providence to all things, even to the least and smallest — sparrows, lilies, grass, Matt. 6:31, Luke 12:6-7 — indeed to the numbering of every hair of our heads; will He not, then, do much more for the greatest and most excellent of things, namely, for man? As Augustine very rightly says: "If your superfluous things are thus preserved, in how great a tranquility and security is then your soul?" (On John, Homily 24). (2) That He nevertheless bestows this care in a particular way upon those who are, as it were, of His household, 1 Tim. 5:8, Gal. 6:10, compared with 1 Tim. 1:7 [sic], Ps. 55:15, Eph. 2:19 — whence His eyes are said to be upon the righteous, Ps. 34:16, and He is said to know them most exactly by name, John 10:3, 2 Tim. 2:19 — their names being written and kept in the Book of Life, Ps. 69:29, Phil. 4:3, Isa. 49:1-2, 15-16, compare Matt. 18:10, 14, and Job 1:8 and 2:3.

And not only does He know, see, behold, and regard them so exactly, Isa. 66:1-2, but also (3) their miseries and afflictions, down to the least tear, Exod. 3:7, Ps. 56:9, Job 34:4, Ps. 139:2-4 — whence Hagar called God, "the God who sees me," for she said, "Have I also here looked after Him that seeth me?" Gen. 16:13, compare ch. 29:32. And He does not merely see them, but (4) He feels them too, and they grieve Him, as it were, Hos. 11:8, Jer. 31:20, Isa. 63:9, Ps. 103:13, Isa. 49:10 [sic], Acts 9:4.

Wherefore (5) however many, however great, and however grievous the afflictions that press upon them, these come from nowhere else than from His certain fatherly care, John 19 [sic], 2 Sam. 16:10, Luke 22:22 and 24:26 — in which one must indeed calmly and sweetly acquiesce, Acts 21:14, 1 Sam. 3:18, Ps. 39:10, 1 Pet. 3:17. In particular (6), since He is an almighty Father, He can (1) remove those plagues without effort, and is accustomed to remove them from His own, once they have reached their measure and height, Exod. 2:23-25, 3:7-8, Esther 6:1ff., Ps. 39:14 and 138:7-8, Isa. 26:13-14; or (2) at least moderate and limit them, 1 Cor. 10:13, Job 1:12 and 2:6 — for all things, even the devils, are under His mighty providence, as His instruments, 1 Kings 22:21, Matt. 8:31-32; they are His host, Isa. 40:26 and 10:5, and can do and are able to do nothing without God, Acts 17:28. Or if He does not choose to do this, He can (3) turn everything, even the very worst, to their good, Rom. 8:28 — God's good hand shall always rest upon them for good, Ezra 8:22. A clear proof and example of this is found in Joseph and in others, Gen. 50:20, Luke 24:26, 2 Cor. 1:7-18 [sic], Acts 14:22, 2 Tim. 4:17-18.

§XLIV. Ninthly, in the Public Miseries, Afflictions, and Persecutions of the Church, Divine Providence Likewise Affords Its People the Most Powerful Comfort

(1) Because nothing can befall it, by force of that providence, at the hands of its enemies, except what has been predetermined beforehand by God, Acts 4:27-28, and it will also be directed toward its own propagation and increase — as is evident in the Egyptian persecution, Exod. 1:12; in that of Herod, Acts 4:27-28; and in that under the Caesars in the time of the early Christian church. (2) Because divine providence is almighty, whereby God holds and sustains the stars, as it were, in and with His own hand, Rev. 1:20 and 2:1, Isa. 51:12-16 and 41:8, 10, 14, Rom. 8:31 — whereby He is the Prince of the hosts of God, Josh. 5:15, compare Isa. 8:12. Therefore He is able (1) to restrain the rage and fury of the nations, 1 Chron. 29:12, Isa. 59:19; (2) to grind and trample their power, however great it may be, to powder, Ps. 2:9 — examples of this are seen in Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Ahithophel, Haman, Julian, and countless others; (3) to advance the welfare of the church, even though all manner of nations gape their mouths against her and rage in their broadest persecutions, Exod. 1:11-12, Ps. 2:1-4, 6; (4) to strengthen and fortify His church, so that she may endure, withstand, and overcome all manner of the worst evils, John 15:5 [sic], Rom. 8:37, Phil. 4:13.

(3) Because God is so merciful, and is affected with so tender a care and forethought toward His church, that it is compared and equated with the affection and providence of a father toward his little son, Jer. 31:9, and of a mother, Isa. 49:15, and of a shepherd, Ps. 80:1, Jer. 31:10, and of a friend, Song 5:6 — hence He is exceedingly and tenderly moved by her afflictions, Exod. 2:22-23, 25, and full of compassion, Jer. 31:20, Isa. 63:9, Deut. 32:10. (4) Because He is also so wise and far-seeing that He sees and knows through and through (1) what is useful for the church and what harmful to her, Matt. 6:32; (2) in what manner and by what means; and (3) at what time she must be helped. (5) Because He is so faithful in this His care, 1 Thess. 5:24, Josh. 23:14, Ps. 100:5. Finally (6) He is also constant and unwavering in His care and providence, Ps. 121:3-4, 8, Isa. 51:8 and 14-16.

Only, the church herself, groaning under persecution, must: (a) turn from all those things which are wont to stop up, as it were, the ever-watchful care of divine providence, and, on the contrary, to kindle and stir up its wrath, Ps. 81:14-16, Josh. 7:11-13, Isa. 1:16-18 — such things being, in particular, distrust, idolatry, rebellion, and murmuring, Ps. 95:8-11, Num. 14:23, as may be seen in Israel. (b) That she cast herself down before divine providence in prayers and supplications, Isa. 64:6-12 and 62:6-12 [sic], Dan. 9:3. (c) That she place her trust solely in divine providence, 1 Pet. 5:7, Ps. 55:23 and 27:5 [sic], 1 Pet. 4:19. (d) That she cling steadfastly to God and walk in His ways, 2 Chron. 15:2, Ps. 81:14-17. (e) That she bear all manner of lots, even the very hardest, from divine providence, humbly and patiently, Mic. 7:9, Ps. 39:10. And (f) that through all this she calmly await that hour of deliverance which divine providence has appointed for her, John 2:4 [sic], Ps. 27:13-14.

Chapter XI: On God's Particular Providence

Deuteronomy 30:16-18. "For I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, and His statutes, and His judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply, and that the LORD thy God may bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away... I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish," etc.

§I

Upon the general providence, by and with which God is occupied with a natural working concerning creatures of every kind, follows particular providence, which occupies itself specifically with rational creatures through a moral governance and rule, whereby they determine themselves to act or not to act — a providence which is carried out through the prescribing of duty and the urging of it, as Moses teaches, Deut. 30:16-18, etc.

The Explanatory Part

§II

Here he describes God's particular providence, or moral governance, in commanding and forbidding, together with the urgings and confirmations of these, through promises and threats. In the explanation of the text, the following present themselves to us:

I. The Governor or Ruler: "I" — namely Moses, who is indeed the supreme governor and lawgiver, yet not in his own name, but in the name of God, as His servant, faithful in all His house, Heb. 3:4-5 — so that the chief and supreme legislative power belongs to God, the only Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy, Jas. 4:12. From this we further note that God governs and rules men by His moral providence, not always immediately — though we read that He has not seldom done so, Gen. 2:16-17, Exod. 20:1... — but often also through rational creatures, angels and men, of which examples occur throughout Scripture.

II. Those Who Were to Be Governed and Ruled: "you" — namely, the Jewish people, who may be considered and regarded as men, and so he governed them by the moral Law, contained in the Law of the Ten Words; as a church, by the ceremonial laws; and as citizens of that commonwealth, by the civil laws. For to men, under these three relations, there belongs, by virtue of their rational soul, the capacity to grasp and understand their duty, and to obey the duty commanded, or to set themselves against it.

III. The Governance or Rule Itself, which comprises two parts:

1. The prescription of the good which Israel was to practice, v. 16. This includes:

A. The act of governing or ruling: "I command." The word (mitsvah) properly means to prescribe a duty for observance, with a binding and obligating authority; likewise also to persuade and direct. Joined with the word "al" ("not"), it includes a negation, and means to hinder and forbid, according to the remark of Mercerus on Amos 2:12, and likewise of R. David Kimchi. Sometimes it also means to permit, 1 Chron. 5:6, just as the Greek anatello ["to command/enjoin"] is used, Matt. 19:7. Here it signifies the prescribing of a duty. "I command" — that is, I make known to you, I point out to you the duty you are to observe, and I bind and oblige you to observe it, under threat of punishment should you fail to do so.

B. The duties prescribed by the command or the governance. These are:

*. Moral duties, which are continually and always binding, namely:

a. The love of God: "to love the LORD thy God." Here are marked:

1. The act of loving — "to love," "that thou mayest love." The Hebrew word ahabh the LXX translators render variously: sometimes by agapao, "I love," "I cherish"; sometimes by another word, phileo, which means the same, Prov. 17:20; sometimes by chairo, "I rejoice"; and sometimes by zeteo, "I seek." Philologists note that our Hebrew word ahab denotes a burning and vehement, a tender and affection-laden impulse and inclination, full of feeling and heartfelt warmth. For the love of God is not only the fountain and source of all duties toward God, so that there is no duty that does not spring from and out of love, but also a summary of all duties — whence the Savior's word: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God... This is the first and great commandment," Matt. 22:37-38.

2. The object of love — "Jehovah thy God." Jehovah, one in essence; Elohim, God, that is, in Persons; and "thy" God, by virtue of the covenant.

b. Communion and converse with God. "To walk in His ways" — to walk, to go. Going or walking is, by various steps, to move oneself from one place to another and to proceed. "In His ways" — God's ways are, or are those in which He Himself walks, the ways of providence, Ps. 138:5, which are either ways of grace and mercy, Ps. 25:10, or ways of righteousness and judgment, Ps. 145:17, Ezek. 18:25, 29. In these ways we too walk with God, when we order our own steps, as it were, according to His — which happens: when He, walking with us in the ways of grace and beneficence, we then walk in the ways of thankfulness and love; and He walking in the ways of His judgments, we then walk in the ways of repentance and humbling. Or, the ways of God are those in which He wills that we should walk, Ps. 143:8, namely in His commandments, Ps. 25:4 and 27:11, Isa. 42:16, and so throughout. So that to walk in the ways of the LORD is to go along with God, in one and the same path, whether of His providence or of His commands.

c. The keeping of the divine commandments. "And to keep His commandments." This is a more narrowly defined duty than the preceding one, the walking in the ways of God, which, besides the keeping of the divine commandments, also includes other duties — for which reason this present duty is joined, by way of explanation, to the preceding one by the prefixed conjunction "and." The word shamar, translated "to keep," means to preserve a thing with care, concern, diligence, industry, and attentiveness, so that it may not slip away or be taken. The word mitsvah, "commandment," commonly means, in a broader sense, any command or precept whatsoever; here it seems to signify more specifically the moral commandments, since it is joined together with the statutes, or ceremonial laws, and with the judgments, or civil laws. So that to keep God's commandments is to be most exactly watchful over the divine commandments, and to be obedient to them by observing them, Exod. 19:5, Luke 11:28.

2. Ceremonial duties: "and His statutes." The word hhukka means the ceremonial Law, for which reason it is commonly used of the church's rites — of the Passover, Exod. 12:42-43; of the preparation of the lamps, Exod. 27:21; of the duties and garments of the priests, Exod. 30; of their washings, Exod. 30:21; of the offerings, Lev. 3:17 and 6:18, 22, etc. — so that in matters of worship too they should depend on Him alone.

3. Civil duties: "and His judgments," from shaphat, that is, "He has judged," whence mishpat, which means either the pleadings and disputes of contending parties, Job 18:13, or the sentence of the judge, and the execution of that sentence — so that it may be signified that the Israelite commonwealth too is a divine government, wholly and entirely dependent on the divine laws, God being, as it were, its supreme Monarch and Lawgiver.

C. The reward of the duty performed: "that thou mayest live, and multiply, and that the LORD thy God may bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it." And thus God makes known that He does not wish to be served for nothing, Mal. 1:10 and 3:14, Job 21:15. By this reward God promises three things:

a. Life: "and that thou mayest live." The word hhaja means to live, and likewise to be healthy, preserved, unharmed, and prosperous. Life is the most general of all goods, so that without it all other goods are nothing — even by the judgment of Satan himself, Job 2:4. He promises a life complete and of every kind: natural, spiritual, and eternal.

b. A multiplication: "and thou shalt be multiplied," likewise "thou shalt be great," Gen. 9:7 — "thou shalt increase and grow in number and in strength." He promises, therefore, a reward that would not remain confined to the obedient themselves, but would also pass on to their posterity. In this multiplication lay an excellent benefit, looking forward to the appointment and coming of the Messiah, Gen. 1:28 and 9:7, Jer. 33:22, Zech. 10:8.

c. A blessing: "and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest, to possess it." Here are marked:

1. The blessing: "and He shall bless thee." The word barak, "to bless," here means to do well, Gen. 24:35 — to impart and bestow power upon all things fit for their use, Exod. 23:25, Ps. 132:15, Ezek. 34:26, Mal. 3:10, compare Matt. 4:4.

2. The one who blesses: "the LORD thy God." The LORD, Jehovah, the Almighty, who can effectually bless; the Elohim, the three Persons of the Godhead, Num. 6:24-26, of whom each, being Almighty, shall contribute His own part in the blessing — He who blesses with all spiritual blessings, in Christ Jesus, Eph. 1:3. "Thy God," who wills to do thee good by virtue of the covenant, by which He is thy God.

3. The one blessed: "thee" — that is, Israel — namely, if thou shalt love Him, walk in His ways, keep His commandments, and likewise observe His statutes and judgments; for upon this condition the whole promise of blessing is fastened.

4. The place of the blessing: "in the land whither thou goest, to possess it." He means the land of Canaan, which was itself also a blessing, as one that flowed with milk and honey, Exod. 3:8 and 13:5, Ezek. 20:6, and elsewhere generally, and which also furnished a receiving-place for all blessing, Deut. 5:16 — to such an extent that, apart from and outside of Canaan, there was scarcely any blessing at all for Israel.

2. A prohibition of the evil which was to be avoided, v. 17. Here we find:

a. The forbidden sins, which are four in number:

a. Turning away from God, or hatred toward Him: "if thine heart shall turn away." This is set over against the love commanded above: for just as love is a turning, inclining, or leaning of the heart toward a thing, so hatred is a turning and drawing away of the heart from a thing. And in every sin is noted a turning and drawing away from God and from the good, and a turning and inclining of the heart toward evil.

b. Disobedience: "and wilt not hear." "To hear" means not only to hear with the ears, but also to understand with the heart, and to obey in deed — just as the Greek akouo, "to hear." Except that hearing with the ears comes first, understanding with the heart follows, and the practicing of what is heard and understood is the conclusion of it. Compare Rom. 10:14, Isa. 55:2.

c. Stubbornness and obstinacy: "and shalt have cast away" — namely, my words and commands — with loathing, or with obstinacy, Job 21:14-15, after the example of Pharaoh, Exod. 5:2.

d. Idolatry: "and worship other gods, and serve them" — that is, show religious honor to other gods. Here are marked:

1. The forbidden religious honor, which is expressed by two words: bowing oneself down, which elsewhere not seldom means only a civil honor, but here undoubtedly a religious one; and then also serving, namely with all manner of religious duties, Matt. 4:10, Deut. 6:13 and 10:20, Exod. 20:5.

2. Those who were not to be served, namely other gods, distinct and different from me alone, "who brought thee out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," Exod. 20:2-3.

b. The punishment of these sins, v. 18: "ye shall surely perish, ye shall not prolong your days," etc. This signifies every kind of ruin and destruction — temporal, spiritual, and eternal — and all those evils which are set forth in a long and extensive register, Deut. 28:15 to the end, and likewise Lev. 26:14, etc. Thus we have in this single text, if not all things, at least most of the things that belong to moral providence.

The Doctrinal Part

§III

From what has been said, it appears that God governs and rules the rational creatures in a particular way, far beyond how He governs any other creatures: for we do not read that God, by commanding or forbidding, by promising or threatening, governs and rules any creature besides these. This manner of governing and ruling occurs throughout Holy Scripture, Deut. 26:16-18 and 10:12-13, Mic. 6:8, Jer. 32:19 — indeed the whole of Holy Scripture is occupied with it. And this manner of governance is required, on the one hand, by the particular nature of the rational creature, created after the image of the Creator, endowed with understanding and will, whereby it is the principle of its own actions, proceeding from and with deliberation and forethought, and determines itself, with respect to the acts elicited, independently of any other creature — which therefore, in accordance with its own nature, had to be governed and ruled in this manner. On the other hand, it is required by the nature of the Creator, who, being a Being simple and absolutely first and alone independent, both requires and nourishes a creature that is dependent on Him in all things — not only with respect to its natural being, but also with respect to its moral being. But in order that it might thus depend, a duty had to be prescribed to it, by commanding and forbidding, by promising and threatening; and in the third place, the very nature of the service which the creature owes to its Creator required this, demanding that the creature should know and acknowledge its duty, and freely render it of itself — and therefore that this duty be made known to it by commanding and forbidding, and be urged upon it by promising and threatening.

§IV

This particular manner of governing and ruling is customarily called by theologians a moral providence — not so much because it is chiefly occupied with forming and directing morals, as because it operates in a moral manner, whereas God governs all other creatures by a natural working. Not that He governs the rational creatures with this working alone (for here too He employs a natural working), but because He is occupied with the rational creatures principally in this manner of governing. For although, in a broader sense, a certain moral governance may also be allowed with respect to irrational creatures, insofar as this signifies an objective and figuratively-transferred (tropical) motion, brought about through outwardly proposed signs and through natural good or evil things, whereby irrational creatures are enticed, frightened off, guided, and driven away — as when the angel governed Balaam's donkey with a drawn sword, Num. 22:23, 25, 27 — nevertheless, in the narrower and proper sense, this providence is occupied only with rational creatures, and in such a way that they, and their actions, depend on it in genere morum, that is, in the matter of reason, as one says — that is, with respect to a moral goodness or wickedness. You have examples of this in Gen. 3:6, 2 Sam. 11:2, etc., Acts 9:3-4.

This differs from natural governance chiefly in this: that the natural touches the effect immediately, with its own power and working, and produces it by that touching; whereas the moral works that toward which another cause freely brings about the effect. Thus a preacher, commending virtue, does not touch it immediately in the hearts of his hearers, nor does he produce it by touching — but he sets before his hearers such things as they may determine themselves, upon consideration, to put into practice.

§V

The acts of this governance concern (I) the truth, in order to reveal, recount, teach, confirm, and defend it to creatures — such acts occur throughout Holy Scripture. Or (II) the duties which must be observed by the rational creatures: whether (1) by doing good and prescribed things — to which the commandments are directed, Mic. 6:8 — and this applies both to such things as are good in and of themselves, on account of their agreement with the natural rectitude of God and with His image in man (such commandments being called natural commandments), and to such things as are good only by virtue of the Creator's will and precept, the reason for which is indeed always known to God, but very often unknown and hidden to us (such commandments being given the name of positive commandments) — commandments which, in various ways, according to the good pleasure of the Lawgiver, can be abrogated, altered, extended, or curtailed. Or (2) by avoiding evil and forbidden things — to which the prohibitions are directed, which are in turn either such as are evil by and through their own nature, and contrary to God and His image, or evil only by virtue of the prohibition. Examples too carry the force of commands and prohibitions, Matt. 11:29, 1 Cor. 11:1, Phil. 2:5 — certainly not all examples, Zech. 1:4, Rom. 12:2 — but those approved, whether by word or by deed, namely by rewards or by punishments, Jas. 5:10, at least those that agree with the laws; otherwise one ought not to live according to examples.

Or (III) indifferent things, which are neither in themselves, nor by virtue of a divine command, morally good or evil — to which belong permissions and toleration; and these are moral, since natural indifferent things belong to general providence. These things, being left in idea, or in their disposition, to our freedom, are supposed (1) to be good: if (a) done in faith, Rom. 14:23, Heb. 11:6; (b) if without offense or stumbling to one's neighbor, Rom. 14:13; (c) if to the glory of God, 1 Cor. 10:31, Col. 3:17. Just as, on the other hand, (2) they are made evil if any of these elements is lacking. Hence in the singular instance no human act is indifferent, since we shall have to give account of every particular act, 2 Cor. 5:10, down to every idle or empty word, Matt. 12:36, indeed down to the least wish and desire of the heart, Rom. 7:7.

Now God permits — sometimes in express words, Col. 2:16, 20-21, Gen. 2:16-17, Lev. 11:2-4, when He exempts this or that thing from what is forbidden; sometimes merely by nowhere forbidding it, compare Rom. 14:14, Acts 10:15; sometimes even in expressions of commanding, Deut. 23:20, Gen. 1:28, just as He sometimes, with the very same expressions of commanding, expressly forbids, Num. 22:20, John 13:27 — such things must, both by comparison with the Lawgiver's other statements and by comparison of circumstances, be carefully and cautiously discerned and distinguished. Or (IV) with respect to certain particular things, by exempting and releasing from them. Here one must, above all, carefully and exactly distinguish: