Ústav

              religionistiky

                                                       Jan Kalvín: Institutio religionis christianae

                                                                                                                   FRVŠ 1520/2006

                                          Křesťanství II





PREFATORY ADDRESS TO HIS MOST CHRISTIAN MAJESTY, THE MOST MIGHTY AND

ILLUSTRIOUS MONARCH, FRANCIS, KING OF THE FRENCH,


  HIS SOVEREIGN; [1] JOHN CALVIN PRAYS PEACE AND SALVATION IN CHRIST. [2]


   Sire,—When I first engaged in this work, nothing was farther from my

   thoughts than to write what should afterwards be presented to your Majesty.

   My intention was only to furnish a kind of rudiments, by which those who

   feel some interest in religion might be trained to true godliness. And I

   toiled at the task chiefly for the sake of my countrymen the French,

   multitudes of whom I perceived to be hungering and thirsting after Christ,

   while very few seemed to have been duly imbued with even a slender knowledge

   of him. That this was the object which I had in view is apparent from the

   work itself, which is written in a simple and elementary form adapted for

   instruction.


   But when I perceived that the fury of certain bad men had risen to such a

   height in your realm, that there was no place in it for sound doctrine, I

   thought it might be of service if I were in the same work both to give

   instruction to my countrymen, and also lay before your Majesty a Confession,

   from which you may learn what the doctrine is that so inflames the rage of

   those madmen who are this day, with fire and sword, troubling your kingdom.

   For I fear not to declare, that what I have here given may be regarded as a

   summary of the very doctrine which, they vociferate, ought to be punished

   with confiscation, exile, imprisonment, and flames, as well as exterminated

   by land and sea.


   I am aware, indeed, how, in order to render our cause as hateful to your

   Majesty as possible, they have filled your ears and mind with atrocious

   insinuations; but you will be pleased, of your clemency, to reflect, that

   neither in word nor deed could there be any innocence, were it sufficient

   merely to accuse. When any one, with the view of exciting prejudice,

   observes that this doctrine, of which I am endeavouring to give your Majesty

   an account, has been condemned by the suffrages of all the estates, and was

   long ago stabbed again and again by partial sentences of courts of law, he

   undoubtedly says nothing more than that it has sometimes been violently

   oppressed by the power and faction of adversaries, and sometimes

   fraudulently and insidiously overwhelmed by lies, cavils, and calumny. While

   a cause is unheard, it is violence to pass sanguinary sentences against it;

   it is fraud to charge it, contrary to its deserts, with sedition and

   mischief.


   That no one may suppose we are unjust in thus complaining, you yourself,

   most illustrious Sovereign, can bear us witness with what lying calumnies it

   is daily traduced in your presence, as aiming at nothing else than to wrest

   the sceptres of kings out of their hands, to overturn all tribunals and

   seats of justice, to subvert all order and government, to disturb the peace

   and quiet of society, to abolish all laws, destroy the distinctions of rank

   and property, and, in short, turn all things upside down. And yet, that

   which yon hear is but the smallest portion of what is said; for among the

   common people are disseminated certain horrible insinuations—insinuations

   which, if well founded, would justify the whole world in condemning the

   doctrine with its authors to a thousand fires and gibbets. Who can wonder

   that the popular hatred is inflamed against it, when credit is given to

   those most iniquitous accusations? See, why all ranks unite with one accord

   in condemning our persons and our doctrine!


   Carried away by this feeling, those who sit in judgment merely give

   utterance to the prejudices which they have imbibed at home, and think they

   have duly performed their part if they do not order punishment to be

   inflicted on any one until convicted, either on his own confession, or on

   legal evidence. But of what crime convicted? “Of that condemned doctrine,”

   is the answer. But with what justice condemned? The very essence of the

   defence was, not to abjure the doctrine itself, but to maintain its truth.

   On this subject, however, not a whisper is allowed!


   Justice, then, most invincible Sovereign, entitles me to demand that you

   will undertake a thorough investigation of this cause, which has hitherto

   been tossed about in any kind of way, and handled in the most irregular

   manner, without any order of law, and with passionate heat rather than

   judicial gravity.


   Let it not be imagined that I am here framing my own private defence, with

   the view of obtaining a safe return to my native land. Though I cherish

   towards it the feelings which become me as a man, still, as matters now are,

   I can be absent from it without regret. The cause which I plead is the

   common cause of all the godly, and therefore the very cause of Christ—a

   cause which, throughout your realm, now lies, as it were, in despair, torn

   and trampled upon in all kinds of ways, and that more through the tyranny of

   certain Pharisees than any sanction from yourself. But it matters not to

   inquire how the thing is done; the fact that it is done cannot be denied.

   For so far have the wicked prevailed, that the truth of Christ, if not

   utterly routed and dispersed, lurks as if it were ignobly buried; while the

   poor Church, either wasted by cruel slaughter or driven into exile, or

   intimidated and terror—struck, scarcely ventures to breathe. Still her

   enemies press on with their wonted rage and fury over the ruins which they

   have made, strenuously assaulting the wall, which is already giving way.

   Meanwhile, no man comes forth to offer his protection against such furies.

   Any who would be thought most favourable to the truth, merely talk of

   pardoning the error and imprudence of ignorant men For so those modest

   personages [3] speak; giving the name of error and imprudence to that which

   they know to be [4] the infallible truth of God, and of ignorant men to

   those whose intellect they see that Christ has not despised, seeing he has

   deigned to intrust them with the mysteries of his heavenly wisdom. [5] Thus

   all are ashamed of the Gospel.


   Your duty, most serene Prince, is, not to shut either your ears or mind

   against a cause involving such mighty interests as these: how the glory of

   God is to be maintained on the earth inviolate, how the truth of God is to

   preserve its dignity, how the kingdom of Christ is to continue amongst us

   compact and secure. The cause is worthy of your ear, worthy of your

   investigation, worthy of your throne.


   The characteristic of a true sovereign is, to acknowledge that, in the

   administration of his kingdom, he is a minister of God. He who does not make

   his reign subservient to the divine glory, acts the part not of a king, but

   a robber. He, moreover, deceives himself who anticipates long prosperity to

   any kingdom which is not ruled by the sceptre of God, that is, by his divine

   word. For the heavenly oracle is infallible which has declared, that “where

   there is no vision the people perish” (Prov. 29:18).


   Let not a contemptuous idea of our insignificance dissuade you from the

   investigation of this cause. We, indeed, are perfectly conscious how poor

   and abject we are: in the presence of God we are miserable sinners, and in

   the sight of men most despised—we are (if you will) the mere dregs and

   off—scoutings of the world, or worse, if worse can be named: so that before

   God there remains nothing of which we can glory save only his mercy, by

   which, without any merit of our own, we are admitted to the hope of eternal

   salvation: [6] and before men not even this much remains, [7] since we can

   glory only in our infirmity, a thing which, in the estimation of men, it is

   the greatest ignominy even tacitly [8] to confess. But our doctrine must

   stand sublime above all the glory of the world, and invincible by all its

   power, because it is not ours, but that of the living God and his Anointed,

   whom the Father has appointed King, that he may rule from sea to sea, and

   from the rivers even to the ends of the earth; and so rule as to smite the

   whole earth and its strength of iron and brass, its splendour of gold and

   silver, with the mere rod of his mouth, and break them in pieces like a

   potter’s vessel; according to the magnificent predictions of the prophets

   respecting his kingdom (Dan. 2:34; Isaiah 11:4; Psalm 2:9).


   Our adversaries, indeed, clamorously maintain that our appeal to the word of

   God is a mere pretext,—that we are, in fact, its worst corrupters. How far

   this is not only malicious calumny, but also shameless effrontery, you will

   be able to decide, of your own knowledge, by reading our Confession. Here,

   however, it may be necessary to make some observations which may dispose, or

   at least assist, you to read and study it with attention.


   When Paul declared that all prophecy ought to be according to the analogy of

   faith (Rom. 12:6), he laid down the surest rule for determining the meaning

   of Scripture. Let our doctrine be tested by this rule and our victory is

   secure. For what accords better and more aptly with faith than to

   acknowledge ourselves divested of all virtue that we may be clothed by God,

   devoid of all goodness that we may be filled by Him, the slaves of sin that

   he may give us freedom, blind that he may enlighten, lame that he may cure,

   and feeble that he may sustain us; to strip ourselves of all ground of

   glorying that he alone may shine forth glorious, and we be glorified in him?

   When these things, and others to the same effect, are said by us, they

   interpose, and querulously complain, that in this way we overturn some blind

   light of nature, fancied preparatives, free will, and works meritorious of

   eternal salvation, with their own supererogations also; [9] because they

   cannot bear that the entire praise and glory of all goodness, virtue,

   justice, and wisdom, should remain with God. But we read not of any having

   been blamed for drinking too much of the fountain of living water; on the

   contrary, those are severely reprimanded who “have hewed them out cisterns,

   broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer. 2:13). Again, what more

   agreeable to faith than to feel assured that God is a propitious Father when

   Christ is acknowledged as a brother and propitiator, than confidently to

   expect all prosperity and gladness from Him, whose ineffable love towards us

   was such that He “spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all”

   (Rom. 8:32), than to rest in the sure hope of salvation and eternal life

   whenever Christ, in whom such treasures are hid, is conceived to have been

   given by the Father? Here they attack us, and loudly maintain that this sure

   confidence is not free from arrogance and presumption. But as nothing is to

   be presumed of ourselves, so all things are to be presumed of God; nor are

   we stript of vain—glory for any other reason than that we may learn to glory

   in the Lord. Why go farther? Take but a cursory view, most valiant King, of

   all the parts of our cause, and count us of all wicked men the most

   iniquitous, if you do not discover plainly, that “therefore we both labour

   and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God” (1 Tim. 4:10);

   because we believe it to be “life eternal” to know “the only true God, and

   Jesus Christ,” whom he has sent (John 17:3). For this hope some of us are in

   bonds, some beaten with rods, some made a gazing—stock, some proscribed,

   some most cruelly tortured, some obliged to flee; we are all pressed with

   straits, loaded with dire execrations, lacerated by slanders, and treated

   with the greatest indignity.


   Look now to our adversaries (I mean the priesthood, at whose beck and

   pleasure others ply their enmity against us), and consider with me for a

   little by what zeal they are actuated. The true religion which is delivered

   in the Scriptures, and which all ought to hold, they readily permit both

   themselves and others to be ignorant of, to neglect and despise; and they

   deem it of little moment what each man believes concerning God and Christ,

   or disbelieves, provided he submits to the judgment of the Church with what

   they call1 [10] implicit faith; nor are they greatly concerned though they

   should see the glow of God dishonoured by open blasphemies, provided not a

   finger is raised against the primacy of the Apostolic See and the authority

   of holy mother Church.1 [11] Why, then, do they war for the mass, purgatory,

   pilgrimage, and similar follies, with such fierceness and acerbity, that

   though they cannot prove one of them from the word of God, they deny

   godliness can be safe without faith in these things—faith drawn out, if I

   may so express it, to its utmost stretch? Why? just because their belly is

   their God, and their kitchen their religion; and they believe, that if these

   were away they would not only not be Christians, but not even men. For

   although some wallow in luxury, and others feed on slender crusts, still

   they all live by the same pot, which without that fuel might not only cool,

   but altogether freeze. He, accordingly, who is most anxious about his

   stomach, proves the fiercest champion of his faith. In short, the object on

   which all to a man are bent, is to keep their kingdom safe or their belly

   filled; not one gives even the smallest sign of sincere zeal.


   Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and

   defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or

   suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as

   doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracles it has been

   confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent of so

   many holy Fathers and the most ancient custom; they urge us to confess

   either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the Church, or that the

   Church must have been without life during the many centuries in which

   nothing of the kind was heard. Lastly, they say there is little need of

   argument, for its quality may be known by its fruits, namely, the large

   number of sects, the many seditious disturbances, and the great

   licentiousness which it has produced. No doubt, it is a very easy matter for

   them, in presence of an ignorant and credulous multitude, to insult over an

   undefended cause; but were an opportunity of mutual discussion afforded,

   that acrimony which they now pour out upon us in frothy torrents, with as

   much license as impunity,1 [12] would assuredly boil dry.


   1. First, in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose

   sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty. To them, indeed, I very

   little doubt it is new, as Christ is new, and the Gospel new; but those who

   are acquainted with the old saying of Paul, that Christ Jesus “died for our

   sins, and rose again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25), will not detect any

   novelty in us. That it long lay buried and unknown is the guilty consequence

   of man’s impiety; but now when, by the kindness of God, it is restored to

   us, it ought to resume its antiquity just as the returning citizen resumes

   his rights.


   2. It is owing to the same ignorance that they hold it to be doubtful and

   uncertain; for this is the very thing of which the Lord complains by his

   prophet, “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but

   Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider” (Isaiah 1:3). But however

   they may sport with its uncertainty, had they to seal their own doctrine

   with their blood, and at the expense of life, it would be seen what value

   they put upon it. Very different is our confidence—a confidence which is not

   appalled by the terrors of death, and therefore not even by the

   judgment—seat of God.


   3. In demanding miracles from us, they act dishonestly; for we have not

   coined some new gospel, but retain the very one the truth of which is

   confirmed by all the miracles which Christ and the apostles ever wrought.

   But they have a peculiarity which we have not—they can confirm their faith

   by constant miracles down to the present day! Way rather, they allege

   miracles which might produce wavering in minds otherwise well disposed; they

   are so frivolous and ridiculous, so vain and false. But were they even

   exceedingly wonderful, they could have no effect against the truth of God,

   whose name ought to be hallowed always, and everywhere, whether by miracles,

   or by the natural course of events. The deception would perhaps be more

   specious if Scripture did not admonish us of the legitimate end and use of

   miracles. Mark tells us (Mark 16:20) that the signs which followed the

   preaching of the apostles were wrought in confirmation of it; so Luke also

   relates that the Lord “gave testimony to the word of his grace, and granted

   signs and wonders to be done” by the hands of the apostles (Acts 14:3). Very

   much to the same effect are those words of the apostle, that salvation by a

   preached gospel was confirmed, “The Lord bearing witness with signs and

   wonders, and with divers miracles” (Heb. 2:4). Those things which we are

   told are seals of the gospel, shall we pervert to the subversion of the

   gospel? What was destined only to confirm the truth, shall we misapply to

   the confirmation of lies? The proper course, therefore, is, in the first

   instance, to ascertain and examine the doctrine which is said by the

   Evangelist to precede; then after it has been proved, but not till then, it

   may receive confirmation from miracles. But the mark of sound doctrine given

   by our Saviour himself is its tendency to promote the glory not of men, but

   of God (John 7:18; 8:50). Our Saviour having declared this to be test of

   doctrine, we are in error if we regard as miraculous, works which are used

   for any other purpose than to magnify the name of God.1 [13] And it becomes

   us to remember that Satan has his miracles, which, although they are tricks

   rather than true wonders, are still such as to delude the ignorant and

   unwary. Magicians and enchanters have always been famous for miracles, and

   miracles of an astonishing description have given support to idolatry:

   these, however, do not make us converts to the superstitions either of

   magicians or idolaters. In old times, too, the Donatists used their power of

   working miracles as a battering-ram, with which they shook the simplicity of

   the common people. We now give to our opponents the answer which Augustine

   then gave to the Donatists (in Joan. Tract. 23), “The Lord put us on our

   guard against those wonder—workers, when he foretold that false prophets

   would arise, who, by lying signs and divers wonders, would, if it were

   possible, deceive the very elect” (Mt. 24:24). Paul, too, gave warning that

   the reign of antichrist would be “withall power, and signs, and lying

   wonders” (2 Thess. 2:9).


   But our opponents tell us that their miracles are wrought not by idols, not

   by sorcerers, not by false prophets, but by saints: as if we did not know it

   to be one of Satan’s wiles to transform himself “into an angel of light” (2

   Cor. 11:14). The Egyptians, in whose neighbourhood Jeremiah was buried,

   anciently sacrificed and paid other divine honours to him (Hieron. in Praef.

   Jerem). Did they not make an idolatrous abuse of the holy prophet of God?

   and yet, in recompense for so venerating his tomb, they thought1 [14] that

   they were cured of the bite of serpents. What, then, shall we say but that

   it has been, and always will be, a most just punishment of God, to send on

   those who do not receive the truth in the love of it, “strong delusion, that

   they should believe a lie”? (2 Thess. 2:11). We, then, have no lack of

   miracles, sure miracles, that cannot be gainsaid; but those to which our

   opponents lay claim are mere delusions of Satan, inasmuch as they draw off

   the people from the true worship of God to vanity.


   4. It is a calumny to represent us as opposed to the Fathers (I mean the

   ancient writers of a purer age), as if the Fathers were supporters of their

   impiety. Were the contest to be decided by such authority (to speak in the

   most moderate terms), the better part of the victory would be ours.1 [15]

   While there is much that is admirable and wise in the writings of those

   Fathers, and while in some things it has fared with them as with ordinary

   men; these pious sons, forsooth, with the peculiar acuteness of intellect,

   and judgment, and soul, which belongs to them, adore only their slips and

   errors, while those things which are well said they either overlook, or

   disguise, or corrupt; so that it may be truly said their only care has been

   to gather dross among gold. Then, with dishonest clamour, they assail us as

   enemies and despisers of the Fathers. So far are we from despising them,

   that if this were the proper place, it would give us no trouble to support

   the greater part of the doctrines which we now hold by their suffrages.

   Still, in studying their writings, we have endeavoured to remember (1 Cor.

   3:21-23; see also Augustin. Ep. 28), that all things are ours, to serve, not

   lord it over us, but that we axe Christ’s only, and must obey him in all

   things without exception. He who does not draw this distinction will not

   have any fixed principles in religion; for those holy men were ignorant of

   many things, are often opposed to each other, and are sometimes at variance

   with themselves.


   It is not without cause (remark our opponents) we are thus warned by

   Solomon, “Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set”

   (Prov. 22:28). But the same rule applies not to the measuring of fields and

   the obedience of faith. The rule applicable to the latter is, “Forget also

   thine own people, and thy father’s house” (Ps. 45:10). But if they are so

   fond of allegory, why do they not understand the apostles, rather than any

   other class of Fathers, to be meant by those whose landmarks it is unlawful

   to remove? This is the interpretation of Jerome, whose words they have

   quoted in their canons. But as regards those to whom they apply the passage,

   if they wish the landmarks to be fixed, why do they, whenever it suits their

   purpose, so freely overleap them?


   Among the Fathers there were two, the one of whom said,1 [16] “Our God

   neither eats nor drinks, and therefore has no need of chalices and

   salvers;” and the other,1 [17] “Sacred rites do not require gold, and things

   which are not bought with gold, please not by gold.” They step beyond the

   boundary, therefore, when in sacred matters they are so much delighted with

   gold, driver, ivory, marble, gems, and silks, that unless everything is

   overlaid with costly show, or rather insane luxury1 [18] , they think God is

   not duly worshipped.


   It was a Father who said,1 [19] “He ate flesh freely on the day on which

   others abstained from it, because he was a Christian.” They overleap the

   boundaries, therefore, when they doom to perdition every soul that, during

   Lent, shall have tasted flesh.


   There were two Fathers, the one of whom said,2 [20] “A monk not labouring

   with his own hands is no better than a violent man and a robber;” and the

   other,2 [21] “Monks, however assiduous they may be in study, meditation, and

   prayer, must not live by others.” This boundary, too, they transgressed,

   when they placed lazy gormandising monks in dens and stews, to gorge

   themselves on other men’s substance.


   It was a Father who said,2 [22] “It is a horrid abomination to see in

   Christian temples a painted image either of Christ or of any saint.” Nor was

   this pronounced by the voice era single individual; but an Ecclesiastical

   Council also decreed,2 [23] “Let nought that is worshipped be depicted on

   walls.”2 [24] Very far are they from keeping within these boundaries when

   they leave not a corner without images.


   Another Father counselled,2 [25] “That after performing the office of

   humanity to the dead in their burial, we should leave them at rest.” These

   limits they burst through when they keep up a perpetual anxiety about the

   dead.


   It is a Father who testifies,2 [26] “That the substance of bread and wine in

   the Eucharist does not cease but remains, just as the nature and substance

   of man remains united to the Godhead in the Lord Jesus Christ.” This

   boundary they pass in pretending that, as soon as the words of our Lord are

   pronounced, the substance of bread and wine ceases, and is transubstantiated

   into body and blood.


   They were Fathers, who, as they exhibited only one Eucharist to the whole

   Church,2 [27] and kept back from it the profane and flagitious; so they, in

   the severest terms, censured all those2 [28] who, being present, did not

   communicate How far have they removed these landmarks, in filling not

   churches only, but also private houses, with their masses, admitting all and

   sundry to be present, each the more willingly the more largely he pays,

   however wicked and impure he may be,—not inviting any one to faith in Christ

   and faithful communion in the sacraments, but rather vending their own work

   for the grace and merits of Christ!2 [29]


   There were two Fathers, the one of whom decided that those were to be

   excluded altogether from partaking of Christ’s sacred supper,3 [30] who,

   contented with communion in one kind, abstained from the other; while the

   other Father strongly contends3 [31] that the blood of the Lord ought not to

   be denied to the Christian people, who, in confessing him, are enjoined to

   shed their own blood. These landmarks, also, they removed, when, by an

   unalterable law, they ordered the very thing which the former Father

   punished with excommunication, and the latter condemned for a valid reason.


   It was a Father who pronounced it rashness,3 [32] in an obscure question, to

   decide in either way without clear and evident authority from Scripture.

   They forgot this landmark when they enacted so many constitutions, so many

   canons, and so many dogmatical decisions, without sanction from the word of

   God.


   It was a Father who reproved Montanus, among other heresies,3 [33] for being

   the first who imposed laws of fasting. They have gone far beyond this

   landmark also in enjoining fasting under the strictest laws.


   It was a Father who denie that the ministers of the Church should be

   interdicted from marrying, and pronounced married life to be a state of

   chastity; and there were other Fathers who assented to his decision. These

   boundaries they overstepped in rigidly binding their priests to celibacy.


   It was a Father who thought3 [34] that Christ only should be listened to,

   from its being said, “hear him;” and that regard is due not to what others

   before us have said or done, but only to what Christ, the head of all, has

   commanded. This landmark they neither observe themselves nor allow to be

   observed by others, while they subject themselves and others to any master

   whatever, rather than Christ.


   There is a Father who contends3 [35] that the Church ought not to prefer

   herself to Christ, who always judges truly, whereas ecclesiastical judges,

   who are but men, are generally deceived. Having burst through this barrier

   also, they hesitate not to suspend the whole authority of Scripture on the

   judgment of the Church.3 [36]


   All the Fathers with one heart execrated, and with one mouth proteste

   against, contaminating the word of God with the subtleties sophists, and

   involving it in the brawls of dialecticians. Do they keep within these

   limits when the sole occupation of their lives is to entwine and entangle

   the simplicity of Scripture with endless disputes, and worse than

   sophistical jargon? So much so, that were the Fathers to rise from their

   graves, and listen to the brawling art which bears the name of speculative

   theology, there is nothing they would suppose it less to be than a

   discussion of a religious nature.


   But my discourse would far exceed its just limits were I to show, in detail,

   how petulantly those men shake off the yoke of the Fathers, while they wish

   to be thought their most obedient sons. Months, nay, years would fail me;

   and yet so deplorable and desperate is their effrontery, that they presume

   to chastise us for overstepping the ancient landmarks!


   5. Then, again, it is to no purpose they call us to the bar of custom. To

   make everything yield to custom would be to do the greatest injustice. Were

   the judgments of mankind correct, custom would be regulated by the good. But

   it is often far otherwise in point of fact; for, whatever the many are seen

   to do, forthwith obtains the force of custom. But human affairs have

   scarcely ever been so happily constituted as that the better course pleased

   the greater number. Hence the private vices of the multitude have generally

   resulted in public error, or rather that common consent in vice which these

   worthy men would have to be law. Any one with eyes may perceive that it is

   not one flood of evils which has deluged us; that many fatal plagues have

   invaded the globe; that all things rush headlong; so that either the affairs

   of men must be altogether despaired of, or we must not only resist, but

   boldly attack prevailing evils. The cure is prevented by no other cause than

   the length of time during which we have been accustomed to the disease. But

   be it so that public error must have a place in human society, still, in the

   kingdom of God, we must look and listen only to his eternal truth, against

   which no series of years, no custom, no conspiracy, can plead prescription.

   Thus Isaiah formerly taught the people of God, “Say ye not, A confederacy,

   to all to whom this people shall say, A confederacy;” i.e. do not unite with

   the people in an impious consent; “neither fear ye their fear, nor be

   afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and

   let him be your dread” (Is. 8:12). Now, therefore, let them, if they will,

   object to us both past ages and present examples; if we sanctify the Lord of

   hosts, we shall not be greatly afraid. Though many ages should have

   consented to like ungodliness, He is strong who taketh vengeance to the

   third and fourth generation; or the whole world should league together in

   the same iniquity. He taught experimentally what the end is of those who sin

   with the multitude, when He destroyed the whole human race with a flood,

   saving Noah with his little family, who, by putting his faith in Him alone,

   “condemned the world” (Heb. 11:7). In short, depraved custom is just a kind

   of general pestilence in which men perish not the less that they fall in a

   crowd. It were well, moreover, to ponder the observation of Cyprian,3 [37]

   that those who sin in ignorance, though they cannot be entirely exculpated,

   seem, however, to be, in some sense, excusable; whereas those who

   obstinately reject the truth, when presented to them by the kindness of God,

   have no defence to offer.4 [38]


   6. Their dilemma does not push us so violently as to oblige us to confess,

   either that the Church was a considerable time without life, or that we have

   now a quarrel with the Church. The Church of Christ assuredly has lived, and

   will live, as long as Christ shall reign at the right hand of the Father. By

   his hand it is sustained, by his protection defended, by his mighty power

   preserved in safety. For what he once undertook he will undoubtedly perform,

   he will be with iris people always, “even to the end of the world” (Mt.

   28:20). With the Church we wage no war, since, with one consent, in common

   with the whole body of the faithful, we worship and adore one God, and

   Christ Jesus the Lord, as all the pious have always adored him. But they

   themselves err not a little from the truth in not recognising any church but

   that which they behold with the bodily eye, and in endeavouring to

   circumscribe it by limits, within which it cannot be confined.


   The hinges on which the controversy turns are these: first, in their

   contending that the form of the Church is always visible and apparent; and,

   secondly, in their placing this form in the see of the Church of Rome and

   its hierarchy. We, on the contrary, maintain, both that the Church may exist

   without any apparent form, and, moreover, that the form is not ascertained

   by that external splendour which they foolishly admire, but by a very

   different mark, namely, by the pure preaching of the word of God, and the

   due administration of the sacraments. They make an outcry whenever the

   Church cannot be pointed to with the finger. But how oft was it the fate of

   the Church among the Jews to be so defaced that no comeliness appeared? What

   do we suppose to have been the splendid form when Elijah complained that he

   was left alone? (1 Kings 19:14). How long after the advent of Christ did it

   lie hid without form? How often since has it been so oppressed by wars,

   seditions, and heresies, that it was nowhere seen in splendour? Had they

   lived at that time, would they have believed there was any Church? But

   Elijah learned that there remained seven thousand men who had not bowed the

   knee to Baal; nor ought we to doubt that Christ has always reigned on earth

   ever since he ascended to heaven. Had the faithful at that time required

   some discernible form, must they not have forthwith given way to

   despondency? And, indeed, Hilary accounted it a very great fault in his day,

   that men were so possessed with a foolish admiration of Episcopal dignity as

   not to perceive the deadly hydra lurking under that mask. His words are

   (Cont. Auxentium), “One advice I give: Beware of Antichrist; for, unhappily,

   a love of walls has seized you; unhappily, the Church of God which you

   venerate exists in houses and buildings; unhappily, under these you find the

   name of peace. Is it doubtful that in these Antichrist will have his seat?

   Safer to me are mountains, and woods, and lakes, and dungeons, and

   whirlpools; since in these prophets, dwelling or immersed, did prophesy.”


   And what is it at the present day that the world venerates in its horned

   bishops, unless that it imagines those who are seen presiding over

   celebrated cities to be holy prelates of religion? Away, then, with this

   absurd mode of judging!4 [39] Let us rather reverently admit, that as God

   alone knows who are his, so he may sometimes withdraw the external

   manifestation of his Church from the view of men. This, I allow, is a

   fearful punishment which God sends on the earth; but if the wickedness of

   men so deserves, why do we strive to oppose the just vengeance of God?4 [40]

   It was thus that God, in past ages, punished the ingratitude of men; for

   after they had refused to obey his truth, and had extinguished his light, he

   allowed them, when blinded by sense, both to be deluded by lying vanities

   and plunged in thick darkness, so that no face of a true Church appeared.

   Meanwhile, however, though his own people were dispersed and concealed

   amidst errors and darkness, he saved them from destruction. No wonder; for

   he knew how to preserve them even in the confusion of Babylon and the flame

   of the fiery furnace.


   But as to the wish that the form of the Church should be ascertained by some

   kind of vain pomp, how perilous it is I will briefly indicate, rather than

   explain, that I may not exceed all bounds. What they say is, that the

   Pontiff,4 [41] who holds the apostolic see, and the priests who are anointed

   and consecrated by him,4 [42] provided they have the insignia of fillets and

   mitres, represent the Church, and ought to be considered as in the place of

   the Church, and therefore cannot err. Why so? because they are pastors of

   the Church, and consecrated to the Lord. And were not Aaron and other

   prefects of Israel pastors? But Aaron and his sons, though already set apart

   to the priesthood, erred notwithstanding when they made the calf (Exod.

   32:4). Why, according to this view, should not the four hundred prophets who

   lied to Ahab represent the Church? (1 Kings 22:11, &c.). The Church,

   however, stood on the side of Micaiah. He was alone, indeed, and despised,

   but from his mouth the truth proceeded. Did not the prophets also exhibit

   both the name and face of the Church, when, with one accord, they rose up

   against Jeremiah, and with menaces boasted of it as a thing impossible that

   the law should perish from the priest, or counsel from the wise, or the word

   from the prophet? (Jer. 18:18). In opposition to the whole body of the

   prophets, Jeremiah is sent alone to declare from the Lord (Jer. 4:9), that a

   time would come when the law would perish from the priest, counsel from the

   wise, and the word from the prophet. Was not like splendour displayed in

   that council when the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees assembled to

   consult how they might put Jesus to death? Let them go, then, and cling to

   the external mask, while they make Christ and all the prophets of God

   schismatics, and, on the other hand, make Satan’s ministers the organs of

   the Holy Spirit!


   But if they are sincere, let them answer me in good faith,—in what place,

   and among whom, do they think the Church resided, after the Council of Basle

   degraded and deposed Eugenius from the popedom, and substituted Amadeus in

   his place? Do their utmost, they cannot deny that that Council was

   legitimate as far as regards external forms, and was summoned not only by

   one Pontiff, but by two. Eugenius, with the whole herd of cardinals and

   bishops who had joined him in plotting the dissolution of the Council, was

   there condemned of contumacy, rebellion, and schism. Afterwards, however,

   aided by the favour of princes, he got back his popedom safe. The election

   of Amadeus, duly made by the authority of a general holy synod, went to

   smoke; only he himself was appeased with a cardinal’s cap, like a piece of

   offal thrown to a barking dog. Out of the lap of these rebellious and

   contumacious schismatics proceeded all future popes, cardinals, bishops,

   abbots, and presbyters. Here they are caught, and cannot escape. For, on

   which party will they bestow the name of Church? Will they deny it to have

   been a general Council, though it lacked nothing as regards external

   majesty, having been solemnly called by two bulls, consecrated by the legate

   of the Roman See as its president, constituted regularly in all respects,

   and continuing in possession of all its honours to the last? Will they admit

   that Eugenius, and his whole train, through whom they have all been

   consecrated, were schismatical? Let them, then, either define the form of

   the Church differently, or, however numerous they are, we will hold them all

   to be schismatics in having knowingly and willingly received ordination from

   heretics. But had it never been discovered before that the Church is not

   tied to external pomp, we are furnished with a lengthened proof in their own

   conduct, in proudly vending themselves to the world under the specious title

   of Church, notwithstanding that they are the deadly pests of the Church. I

   speak not of their manners and of those tragical atrocities with which their

   whole life teems, since it is said that they are Pharisees who should be

   heard, not imitated. By devoting some portion of your leisure to our

   writings, you will see, not obscurely, that their doctrine—the very doctrine

   to which they say it is owing that they are the Church—is a deadly murderer

   of souls, the firebrand, ruin, and destruction of the Church.


   7. Lastly, they are far from candid when they invidiously number up the

   disturbances, tumults, and disputes, which the preaching of our doctrine has

   brought in its train, and the fruits which, in many instances, it now

   produces; for the doctrine itself is undeservedly charged with evils which

   ought to be ascribed to the malice of Satan. It is one of the

   characteristics of the divine word, that whenever it appears, Satan ceases

   to slumber and sleep. This is the surest and most unerring test for

   distinguishing it from false doctrines which readily betray themselves,

   while they are received by all with willing ears, and welcomed by an

   applauding world. Accordingly, for several ages, during which all things

   were immersed in profound darkness, almost all mankin were mere jest and

   sport to the god of this world, who, like any Sardanapalus, idled and

   luxuriated undisturbed. For what else could he do but laugh and sport while

   in tranquil and undisputed possession of his kingdom? But when light beaming

   from above somewhat dissipated the darkness—when the strong man arose and

   aimed a blow at his kingdom—then, indeed, he began to shake off his wonted

   torpor, and rush to arms. And first he stirred up the hands of men, that by

   them he might violently suppress the dawning truth; but when this availed

   him not, he turned to snares, exciting dissensions and disputes about

   doctrine by means of his Catabaptists, and other portentous miscreants, that

   he might thus obscure, and, at length, extinguish the truth. And now be

   persists in assailing it with both engines, endeavouring to pluck up the

   true seed by the violent hand of man, and striving, as much as in him lies,

   to choke it with his tares, that it may not grow and bear knit. But it will

   be in vain, if we listen to the admonition of the Lord, who long ago

   disclosed his wiles, that we might not be taken unawares, and armed us with

   full protection against all his machinations. But how malignant to throw

   upon the word of God itself the blame either of the seditions which wicked

   men and rebels, or of the sects which impostors stir up against it! The

   example, however, is not new. Elijah was interrogated whether it were not he

   that troubled Israel. Christ was seditious, according to the Jews; and the

   apostles were charged with the crime of popular commotion. What else do

   those who, in the present day, impute to us all the disturbances, tumults,

   and contentions which break out against us? Elijah, however, has taught us

   our answer (1 Kings 18:17, 18). It is not we who disseminate errors or stir

   up tumults, but they who resist the mighty power of God.


   But while this single answer is sufficient to rebut the rash charges of

   these men, it is necessary, on the other hand, to consult for the weakness

   of those who take the alarm at such scandals, and not unfrequently waver in

   perplexity. But that they may not fall away in this perplexity, and forfeit

   their good degree, let them know that the apostles in their day experienced

   the very things which now befall us. There were then unlearned and unstable

   men who, as Peter tells us (2 Pet. 3:16), wrested the inspired writings of

   Paul to their own destruction. There were despisers of God, who, when they

   heard that sin abounded in order that grace might more abound, immediately

   inferred, “We will continue in sin that grace may abound” (Rom. 6:1); when

   they heard that believers were not under the law, but under grace, forthwith

   sung out, “We will sin because we are not under the law, but under grace”

   (Rom. 6:15). There were some who charged the apostle with being the minister

   of sin. Many false prophets entered in privily to pull down the churches

   which he had reared. Some preached the gospel through envy and strife, not

   sincerely (Phil. 1:15)—maliciously even—thinking to add affliction to his

   bonds. Elsewhere the gospel made little progress. All sought their own, not

   the things which were Jesus Christ’s. Others went back like the dog to his

   vomit, or the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. Great

   numbers perverted their spiritual freedom to carnal licentiousness. False

   brethren crept in to the imminent danger of the faithful. Among the brethren

   themselves various quarrels arose. What, then, were the apostles to do? Were

   they either to dissemble for the time, or rather lay aside and abandon that

   gospel which they saw to be the seed—bed of so many strifes, the source of

   so many perils, the occasion of so many scandals? In straits of this kind,

   they remembered that “Christ was a stone of stumbling, and a rock of

   offence,” “set up for the fall and rising again of many,” and “for a sign to

   be spoken against” (Luke 2:34); and, armed with this assurance, they

   proceeded boldly through all perils from tumults and scandals. It becomes us

   to be supported by the same consideration, since Paul declares that it is a

   neverfailing characteristic of the gospel to be a “savour of death unto

   death in them that perish” (2 Cor. 2:16), although rather destined to us for

   the purpose of being a savour of life unto life, and the power of God for

   the salvation of believers. This we should certainly experience it to be,

   did we not by our ingratitude corrupt this unspeakable gift of God, and turn

   to our destruction what ought to be our only saving defence.4 [43]


   But to return, Sire.4 [44] Be not moved by the absurd insinuations with

   which our adversaries are striving to frighten you into the belief that

   nothing else is wished and aimed at by this new gospel (for so they term

   it), than opportunity for sedition and impunity for all kinds of vice. Our

   Go is not the author of division, but of peace; and the Son of God, who came

   to destroy the works of the devil, is not the minister of sin. We, too, are

   undeservedly charged with desires of a kind for which we have never given

   even the smallest suspicion. We, forsooth, meditate the subversion of

   kingdoms; we, whose voice was never heard in faction, and whose life, while

   passed under you, is known to have been always quiet and simple; even now,

   when exiled from our home, we nevertheless cease not to pray for all

   prosperity to your person and your kingdom. We, forsooth, are aiming after

   an unchecked indulgence in vice, in whose manners, though there is much to

   be blamed, there is nothing which deserves such an imputation; nor (thank

   God) have we profited so little in the gospel that our life may not be to

   these slanderers an example of chastity, kindness, pity, temperance,

   patience, moderation, or any other virtue. It is plain, indeed, that we fear

   God sincerely, and worship him in truth, since, whether by life or by death,

   we desire his name to be hallowed; and hatred herself has been forced to

   bear testimony to the innocence and civil integrity of some of our people on

   whom death was inflicted for the very thing which deserved the highest

   praise. But if any, under pretext of the gospel, excite tumults (none such

   have as yet been detected in your realm), if any use the liberty of the

   grace of God as a cloak for licentiousness (I know of numbers who do), there

   are laws and legal punishments by which they may be punished up to the

   measure of their deserts—only, in the mean time, let not the gospel of God

   be evil spoken of because of the iniquities of evil men.


   Sire,4 [45] That you may not lend too credulous an ear to the accusations of

   our enemies, their virulent injustice has been set before you at sufficient

   length; I fear even more than sufficient, since this preface has grown

   almost to the bulk of a full apology. My object, however, was not to frame a

   defence, but only with a view to the hearing of our cause, to mollify your

   mind, now indeed turned away and estranged from us—I add, even inflamed

   against us—but whose good will, we are confident, we should regain, would

   you but once, with calmness and composure, read this our Confession, which

   we desire your Majesty to accept instead of a defence. But if the whispers

   of the malevolent so possess your ear, that the accused are to have no

   opportunity of pleading their cause; if those vindictive furies, with your

   connivance, are always to rage with bonds, scourgings, tortures, maimings,

   and burnings, we, indeed, like sheep doomed to slaughter, shall be reduced

   to every extremity; yet so that, in our patience, we will possess our souls,

   and wait for the strong hand of the Lord, which, doubtless, will appear in

   its own time, and show itself armed, both to rescue the poor from

   affliction, and also take vengeance on the despisers, who are now exulting

   so securely.5 [46]


   Most illustrious King, may the Lord, the King of kings, establish your

   throne in righteousness, and your sceptre in equity.


   Basle, 1st August 1536.

     _________________________________________________________________


   [1] In the last edition by Calvin, the words are, as here translated,

   simply, “Principsuo.” In the edition published at Basle in 1536, the words

   are, “Principi ac Domino suo sibiobservando.”


   [2] Ed. 1536. “In Domino.”


   [3] “Modesti homines,” not in Ed. 1536.


   [4] “Quam norunt,” not in Ed. 1536.


   [5] The words, “Quorum ingenium non adeo despicabile Christi fuisse

   vident,” not in Ed. 1536.


   [6] 6 The words stand thus in the Ed. 1536: “Qua salvi nullo nostro merito

   factisumus.”


   [7] 7 “Non ita multum,” not in Ed. 1536.


   [8] 8 “Cum nutu,” not in Ed. 1536.


   [9] 9 The only word in the Ed. 1536 after “free will,” is “merita.”


   [10] 10 “Ut aiunt,” not in Ed. 1536.


   [11] 1 11 No part of this sentence from “provided” is in the Ed. 1536.


   [12] 2 12 “Tam licenter quam impune,” not in Ed. 1536.


   [13] 3 13 No part of the passage, beginning above, “The deception,” &c., is

   in Ed. 1536.


   [14] 4 14 Instead of “thought they were cured,” the Ed. 1536 says simply,

   “they were cured” (curarentur).


   [15] 5 15 “Ut modestissime etiam loquar,” not in the Ed. 1536.


   [16] 6 16 1. Acatius in lib. 11 cap 16, F. Triport. Hist.


   [17] 7 17 2 Ambr. lib. 2. De Officiis, cap. 28.


   [18] 8 18 Instead of the words here translated—viz. “exquisito splendore vel

   potius insanc luxu,” the Ed. 1536 has only the word “luxu.”


   [19] 9 19 3. Spiridion. Trip. Hist. lib. 1 cap. 10


   [20] 20 4. Trip. Hist. lib. 8 cap 1


   [21] 1 21 August. De Opere Monach cap 7


   [22] 2 22 6 Epiph. Epist. ab Hieron. versa


   [23] 3 23 7 Conc. Elibert. can. 36.


   [24] 4 24 No part of this sentence is in Ed. 1536.


   [25] 5 25 8. Ambr de Abraha. lib. 1 c. 7


   [26] 6 26 9. Gelasius Papa in Conc. Rom.


   [27] 7 27 10. Chrys. in 1. cap. Ephes.


   [28] 8 28 11. Calixt. Papa, De Consecrat. dist. 2


   [29] 9 29 Instead of the whole passage, beginning at bottom of p. 11, “It is

   a Father who testifies,” &c., the Ed. 1536 has the following sentence: “Ex

   patribus erat qui negavit in sacramento coenae esse verum corpus sed

   mysterium duntaxat corporis; sic enim ad verbum loquitur.” On the margin,

   reference is made to the author of an unfinished Tract on Matthew, forming

   the 11th Homil. among the works of Chrysostom.


   [30] 30 12 Gelas. can. Comperimus, De Consec. dist. 2.


   [31] 1 31 13 Cypr. Epist. 2, lib. 1. De Lapsis.


   [32] 2 32 14 August. lib. 2 De Peccat. Mer. cap. uit.


   [33] 3 33 15 Apollon. De quo Eccles. Hist. lib 5 cap. 12.


   [34] 5 35 17 Cypr. Epist. 2, lib. 2


   [35] 6 36 18 Aug. cap. 2, Cont. Cresconium Grammat.


   [36] 7 37 No part of this passage is in Ed. 1536.


   [37] 9 39 Epist. 3, lib. 2; et in Epist ad Julian. De Haeret. Baptiz.


   [38] 40 No part of this sentence is in ed. 1536.


   [39] 1 41 No part of the passage beginning above is in the Ed. 1536.


   [40] 2 42 In the last Ed., “justae Dei ultionis:” in Ed. 1536, “divinae

   zustitiae.”


   [41] 3 43 “Papa Romanus,” in the Ed. 1536.


   [42] 4 44 Instead of the words, “qui ab eo instites inuncti et consecrati,

   infulis modo et lituis insigniti sunt,” the Ed. 1536 has only “episcopi

   alii.”


   [43] 6 46 Instead of the concluding part of the sentence beginning “though

   rather,” &c., and stopping at the reference, the Ed. 1536 simply continues

   the quotation “odor vitae in vitam iis qui salvi sunt.”


   [44] 7 47 Instead of “Rex” simply, the E. 1536 has “magnanime Rex.”


   [45] 9 49 In Ed. 1536, “Rex magnificentissime”


   [46] 50 The words, “qui tanta securitate nunc exsultant,” not in Ed. 1536.

     _________________________________________________________________


THE EPISTLE TO THE READER


   [prefixed to the second edition, published at strasburg in 1539.]


   In the First Edition of this work, having no expectation of the success

   which God has, in his goodness, been pleased to give it, I had, for the

   greater part, performed my office perfunctorily, as is usual in trivial

   undertakings. But when I perceived that almost all the godly had received it

   with a favour which I had never dared to wish, far less to hope for, being

   sincerely conscious that I had received much more than I deserved, I thought

   I should be very ungrateful if I did not endeavour, at least according to my

   humble ability, to respond to the great kindness which had been expressed

   towards me, and which spontaneously urged me to diligence. I therefore ask

   no other favour from the studious for my new work than that which they have

   already bestowed upon me beyond my merits. I feel so much obliged, that I

   shall be satisfied if I am thought not to have made a bad return for the

   gratitude I owe. This return I would have made much earlier, had not the

   Lord, for almost two whole years, exercised me in an extraordinary manner.

   But it is soon enough if well enough. I shall think it has appeared in good

   season when I perceive that it produces some fruit to the Church of God. I

   may add, that my object in this work was to prepare and train students of

   theology for the study of the Sacred Volume, so that they might both have an

   easy introduction to it, and be able to proceed in it, with unfaltering

   step, seeing I have endeavoured to give such a summary of religion in all

   its parts, and have digested it into such an order as may make it not

   difficult for any one, who is rightly acquainted with it, to ascertain both

   what he ought principally to look for in Scripture, and also to what head he

   ought to refer whatever is contained in it. Having thus, as it were, paved

   the way, I shall not feel it necessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture

   which I may afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrines

   or dilate on common places, and will, therefore, always compress them. In

   this way the pious reader will be saved much trouble and weariness, provided

   he comes furnished with a knowledge of the present work as an essential

   prerequisite. As my Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans will give a

   specimen of this plan, I would much rather let it speak for itself than

   declare it in words. Farewell, dear reader, and if you derive any fruit from

   my labours, give me the benefit of your prayers to the Lord.


   Strasbourg, 1st August 1539.

     _________________________________________________________________


SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT WORK


   [prefixed to the french edition, published at geneva in 1545.]


   In order that my Readers may be the better able to profit by the present

   work, I am desirous briefly to point out the advantage which they may derive

   from it. For by so doing I will show them the end at which they ought to

   aim, and to which they ought to give their attention in reading it.


   Although the Holy Scriptures contain a perfect doctrine, to which nothing

   can be added—our Lord having been pleased therein to unfold the infinite

   treasures of his wisdom—still every person, not intimately acquainted with

   them, stands in need of some guidance and direction, as to what he ought to

   look for in them, that he may not wander up and down, but pursue a certain

   path, and so attain the end to which the Holy Spirit invites him.


   Hence it is the duty of those who have received from God more light than

   others to assist the simple in this matter, and, as it were, lend them their

   hand to guide and assist them in finding the sum of what God has been

   pleased to teach us in his word. Now, this cannot be better done in writing

   than by treating in succession of the principal matters which are comprised

   in Christian philosophy. For he who understands these will be prepared to

   make more progress in the school of God in one day than any other person in

   three months, inasmuch as he, in a great measure, knows to what he should

   refer each sentence, and has a rule by which to test whatever is presented

   to him.


   Seeing, then, how necessary it was in this manner to aid those who desire to

   be instructed in the doctrine of salvation, I have endeavoured, according to

   the ability which God has given me, to employ myself in so doing, and with

   this view have composed the present book. And first I wrote it in Latin,

   that it might be serviceable to all studious persons, of what nation soever

   they might be; afterwards, desiring to communicate any fruit which might be

   in it to my French countrymen, I translated it into our own tongue. I dare

   not bear too strong a testimony in its favour, and declare how profitable

   the reading of it will be, lest I should seem to prize my own work too

   highly. However I may promise this much, that it will be a kind of key

   opening up to all the children of God a right and ready access to the

   understanding of the sacred volume. Wherefore, should our Lord give me

   henceforth means and opportunity of composing some Commentaries, I will use

   the greatest possible brevity, as there will be no occasion to make long

   digressions, seeing that I have in a manner deduced at length all the

   articles which pertain to Christianity.


   And since we are bound to acknowledge that all truth and sound doctrine

   proceed from God, I will venture boldly to declare what I think of this

   work, acknowledging it to be God’s work rather than mine. To him, indeed,

   the praise due to it must be ascribed. My opinion of the work then is this:

   I exhort all, who reverence the word of the Lord, to read it, and diligently

   imprint it on their memory, if they would, in the first place, have a

   summary of Christian doctrine, and, in the second place, an introduction to

   the profitable reading both of the Old and New Testament. When they shall

   have done so, they will know by experience that I have not wished to impose

   upon them with words. Should any one be unable to comprehend all that is

   contained in it, he must not, however, give it up in despair; but continue

   always to read on, hoping that one passage will give him a more familiar

   exposition of another. Above all things, I would recommend that recourse be

   had to Scripture in considering the proofs which I adduce from it.

     _________________________________________________________________


EPISTLE TO THE READER.


   [prefixed to the last edition, revised by the author.]


   In the First Edition of this work, having not the least expectation of the

   success which God, in his boundless goodness, has been pleased to give it, I

   had, for the greater part, performed my task in a perfunctory manner (as is

   usual in trivial undertakings); but when I understood that it had been

   received, by almost all the pious with a favour which I had never dared to

   ask, far less to hope for, the more I was sincerely conscious that the

   reception was beyond my deserts, the greater I thought my ingratitude would

   be, if, to the very kind wishes which had been expressed towards me, and

   which seemed of their own accord to invite me to diligence, I did not

   endeavour to respond, at least according to my humble ability. This I

   attempted not only in the Second Edition, but in every subsequent one the

   work has received some improvement. But though I do not regret the labour

   previously expended, I never felt satisfied until the work was arranged in

   the order in which it now appears. Now I trust it will approve itself to the

   Judgment of all my readers. As a clear proof of the diligence with which I

   have laboured to perform this service to the Church of God, I may be

   permitted to mention, that last winter, when I thought I was dying of

   quartan ague, the more the disorder increased, the less I spared myself, in

   order that I might leave this book behind me, and thus make some return to

   the pious for their kind urgency. I could have wished to give it sooner, but

   it is soon enough if good enough. I shall think it has appeared in good time

   when I see it more productive of benefit than formerly to the Church of God.

   This is my only wish.


   And truly it would fare ill with me if, not contented with the approbation

   of God alone, I were unable to despise the foolish and perverse censures of

   ignorant as well as the malicious and unjust censures of ungodly men. For

   although, by the blessing of God, my most ardent desire has been to advance

   his kingdoms and promote the public good,—although I feel perfectly

   conscious, and take God and his angels to witness, that ever since I began

   to discharge the office of teacher in the Church, my only object has been to

   do good to the Church, by maintaining the pure doctrine of godliness, yet I

   believe there never was a man more assailed, stung, and torn by calumny [as

   well by the declared enemies of the truth of God, as by many worthless

   persons who have crept into his Church—as well by monks who have brought

   forth their frocks from their cloisters to spread infection wherever they

   come, as by other miscreants not better than they5 [47] ]. After this letter

   to the reader was in the press, I had undoubted information that, at

   Augsburg, where the Imperial Diet was held, a rumour of my defection to the

   papacy was circulated, and entertained in the courts of the princes more

   readily than might have been expected.5 [48] This, forsooth, is the return

   made me by those who certainly are not unaware of numerous proofs of my

   constancy—proofs which, while they rebut the foul charge, ought to have

   defended me against it, with all humane and impartial judges. But the devil,

   with all his crew, is mistaken if he imagines that, by assailing me with

   vile falsehoods, he can either cool my zeal, or diminish my exertions. I

   trust that God, in his infinite goodness, will enable me to persevere with

   unruffled patience in the course of his holy vocation. Of this I give the

   pious reader a new proof in the present edition.


   I may further observe, that my object in this work has been, so to prepare

   and train candidates for the sacred office, for the study of the sacred

   volume, that they may both have an easy introduction to it, and be able to

   prosecute it with unfaltering step; for, if I mistake not, I have given a

   summary of religion in all its parts, and digested it in an order which will

   make it easy for any one, who rightly comprehends it, to ascertain both what

   he ought chiefly to look for in Scripture, and also to what head he ought to

   refer whatever is contained in it. Having thus, as it were, paved the way,

   as it will be unnecessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture which I may

   afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrinal points, and

   enlarge on commonplaces, I will compress them into narrow compass. In this

   way much trouble and fatigue will be spared to the pious reader, provided he

   comes prepared with a knowledge of the present work as an indispensable

   prerequisite. The system here followed being set forth as in a mirror in all

   my Commentaries, I think it better to let it speak for itself than to give

   any verbal explanation of it.


   Farewell, kind reader: if you derive any benefit from my labours, aid me

   with your prayers to our heavenly Father.


   Geneva, 1st August 1559.


   The zeal of those whose cause I undertook,


   Has swelled a short defence into a book.


   “I profess to be one of those who, by profiting, write, and by writing

   profit.”—Augustine, Epist. 7.

     _________________________________________________________________


   [47] 1 51 The passage in brackets occurs only in the French original. The

   words are as follows: “Tant des ennemis manifestes de la vérité de Dieu, que

   de beaucoup de canailles qui se sont fourrez en son Eglise: tant des Moines

   qui ont apporté leurs frocs hors de leurs cloistres pour infecter le lieu

   o˜ ils venoyent, que d’autres vilains qui ne valent pas mieux qu’eux.”


   [48] 2 52 The words in the French are, “Avec trop grande facilité; ce qui

   monstroit que beaucoup de mechans hypocrites, faisans profession de

   l’Evangile, eussent bien voulu qu’ainsi fust.” With too great facility;

   showing that many wicked hypocrites, making profession of the gospel, would

   have been very glad it had been so.

     _________________________________________________________________


METHOD AND ARRANGEMENT,OR SUBJECT OF THE WHOLE WORK.


   [From an epitome of the institutions, by gaspar olevian.]


   The subject handled by the author of these Christian Institutes is twofold:

   the former, the knowledge of God, which leads to a blessed immortality; and

   the latter (which is subordinate to the former), the knowledge of ourselves.

   With this view the author simply adopts the arrangement of the Apostles’

   Creed, as that with which all Christians are most familiar. For as the Creed

   consists of four parts, the first relating to God the Father, the second to

   the Son, the third to the Holy Spirit, and the fourth to the Church, so the

   author, in fulfilment of his task, divides his Institutes into four parts,

   corresponding to those of the Creed. Each of these parts it will now be

   proper to explain separately.


   I. The first article of the Apostles’ Creed is concerning God the Father,

   the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, as implied in

   his omnipotence. Accordingly, the First Book of the Institutes treats of the

   knowledge of God, considered as the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the

   world, and of every thing contained in it. It shows both wherein the true

   knowledge of the Creator consists, and what the end of this knowledge is,

   chap. 1 and 2; that it is not learned at school, but that every one is

   self-taught it from the womb, chap. 3. Such, however, is man’s depravity,

   that he stifles and corrupts this knowledge, partly by ignorance, partly by

   wicked design; and hence does not by means of it either glorify God as he

   ought, or attain to happiness, chap. 4. This inward knowledge is aided from

   without, namely by the creatures in which, as in a mirror, the perfections

   of God may be contemplated. But man does not properly avail himself of this

   assistance, and hence to those to whom God is pleased to make himself more

   intimately known for salvation, he communicates his written word. This leads

   to a consideration of the Holy Scriptures, in which God has revealed that

   not the Father only, but along with the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, is

   that Creator of heaven and earth, whom, in consequence of our innate

   depravity we were unable, either from innate natural knowledge, or the

   beautiful mirror of the world, to know so as to glorify. Here the author

   treats of the manifestation of God in Scripture; and in connection with it,

   of the one divine essence in three persons. But, lest man should lay the

   blame of his voluntary blindness on God, the author shows in what state man

   was created at first, introducing dissertations on the image of God, free

   will, and original righteousness. The subject of Creation being thus

   disposed of, the preservation and government of the world is considered in

   the three last chapters, which contain a very full discussion of the

   doctrine of Divine Providence.


   II. As man, by sinning, forfeited the privileges conferred on him at his

   creation, recourse must be had to Christ. Accordingly, the next article in

   the Creed is, And in Jesus Christ his only Son, &c. In like manner, the

   Second Book of the Institutes treats of the knowledge of God considered as a

   Redeemer in Christ, And showing man his falls conducts him to Christ the

   Mediator. Here the subject of original sin is considered, and it is shown

   that man has no means within himself, by which he can escape from guilt, and

   the impending curse: that, on the contrary, until he is reconciled and

   renewed, every thing that proceeds from him is of the nature of sin. This

   subject is considered as far as the 6th chapter. Man being thus utterly

   undone in himself, and incapable of working out his own cure by thinking a

   good thought, or doing what is acceptable to God, must seek redemption

   without himself—viz. in Christ. The end for which the Law was given, was not

   to secure worshipers for itself, but to conduct them unto Christ. This leads

   to an exposition of the Moral Law. Christ was known to the Jews under the

   Law as the author of salvation, but is more fully revealed under the Gospel

   in which he was manifested to the world. Hence arises the doctrine

   concerning the similarity and difference of the two Testaments, the Old and

   the New, the Law and the Gospel. These topics occupy as far as the 12th

   chapter. It is next shown that, in order to secure a complete salvation, it

   was necessary that the eternal Son of God should become man, and assume a

   true human nature. It is also shown in what way these two natures constitute

   one person. In order to purchase a full salvation by his own merits, and

   effectually apply it, Christ was appointed to the offices of Prophet,

   Priest, and King. The mode in which Christ performs these offices is

   considered, and also whether in point of fact he did accomplish the work of

   redemption. Here an exposition is given of the articles relating to

   Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. In conclusion, it

   is proved that Christ is rightly and properly said to have merited divine

   grace and salvation for us.


   III. So long as Christ is separated from us we have no benefit from him. We

   must be ingrafted in him like branches in the vine. Hence the Creed, after

   treating of Christ, proceeds in its third article, I believe in the Holy

   Spirit,—the Holy Spirit being the bond of union between us and Christ. In

   like manner, the Third Book of the Institutes treats of the Holy Spirit

   which unites us to Christ, and, in connection with it, of faith, by which we

   embrace Christ with a double benefit—viz. that of gratuitous righteousness

   which he imputes to us, and regeneration, which he begins in us by giving us

   repentance. In order to show the worthlessness of a faith which is not

   accompanied with a desire of repentance, the author, before proceeding to a

   full discussion of justification, treats at length from chapter 3-10 of

   repentance, and the constant study of it—repentance, which Christ, when

   apprehended by faith, begets in us by his Spirit. Chapter 11 treats of the

   primary and peculiar benefit of Christ when united to us by the Holy

   Spirit—viz. justification. This subject is continued to the 20th chapter,

   which treats of prayer, the hand, as it were, to receive the blessings which

   faith knows to be treasured up for it with God, according to the word of

   promise. But, as the Holy Spirit, who creates and preserves our faith, does

   not unite all men to Christ, who is the sole author of salvation, chapter 21

   treats of the eternal election of God, to which it is owing that we, in whom

   he foresaw no good which he had not previously bestowed, are given to

   Christ, and united to him by the effectual calling of the Gospel. This

   subject is continued to the 25th chapter, which treats of complete

   regeneration and felicity, namely, the final resurrection to which we must

   raise our eyes, seeing that, in regard to fruition, the happiness of the

   godly is only begun in this world.


   IV. Since the Holy Spirit does not ingraft all men into Christ, or endue

   them with faith, and those whom he does so endue he does not ordinarily

   endue without means, but uses for that purpose the preaching of the Gospel

   and the dispensation of the Sacraments, together with the administration of

   all kinds of discipline, the Creed contains the following article, I believe

   in the Holy Catholic Church, namely, that Church which, when lying in

   eternal death, the Father, by gratuitous election, freely reconciled to

   himself in Christ, and endued with the Holy Spirit, that, being ingrafted

   into Christ, it might have communion with him as its proper head; whence

   flow perpetual remission of sins, and full restoration to eternal life.

   Accordingly the Church is treated of in the first fourteen chapters of the

   Fourth Book, which thereafter treats of the means which the Holy Spirit

   employs in calling us effectually from spiritual death, and preserving the

   Church, in other words, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These means are, as

   it were, the royal sceptre of Christ, by which, through the efficacy of his

   Spirit, he commences his spiritual reign in the Church, advances it from day

   to day, and after this life, without the use of means, finally perfects it.

   This subject is continued to the 20th chapter.


   And because civil governments are, in this life, the hospitable entertainers

   (hospitia) of the Church (though civil government is distinct from the

   spiritual kingdom of Christ), the author shows how great blessings they are,

   blessings which the Church is bound gratefully to acknowledge, until we are

   called away from this tabernacle to the heavenly inheritance, where God will

   be all in all.


   Such is the arrangement of the Institutes which may be thus summed up: Man

   being at first created upright, but afterwards being not partially but

   totally ruined, finds his entire salvation out of himself in Christ, to whom

   being united by the Holy Spirit freely given without any foresight of future

   works, he thereby obtains a double blessing—viz. full imputation of

   righteousness, which goes along with us even to the grave, and the

   commencement of sanctification, which daily advances till at length it is

   perfected in the day of regeneration or resurrection of the body, and this,

   in order that the great mercy of God may be celebrated in the heavenly

   mansions, throughout eternity.

     _________________________________________________________________

     _________________________________________________________________


                          GENERAL INDEX OF CHAPTERS.


  BOOK FIRST.


   OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE CREATOR.


   Eighteen Chapters


   1. Connection between the Knowledge of God and the Knowledge of Ourselves.

   Nature of the connection.


   2. What it is to Know God. Tendency of this Knowledge.


   3. The Human Mind naturally imbued with the Knowledge of God.


   4. This Knowledge stifled or corrupted, ignorantly or maliciously.


   5. The Knowledge of God displayed in the fabric and constant Government of

   the Universe.


   6. The need of Scripture as a Guide and Teacher in coming to God as a

   Creator.


   7. The Testimony of the Spirit necessary to give full authority to

   Scripture. The impiety of pretending that the Credibility of Scripture

   depends on the Judgment of the Church.


   8. The Credibility of Scripture sufficiently proved, in so far as Natural

   Reason admits.


   9. All the principles of piety subverted by fanatics who substitute

   revelations for Scripture.


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

   Heathen.


   11. Impiety of attributing a visible form to God. The setting up of Idols a

   revolt against the True God.


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

   Worship.


   13. The Unity of the Divine Essence in Three Persons taught in Scripture,

   from the foundation of the World.


   14. In the Creation of the World, and all things in it, the True God

   distinguished by certain marks from fictitious gods.


   15. State in which man was created. The Faculties of the Soul—The Image of

   God—Free Will—Original Righteousness.


   16. The World, created by God, still cherished and protected by Him. Each

   and all of its parts governed by His Providence.


   17. Use to be made of this Doctrine.


   18. The instrumentality of the wicked employed by God, while He continues

   free from every taint.


  BOOK SECOND


   OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE REDEEMER, IN CHRIST,


   AS FIRST MANIFESTED TO THE FATHERS UNDER THE LAW,


   AND THEREAFTER TO US UNDER THE GOSPEL


   Seventeen Chapters


   1. Through the Fall and revolt of Adam the whole Human race made accursed

   and degenerate. Of Original Sin.


   2. Man now deprived of Freedom of Will, and miserably enslaved.


   3. Every thing proceeding from the corrupt Nature of Man damnable.


   4. How God works in the hearts of men.


   5. The Arguments usually alleged in support of Free Will refuted.


   6. Redemption for lost man to be sought in Christ.


   7. The Law given, not to retain a people for itself, but to keep alive the

   Hope of Salvation in Christ until his Advent.


   8. Exposition of the Moral Law.


   9. Christ, though known to the Jews under the Law, yet only manifested under

   the Gospel.


   10. The resemblance between the Old Testament and the New.


   11. The difference between the two Testaments.


   12. Christ, to perform the Office of Mediator, behoved to become man.


   13. Christ clothed with the true substance of Human Nature.


   14. How two natures constitute the Person of the Mediator.


   15. Three things chiefly to be regarded in Christ—viz. his Offices of

   Prophet, King, and Priest.


   16. How Christ performed the Office of Redeemer in procuring our salvation.

   The Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ.


   17. Christ rightly and properly said to have merited Grace and Salvation for

   us.


  BOOK THIRD


   THE MODE OF OBTAINING THE GRACE OF CHRIST.


   THE BENEFITS IT CONFERS, AND THE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM IT.


   Twenty-Five Chapters


   1. The Benefits of Christ made available to us by the Secret Operation of

   the Spirit.


   2. Of Faith. The Definition of it. Its peculiar properties.


   3. Regeneration by Faith. Of Repentance.


   4. Penitence, as explained in the sophistical jargon of the Schoolmen,

   widely different from the purity required by the Gospel. Of Confession and

   Satisfactions.


   5. Of the modes of Supplementing Satisfactions—viz. Indulgences and

   Purgatory.


   6. The Life of a Christian Man. Scriptural Arguments exhorting to it.


   7. A Summary of the Christian Life. Of Self-Denial.


   8. Of Bearing the Cross—one branch of Self-Denial.


   9. Of Meditating on the Future Life.


   10. How to use the Present Life, and the comforts of it.


   11. Of Justification by Faith. Both the name and the reality defined.


   12. Necessity of contemplating the Judgment-seat of God, in order to be

   seriously convinced of the Doctrine of Gratuitous Justification.


   13. Two things to be observed in Gratuitous Justification.


   14. The beginning of Justification. In what sense progressive.


   15. The boasted merit of Works subversive both of the Glory of God, in

   bestowing Righteousness, and of the certainty of Salvation.


   16. Refutation of the Calumnies by which it is attempted to throw odium on

   this doctrine.


   17. The Promises of the Law and the Gospel reconciled.


   18. The Righteousness of Works improperly inferred from Rewards.


   19. Of Christian Liberty.


   20. Of Prayer—a perpetual exercise of Faith. The daily benefits derived from

   it.


   21. Of the Eternal Election, by which God has predestinated some to

   Salvation and others to Destruction.


   22. This Doctrine confirmed by Proofs from Scripture.


   23. Refutation of the Calumnies by which this Doctrine is always unjustly

   assailed.


   24. Election confirmed by the Calling of God. The Reprobate bring upon

   themselves the righteous destruction to which they are doomed.


   25. Of the Last Resurrection.


  BOOK FOURTH


   OF THE EXTERNAL MEANS OR HELPS BY WHICH GOD ALLURES US INTO


   FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST, AND KEEPS US IN IT.


   Twenty Chapters


   1. Of the True Church. Duty of cultivating Unity with her, as the mother of

   all the godly.


   2. Comparison between the False Church and the True.


   3. Of the Teachers and Ministers of the Church. Their Election and Office.


   4. Of the State of the Primitive Church, and the Mode of Government in use

   before the Papacy.


   5. The Ancient Form of Government utterly corrupted by the tyranny of the

   Papacy.


   6. Of the Primacy of the Romish See.


   7. Of the Beginning and Rise of the Romish Papacy, till it attained a height

   by which the Liberty of the Church was destroyed, and all true Rule

   overthrown.


   8. Of the Power of the Church in Articles of Faith. The unbridled license of

   the Papal Church in destroying Purity of Doctrine.


   9. Of Councils and their Authority.


   10. Of the Power of making Laws. The cruelty of the Pope and his adherents,

   in this respect, in tyrannically oppressing and destroying Souls.


   11. Of the Jurisdiction of the Church and the Abuses of it, as exemplified

   in the Papacy.


   12. Of the Discipline of the Church, and its principal use in Censures and

   Excommunication.


   13. Of Vows. The miserable entanglements caused by Vowing rashly.


   14. Of the Sacraments.


   15. Of Baptism.


   16. Paedobaptism. Its accordance with the Institution of Christ, and the

   nature of the sign.


   17. Of the Lord’s Supper, and the benefits conferred by it.


   18. Of the Popish Mass. How it not only profanes, but annihilates the

   Lord’s Supper.


   19. Of the Five Sacraments, falsely so called. Their spuriousness proved,

   and their true character explained.


   20. Of Civil Government.

     _________________________________________________________________


                     INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

     _________________________________________________________________


BOOK FIRST.


  OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE CREATOR

     _________________________________________________________________


  ARGUMENT.


   The First Book treats of the knowledge of God the Creator. But as it is in

   the creation of man that the divine perfections are best displayed, so man

   also is made the subject of discourse. Thus the whole book divides itself

   into two principal heads—the former relating to the knowledge of God, and

   the latter to the knowledge of man. In the first chapter, these are

   considered jointly; and in each of the following chapters, separately:

   occasionally, however, intermingled with other matters which refer to one or

   other of the heads; e.g., the discussions concerning Scripture and images,

   falling under the former head, and the other three concerning the creation

   of the world, the holy angels and devils, falling under the latter. The last

   point discussed—viz. the method of the divine government, relates to both.


   With regard to the former head—viz. the knowledge of God, it is shown, in

   the first place, what the kind of knowledge is which God requires, Chap. 2.

   And, in the second place (Chap. 3-9), where this knowledge must be sought,

   namely, not in man; because, although naturally implanted in the human mind,

   it is stifled, partly by ignorance, partly by evil intent, Chap. 3 and 4;

   not in the frame of the world: because, although it shines most clearly

   there, we are so stupid that these manifestations, however perspicuous, pass

   away without any beneficial result, Chap. 5; but in Scripture (Chap. 6),

   which is treated of, Chap. 7-9. In the third place, it is shown what the

   character of God is, Chap. 10. In the fourth place, how impious it is to

   give a visible form to God (here images, the worship of them, and its

   origin, are considered), Chap. 11. In the fifth place, it is shown that God

   is to be solely and wholly worshipped, Chap. 12. Lastly, Chap. 13 treats of

   the unity of the divine essence, and the distinction of three persons.


   With regard to the latter head—viz. the knowledge of man, first, Chap. 14

   treats of the creation of the world, and of good and bad angels (these all

   having reference to man). And then Chap. 15, taking up the subject of man

   himself, examines his nature and his powers.


   The better to illustrate the nature both of God and man, the three remaining

   Chapters—viz. 16-18, proceed to treat of the general government of the

   world, and particularly of human actions, in opposition to fortune and fate,

   explaining both the doctrine and its use. In conclusion, it is shown, that

   though God employs the instrumentality of the wicked, he is pure from sin

   and from taint of every kind.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 1.


   THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD AND OF OURSELVES MUTUALLY CONNECTED. —NATURE OF THE

   CONNECTION.


   Sections.


   1. The sum of true wisdom—viz. the knowledge of God and of ourselves.

   Effects of the latter.


   2. Effects of the knowledge of God, in humbling our pride, unveiling our

   hypocrisy, demonstrating the absolute perfections of God, and our own utter

   helplessness.


   3. Effects of the knowledge of God illustrated by the examples, 1. of holy

   patriarchs; 2. of holy angels; 3. of the sun and moon.


   1. Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom,

   consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of

   ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy

   to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in

   the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his

   thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly

   obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from

   ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God

   alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us

   from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again,

   the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our

   poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the

   first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that

   while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused

   by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a

   world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our

   naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every man,

   being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way

   necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of

   ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption,

   reminds us (see Calvin on John 4:10), that in the Lord, and none but He,

   dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are

   accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God;

   and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be

   displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself?

   Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that

   is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or

   unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge

   of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to

   find him.


   2. On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true

   self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and

   come down after such contemplation to look into himself. For (such is our

   innate pride) we always seem to ourselves just, and upright, and wise, and

   holy, until we are convinced, by clear evidence, of our injustice, vileness,

   folly, and impurity. Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves

   only, and not to the Lord also —He being the only standard by the

   application of which this conviction can be produced. For, since we are all

   naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite

   enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing

   appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity,

   so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything

   which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most

   pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously

   presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be

   perfectly white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger

   illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers

   of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the

   surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued

   with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun,

   and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth

   is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to

   confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness

   when applied to the sun. Thus too, it happens in estimating our spiritual

   qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased

   with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the

   most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once

   begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is,

   and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and

   virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly

   delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with

   the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of

   wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance

   of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far

   are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to

   the divine purity.


   3. Hence that dread and amazement with which as Scripture uniformly relates,

   holy men were struck and overwhelmed whenever they beheld the presence of

   God. When we see those who previously stood firm and secure so quaking with

   terror, that the fear of death takes hold of them, nay, they are, in a

   manner, swallowed up and annihilated, the inference to be drawn is that men

   are never duly touched and impressed with a conviction of their

   insignificance, until they have contrasted themselves with the majesty of

   God. Frequent examples of this consternation occur both in the Book of

   Judges and the Prophetical Writings;5 [49] so much so, that it was a common

   expression among the people of God, “We shall die, for we have seen the

   Lord.” Hence the Book of Job, also, in humbling men under a conviction of

   their folly, feebleness, and pollution, always derives its chief argument

   from descriptions of the Divine wisdom, virtue, and purity. Nor without

   cause: for we see Abraham the readier to acknowledge himself but dust and

   ashes the nearer he approaches to behold the glory of the Lord, and Elijah

   unable to wait with unveiled face for His approach; so dreadful is the

   sight. And what can man do, man who is but rottenness and a worm, when even

   the Cherubim themselves must veil their faces in very terror? To this,

   undoubtedly, the Prophet Isaiah refers, when he says (Isaiah 24:23), “The

   moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall

   reign;” i.e., when he shall exhibit his refulgence, and give a nearer view

   of it, the brightest objects will, in comparison, be covered with darkness.


   But though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves are bound

   together by a mutual tie, due arrangement requires that we treat of the

   former in the first place, and then descend to the latter.

     _________________________________________________________________


   [49] 3 53 Judges 13:22; Isaiah 6:5; Ezek. 1:28, 3:14; Job 9:4, &c.; Gen.

   17:27; 1 Kings 19:13.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 2.


   WHAT IT IS TO KNOW GOD,—TENDENCY OF THIS KNOWLEDGE.


   Sections.


   1. The knowledge of God the Creator defined. The substance of this

   knowledge, and the use to be made of it.


   2. Further illustration of the use, together with a necessary reproof of

   vain curiosity, and refutation of the Epicureans. The character of God as it

   appears to the pious mind, contrasted with the absurd views of the

   Epicureans. Religion defined.


   1. By the knowledge of God, I understand that by which we not only conceive

   that there is some God, but also apprehend what it is for our interest, and

   conducive to his glory, what, in short, it is befitting to know concerning

   him. For, properly speaking, we cannot say that God is known where there is

   no religion or piety. I am not now referring to that species of knowledge by

   which men, in themselves lost and under curse, apprehend God as a Redeemer

   in Christ the Mediator. I speak only of that simple and primitive knowledge,

   to which the mere course of nature would have conducted us, had Adam stood

   upright. For although no man will now, in the present ruin of the human

   race, perceive God to be either a father, or the author of salvation, or

   propitious in any respect, until Christ interpose to make our peace; still

   it is one thing to perceive that God our Maker supports us by his power,

   rules us by his providence, fosters us by his goodness, and visits us with

   all kinds of blessings, and another thing to embrace the grace of

   reconciliation offered to us in Christ. Since, then, the Lord first appears,

   as well in the creation of the world as in the general doctrine of

   Scripture, simply as a Creator, and afterwards as a Redeemer in Christ,—a

   twofold knowledge of him hence arises: of these the former is now to be

   considered, the latter will afterwards follow in its order. But although our

   mind cannot conceive of God, without rendering some worship to him, it will

   not, however, be sufficient simply to hold that he is the only being whom

   all ought to worship and adore, unless we are also persuaded that he is the

   fountain of all goodness, and that we must seek everything in him, and in

   none but him. My meaning is: we must be persuaded not only that as he once

   formed the world, so he sustains it by his boundless power, governs it by

   his wisdom, preserves it by his goodness, in particular, rules the human

   race with justice and Judgment, bears with them in mercy, shields them by

   his protection; but also that not a particle of light, or wisdom, or

   justice, or power, or rectitude, or genuine truth, will anywhere be found,

   which does not flow from him, and of which he is not the cause; in this way

   we must learn to expect and ask all things from him, and thankfully ascribe

   to him whatever we receive. For this sense of the divine perfections is the

   proper master to teach us piety, out of which religion springs. By piety I

   mean that union of reverence and love to God which the knowledge of his

   benefits inspires. For, until men feel that they owe everything to God, that

   they are cherished by his paternal care, and that he is the author of all

   their blessings, so that nought is to be looked for away from him, they will

   never submit to him in voluntary obedience; nay, unless they place their

   entire happiness in him, they will never yield up their whole selves to him

   in truth and sincerity.


   2. Those, therefore, who, in considering this question, propose to inquire

   what the essence of God is, only delude us with frigid speculations,—it

   being much more our interest to know what kind of being God is, and what

   things are agreeable to his nature. For, of what use is it to join Epicures

   in acknowledging some God who has cast off the care of the world, and only

   delights himself in ease? What avails it, in short, to know a God with whom

   we have nothing to do? The effect of our knowledge rather ought to be,

   first, to teach us reverence and fear; and, secondly, to induce us, under

   its guidance and teaching, to ask every good thing from him, and, when it is

   received, ascribe it to him. For how can the idea of God enter your mind

   without instantly giving rise to the thought, that since you are his

   workmanship, you are bound, by the very law of creation, to submit to his

   authority?—that your life is due to him?—that whatever you do ought to have

   reference to him? If so, it undoubtedly follows that your life is sadly

   corrupted, if it is not framed in obedience to him, since his will ought to

   be the law of our lives. On the other hand, your idea of his nature is not

   clear unless you acknowledge him to be the origin and fountain of all

   goodness. Hence would arise both confidence in him, and a desire of cleaving

   to him, did not the depravity of the human mind lead it away from the proper

   course of investigation.


   For, first of all, the pious mind does not devise for itself any kind of

   God, but looks alone to the one true God; nor does it feign for him any

   character it pleases, but is contented to have him in the character in which

   he manifests himself always guarding, with the utmost diligences against

   transgressing his will, and wandering, with daring presumptions from the

   right path. He by whom God is thus known perceiving how he governs all

   things, confides in him as his guardian and protector, and casts himself

   entirely upon his faithfulness,—perceiving him to be the source of every

   blessing, if he is in any strait or feels any want, he instantly recurs to

   his protection and trusts to his aid,—persuaded that he is good and

   merciful, he reclines upon him with sure confidence, and doubts not that, in

   the divine clemency, a remedy will be provided for his every time of

   need,—acknowledging him as his Father and his Lords he considers himself

   bound to have respect to his authority in all things, to reverence his

   majesty aim at the advancement of his glory, and obey his

   commands,—regarding him as a just judge, armed with severity to punish

   crimes, he keeps the Judgment-seat always in his view. Standing in awe of

   it, he curbs himself, and fears to provoke his anger. Nevertheless, he is

   not so terrified by an apprehension of Judgment as to wish he could withdraw

   himself, even if the means of escape lay before him; nay, he embraces him

   not less as the avenger of wickedness than as the rewarder of the righteous;

   because he perceives that it equally appertains to his glory to store up

   punishment for the one, and eternal life for the other. Besides, it is not

   the mere fear of punishment that restrains him from sin. Loving and revering

   God as his father, honouring and obeying him as his master, although there

   were no hell, he would revolt at the very idea of offending him.


   Such is pure and genuine religion, namely, confidence in God coupled with

   serious fear—fear, which both includes in it willing reverence, and brings

   along with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed by the law. And it

   ought to be more carefully considered that all men promiscuously do homage

   to God, but very few truly reverence him. On all hands there is abundance of

   ostentatious ceremonies, but sincerity of heart is rare.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 3.


   THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD NATURALLY IMPLANTED IN THE HUMAN MIND.


   Sections.


   1. The knowledge of God being manifested to all makes the reprobate without

   excuse. Universal belief and acknowledgement of the existence of God.


   2. Objection—that religion and the belief of a Deity are the inventions of

   crafty politicians. Refutation of the objection. This universal belief

   confirmed by the examples of wicked men and Atheists.


   3. Confirmed also by the vain endeavours of the wicked to banish all fear of

   God from their minds. Conclusion, that the knowledge of God is naturally

   implanted in the human mind.


   1. That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some

   sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent

   any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his

   Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges,

   that all to a man being aware that there is a God, and that he is their

   Maker, may be condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship

   him nor consecrate their lives to his service. Certainly, if there is any

   quarter where it may be supposed that God is unknown, the most likely for

   such an instance to exist is among the dullest tribes farthest removed from

   civilisation. But, as a heathen tells us,5 [50] there is no nation so

   barbarous, no race so brutish, as not to be imbued with the conviction that

   there is a God. Even those who, in other respects, seem to differ least from

   the lower animals, constantly retain some sense of religion; so thoroughly

   has this common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on

   the breasts of all men. Since, then, there never has been, from the very

   first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without

   religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is

   inscribed on every heart. Nay, even idolatry is ample evidence of this fact.

   For we know how reluctant man is to lower himself, in order to set other

   creatures above him. Therefore, when he chooses to worship wood and stone

   rather than be thought to have no God, it is evident how very strong this

   impression of a Deity must be; since it is more difficult to obliterate it

   from the mind of man, than to break down the feelings of his nature,—these

   certainly being broken down, when, in opposition to his natural haughtiness,

   he spontaneously humbles himself before the meanest object as an act of

   reverence to God.


   2. It is most absurd, therefore, to maintain, as some do, that religion was

   devised by the cunning and craft of a few individuals, as a means of keeping

   the body of the people in due subjection, while there was nothing which

   those very individuals, while teaching others to worship God, less believed

   than the existence of a God. I readily acknowledge, that designing men have

   introduced a vast number of fictions into religion, with the view of

   inspiring the populace with reverence or striking them with terror, and

   thereby rendering them more obsequious; but they never could have succeeded

   in this, had the minds of men not been previously imbued with that uniform

   belief in God, from which, as from its seed, the religious propensity

   springs. And it is altogether incredible that those who, in the matter of

   religion, cunningly imposed on their ruder neighbours, were altogether

   devoid of a knowledge of God. For though in old times there were some, and

   in the present day not a few are foun who deny the being of a God, yet,

   whether they will or not, they occasionally feel the truth which they are

   desirous not to know. We do not read of any man who broke out into more

   unbridled and audacious contempt of the Deity than C. Caligula,5 [51] and

   yet none showed greater dread when any indication of divine wrath was

   manifested. Thus, however unwilling, he shook with terror before the God

   whom he professedly studied to condemn. You may every day see the same thing

   happening to his modern imitators. The most audacious despiser of God is

   most easily disturbed, trembling at the sound of a falling leaf. How so,

   unless in vindication of the divine majesty, which smites their consciences

   the more strongly the more they endeavour to flee from it. They all, indeed,

   look out for hiding-places where they may conceal themselves from the

   presence of the Lord, and again efface it from their mind; but after all

   their efforts they remain caught within the net. Though the conviction may

   occasionally seem to vanish for a moment, it immediately returns, and rushes

   in with new impetuosity, so that any interval of relief from the gnawing of

   conscience is not unlike the slumber of the intoxicated or the insane, who

   have no quiet rest in sleep, but are continually haunted with dire horrific

   dreams. Even the wicked themselves, therefore, are an example of the fact

   that some idea of God always exists in every human mind.


   3. All men of sound Judgment will therefore hold, that a sense of Deity is

   indelibly engraven on the human heart. And that this belief is naturally

   engendered in all, and thoroughly fixed as it were in our very bones, is

   strikingly attested by the contumacy of the wicked, who, though they

   struggle furiously, are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God.

   Though Diagoras,5 [52] and others of like stamps make themselves merry with

   whatever has been believed in all ages concerning religion, and Dionysus

   scoffs at the Judgment of heaven, it is but a Sardonian grin; for the worm

   of conscience, keener than burning steel, is gnawing them within. I do not

   say with Cicero, that errors wear out by age, and that religion increases

   and grows better day by day. For the world (as will be shortly seen) labours

   as much as it can to shake off all knowledge of God, and corrupts his

   worship in innumerable ways. I only say, that, when the stupid hardness of

   heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means of despising God, becomes

   enfeebled, the sense of Deity, which of all things they wished most to be

   extinguished, is still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth. Whence we

   infer, that this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one

   as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature

   herself allows no individual to forget, though many, with all their might,

   strive to do so. Moreover, if all are born and live for the express purpose

   of learning to know God, and if the knowledge of God, in so far as it fails

   to produce this effect, is fleeting and vain, it is clear that all those who

   do not direct the whole thoughts and actions of their lives to this end fail

   to fulfil the law of their being. This did not escape the observation even

   of philosophers. For it is the very thing which Plato meant (in Phœd. et

   Theact.) when he taught, as he often does, that the chief good of the soul

   consists in resemblance to God; i.e., when, by means of knowing him, she is

   wholly transformed into him. Thus Gryllus, also, in Plutarch (lib. guod

   bruta anim. ratione utantur), reasons most skilfully, when he affirms that,

   if once religion is banished from the lives of men, they not only in no

   respect excel, but are, in many respects, much more wretched than the

   brutes, since, being exposed to so many forms of evil, they continually drag

   on a troubled and restless existence: that the only thing, therefore, which

   makes them superior is the worship of God, through which alone they aspire

   to immortality.

     _________________________________________________________________


   [50] 4 54 “Intelligi necesse est deos, quoniam insitas eorum vel potius

   innatas cognitiones habemus.—Quae nobis natura informationem deorum ipsorum

   dedit, eadem insculpsit in mentibus ut eos aeternos et beatos

   haberemus.”—Cic. de Nat. Deor. lib. 1 c. 17.—“Itaque inter omnes omnium

   gentium summa constat; omnibus enim innatum est, et in animo quasi

   insculptum esse deos.”—Lib. 2. c. 4. See also Lact. Inst. Div. lib. 3 c. 10.


   [51] 6 56 Suet. Calig. c. 51.


   [52] 7 57 Cic. De Nat. Deor. lib. 1 c. 23. Valer. Max. lib. 1. c. 1.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 4.


   THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD STIFLED OR CORRUPTED, IGNORANTLY OR MALICIOUSLY.


   Sections.


   1. The knowledge of God suppressed by ignorance, many falling away into

   superstition. Such persons, however, inexcusable, because their error is

   accompanied with pride and stubbornness.


   2. Stubbornness the companion of impiety.


   3. No pretext can justify superstition. This proved, first, from reason;

   and, secondly, from Scripture.


   4. The wicked never willingly come into the presence of God. Hence their

   hypocrisy. Hence, too, their sense of Deity leads to no good result.


   1. But though experience testifies that a seed of religion is divinely sown

   in all, scarcely one in a hundred is found who cherishes it in his heart,

   and not one in whom it grows to maturity so far is it from yielding fruit in

   its season. Moreover, while some lose themselves in superstitious

   observances, and others, of set purpose, wickedly revolt from God, the

   result is that, in regard to the true knowledge of him, all are so

   degenerate, that in no part of the world can genuine godliness be found. In

   saying that some fall away into superstition, I mean not to insinuate that

   their excessive absurdity frees them from guilt; for the blindness under

   which they labour is almost invariably accompanied with vain pride and

   stubbornness. Mingled vanity and pride appear in this, that when miserable

   men do seek after God, instead of ascending higher than themselves as they

   ought to do, they measure him by their own carnal stupidity, and, neglecting

   solid inquiry, fly off to indulge their curiosity in vain speculation.

   Hence, they do not conceive of him in the character in which he is

   manifested, but imagine him to be whatever their own rashness has devised.

   This abyss standing open, they cannot move one footstep without rushing

   headlong to destruction. With such an idea of God, nothing which they may

   attempt to offer in the way of worship or obedience can have any value in

   his sight, because it is not him they worship, but, instead of him, the

   dream and figment of their own heart. This corrupt procedure is admirably

   described by Paul, when he says, that “thinking to be wise, they became

   fools” (Rom. 1:22). He had previously said that “they became vain in their

   imaginations,” but lest any should suppose them blameless, he afterwards

   adds that they were deservedly blinded, because, not contented with sober

   inquiry, because, arrogating to themselves more than they have any title to

   do, they of their own accord court darkness, nay, bewitch themselves with

   perverse, empty show. Hence it is that their folly, the result not only of

   vain curiosity, but of licentious desire and overweening confidence in the

   pursuit of forbidden knowledge, cannot be excused.


   2. The expression of David (Psalm 14:1, 53:1), “The fool hath said in his

   heart, There is no God,” is primarily applied to those who, as will shortly

   farther appear, stifle the light of nature, and intentionally stupefy

   themselves. We see many, after they have become hardened in a daring course

   of sin, madly banishing all remembrance of God, though spontaneously

   suggested to them from within, by natural sense. To show how detestable this

   madness is, the Psalmist introduces them as distinctly denying that there is

   a God, because although they do not disown his essence, they rob him of his

   justice and providence, and represent him as sitting idly in heaven. Nothing

   being less accordant with the nature of God than to cast off the government

   of the world, leaving it to chance, and so to wink at the crimes of men that

   they may wanton with impunity in evil courses; it follows, that every man

   who indulges in security, after extinguishing all fear of divine Judgment,

   virtually denies that there is a God. As a just punishment of the wicked,

   after they have closed their own eyes, God makes their hearts dull and

   heavy, and hence, seeing, they see not. David, indeed, is the best

   interpreter of his own meaning, when he says elsewhere, the wicked has “no

   fear of God before his eyes,” (Psalm 36:1); and, again, “He has said in his

   heart, God has forgotten; he hideth his face; he will never see it.” Thus

   although they are forced to acknowledge that there is some God, they,

   however, rob him of his glory by denying his power. For, as Paul declares,

   “If we believe not, he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself,” (2 Tim.

   2:13); so those who feign to themselves a dead and dumb idol, are truly said

   to deny God. It is, moreover, to be observed, that though they struggle with

   their own convictions, and would fain not only banish God from their minds,

   but from heaven also, their stupefaction is never so complete as to secure

   them from being occasionally dragged before the divine tribunal. Still, as

   no fear restrains them from rushing violently in the face of God, so long as

   they are hurried on by that blind impulse, it cannot be denied that their

   prevailing state of mind in regard to him is brutish oblivion.


   3. In this way, the vain pretext which many employ to clothe their

   superstition is overthrown. They deem it enough that they have some kind of

   zeal for religion, how preposterous soever it may be, not observing that

   true religion must be conformable to the will of God as its unerring

   standard; that he can never deny himself, and is no spectra or phantom, to

   be metamorphosed at each individual’s caprice. It is easy to see how

   superstition, with its false glosses, mocks God, while it tries to please

   him. Usually fastening merely on things on which he has declared he sets no

   value, it either contemptuously overlooks, or even undisguisedly rejects,

   the things which he expressly enjoins, or in which we are assured that he

   takes pleasure. Those, therefore, who set up a fictitious worship, merely

   worship and adore their own delirious fancies; indeed, they would never dare

   so to trifle with God, had they not previously fashioned him after their own

   childish conceits. Hence that vague and wandering opinion of Deity is

   declared by an apostle to be ignorance of God: “Howbeit, then, when ye knew

   not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.” And he

   elsewhere declares, that the Ephesians were “without God” (Eph. 2:12) at the

   time when they wandered without any correct knowledge of him. It makes

   little difference, at least in this respect, whether you hold the existence

   of one God, or a plurality of gods, since, in both cases alike, by departing

   from the true God, you have nothing left but an execrable idol. It remains,

   therefore, to conclude with Lactantius (Instit. Div. lib 1:2, 6), “No

   religion is genuine that is not in accordance with truth.”


   4. To this fault they add a second—viz. that when they do think of God it is

   against their will; never approaching him without being dragged into his

   presence, and when there, instead of the voluntary fear flowing from

   reverence of the divine majesty, feeling only that forced and servile fear

   which divine Judgment extorts Judgment which, from the impossibility of

   escape, they are compelled to dread, but which, while they dread, they at

   the same time also hate. To impiety, and to it alone, the saying of Statius

   properly applies: “Fear first brought gods into the world,” (Theb. lib. 1).

   Those whose inclinations are at variance with the justice of God, knowing

   that his tribunal has been erected for the punishment of transgression,

   earnestly wish that that tribunal were overthrown. Under the influence of

   this feeling they are actually warring against God, justice being one of his

   essential attributes. Perceiving that they are always within reach of his

   power, that resistance and evasion are alike impossible, they fear and

   tremble. Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of condemning a majesty by

   which all are overawed, they have recourse to some species of religious

   observance, never ceasing meanwhile to defile themselves with every kind of

   vice, and add crime to crime, until they have broken the holy law of the

   Lord in every one of its requirements, and set his whole righteousness at

   nought; at all events, they are not so restrained by their semblance of fear

   as not to luxuriate and take pleasure in iniquity, choosing rather to

   indulge their carnal propensities than to curb them with the bridle of the

   Holy Spirit. But since this shadow of religion (it scarcely even deserves to

   be called a shadow) is false and vain, it is easy to infer how much this

   confused knowledge of God differs from that piety which is instilled into

   the breasts of believers, and from which alone true religion springs. And

   yet hypocrites would fain, by means of tortuous windings, make a show of

   being near to God at the very time they are fleeing from him. For while the

   whole life ought to be one perpetual course of obedience, they rebel without

   fear in almost all their actions, and seek to appease him with a few paltry

   sacrifices; while they ought to serve him with integrity of heart and

   holiness of life, they endeavour to procure his favour by means of frivolous

   devices and punctilios of no value. Nay, they take greater license in their

   grovelling indulgences, because they imagine that they can fulfil their duty

   to him by preposterous expiations; in short, while their confidence ought to

   have been fixed upon him, they put him aside, and rest in themselves or the

   creatures. At length they bewilder themselves in such a maze of error, that

   the darkness of ignorance obscures, and ultimately extinguishes, those

   sparks which were designed to show them the glory of God. Still, however,

   the conviction that there is some Deity continues to exist, like a plant

   which can never be completely eradicated, though so corrupt, that it is only

   capable of producing the worst of fruit. Nay, we have still stronger

   evidence of the proposition for which I now contend—viz. that a sense of

   Deity is naturally engraven on the human heart, in the fact, that the very

   reprobate are forced to acknowledge it. When at their ease, they can jest

   about God, and talk pertly and loquaciously in disparagement of his power;

   but should despair, from any cause, overtake them, it will stimulate them to

   seek him, and dictate ejaculatory prayers, proving that they were not

   entirely ignorant of God, but had perversely suppressed feelings which ought

   to have been earlier manifested.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 5.


   THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD CONSPICUOUS IN THE CREATION, AND CONTINUAL GOVERNMENT

   OF THE WORLD.


   This chapter consists of two parts: 1. The former, which occupies the first

   ten sections, divides all the works of God into two great classes, and

   elucidates the knowledge of God as displayed in each class. The one class is

   treated of in the first six, and the other in the four following sections:

   2. The latter part of the chapter shows, that, in consequence of the extreme

   stupidity of men, those manifestations of God, however perspicuous, lead to

   no useful result. This latter part, which commences at the eleventh section,

   is continued to the end of the chapter.


   Sections.


   1. The invisible and incomprehensible essence of God, to a certain extent,

   made visible in his works.


   2. This declared by the first class of works—viz. the admirable motions of

   the heavens and the earth, the symmetry of the human body, and the

   connection of its parts; in short, the various objects which are presented

   to every eye.


   3. This more especially manifested in the structure of the human body.


   4. The shameful ingratitude of disregarding God, who, in such a variety of

   ways, is manifested within us. The still more shameful ingratitude of

   contemplating the endowments of the soul, without ascending to Him who gave

   them. No objection can be founded on any supposed organism in the soul.


   5. The powers and actions of the soul, a proof of its separate existence

   from the body. Proofs of the soul’s immortality. Objection that the whole

   world is quickened by one soul. Reply to the objection. Its impiety.


   6. Conclusion from what has been said—viz. that the omnipotence, eternity,

   and goodness of God, may be learned from the first class of works, i.e.,

   those which are in accordance with the ordinary course of nature.


   7. The second class of works—viz. those above the ordinary course of nature,

   afford clear evidence of the perfections of God, especially his goodness,

   justice, and mercy.


   8. Also his providence, power, and wisdom.


   9. Proofs and illustrations of the divine Majesty. The use of them—viz. the

   acquisition of divine knowledge in combination with true piety.


   10. The tendency of the knowledge of God to inspire the righteous with the

   hope of future life, and remind the wicked of the punishments reserved for

   them. Its tendency, moreover, to keep alive in the hearts of the righteous a

   sense of the divine goodness.


   11. The second part of the chapter, which describes the stupidity both of

   learned and unlearned, in ascribing the whole order of things, and the

   admirable arrangements of divine Providence, to fortune.


   12. Hence Polytheism, with all its abominations, and the endless and

   irreconcilable opinions of the philosophers concerning God.


   13. All guilty of revolt from God, corrupting pure religion, either by

   following general custom, or the impious consent of antiquity.


   14. Though irradiated by the wondrous glories of creation, we cease not to

   follow our own ways.


   15. Our conduct altogether inexcusable, the dullness of perception being

   attributable to ourselves, while we are fully reminded of the true path,

   both by the structure and the government of the world.


   1. Since the perfection of blessedness consists in the knowledge of God, he

   has been pleased, in order that none might be excluded from the means of

   obtaining felicity, not only to deposit in our minds that seed of religion

   of which we have already spoken, but so to manifest his perfections in the

   whole structure of the universe, and daily place himself in our view, that

   we cannot open our eyes without being compelled to behold him. His essence,

   indeed, is incomprehensible, utterly transcending all human thought; but on

   each of his works his glory is engraven in characters so bright, so

   distinct, and so illustrious, that none, however dull and illiterate, can

   plead ignorance as their excuse. Hence, with perfect truth, the Psalmist

   exclaims, “He covereth himself with light as with a garment,” (Psalm 104:2);

   as if he had said, that God for the first time was arrayed in visible attire

   when, in the creation of the world, he displayed those glorious banners, on

   which, to whatever side we turn, we behold his perfections visibly

   portrayed. In the same place, the Psalmist aptly compares the expanded

   heavens to his royal tent, and says, “He layeth the beams of his chambers in

   the waters, maketh the clouds his chariot, and walketh upon the wings of the

   wind,” sending forth the winds and lightnings as his swift messengers. And

   because the glory of his power and wisdom is more refulgent in the

   firmament, it is frequently designated as his palace. And, first, wherever

   you turn your eyes, there is no portion of the world, however minute, that

   does not exhibit at least some sparks of beauty; while it is impossible to

   contemplate the vast and beautiful fabric as it extends around, without

   being overwhelmed by the immense weight of glory. Hence, the author of the

   Epistle to the Hebrews elegantly describes the visible worlds as images of

   the invisible (Heb. 11:3), the elegant structure of the world serving us as

   a kind of mirror, in which we may behold God, though otherwise invisible.

   For the same reason, the Psalmist attributes language to celestial objects,

   a language which all nations understand (Psalm 19:1), the manifestation of

   the Godhead being too clear to escape the notice of any people, however

   obtuse. The apostle Paul, stating this still more clearly, says, “That which

   may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them.

   For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly

   seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power

   and Godhead,” (Rom. 1:20).


   2. In attestation of his wondrous wisdom, both the heavens and the earth

   present us with innumerable proofs not only those more recondite proofs

   which astronomy, medicine, and all the natural sciences, are designed to

   illustrate, but proofs which force themselves on the notice of the most

   illiterate peasant, who cannot open his eyes without beholding them. It is

   true, indeed, that those who are more or less intimately acquainted with

   those liberal studies are thereby assisted and enabled to obtain a deeper

   insight into the secret workings of divine wisdom. No man, however, though

   he be ignorant of these, is incapacitated for discerning such proofs of

   creative wisdom as may well cause him to break forth in admiration of the

   Creator. To investigate the motions of the heavenly bodies, to determine

   their positions, measure their distances, and ascertain their properties,

   demands skill, and a more careful examination; and where these are so

   employed, as the Providence of God is thereby more fully unfolded, so it is

   reasonable to suppose that the mind takes a loftier flight, and obtains

   brighter views of his glory.5 [53] Still, none who have the use of their

   eyes can be ignorant of the divine skill manifested so conspicuously in the

   endless variety, yet distinct and well ordered array, of the heavenly host;

   and, therefore, it is plain that the Lord has furnished every man with

   abundant proofs of his wisdom. The same is true in regard to the structure

   of the human frame. To determine the connection of its parts, its symmetry

   and beauty, with the skill of a Galen (Lib. De Usu Partium), requires

   singular acuteness; and yet all men acknowledge that the human body bears on

   its face such proofs of ingenious contrivance as are sufficient to proclaim

   the admirable wisdom of its Maker.


   3. Hence certain of the philosophers5 [54] have not improperly called man a

   microcosm (miniature world), as being a rare specimen of divine power,

   wisdom, and goodness, and containing within himself wonders sufficient to

   occupy our minds, if we are willing so to employ them. Paul, accordingly,

   after reminding the Athenians that they “might feel after God and find

   him,” immediately adds, that “he is not far from every one of us,” (Acts

   17:27); every man having within himself undoubted evidence of the heavenly

   grace by which he lives, and moves, and has his being. But if, in order to

   apprehend God, it is unnecessary to go farther than ourselves, what excuse

   can there be for the sloth of any man who will not take the trouble of

   descending into himself that he may find Him? For the same reason, too,

   David, after briefly celebrating the wonderful name and glory of God, as

   everywhere displayed, immediately exclaims, “What is man, that thou art

   mindful of him?” and again, “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou

   hast ordained strength,” (Psalm 8:2, 4). Thus he declares not only that the

   human race are a bright mirror of the Creator’s works, but that infants

   hanging on their mothers’ breasts have tongues eloquent enough to proclaim

   his glory without the aid of other orators. Accordingly, he hesitates not to

   bring them forward as fully instructed to refute the madness of those who,

   from devilish pride, would fain extinguish the name of God. Hence, too, the

   passage which Paul quotes from Aratus, “We are his offspring,” (Acts 17:28),

   the excellent gifts with which he has endued us attesting that he is our

   Father. In the same way also, from natural instinct, and, as it were, at the

   dictation of experience, heathen poets called him the father of men. No one,

   indeed, will voluntarily and willingly devote himself to the service of God

   unless he has previously tasted his paternal love, and been thereby allured

   to love and reverence Him.


   4. But herein appears the shameful ingratitude of men. Though they have in

   their own persons a factory where innumerable operations of God are carried

   on, and a magazine stored with treasures of inestimable value—instead of

   bursting forth in his praise, as they are bound to do, they, on the

   contrary, are the more inflated and swelled with pride. They feel how

   wonderfully God is working in them, and their own experience tells them of

   the vast variety of gifts which they owe to his liberality. Whether they

   will or not, they cannot but know that these are proofs of his Godhead, and

   yet they inwardly suppress them. They have no occasion to go farther than

   themselves, provided they do not, by appropriating as their own that which

   has been given them from heaven, put out the light intended to exhibit God

   clearly to their minds. At this day, however, the earth sustains on her

   bosom many monster minds—minds which are not afraid to employ the seed of

   Deity deposited in human nature as a means of suppressing the name of God.

   Can any thing be more detestable than this madness in man, who, finding God

   a hundred times both in his body and his soul, makes his excellence in this

   respect a pretext for denying that there is a God? He will not say that

   chance has made him differ from the brutes that perish; but, substituting

   nature as the architect of the universe, he suppresses the name of God. The

   swift motions of the soul, its noble faculties and rare endowments, bespeak

   the agency of God in a manner which would make the suppression of it

   impossible, did not the Epicureans, like so many Cyclops, use it as a

   vantage-ground, from which to wage more audacious war with God. Are so many

   treasures of heavenly wisdom employed in the guidance of such a worm as man,

   and shall the whole universe be denied the same privilege? To hold that

   there are organs in the soul corresponding to each of its faculties, is so

   far from obscuring the glory of God, that it rather illustrates it. Let

   Epicurus tell what concourse of atoms, cooking meat and drink, can form one

   portion into refuse and another portion into blood, and make all the members

   separately perform their office as carefully as if they were so many souls

   acting with common consent in the superintendence of one body.


   5. But my business at present is not with that stye: I wish rather to deal

   with those who, led away by absurd subtleties, are inclined, by giving an

   indirect turn to the frigid doctrine of Aristotle, to employ it for the

   purpose both of disproving the immortality of the soul, and robbing God of

   his rights. Under the pretext that the faculties of the soul are organised,

   they chain it to the body as if it were incapable of a separate existence,

   while they endeavour as much as in them lies, by pronouncing eulogiums on

   nature, to suppress the name of God. But there is no ground for maintaining

   that the powers of the soul are confined to the performance of bodily

   functions. What has the body to do with your measuring the heavens, counting

   the number of the stars, ascertaining their magnitudes, their relative

   distances, the rate at which they move, and the orbits which they describe?

   I deny not that Astronomy has its use; all I mean to show is, that these

   lofty investigations are not conducted by organised symmetry, but by the

   faculties of the soul itself apart altogether from the body. The single

   example I have given will suggest many others to the reader. The swift and

   versatile movements of the soul in glancing from heaven to earth, connecting

   the future with the past, retaining the remembrance of former years, nay,

   forming creations of its own—its skill, moreover, in making astonishing

   discoveries, and inventing so many wonderful arts, are sure indications of

   the agency of God in man. What shall we say of its activity when the body is

   asleep, its many revolving thoughts, its many useful suggestions, its many

   solid arguments, nay, its presentiment of things yet to come? What shall we

   say but that man bears about with him a stamp of immortality which can never

   be effaced? But how is it possible for man to be divine, and yet not

   acknowledge his Creator? Shall we, by means of a power of judging implanted

   in our breast, distinguish between justice and injustice, and yet there be

   no judge in heaven? Shall some remains of intelligence continue with us in

   sleep, and yet no God keep watch in heaven? Shall we be deemed the inventors

   of so many arts and useful properties that God may be defrauded of his

   praise, though experience tells us plainly enough, that whatever we possess

   is dispensed to us in unequal measures by another hand? The talk of certain

   persons concerning a secret inspiration quickening the whole world, is not

   only silly, but altogether profane. Such persons are delighted with the

   following celebrated passage of Virgil:6 [55] —


   “Know, first, that heaven, and earth’s compacted frame,


   And flowing waters, and the starry flame,


   And both the radiant lights, one common soul


   Inspires and feeds—and animates the whole.


   This active mind, infused through all the space,


   Unites and mingles with the mighty mass:


   Hence, men and beasts the breath of life obtain,


   And birds of air, and monsters of the main.


   Th’ ethereal vigour is in all the same,


   And every soul is filled with equal flame.”6 [56]


   The meaning of all this is, that the world, which was made to display the

   glory of God, is its own creator. For the same poet has, in another place,6

   [57] adopted a view common to both Greeks and Latins:—


   “Hence to the bee some sages have assigned


   A portion of the God, and heavenly mind;


   For God goes forth, and spreads throughout the whole,


   Heaven, earth, and sea, the universal soul;


   Each, at its birth, from him all beings share,


   Both man and brute, the breath of vital air;


   To him return, and, loosed from earthly chain,


   Fly whence they sprung, and rest in God again;


   Spurn at the grave, and, fearless of decay,


   Dwell in high heaven, art star th’ ethereal way.”6 [58]


   Here we see how far that jejune speculation, of a universal mind animating

   and invigorating the world, is fitted to beget and foster piety in our

   minds. We have a still clearer proof of this in the profane verses which the

   licentious Lucretius has written as a deduction from the same principle.6

   [59] The plain object is to form an unsubstantial deity, and thereby banish

   the true God whom we ought to fear and worship. I admit, indeed that the

   expressions “Nature is God,” may be piously used, if dictated by a pious

   mind; but as it is inaccurate and harsh (Nature being more properly the

   order which has been established by God), in matters which are so very

   important, and in regard to which special reverence is due, it does harm to

   confound the Deity with the inferior operations of his hands.


   6. Let each of us, therefore, in contemplating his own nature, remember that

   there is one God who governs all natures, and, in governing, wishes us to

   have respect to himself, to make him the object of our faith, worship, and

   adoration. Nothing, indeed, can be more preposterous than to enjoy those

   noble endowments which bespeak the divine presence within us, and to neglect

   him who, of his own good pleasure, bestows them upon us. In regard to his

   power, how glorious the manifestations by which he urges us to the

   contemplation of himself; unless, indeed, we pretend not to know whose

   energy it is that by a word sustains the boundless fabric of the universe—at

   one time making heaven reverberate with thunder, sending forth the scorching

   lightning, and setting the whole atmosphere in a blaze; at another, causing

   the raging tempests to blow, and forthwith, in one moment, when it so

   pleases him, making a perfect calm; keeping the sea, which seems constantly

   threatening the earth with devastation, suspended as it were in air; at one

   time, lashing it into fury by the impetuosity of the winds; at another,

   appeasing its rage, and stilling all its waves. Here we might refer to those

   glowing descriptions of divine power, as illustrated by natural events,

   which occur throughout Scripture; but more especially in the book of Job,

   and the prophecies of Isaiah. These, however, I purposely omit, because a

   better opportunity of introducing them will be found when I come to treat of

   the Scriptural account of the creation. (Infra, chap. 14 s. 1, 2, 20, sq). I

   only wish to observe here, that this method of investigating the divine

   perfections, by tracing the lineaments of his countenance as shadowed forth

   in the firmament and on the earth, is common both to those within and to

   those without the pale of the Church. From the power of God we are naturally

   led to consider his eternity since that from which all other things derive

   their origin must necessarily be selfexistent and eternal. Moreover, if it

   be asked what cause induced him to create all things at first, and now

   inclines him to preserve them, we shall find that there could be no other

   cause than his own goodness. But if this is the only cause, nothing more

   should be required to draw forth our love towards him; every creature, as

   the Psalmist reminds us, participating in his mercy. “His tender mercies are

   over all his works,” (Ps. 145:9).


   7. In the second class of God’s works, namely those which are above the

   ordinary course of nature, the evidence of his perfections are in every

   respect equally clear. For in conducting the affairs of men, he so arranges

   the course of his providence, as daily to declare, by the clearest

   manifestations, that though all are in innumerable ways the partakers of his

   bounty, the righteous are the special objects of his favour, the wicked and

   profane the special objects of his severity. It is impossible to doubt his

   punishment of crimes; while at the same time he, in no unequivocal manner,

   declares that he is the protector, and even the avenger of innocence, by

   shedding blessings on the good, helping their necessities, soothing and

   solacing their griefs, relieving their sufferings, and in all ways providing

   for their safety. And though he often permits the guilty to exult for a time

   with impunity, and the innocent to be driven to and fro in adversity, nay,

   even to be wickedly and iniquitously oppressed, this ought not to produce

   any uncertainty as to the uniform justice of all his procedure. Nay, an

   opposite inference should be drawn. When any one crime calls forth visible

   manifestations of his anger, it must be because he hates all crimes; and, on

   the other hand, his leaving many crimes unpunished, only proves that there

   is a Judgment in reserve, when the punishment now delayed shall be

   inflicted. In like manner, how richly does he supply us with the means of

   contemplating his mercy when, as frequently happens, he continues to visit

   miserable sinners with unwearied kindness, until he subdues their depravity,

   and woos them back with more than a parent’s fondness?


   8. To this purpose the Psalmist (Ps. 107) mentioning how God, in a wondrous

   manner, often brings sudden and unexpected succour to the miserable when

   almost on the brink of despair, whether in protecting them when they stray

   in deserts, and at length leading them back into the right path, or

   supplying them with food when famishing for want, or delivering them when

   captive from iron fetters and foul dungeons, or conducting them safe into

   harbour after shipwreck, or bringing them back from the gates of death by

   curing their diseases, or, after burning up the fields with heat and

   drought, fertilising them with the river of his grace, or exalting the

   meanest of the people, and casting down the mighty from their lofty

   seats:—the Psalmist, after bringing forward examples of this description,

   infers that those things which men call fortuitous events, are so many

   proofs of divine providence, and more especially of paternal clemency,

   furnishing ground of joy to the righteous, and at the same time stopping the

   mouths of the ungodly. But as the greater part of mankind, enslaved by

   error, walk blindfold in this glorious theatre, he exclaims that it is a

   rare and singular wisdom to meditate carefully on these works of God, which

   many, who seem most sharp-sighted in other respects, behold without profit.

   It is indeed true, that the brightest manifestation of divine glory finds

   not one genuine spectator among a hundred. Still, neither his power nor his

   wisdom is shrouded in darkness. His power is strikingly displayed when the

   rage of the wicked, to all appearance irresistible, is crushed in a single

   moment; their arrogance subdued, their strongest bulwarks overthrown, their

   armour dashed to pieces, their strength broken, their schemes defeated

   without an effort, and audacity which set itself above the heavens is

   precipitated to the lowest depths of the earth. On the other hand, the poor

   are raised up out of the dust, and the needy lifted out of the dung hill

   (Ps. 113:7), the oppressed and afflicted are rescued in extremity, the

   despairing animated with hope, the unarmed defeat the armed, the few the

   many, the weak the strong. The excellence of the divine wisdom is manifested

   in distributing everything in due season, confounding the wisdom of the

   world, and taking the wise in their own craftiness (1 Cor. 3:19); in short,

   conducting all things in perfect accordance with reason.


   9. We see there is no need of a long and laborious train of argument in

   order to obtain proofs which illustrate and assert the Divine Majesty. The

   few which we have merely touched, show them to be so immediately within our

   reach in every quarter, that we can trace them with the eye, or point to

   them with the finger. And here we must observe again (see chap. 2 s. 2),

   that the knowledge of God which we are invited to cultivate is not that

   which, resting satisfied with empty speculation, only flutters in the brain,

   but a knowledge which will prove substantial and fruitful wherever it is

   duly perceived, and rooted in the heart. The Lord is manifested by his

   perfections. When we feel their power within us, and are conscious of their

   benefits, the knowledge must impress us much more vividly than if we merely

   imagined a God whose presence we never felt. Hence it is obvious, that in

   seeking God, the most direct path and the fittest method is, not to attempt

   with presumptuous curiosity to pry into his essence, which is rather to be

   adored than minutely discussed, but to contemplate him in his works, by

   which he draws near, becomes familiar, and in a manner communicates himself

   to us. To this the Apostle referred when he said, that we need not go far in

   search of him (Acts 17:27), because, by the continual working of his power,

   he dwells in every one of us. Accordingly, David (Psalm 145), after

   acknowledging that his greatness is unsearchable, proceeds to enumerate his

   works, declaring that his greatness will thereby be unfolded. It therefore

   becomes us also diligently to prosecute that investigation of God which so

   enraptures the soul with admiration as, at the same time, to make an

   efficacious impression on it. And, as Augustine expresses it (in Psalm 144),

   since we are unable to comprehend Him, and are, as it were, overpowered by

   his greatness, our proper course is to contemplate his works, and so refresh

   ourselves with his goodness.


   10. By the knowledge thus acquired, we ought not only to be stimulated to

   worship God, but also aroused and elevated to the hope of future life. For,

   observing that the manifestations which the Lord gives both of his mercy and

   severity are only begun and incomplete, we ought to infer that these are

   doubtless only a prelude to higher manifestations, of which the full display

   is reserved for another state. Conversely, when we see the righteous brought

   into affliction by the ungodly, assailed with injuries, overwhelmed with

   calumnies, and lacerated by insult and contumely, while, on the contrary,

   the wicked flourish, prosper, acquire ease and honour, and all these with

   impunity, we ought forthwith to infer, that there will be a future life in

   which iniquity shall receive its punishment, and righteousness its reward.

   Moreover, when we observe that the Lord often lays his chastening rod on the

   righteous, we may the more surely conclude, that far less will the righteous

   ultimately escape the scourges of his anger. There is a well-known passage

   in Augustine (De Civitat. Dei, lib. 1 c. 8), “Were all sin now visited with

   open punishment, it might be thought that nothing was reserved for the final

   Judgment; and, on the other hand, were no sin now openly punished, it might

   be supposed there was no divine providence.” It must be acknowledged,

   therefore, that in each of the works of God, and more especially in the

   whole of them taken together, the divine perfections are delineated as in a

   picture, and the whole human race thereby invited and allured to acquire the

   knowledge of God, and, in consequence of this knowledge, true and complete

   felicity. Moreover, while his perfections are thus most vividly displayed,

   the only means of ascertaining their practical operation and tendency is to

   descend into ourselves, and consider how it is that the Lord there manifests

   his wisdom, power, and energy,—how he there displays his justice, goodness,

   and mercy. For although David (Psalm 92:6) justly complains of the extreme

   infatuation of the ungodly in not pondering the deep counsels of God, as

   exhibited in the government of the human race, what he elsewhere says (Psalm

   40) is most true, that the wonders of the divine wisdom in this respect are

   more in number than the hairs of our head. But I leave this topic at

   present, as it will be more fully considered afterwards in its own place

   (Book I. c. 16, see. 6-9).


   11. Bright, however, as is the manifestation which God gives both of himself

   and his immortal kingdom in the mirror of his works, so great is our

   stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright manifestations, that we

   derive no benefit from them. For in regard to the fabric and admirable

   arrangement of the universe, how few of us are there who, in lifting our

   eyes to the heavens, or looking abroad on the various regions of the earth,

   ever think of the Creator? Do we not rather overlook Him, and sluggishly

   content ourselves with a view of his works? And then in regard to

   supernatural events, though these are occurring every day, how few are there

   who ascribe them to the ruling providence of God—how many who imagine that

   they are casual results produced by the blind evolutions of the wheel of

   chance? Even when under the guidance and direction of these events, we are

   in a manner forced to the contemplation of God (a circumstance which all

   must occasionally experience), and are thus led to form some impressions of

   Deity, we immediately fly off to carnal dreams and depraved fictions, and so

   by our vanity corrupt heavenly truth. This far, indeed, we differ from each

   other, in that every one appropriates to himself some peculiar error; but we

   are all alike in this, that we substitute monstrous fictions for the one

   living and true God—a disease not confined to obtuse and vulgar minds, but

   affecting the noblest, and those who, in other respects, are singularly

   acute. How lavishly in this respect have the whole body of philosophers

   betrayed their stupidity and want of sense? To say nothing of the others

   whose absurdities are of a still grosser description, how completely does

   Plato, the soberest and most religious of them all, lose himself in his

   round globe?6 [60] What must be the case with the rest, when the leaders,

   who ought to have set them an example, commit such blunders, and labour

   under such hallucinations? In like manner, while the government of the world

   places the doctrine of providence beyond dispute, the practical result is

   the same as if it were believed that all things were carried hither and

   thither at the caprice of chance; so prone are we to vanity and error. I am

   still referring to the most distinguished of the philosophers, and not to

   the common herd, whose madness in profaning the truth of God exceeds all

   bounds.


   12. Hence that immense flood of error with which the whole world is

   overflowed. Every individual mind being a kind of labyrinth, it is not

   wonderful, not only that each nation has adopted a variety of fictions, but

   that almost every man has had his own god. To the darkness of ignorance have

   been added presumption and wantonness, and hence there is scarcely an

   individual to be found without some idol or phantom as a substitute for

   Deity. Like water gushing forth from a large and copious spring, immense

   crowds of gods have issued from the human mind, every man giving himself

   full license, and devising some peculiar form of divinity, to meet his own

   views. It is unnecessary here to attempt a catalogue of the superstitions

   with which the world was overspread. The thing were endless; and the

   corruptions themselves, though not a word should be said, furnish abundant

   evidence of the blindness of the human mind. I say nothing of the rude and

   illiterate vulgar; but among the philosophers6 [61] who attempted, by reason

   and learning, to pierce the heavens, what shameful disagreement! The higher

   any one was endued with genius, and the more he was polished by science and

   art, the more specious was the colouring which he gave to his opinions. All

   these, however, if examined more closely, will be found to be vain show. The

   Stoics plumed themselves on their acuteness, when they sai that the various

   names of God might be extracted from all the parts of nature, and yet that

   his unity was not thereby divided: as if we were not already too prone to

   vanity, and had no need of being presented with an endless multiplicity of

   gods, to lead us further and more grossly into error. The mystic theology of

   the Egyptians shows how sedulously they laboured to be thought rational on

   this subject.6 [62] And, perhaps, at the first glance, some show of

   probability might deceive the simple and unwary; but never did any mortal

   devise a scheme by which religion was not foully corrupted. This endless

   variety and confusion emboldened the Epicureans, and other gross despisers

   of piety, to cut off all sense of God. For when they saw that the wisest

   contradicted each others they hesitated not to infer from their dissensions,

   and from the frivolous and absurd doctrines of each, that men foolishly, and

   to no purpose, brought torment upon themselves by searching for a God, there

   being none: and they thought this inference safe, because it was better at

   once to deny God altogether, than to feign uncertain gods, and thereafter

   engage in quarrels without end. They, indeed, argue absurdly, or rather

   weave a cloak for their impiety out of human ignorance; though ignorance

   surely cannot derogate from the prerogatives of God. But since all confess

   that there is no topic on which such difference exists, both among learned

   and unlearned, the proper inference is, that the human mind, which thus errs

   in inquiring after God, is dull and blind in heavenly mysteries. Some praise

   the answer of Simonides, who being asked by King Hero what God was, asked a

   day to consider. When the king next day repeated the question, he asked two

   days; and after repeatedly doubling the number of days, at length replied,

   “The longer I consider, the darker the subject appears.”6 [63] He, no doubt,

   wisely suspended his opinion, when he did not see clearly: still his answer

   shows, that if men are only naturally taught, instead of having any

   distinct, solid, or certain knowledge, they fasten only on contradictory

   principles, and, in consequence, worship an unknown God.


   13. Hence we must hold, that whosoever adulterates pure religion (and this

   must be the case with all who cling to their own views), make a departure

   from the one God. No doubt, they will allege that they have a different

   intention; but it is of little consequence what they intend or persuade

   themselves to believe, since the Holy Spirit pronounces all to be apostates,

   who, in the blindness of their minds, substitute demons in the place of God.

   For this reason Paul declares that the Ephesians were “without God,” (Eph.

   2:12), until they had learned from the Gospel what it is to worship the true

   God. Nor must this be restricted to one people only, since, in another

   place, he declares in general, that all men “became vain in their

   imaginations,” after the majesty of the Creator was manifested to them in

   the structure of the world. Accordingly, in order to make way for the only

   true God, he condemns all the gods celebrated among the Gentiles as lying

   and false, leaving no Deity anywhere but in Mount Zion where the special

   knowledge of God was professed (Hab. 2:18, 20). Among the Gentiles in the

   time of Christ, the Samaritans undoubtedly made the nearest approach to true

   piety; yet we hear from his own mouth that they worshipped they knew not

   what (John 4:22); whence it follows that they were deluded by vain errors.

   In short, though all did not give way to gross vice, or rush headlong into

   open idolatry, there was no pure and authentic religion founded merely on

   common belief. A few individuals may not have gone all insane lengths with

   the vulgar; still Paul’s declaration remains true, that the wisdom of God

   was not apprehended by the princes of this world (1 Cor. 2:8). But if the

   most distinguished wandered in darkness, what shall we say of the refuse? No

   wonder, therefore, that all worship of man’s device is repudiated by the

   Holy Spirit as degenerate. Any opinion which man can form in heavenly

   mysteries, though it may not beget a long train of errors, is still the

   parent of error. And though nothing worse should happen, even this is no

   light sin—to worship an unknown God at random. Of this sin, however, we hear

   from our Saviour’s own mouth (John 4:22), that all are guilty who have not

   been taught out of the law who the God is whom they ought to worship. Nay,

   even Socrates in Xenophon (lib. 1 Memorabilia), lauds the response of Apollo

   enjoining every man to worship the gods according to the rites of his

   country, and the particular practice of his own city. But what right have

   mortals thus to decide of their own authority in a matter which is far above

   the world; or who can so acquiesce in the will of his forefathers, or the

   decrees of the people, as unhesitatingly to receive a god at their hands?

   Every one will adhere to his own Judgment, sooner than submit to the

   dictation of others. Since, therefore, in regulating the worship of God, the

   custom of a city, or the consent of antiquity, is a too feeble and fragile

   bond of piety; it remains that God himself must bear witness to himself from

   heaven.


   14. In vain for us, therefore, does Creation exhibit so many bright lamps

   lighted up to show forth the glory of its Author. Though they beam upon us

   from every quarter, they are altogether insufficient of themselves to lead

   us into the right path. Some sparks, undoubtedly, they do throw out; but

   these are quenched before they can give forth a brighter effulgence.

   Wherefore, the apostle, in the very place where he says that the worlds are

   images of invisible things, adds that it is by faith we understand that they

   were framed by the word of God (Heb. 11:3); thereby intimating that the

   invisible Godhead is indeed represented by such displays, but that we have

   no eyes to perceive it until they are enlightened through faith by internal

   revelation from God. When Paul says that that which may be known of God is

   manifested by the creation of the world, he does not mean such a

   manifestation as may be comprehended by the wit of man (Rom. 1:19); on the

   contrary, he shows that it has no further effect than to render us

   inexcusable (Acts 17:27). And though he says, elsewhere, that we have not

   far to seek for God, inasmuch as he dwells within us, he shows, in another

   passage, to what extent this nearness to God is availing. God, says he, “in

   times past, suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless, he

   left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from

   heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness,”

   (Acts 14:16, 17). But though God is not left without a witness, while, with

   numberless varied acts of kindness, he woos men to the knowledge of himself,

   yet they cease not to follow their own ways, in other words, deadly errors.


   15. But though we are deficient in natural powers which might enable us to

   rise to a pure and clear knowledge of God, still, as the dullness which

   prevents us is within, there is no room for excuse. We cannot plead

   ignorance, without being at the same time convicted by our own consciences

   both of sloth and ingratitude. It were, indeed, a strange defence for man to

   pretend that he has no ears to hear the truth, while dumb creatures have

   voices loud enough to declare it; to allege that he is unable to see that

   which creatures without eyes demonstrate, to excuse himself on the ground of

   weakness of mind, while all creatures without reason are able to teach.

   Wherefore, when we wander and go astray, we are justly shut out from every

   species of excuse, because all things point to the right path. But while man

   must bear the guilt of corrupting the seed of divine knowledge so wondrously

   deposited in his mind, and preventing it from bearing good and genuine

   fruit, it is still most true that we are not sufficiently instructed by that

   bare and simple, but magnificent testimony which the creatures bear to the

   glory of their Creator. For no sooner do we, from a survey of the world,

   obtain some slight knowledge of Deity, than we pass by the true God, and set

   up in his stead the dream and phantom of our own brain, drawing away the

   praise of justice, wisdom, and goodness, from the fountain-head, and

   transferring it to some other quarter. Moreover, by the erroneous estimate

   we form, we either so obscure or pervert his daily works, as at once to rob

   them of their glory and the author of them of his just praise.

     _________________________________________________________________


   [53] 8 58 Augustinus: Astrologia magnum religiosis argumentum, tormentumque

   curiosis.


   [54] 9 59 See Aristot. Hist. Anim. lib. i. c. 17; Macrob. in Somn. Scip lib.

   2 c. 12; Boeth. De Definitione.


   [55] 60 Aeneid, 6 724, sq. See Calvin on Acts 17:28 Manil. lib. 1. Astron.


   [56] 1 61 Dryden’s Virgil, Æneid, Book 4 1. 980-990.


   [57] 2 62 Georgic 4. 220. Plat. in Tim. Arist. lib. 1 De Animo. See also

   Metaph. lib. 1. Merc. Trismegr. in Pimandro.


   [58] 3 63 Dryden’s Virgil, Book 4. 1. 252-262.


   [59] 4 64 He maintains, in the beginning of the First Book, that nothing is

   produced of nothing, but that all things are formed out of certain primitive

   materials. He also perverts the ordinary course of generation into an

   argument against the existence of God. In the Fifth Book, however, he admits

   that the world was born and will die.


   [60] 5 65 Plato in Timaeos. See also Cic. De Nat. Deorum, lib. 1 ; Plut. De

   Philos Placitis, lib. i.


   [61] 6 66 Cicero : Qui deos esse dixerunt tanta sunt in varietate ac

   dissensione, ut eorum molestum sit enumerare sententias.—Cicero, De Nat

   Deorum, lib. 1 and 2. Lactant Inst. Div. lib. 1 &c.


   [62] 8 68 Plutarch. lib. De Iside et Osiride.


   [63] 9 69 Cicero, De Nat. Deor. lib. 1.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 6.


   THE NEED OF SCRIPTURE, AS A GUIDE AND TEACHER, IN COMING TO GOD AS A

   CREATOR.


   Sections.


   1. God gives his elect a better help to the knowledge of himself—viz. the

   Holy Scriptures. This he did from the very first.


   2. First, By oracles and visions, and the ministry of the Patriarchs.

   Secondly, By the promulgation of the Law, and the preaching of the Prophets.

   Why the doctrines of religion are committed to writing.


   3. This view confirmed, 1. By the depravity of our nature making it

   necessary in every one who would know God to have recourse to the word; 2.

   From those passages of the Psalms in which God is introduced as reigning.


   4. Another confirmation from certain direct statements in the Psalms.

   Lastly, From the words of our Saviour.


   1. Therefore, though the effulgence which is presented to every eye, both in

   the heavens and on the earth, leaves the ingratitude of man without excuse,

   since God, in order to bring the whole human race under the same

   condemnation, holds forth to all, without exception, a mirror of his Deity

   in his works, another and better help must be given to guide us properly to

   God as a Creator. Not in vain, therefore, has he added the light of his Word

   in order that he might make himself known unto salvation, and bestowed the

   privilege on those whom he was pleased to bring into nearer and more

   familiar relation to himself. For, seeing how the minds of men were carried

   to and fro, and found no certain resting-place, he chose the Jews for a

   peculiar people, and then hedged them in that they might not, like others,

   go astray. And not in vain does he, by the same means, retain us in his

   knowledge, since but for this, even those who, in comparison of others, seem

   to stand strong, would quickly fall away. For as the aged, or those whose

   sight is defective, when any books however fair, is set before them, though

   they perceive that there is something written are scarcely able to make out

   two consecutive words, but, when aided by glasses, begin to read distinctly,

   so Scripture, gathering together the impressions of Deity, which, till then,

   lay confused in our minds, dissipates the darkness, and shows us the true

   God clearly. God therefore bestows a gift of singular value, when, for the

   instruction of the Church, he employs not dumb teachers merely, but opens

   his own sacred mouth; when he not only proclaims that some God must be

   worshipped, but at the same time declares that He is the God to whom worship

   is due; when he not only teaches his elect to have respect to God, but

   manifests himself as the God to whom this respect should be paid.


   The course which God followed towards his Church from the very first, was to

   supplement these common proofs by the addition of his Word, as a surer and

   more direct means of discovering himself. And there can be no doubt that it

   was by this help, Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs, attained to

   that familiar knowledge which, in a manner, distinguished them from

   unbelievers. I am not now speaking of the peculiar doctrines of faith by

   which they were elevated to the hope of eternal blessedness. It was

   necessary, in passing from death unto life, that they should know God, not

   only as a Creator, but as a Redeemer also; and both kinds of knowledge they

   certainly did obtain from the Word. In point of order, however, the

   knowledge first given was that which made them acquainted with the God by

   whom the world was made and is governed. To this first knowledge was

   afterwards added the more intimate knowledge which alone quickens dead

   souls, and by which God is known not only as the Creator of the worlds and

   the sole author and disposer of all events, but also as a Redeemer, in the

   person of the Mediator. But as the fall and the corruption of nature have

   not yet been considered, I now postpone the consideration of the remedy (for

   which, see Book 2 c. 6 &c). Let the reader then remember, that I am not now

   treating of the covenant by which God adopted the children of Abraham, or of

   that branch of doctrine by which, as founded in Christ, believers have,

   properly speaking, been in all ages separated from the profane heathen. I am

   only showing that it is necessary to apply to Scripture, in order to learn

   the sure marks which distinguish God, as the Creator of the world, from the

   whole herd of fictitious gods. We shall afterward, in due course, consider

   the work of Redemption. In the meantime, though we shall adduce many

   passages from the New Testament, and some also from the Law and the

   Prophets, in which express mention is made of Christ, the only object will

   be to show that God, the Maker of the world, is manifested to us in

   Scripture, and his true character expounded, so as to save us from wandering

   up and down, as in a labyrinth, in search of some doubtful deity.


   2. Whether God revealed himself to the fathers by oracles and visions,7 [64]

   or, by the instrumentality and ministry of men, suggested what they were to

   hand down to posterity, there cannot be a doubt that the certainty of what

   he taught them was firmly engraven on their hearts, so that they felt

   assured and knew that the things which they learnt came forth from God, who

   invariably accompanied his word with a sure testimony, infinitely superior

   to mere opinion. At length, in order that, while doctrine was continually

   enlarged, its truth might subsist in the world during all ages, it was his

   pleasure that the same oracles which he had deposited with the fathers

   should be consigned, as it were, to public records. With this view the law

   was promulgated, and prophets were afterwards added to be its interpreters.

   For though the uses of the law were manifold (Book 2 c. 7 and 8), and the

   special office assigned to Moses and all the prophets was to teach the

   method of reconciliation between God and man (whence Paul calls Christ “the

   end of the law,” Rom. 10:4); still I repeat that, in addition to the proper

   doctrine of faith and repentance in which Christ is set forth as a Mediator,

   the Scriptures employ certain marks and tokens to distinguish the only wise

   and true God, considered as the Creator and Governor of the world, and

   thereby guard against his being confounded with the herd of false deities.

   Therefore, while it becomes man seriously to employ his eyes in considering

   the works of God, since a place has been assigned him in this most glorious

   theatre that he may be a spectator of them, his special duty is to give ear

   to the Word, that he may the better profit.7 [65] Hence it is not strange

   that those who are born in darkness become more and more hardened in their

   stupidity; because the vast majority instead of confining themselves within

   due bounds by listening with docility to the Word, exult in their own

   vanity. If true religion is to beam upon us, our principle must be, that it

   is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching, and that it is impossible for

   any man to obtain even the minutest portion of right and sound doctrine

   without being a disciple of Scripture. Hence, the first step in true

   knowledge is taken, when we reverently embrace the testimony which God has

   been pleased therein to give of himself. For not only does faith, full and

   perfect faith, but all correct knowledge of God, originate in obedience. And

   surely in this respect God has with singular Providence provided for mankind

   in all ages.


   3. For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness

   of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and

   then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand

   how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure

   it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or

   being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. It being thus manifest

   that God, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image imprinted on the fair

   form of the universe, has given the assistance of his Word to all whom he

   has ever been pleased to instruct effectually, we, too, must pursue this

   straight path, if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God;—we

   must go, I say, to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from his

   works is described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated,

   not by our depraved Judgment, but by the standard of eternal truth. If, as I

   lately said, we turn aside from it, how great soever the speed with which we

   move, we shall never reach the goal, because we are off the course. We

   should consider that the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an

   apostle declares to be inaccessible (1 Tim. 6:16), is a kind of

   labyrinth,—a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a

   thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run

   with the greatest swiftness out of it. Hence the Psalmist, after repeatedly

   declaring (Psalm 93, 96, 97, 99, &c). that superstition should be banished

   from the world in order that pure religion may flourish, introduces God as

   reigning; meaning by the term, not the power which he possesses and which he

   exerts in the government of universal nature, but the doctrine by which he

   maintains his due supremacy: because error never can be eradicated from the

   heart of man until the true knowledge of God has been implanted in it.


   4. Accordingly, the same prophet, after mentioning that the heavens declare

   the glory of God, that the firmament sheweth forth the works of his hands,

   that the regular succession of day and night proclaim his Majesty, proceeds

   to make mention of the Word:—“The law of the Lord,” says he, “is perfect,

   converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the

   simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the

   commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes,” (Psalm 19:1-9). For

   though the law has other uses besides (as to which, see Book 2 c. 7, sec. 6,

   10, 12), the general meaning is, that it is the proper school for training

   the children of God; the invitation given to all nations, to behold him in

   the heavens and earth, proving of no avail. The same view is taken in the

   29th Psalm, where the Psalmist, after discoursing on the dreadful voice of

   God, which, in thunder, wind, rain, whirlwind, and tempest, shakes the

   earth, makes the mountains tremble, and breaks the cedars, concludes by

   saying, “that in his temple does every one speak of his glory,” unbelievers

   being deaf to all God’s words when they echo in the air. In like manner

   another Psalm, after describing the raging billows of the sea, thus

   concludes, “Thy testimonies are very sure; holiness becometh thine house for

   ever,” (Psalm 93:5). To the same effect are the words of our Saviour to the

   Samaritan woman, when he told her that her nation and all other nations

   worshipped they knew not what; and that the Jews alone gave worship to the

   true God (John 4:22). Since the human mind, through its weakness, was

   altogether unable to come to God if not aided and upheld by his sacred word,

   it necessarily followed that all mankind, the Jews excepted, inasmuch as

   they sought God without the Word, were labouring under vanity and error.

     _________________________________________________________________


   [64] 70 The French adds, “C’est à dire, temoignages celestes;”—that is to

   say, messages from heaven.


   [65] 1 71 Tertullian, Apologet. adv. Gentes: “Quae plenius et impressius tam

   ipsum quam dispositiones ejus et voluntates adiremus, instrumentum adjecit

   literature,” &c.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 7.


   THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT NECESSARY TO GIVE FULL AUTHORITY TO SCRIPTURE.

   THE IMPIETY OF PRETENDING THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE DEPENDS ON THE

   JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH.


   Section.


   1. The authority of Scripture derived not from men, but from the Spirit of

   God. Objection, That Scripture depends on the decision of the Church.

   Refutation, I. The truth of God would thus be subjected to the will of man.

   II. It is insulting to the Holy Spirit. III. It establishes a tyranny in the

   Church. IV. It forms a mass of errors. V. It subverts conscience. VI. It

   exposes our faith to the scoffs of the profane.


   2. Another reply to the objection drawn from the words of the Apostle Paul.

   Solution of the difficulties started by opponents. A second objection

   refuted.


   3. A third objection founded on a sentiment of Augustine considered.


   4. Conclusion, That the authority of Scripture is founded on its being

   spoken by God. This confirmed by the conscience of the godly, and the

   consent of all men of the least candour. A fourth objection common in the

   mouths of the profane. Refutation.


   5. Last and necessary conclusion, That the authority of Scripture is sealed

   on the hearts of believers by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The

   certainty of this testimony. Confirmation of it from a passage of Isaiah,

   and the experience of believers. Also, from another passage of Isaiah.


   1. Before proceeding farther, it seems proper to make some observations on

   the authority of Scripture, in order that our minds may not only be prepared

   to receive it with reverence, but be divested of all doubt.


   When that which professes to be the Word of God is acknowledged to be so, no

   person, unless devoid of common sense and the feelings of a man, will have

   the desperate hardihood to refuse credit to the speaker. But since no daily

   responses are given from heaven, and the Scriptures are the only records in

   which God has been pleased to consign his truth to perpetual remembrance,

   the full authority which they ought to possess with the faithful is not

   recognised, unless they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly

   as if God had been heard giving utterance to them. This subject well

   deserves to be treated more at large, and pondered more accurately. But my

   readers will pardon me for having more regard to what my plan admits than to

   what the extent of this topic requires.


   A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed—viz. that Scripture is

   of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the

   Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the

   will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can

   assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they

   have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this

   book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list,

   did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the

   determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the

   reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted

   into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church,

   to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle

   themselves and others, provided they extort from the simple this one

   acknowledgement—viz. that there is nothing which the Church cannot do. But

   what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance

   of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better

   support than man’s Judgment? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and

   tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith

   subjected—into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to

   have only a precarious authority lent to it by the good will of men?


   2. These ravings are admirably refuted by a single expression of an apostle.

   Paul testifies that the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles

   and prophets,” (Eph. 2:20). If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is

   the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before

   the latter began to exist. Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though

   the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains

   doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets,

   until her Judgment is interposed. For if the Christian Church was founded at

   first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles,

   that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and

   sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church

   herself never could have existed.7 [66] Nothings therefore can be more

   absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the

   Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives

   it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that

   authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but, acknowledging it

   as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows her reverence by an

   unhesitating assent. As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it

   came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the

   same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from

   darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face

   of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour,

   sweet and bitter of their taste.


   3. I am aware it is usual to quote a sentence of Augustine in which he says

   that he would not believe the gospel, were he not moved by the authority of

   the Church (Aug. Cont. Epist. Fundament. c. 5). But it is easy to discover

   from the context, how inaccurate and unfair it is to give it such a meaning.

   He was reasoning against the Manichees, who insisted on being implicitly

   believed, alleging that they had the truth, though they did not show they

   had. But as they pretended to appeal to the gospel in support of Manes, he

   asks what they would do if they fell in with a man who did not even believe

   the gospel—what kind of argument they would use to bring him over to their

   opinion. He afterwards adds, “But I would not believe the gospel,” &c.;

   meaning, that were he a stranger to the faith, the only thing which could

   induce him to embrace the gospel would be the authority of the Church. And

   is it any thing wonderful, that one who does not know Christ should pay

   respect to men?


   Augustine, therefore, does not here say that the faith of the godly is

   founded on the authority of the Church; nor does he mean that the certainty

   of the gospel depends upon it; he merely says that unbelievers would have no

   certainty of the gospel, so as thereby to win Christ, were they not

   influenced by the consent of the Church. And he clearly shows this to be his

   meaning, by thus expressing himself a little before: “When I have praised my

   own creed, and ridiculed yours, who do you suppose is to judge between us;

   or what more is to be done than to quit those who, inviting us to certainty,

   afterwards command us to believe uncertainty, and follow those who invite

   us, in the first instance, to believe what we are not yet able to

   comprehend, that waxing stronger through faith itself, we may become able to

   understand what we believe—no longer men, but God himself internally

   strengthening and illuminating our minds? These unquestionably are the words

   of Augustine (August. Cont. Epist. Fundament. cap. 4); and the obvious

   inference from them is, that this holy man had no intention to suspend our

   faith in Scripture on the nod or decision of the Church,7 [67] but only to

   intimate (what we too admit to be true) that those who are not yet

   enlightened by the Spirit of God, become teachable by reverence for the

   Church, and thus submit to learn the faith of Christ from the gospel. In

   this way, though the authority of the Church leads us on, and prepares us to

   believe in the gospel, it is plain that Augustine would have the certainty

   of the godly to rest on a very different foundation.7 [68]


   At the same time, I deny not that he often presses the Manichees with the

   consent of the whole Church, while arguing in support of the Scriptures,

   which they rejected. Hence he upbraids Faustus (lib. 32) for not submitting

   to evangelical truth—truth so well founded, so firmly established, so

   gloriously renowned, and handed down by sure succession from the days of the

   apostles. But he nowhere insinuates that the authority which we give to the

   Scriptures depends on the definitions or devices of men. He only brings

   forward the universal Judgment of the Church, as a point most pertinent to

   the cause, and one, moreover, in which he had the advantage of his

   opponents. Any one who desires to see this more fully proved may read his

   short treatises, De Utilitate Credendi (The Advantages of Believing), where

   it will be found that the only facility of believing which he recommends is

   that which affords an introduction, and forms a fit commencement to inquiry;

   while he declares that we ought not to be satisfied with opinion, but to

   strive after substantial truth.


   4. It is necessary to attend to what I lately said, that our faith in

   doctrine is not established until we have a perfect conviction that God is

   its author. Hence, the highest proof of Scripture is uniformly taken from

   the character of him whose Word it is. The prophets and apostles boast not

   their own acuteness or any qualities which win credit to speakers, nor do

   they dwell on reasons; but they appeal to the sacred name of God, in order

   that the whole world may be compelled to submission. The next thing to be

   considered is, how it appears not probable merely, but certain, that the

   name of God is neither rashly nor cunningly pretended. If, then, we would

   consult most effectually for our consciences, and save them from being

   driven about in a whirl of uncertainty, from wavering, and even stumbling at

   the smallest obstacle, our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be

   derived from a higher source than human conjectures, Judgments, or reasons;

   namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit. It is true, indeed, that if we

   choose to proceed in the way of arguments it is easy to establish, by

   evidence of various kinds, that if there is a God in heaven, the Law, the

   Prophecies, and the Gospel, proceeded from him. Nay, although learned men,

   and men of the greatest talent, should take the opposite side, summoning and

   ostentatiously displaying all the powers of their genius in the discussion;

   if they are not possessed of shameless effrontery, they will be compelled to

   confess that the Scripture exhibits clear evidence of its being spoken by

   God, and, consequently, of its containing his heavenly doctrine. We shall

   see a little farther on, that the volume of sacred Scripture very far

   surpasses all other writings. Nay, if we look at it with clear eyes, and

   unblessed Judgment, it will forthwith present itself with a divine majesty

   which will subdue our presumptuous opposition, and force us to do it homage.


   Still, however, it is preposterous to attempt, by discussion, to rear up a

   full faith in Scripture. True, were I called to contend with the craftiest

   despisers of God, I trust, though I am not possessed of the highest ability

   or eloquence, I should not find it difficult to stop their obstreperous

   mouths; I could, without much ado, put down the boastings which they mutter

   in corners, were anything to be gained by refuting their cavils. But

   although we may maintain the sacred Word of God against gainsayers, it does

   not follow that we shall forthwith implant the certainty which faith

   requires in their hearts. Profane men think that religion rests only on

   opinion, and, therefore, that they may not believe foolishly, or on slight

   grounds, desire and insist to have it proved by reason that Moses and the

   prophets were divinely inspired. But I answer, that the testimony of the

   Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to

   his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of

   men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same

   Spirit, therefore, who spoke by the mouth of the prophets, must penetrate

   our hearts, in order to convince us that they faithfully delivered the

   message with which they were divinely entrusted. This connection is most

   aptly expressed by Isaiah in these words, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and

   my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth,

   nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed,

   saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever,” (Isa. 59:21). Some worthy

   persons feel disconcerted, because, while the wicked murmur with impunity at

   the Word of God, they have not a clear proof at hand to silence them,

   forgetting that the Spirit is called an earnest and seal to confirm the

   faith of the godly, for this very reason, that, until he enlightens their

   minds, they are tossed to and fro in a sea of doubts.


   5. Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by

   the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying

   its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and

   arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to

   the testimony of the Spirit.7 [69] Enlightened by him, we no longer believe,

   either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from

   God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured—as

   much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it

   came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We

   ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we

   subject our intellect and Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to

   estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to

   fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but

   because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold

   unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by

   superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in

   it—an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly

   indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done

   by human will or knowledge. Hence, God most justly exclaims by the mouth of

   Isaiah, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have

   chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he,” (Isa.

   43:10).


   Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a knowledge

   which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind

   rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the

   conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing

   more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far

   short of the reality. I do not dwell on this subject at present, because we

   will return to it again: only let us now understand that the only true faith

   is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and

   teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise contained in

   Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church “shall be taught of

   the Lord,” (Isaiah 54:13). This singular privilege God bestows on his elect

   only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind. For what is the beginning

   of true doctrine but prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? And God, by

   the mouth of Moses, thus demands to be heard: “It is not in heavens that

   thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us,

   that we may hear and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy

   mouth and in thy heart,” (Deut. 30:12, 14). God having been pleased to

   reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children, no wonder that so

   much ignorance and stupidity is seen in the generality of mankind. In the

   generality, I include even those specially chosen, until they are ingrafted

   into the body of the Church. Isaiah, moreover, while reminding us that the

   prophetical doctrine would prove incredible not only to strangers, but also

   to the Jews, who were desirous to be thought of the household of God,

   subjoins the reason, when he asks, “To whom has the arm of the Lord been

   revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1). If at any time, then we are troubled at the small

   number of those who believe, let us, on the other hand, call to mind, that

   none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.

     _________________________________________________________________


   [66] 2 72 The French adds, “Comme le fondement va deuant l’edifice;”—as the

   foundation goes before the house.


   [67] 3 73 The French adds,“La destournant du seul fondement qu’elle a en

   l’Escriture;”—diverting it from the only foundation which is has in

   scripture.


   [68] 4 74 Augustin. De Ordine, lib. 2 c. 9 “Ad discendum dupliciter movemur,

   auctoritate atque ratione : tempore auctoritas, re autem ratio prior est,”

   &c. “Itaque quamquam bonorum auctoritas imperitae multitudini videatur esse

   salubrior, ratio vero aptior eruditis: tamen quia nullus hominum nisi ex

   imperito peritus fit, &c., evenit ut omnibus bona, magna, occulta discere

   cupientibus, non aperiat nisi auctoritas januam,” &c. He has many other

   excellent things to the same effect.


   [69] 5 75 The French adds, “Car jacoit qu’en sa propre majesté elle ait

   assez de quoy estre reuerée, neantmoins elle commence lors à nous vrayement

   toucher, quand elle est scellée en nos coueurs par le Sainct Esprit.”—For

   though in its own majesty it has enough to command reverence, nevertheless,

   it then begins truly to touch us when it is sealed in our hearts by the Holy

   Spirit.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 8.


   THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE SUFFICIENTLY PROVED IN SO FAR AS NATURAL REASON

   ADMITS.


   This chapter consists of four parts. The first contains certain general

   proofs which may be easily gathered out of the writings both of the Old and

   New Testament—viz. the arrangement of the sacred volume, its dignity, truth,

   simplicity, efficacy, and majesty, sec. 1, 2. The second part contains

   special proofs taken from the Old Testament—viz. the antiquity of the books

   of Moses, their authority, his miracles and prophecies, sec. 3-7; also, the

   predictions of the other prophets and their wondrous harmony, sec. 8. There

   is subjoined a refutation of two objections to the books of Moses and the

   Prophets, sec. 9, 10. The third part exhibits proofs gathered out of the New

   Testament, e.g., the harmony of the Evangelists in their account of heavenly

   mysteries, the majesty of the writings of John, Peter, and Paul, the

   remarkable calling of the Apostles and conversion of Paul, sec. 11. The last

   part exhibits the proofs drawn from ecclesiastical history, the perpetual

   consent of the Church in receiving and preserving divine truth, the

   invincible force of the truth in defending itself, the agreement of the

   godly (though otherwise differing so much from one another), the pious

   profession of the same doctrine by many illustrious men; in fine, the more

   than human constancy of the martyrs, sec. 12, 13. This is followed by a

   conclusion of the particular topic discussed.


   Sections.


   1. Secondary helps to establish the credibility of Scripture. I. The

   arrangement of the sacred volume. II. Its dignity. III. Its truth. IV. Its

   simplicity. V. Its efficacy.


   2. The majesty conspicuous in the writings of the Prophets.


   3. Special proofs from the Old Testament. I. The antiquity of the Books of

   Moses.


   4. This antiquity contrasted with the dreams of the Egyptians. II. The

   majesty of the Books of Moses.


   5. The miracles and prophecies of Moses. A profane objection refuted.


   6. Another profane objection refuted.


   7. The prophecies of Moses as to the sceptre not departing from Judah, and

   the calling of the Gentiles.


   8. The predictions of other prophets. The destruction of Jerusalem; and the

   return from the Babylonish captivity. Harmony of the Prophets. The

   celebrated prophecy of Daniel.


   9. Objection against Moses and the Prophets. Answer to it.


   10. Another objection and answer. Of the wondrous Providence of God in the

   preservation of the sacred books. The Greek Translation. The carefulness of

   the Jews.


   11. Special proofs from the New Testament. I. The harmony of the

   Evangelists, and the sublime simplicity of their writings. II. The majesty

   of John, Paul, and Peter. III. The calling of the Apostles. IV. The

   conversion of Paul.


   12. Proofs from Church history. I. Perpetual consent of the Church in

   receiving and preserving the truth. II. The invincible power of the truth

   itself. III. Agreement among the godly, not withstanding of their many

   differences in other respects.


   13. The constancy of the martyrs. Conclusion. Proofs of this description

   only of use after the certainty of Scripture has been established in the

   heart by the Holy Spirit.


   1. In vain were the authority of Scripture fortified by argument, or

   supported by the consent of the Church, or confirmed by any other helps, if

   unaccompanied by an assurance higher and stronger than human Judgment can

   give. Till this better foundation has been laid, the authority of Scripture

   remains in suspense. On the other hand, when recognising its exemption from

   the common rule, we receive it reverently, and according to its dignity,

   those proofs which were not so strong as to produce and rivet a full

   conviction in our minds, become most appropriate helps. For it is wonderful

   how much we are confirmed in our belief, when we more attentively consider

   how admirably the system of divine wisdom contained in it is arranged—how

   perfectly free the doctrine is from every thing that savours of earth—how

   beautifully it harmonises in all its parts—and how rich it is in all the

   other qualities which give an air of majesty to composition. Our hearts are

   still more firmly assured when we reflect that our admiration is elicited

   more by the dignity of the matter than by the graces of style. For it was

   not without an admirable arrangement of Providence, that the sublime

   mysteries of the kingdom of heaven have for the greater part been delivered

   with a contemptible meanness of words. Had they been adorned with a more

   splendid eloquence, the wicked might have cavilled, and alleged that this

   constituted all their force. But now, when an unpolished simplicity, almost

   bordering on rudeness, makes a deeper impression than the loftiest flights

   of oratory, what does it indicate if not that the Holy Scriptures are too

   mighty in the power of truth to need the rhetorician’s art?


   Hence there was good ground for the Apostle’s declaration, that the faith of

   the Corinthians was founded not on “the wisdom of men,” but on “the power of

   God,” (1 Cor. 2:5), this speech and preaching among them having been “not

   with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and

   of power,” (1 Cor. 2:5). For the truth is vindicated in opposition to every

   doubt, when, unsupported by foreign aid, it has its sole sufficiency in

   itself. How peculiarly this property belongs to Scripture appears from this,

   that no human writings, however skilfully composed, are at all capable of

   affecting us in a similar way. Read Demosthenes or Cicero, read Plato,

   Aristotle, or any other of that class: you will, I admit, feel wonderfully

   allured, pleased, moved, enchanted; but turn from them to the reading of the

   Sacred Volume, and whether you will or not, it will so affect you, so pierce

   your heart, so work its way into your very marrow, that, in comparison of

   the impression so produced, that of orators and philosophers will almost

   disappear; making it manifest that in the Sacred Volume there is a truth

   divine, a something which makes it immeasurably superior to all the gifts

   and graces attainable by man.


   2. I confess, however, that in elegance and beauty, nay, splendour, the

   style of some of the prophets is not surpassed by the eloquence of heathen

   writers. By examples of this description, the Holy Spirit was pleased to

   show that it was not from want of eloquence he in other instances used a

   rude and homely style. But whether you read David, Isaiah, and others of the

   same class, whose discourse flows sweet and pleasant; or Amos the herdsman,

   Jeremiah, and Zechariah, whose rougher idiom savours of rusticity; that

   majesty of the Spirit to which I adverted appears conspicuous in all. I am

   not unaware, that as Satan often apes God, that he may by a fallacious

   resemblance the better insinuate himself into the minds of the simple, so he

   craftily disseminated the impious errors with which he deceived miserable

   men in an uncouth and semi-barbarous style, and frequently employed obsolete

   forms of expression in order to cloak his impostures. None possessed of any

   moderate share of sense need be told how vain and vile such affectation is.

   But in regard to the Holy Scriptures, however petulant men may attempt to

   carp at them, they are replete with sentiments which it is clear that man

   never could have conceived. Let each of the prophets be examined, and not

   one will be found who does not rise far higher than human reach. Those who

   feel their works insipid must be absolutely devoid of taste.


   3. As this subject has been treated at large by others, it will be

   sufficient here merely to touch on its leading points. In addition to the

   qualities already mentioned, great weight is due to the antiquity of

   Scripture (Euseb. Prepar. Evang. lib. 2 c. 1). Whatever fables Greek writers

   may retail concerning the Egyptian Theology, no monument of any religion

   exists which is not long posterior to the age of Moses. But Moses does not

   introduce a new Deity. He only sets forth that doctrine concerning the

   eternal God which the Israelites had received by tradition from their

   fathers, by whom it had been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand,

   during a long series of ages. For what else does he do than lead them back

   to the covenant which had been made with Abraham? Had he referred to matters

   of which they had never heard, he never could have succeeded; but their

   deliverance from the bondage in which they were held must have been a fact

   of familiar and universal notoriety, the very mention of which must have

   immediately aroused the attention of all. It is, moreover, probable, that

   they were intimately acquainted with the whole period of four hundred years.

   Now, if Moses (who is so much earlier than all other writers) traces the

   tradition of his doctrine from so remote a period, it is obvious how far the

   Holy Scriptures must in point of antiquity surpass all other writings.


   4. Some perhaps may choose to credit the Egyptians in carrying back their

   antiquity to a period of six thousand years before the world was created.

   But their garrulity, which even some profane authors have held up to

   derision, it cannot be necessary for me to refute. Josephus, however, in his

   work against Appion, produces important passages from very ancient writers,

   implying that the doctrine delivered in the law was celebrated among all

   nations from the remotest ages, though it was neither read nor accurately

   known. And then, in order that the malignant might have no ground for

   suspicion, and the ungodly no handle for cavil, God has provided, in the

   most effectual manner, against both dangers. When Moses relates the words

   which Jacob, under Divine inspiration, uttered concerning his posterity

   almost three hundred years before, how does he ennoble his own tribe? He

   stigmatises it with eternal infamy in the person of Levi. “Simon and

   Levi,” says he, “are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their

   habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly

   mine honour be not thou united,” (Gen. 49:5, 6). This stigma he certainly

   might have passed in silence, not only that he might spare his own ancestor,

   but also save both himself and his whole family from a portion of the

   disgrace. How can any suspicion attach to him, who, by voluntarily

   proclaiming that the first founder of his family was declared detestable by

   a Divine oracle, neither consults for his own private interest, nor declines

   to incur obloquy among his tribe, who must have been offended by his

   statement of the fact? Again, when he relates the wicked murmuring of his

   brother Aaron, and his sister Miriam (Numb. 12:1), shall we say that he

   spoke his own natural feelings, or that he obeyed the command of the Holy

   Spirit? Moreover, when invested with supreme authority, why does he not

   bestow the office of High Priest on his sons, instead of consigning them to

   the lowest place? I only touch on a few points out of many; but the Law

   itself contains throughout numerous proofs, which fully vindicate the

   credibility of Moses, and place it beyond dispute, that he was in truth a

   messenger sent forth from God.


   5. The many striking miracles which Moses relates are so many sanctions of

   the law delivered, and the doctrine propounded, by him.7 [70] His being

   carried up into the mount in a cloud; his remaining there forty days

   separated from human society; his countenance glistening during the

   promulgation of the law, as with meridian effulgence; the lightnings which

   flashed on every side; the voices and thunderings which echoed in the air;

   the clang of the trumpet blown by no human mouth; his entrance into the

   tabernacle, while a cloud hid him from the view of the people; the

   miraculous vindication of his authority, by the fearful destruction of

   Korah, Nathan, and Abiram, and all their impious faction; the stream

   instantly gushing forth from the rock when struck with his rod; the manna

   which rained from heaven at his prayer;—did not God by all these proclaim

   aloud that he was an undoubted prophet? If any one object that I am taking

   debatable points for granted, the cavil is easily answered. Moses published

   all these things in the assembly of the people. How, then, could he possibly

   impose on the very eye-witnesses of what was done? Is it conceivable that he

   would have come forward, and, while accusing the people of unbelief,

   obstinacy, ingratitude, and other crimes, have boasted that his doctrine had

   been confirmed in their own presence by miracles which they never saw?


   6. For it is also worthy of remark, that the miracles which he relates are

   combined with disagreeable circumstances, which must have provoked

   opposition from the whole body of the people, if there had been the smallest

   ground for it. Hence it is obvious that they were induced to assent, merely

   because they had been previously convinced by their own experience. But

   because the fact was too ascribed them to magic (Exod. 9:11). But with what

   probability is a charge of magic brought against him, who held it in such

   abhorrence, that he ordered every one who should consult soothsayers and

   magicians to be stoned? (Lev. 20:27). Assuredly, no impostor deals in

   tricks, without studying to raise his reputation by amazing the common

   people. But what does Moses do? By crying out, that he and Aaron his brother

   are nothing (Exod. 16:7), that they merely execute what God has commanded,

   he clears himself from every approach to suspicion. Again, if the facts are

   considered in themselves, what kind of incantation could cause manna to rain

   from heaven every day, and in sufficient quantity to maintain a people,

   while any one, who gathered more than the appointed measure, saw his

   incredulity divinely punished by its turning to worms? To this we may add,

   that God then suffered his servant to be subjected to so many serious

   trials, that the ungodly cannot now gain anything by their glamour. When (as

   often happened) the people proudly and petulantly rose up against him, when

   individuals conspired, and attempted to overthrow him, how could any

   impostures have enabled clear to leave it free for heathen writers to deny

   that Moses did perform miracles, the father of lies suggested a calumny, and

   him to elude their rage? The event plainly shows that by these means his

   doctrine was attested to all succeeding ages.


   7. Moreover, it is impossible to deny that he was guided by a prophetic

   spirit in assigning the first place to the tribe of Judah in the person of

   Jacob, especially if we take into view the fact itself, as explained by the

   event. Suppose that Moses was the inventor of the prophecy, still, after he

   committed it to writing, four hundred years pass away, during which no

   mention is made of a sceptre in the tribe of Judah. After Saul is anointed,

   the kingly office seems fixed in the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. 11:15;

   16:13). When David is anointed by Samuel, what apparent ground is there for

   the transference? Who could have looked for a king out of the plebeian

   family of a herdsman? And out of seven brothers, who could have thought that

   the honour was destined for the youngest? And then by what means did he

   afterwards come within reach of the throne? Who dare say that his anointing

   was regulated by human art, or skill, or prudence, and was not rather the

   fulfilment of a divine prophecy? In like manner, do not the predictions,

   though obscure, of the admission of the Gentiles into the divine covenant,

   seeing they were not fulfilled till almost two thousand years after, make it

   palpable that Moses spoke under divine inspiration? I omit other predictions

   which so plainly betoken divine revelation, that all men of sound mind must

   see they were spoken by God. In short, his Song itself (Deut. 32) is a

   bright mirror in which God is manifestly seen.


   8. In the case of the other prophets the evidence is even clearer. I will

   only select a few examples, for it were too tedious to enumerate the whole.

   Isaiah, in his own day, when the kingdom of Judah was at peace, and had even

   some ground to confide in the protection of the Chaldeans, spoke of the

   destruction of the city and the captivity of the people (Isaiah 55:1).

   Supposing it not to be sufficient evidence of divine inspiration to

   foretell, many years before, events which, at the time, seemed fabulous, but

   which ultimately turned out to be true, whence shall it be said that the

   prophecies which he uttered concerning their return proceeded, if it was not

   from God? He names Cyrus, by whom the Chaldeans were to be subdued and the

   people restored to freedom. After the prophet thus spoke, more than a

   hundred years elapsed before Cyrus was born, that being nearly the period

   which elapsed between the death of the one and the birth of the other. It

   was impossible at that time to guess that some Cyrus would arise to make war

   on the Babylonians, and after subduing their powerful monarchy, put an end

   to the captivity of the children of Israel. Does not this simple, unadorned

   narrative plainly demonstrate that what Isaiah spoke was not the conjecture

   of man, but the undoubted oracle of God? Again, when Jeremiah, a

   considerable time before the people were led away, assigned seventy years as

   the period of captivity, and fixed their liberation and return, must not his

   tongue have been guided by the Spirit of God? What effrontery were it to

   deny that, by these evidences, the authority of the prophets is established,

   the very thing being fulfilled to which they appeal in support of their

   credibility! “Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do

   I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them,” (Isaiah 42:9). I

   say nothing of the agreement between Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who, living so

   far apart, and yet prophesying at the same time, harmonise as completely in

   all they say as if they had mutually dictated the words to one another. What

   shall I say of Daniel? Did not he deliver prophecies embracing a future

   period of almost six hundred years, as if he had been writing of past events

   generally known? (Dan. 9, &c). If the pious will duly meditate on these

   things, they will be sufficiently instructed to silence the cavils of the

   ungodly. The demonstration is too clear to be gainsaid.


   9. I am aware of what is muttered in corners by certain miscreants, when

   they would display their acuteness in assailing divine truth. They ask, how

   do we know that Moses and the prophets wrote the books which now bear their

   names? Nay, they even dare to question whether there ever was a Moses. Were

   any one to question whether there ever was a Plato, or an Aristotle, or a

   Cicero, would not the rod or the whip be deemed the fit chastisement of such

   folly? The law of Moses has been wonderfully preserved, more by divine

   providence than by human care; and though, owing to the negligence of the

   priests, it lay for a short time buried,—from the time when it was found by

   good King Josiah (2 Kings 22:8; 2 Chron. 34:15),—it has continued in the

   hands of men, and been transmitted in unbroken succession from generation to

   generation. Nor, indeed, when Josiah brought it forth, was it as a book

   unknown or new, but one which had always been matter of notoriety, and was

   then in full remembrance. The original writing had been deposited in the

   temple, and a copy taken from it had been deposited in the royal archives

   (Deut. 17:18, 19); the only thing which had occurred was, that the priests

   had ceased to publish the law itself in due form, and the people also had

   neglected the wonted reading of it. I may add, that scarcely an age passed

   during which its authority was not confirmed and renewed. Were the books of

   Moses unknown to those who had the Psalms of David in their hands? To sum up

   the whole in one word, it is certain beyond dispute, that these writings

   passed down, if I may so express it, from hand to hand, being transmitted in

   an unbroken series from the fathers, who either with their own ears heard

   them spoken, or learned them from those who had, while the remembrance of

   them was fresh.


   10. An objection taken from the history of the Maccabees (1 Macc. 1:57, 58)

   to impugn the credibility of Scripture, is, on the contrary, fitted the best

   possible to confirm it. First, however, let us clear away the gloss which is

   put upon it: having done so, we shall turn the engine which they erect

   against us upon themselves. As Antiochus ordered all the books of Scripture

   to be burnt, it is asked, where did the copies we now have come from? I, in

   my turn, ask, In what workshop could they have been so quickly fabricated?

   It is certain that they were in existence the moment the persecution ceased,

   and that they were acknowledged without dispute by all the pious who had

   been educated in their doctrine, and were familiarly acquainted with them.

   Nay, while all the wicked so wantonly insulted the Jews as if they had

   leagued together for the purpose, not one ever dared to charge them with

   having introduced spurious books. Whatever, in their opinion, the Jewish

   religion might be, they acknowledged that Moses was the founder of it. What,

   then, do those babblers, but betray their snarling petulance in falsely

   alleging the spuriousness of books whose sacred antiquity is proved by the

   consent of all history? But not to spend labour in vain in refuting these

   vile calumnies, let us rather attend to the care which the Lord took to

   preserve his Word, when against all hope he rescued it from the truculence

   of a most cruel tyrant as from the midst of the flames—inspiring pious

   priests and others with such constancy that they hesitated not, though it

   should have been purchased at the expense of their lives, to transmit this

   treasure to posterity, and defeating the keenest search of prefects and

   their satellites.


   Who does not recognise it as a signal and miraculous work of God, that those

   sacred monuments which the ungodly persuaded themselves had utterly

   perished, immediately returned to resume their former rights, and, indeed,

   in greater honour? For the Greek translation appeared to disseminate them

   over the whole world. Nor does it seem so wonderful that God rescued the

   tables of his covenant from the sanguinary edicts of Antiochus, as that they

   remained safe and entire amid the manifold disasters by which the Jewish

   nation was occasionally crushed, devastated, and almost exterminated. The

   Hebrew language was in no estimation, and almost unknown; and assuredly, had

   not God provided for religion, it must have utterly perished. For it is

   obvious from the prophetical writings of that age, how much the Jews, after

   their return from the captivity, had lost the genuine use of their native

   tongue. It is of importance to attend to this, because the comparison more

   clearly establishes the antiquity of the Law and the Prophets. And whom did

   God employ to preserve the doctrine of salvation contained in the Law and

   the Prophets, that Christ might manifest it in its own time? The Jews, the

   bitterest enemies of Christ; and hence Augustine justly calls them the

   librarians of the Christian Church, because they supplied us with books of

   which they themselves had not the use.


   11. When we proceed to the New Testament, how solid are the pillars by which

   its truth is supported! Three evangelists give a narrative in a mean and

   humble style. The proud often eye this simplicity with disdain, because they

   attend not to the principal heads of doctrine; for from these they might

   easily infer that these evangelists treat of heavenly mysteries beyond the

   capacity of man. Those who have the least particle of candour must be

   ashamed of their fastidiousness when they read the first chapter of Luke.

   Even our Saviour’s discourses, of which a summary is given by these three

   evangelists, ought to prevent every one from treating their writings with

   contempt. John, again, fulminating in majesty, strikes down more powerfully

   than any thunderbolt the petulance of those who refuse to submit to the

   obedience of faith. Let all those acute censors, whose highest pleasure it

   is to banish a reverential regard of Scripture from their own and other

   men’s hearts, come forward; let them read the Gospel of John, and, willing

   or unwilling, they will find a thousand sentences which will at least arouse

   them from their sloth; nay, which will burn into their consciences as with a

   hot iron, and check their derision. The same thing may be said of Peter and

   Paul, whose writings, though the greater part read them blindfold, exhibit a

   heavenly majesty, which in a manner binds and rivets every reader. But one

   circumstance, sufficient of itself to exalt their doctrine above the world,

   is, that Matthew, who was formerly fixed down to his money-table, Peter and

   John, who were employed with their little boats, being all rude and

   illiterate, had never learned in any human school that which they delivered

   to others. Paul, moreover, who had not only been an avowed but a cruel and

   bloody foe, being changed into a new man, shows, by the sudden and

   unhoped-for change, that a heavenly power had compelled him to preach the

   doctrine which once he destroyed. Let those dogs deny that the Holy Spirit

   descended upon the apostles, or, if not, let them refuse credit to the

   history, still the very circumstances proclaim that the Holy Spirit must

   have been the teacher of those who, formerly contemptible among the people,

   all of a sudden began to discourse so magnificently of heavenly mysteries.


   12. Add, moreover, that, for the best of reasons, the consent of the Church

   is not without its weight. For it is not to be accounted of no consequence,

   that, from the first publication of Scripture, so many ages have uniformly

   concurred in yielding obedience to it, and that, notwithstanding of the many

   extraordinary attempts which Satan and the whole world have made to oppress

   and overthrow it, or completely efface it from the memory of men, it has

   flourished like the palm tree and continued invincible. Though in old times

   there was scarcely a sophist or orator of any note who did not exert his

   powers against it, their efforts proved unavailing. The powers of the earth

   armed themselves for its destruction, but all their attempts vanished into

   smoke. When thus powerfully assailed on every side, how could it have

   resisted if it had trusted only to human aid? Nay, its divine origin is more

   completely established by the fact, that when all human wishes were against

   it, it advanced by its own energy. Add that it was not a single city or a

   single nation that concurred in receiving and embracing it. Its authority

   was recognised as far and as wide as the world extends—various nations who

   had nothing else in common entering for this purpose into a holy league.

   Moreover, while we ought to attach the greatest weight to the agreement of

   minds so diversified, and in all other things so much at variance with each

   other—an agreement which a Divine Providence alone could have produced—it

   adds no small weight to the whole when we attend to the piety of those who

   thus agree; not of all of them indeed, but of those in whom as lights God

   was pleased that his Church should shine.


   13. Again, with what confidence does it become us to subscribe to a doctrine

   attested and confirmed by the blood of so many saints? They, when once they

   had embraced it, hesitated not boldly and intrepidly, and even with great

   alacrity, to meet death in its defence. Being transmitted to us with such an

   earnest, who of us shall not receive it with firm and unshaken conviction?

   It is therefore no small proof of the authority of Scripture, that it was

   sealed with the blood of so many witnesses, especially when it is considered

   that in bearing testimony to the faith, they met death not with fanatical

   enthusiasm (as erring spirits are sometimes wont to do), but with a firm and

   constant, yet sober godly zeal. There are other reasons, neither few nor

   feeble, by which the dignity and majesty of the Scriptures may be not only

   proved to the pious, but also completely vindicated against the cavils of

   slanderers. These, however, cannot of themselves produce a firm faith in

   Scripture until our heavenly Father manifest his presence in it, and thereby

   secure implicit reverence for it. Then only, therefore, does Scripture

   suffice to give a saving knowledge of God when its certainty is founded on

   the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Still the human testimonies which

   go to confirm it will not be without effect, if they are used in

   subordination to that chief and highest proof, as secondary helps to our

   weakness. But it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the

   Scripture is the Word of God. This it cannot be known to be, except by

   faith. Justly, therefore, does Augustine remind us, that every man who would

   have any understanding in such high matters must previously possess piety

   and mental peace.

     _________________________________________________________________


   [70] 6 76 Exod. 24:18; Exod. 34:29; Exod. 19:16; Exod. 40:34 Numb. 16:24;

   Numb. 20:10; Numb. 11:9

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 9.


   ALL THE PRINCIPLES OF PIETY SUBVERTED BY FANATICS, WHO SUBSTITUTE

   REVELATIONS FOR SCRIPTURE.


   Sections.


   1. The temper and error of the Libertines, who take to themselves the name

   of spiritual, briefly described. Their refutation. 1. The Apostles and all

   true Christians have embraced the written Word. This confirmed by a passage

   in Isaiah; also by the example and words of Paul. 2. The Spirit of Christ

   seals the doctrine of the written Word on the minds of the godly.


   2. Refutation continued. 3. The impositions of Satan cannot be detected

   without the aid of the written Word. First Objection. The Answer to it.


   3. Second Objection from the words of Paul as to the letter and spirit. The

   Answer, with an explanation of Paul’s meaning. How the Spirit and the

   written Word are indissolubly connected.


   1. Those who, rejecting Scripture, imagine that they have some peculiar way

   of penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so much under the influence of

   error as madness. For certain giddy men7 [71] have lately appeared, who,

   while they make a great display of the superiority of the Spirit, reject all

   reading of the Scriptures themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who

   only delight in what they call the dead and deadly letter. But I wish they

   would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a

   sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and

   childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, their confidence

   is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I presume, admit that the

   apostles and other believers in the primitive Church were not illuminated by

   any other Spirit. None of these thereby learned to despise the word of God,

   but every one was imbued with greater reverence for it, as their writings

   most clearly testify. And, indeed, it had been so foretold by the mouth of

   Isaiah. For when he says, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I

   have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the

   mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord,

   from henceforth and for ever,” he does not tie down the ancient Church to

   external doctrine, as he were a mere teacher of elements;7 [72] he rather

   shows that, under the reign of Christ, the true and full felicity of the new

   Church will consist in their being ruled not less by the Word than by the

   Spirit of God. Hence we infer that these miscreants are guilty of fearful

   sacrilege in tearing asunder what the prophet joins in indissoluble union.

   Add to this, that Paul, though carried up even to the third heaven, ceased

   not to profit by the doctrine of the law and the prophets, while, in like

   manner, he exhorts Timothy, a teacher of singular excellence, to give

   attention to reading (1 Tim. 4:13). And the eulogium which he pronounces on

   Scripture well deserves to be remembered—viz. that “it is profitable for

   doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness,

   that the man of God may be perfect,” (2 Tim. 3:16). What an infatuation of

   the devil, therefore, to fancy that Scripture, which conducts the sons of

   God to the final goal, is of transient and temporary use? Again, I should

   like those people to tell me whether they have imbibed any other Spirit than

   that which Christ promised to his disciples. Though their madness is

   extreme, it will scarcely carry them the length of making this their boast.

   But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not

   speak of himself (John 16:13), but suggest and instil the truths which he

   himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit

   promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a

   new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine

   of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel

   recommends.


   2. Hence it is easy to understand that we must give diligent heed both to

   the reading and hearing of Scripture, if we would obtain any benefit from

   the Spirit of God (just as Peter praises those who attentively study the

   doctrine of the prophets (2 Pet. 1:19), though it might have been thought to

   be superseded after the gospel light arose), and, on the contrary, that any

   spirit which passes by the wisdom of God’s Word, and suggests any other

   doctrine, is deservedly suspected of vanity and falsehood. Since Satan

   transforms himself into an angel of light, what authority can the Spirit

   have with us if he be not ascertained by an infallible mark? And assuredly

   he is pointed out to us by the Lord with sufficient clearness; but these

   miserable men err as if bent on their own destruction, while they seek the

   Spirit from themselves rather than from Him. But they say that it is

   insulting to subject the Spirit, to whom all things are to be subject, to

   the Scripture: as if it were disgraceful to the Holy Spirit to maintain a

   perfect resemblance throughout, and be in all respects without variation

   consistent with himself. True, if he were subjected to a human, an

   angelical, or to any foreign standard, it might be thought that he was

   rendered subordinate, or, if you will, brought into bondage, but so long as

   he is compared with himself, and considered in himself, how can it be said

   that he is thereby injured? I admit that he is brought to a test, but the

   very test by which it has pleased him that his majesty should be confirmed.

   It ought to be enough for us when once we hear his voice; but lest Satan

   should insinuate himself under his name, he wishes us to recognise him by

   the image which he has stamped on the Scriptures. The author of the

   Scriptures cannot vary, and change his likeness. Such as he there appeared

   at first, such he will perpetually remain. There is nothing contumelious to

   him in this, unless we are to think it would be honourable for him to

   degenerate, and revolt against himself.


   3. Their cavil about our cleaving to the dead letter carries with it the

   punishment which they deserve for despising Scripture. It is clear that Paul

   is there arguing against false apostles (2 Cor. 3:6), who, by recommending

   the law without Christ, deprived the people of the benefit of the New

   Covenant, by which the Lord engages that he will write his law on the hearts

   of believers, and engrave it on their inward parts. The letter therefore is

   dead, and the law of the Lord kills its readers when it is dissevered from

   the grace of Christ, and only sounds in the ear without touching the heart.

   But if it is effectually impressed on the heart by the Spirit; if it

   exhibits Christ, it is the word of life converting the soul, and making wise

   the simple. Nay, in the very same passage, the apostle calls his own

   preaching the ministration of the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:8), intimating that the

   Holy Spirit so cleaves to his own truth, as he has expressed it in

   Scripture, that he then only exerts and puts forth his strength when the

   word is received with due honour and respect.


   There is nothing repugnant here to what was lately said (chap. 7) that we

   have no great certainty of the word itself, until it be confirmed by the

   testimony of the Spirit. For the Lord has so knit together the certainty of

   his word and his Spirit, that our minds are duly imbued with reverence for

   the word when the Spirit shining upon it enables us there to behold the face

   of God; and, on the other hand, we embrace the Spirit with no danger of

   delusion when we recognise him in his image, that is, in his word. Thus,

   indeed, it is. God did not produce his word before men for the sake of

   sudden display, intending to abolish it the moment the Spirit should arrive;

   but he employed the same Spirit, by whose agency he had administered the

   word, to complete his work by the efficacious confirmation of the word. In

   this way Christ explained to the two disciples (Luke 24:27), not that they

   were to reject the Scriptures and trust to their own wisdom, but that they

   were to understand the Scriptures. In like manner, when Paul says to the

   Thessalonians, “Quench not the Spirit,” he does not carry them aloft to

   empty speculation apart from the word; he immediately adds, “Despise not

   prophesying,” (1 Thess. 5:19, 20). By this, doubtless, he intimates that the

   light of the Spirit is quenched the moment prophesying fall into contempt.

   How is this answered by those swelling enthusiasts, in whose idea the only

   true illumination consists, in carelessly laying aside, and bidding adieu to

   the Word of God, while, with no less confidence than folly, they fasten upon

   any dreaming notion which may have casually sprung up in their minds? Surely

   a very different sobriety becomes the children of God. As they feel that

   without the Spirit of God they are utterly devoid of the light of truth, so

   they are not ignorant that the word is the instrument by which the

   illumination of the Spirit is dispensed. They know of no other Spirit than

   the one who dwelt and spake in the apostles—the Spirit by whose oracles they

   are daily invited to the hearing of the word.

     _________________________________________________________________


   [71] 7 77 Lactantius: CĹ“lestes literas corruperunt, ut novam sibi doctrinam

   sine ulla radice ac stabilitate componerent. Vide Calvin in Instruct. adv.

   Libertinos, cap. 9 and 10.


   [72] 8 78 For the Latin, “ac si elementarius esset,” the French has, “comme

   s’ils eussent étépetis enfans a l’A, B, C;”—as if they were little children

   at their A, B, C.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 10.


   IN SCRIPTURE, THE TRUE GOD OPPOSED, EXCLUSIVELY, TO ALL THE GODS OF THE

   HEATHEN.


   Sections.


   1. Explanation of the knowledge of God resumed. God as manifested in

   Scripture, the same as delineated in his works.


   2. The attributes of God as described by Moses, David, and Jeremiah.

   Explanation of the attributes. Summary. Uses of this knowledge.


   3. Scripture, in directing us to the true God, excludes the gods of the

   heathen, who, however, in some sense, held the unity of God.


   1. We formerly observed that the knowledge of God, which, in other respects,

   is not obscurely exhibited in the frame of the world, and in all the

   creatures, is more clearly and familiarly explained by the word. It may now

   be proper to show, that in Scripture the Lord represents himself in the same

   character in which we have already seen that he is delineated in his works.

   A full discussion of this subject would occupy a large space. But it will

   here be sufficient to furnish a kind of index, by attending to which the

   pious reader may be enabled to understand what knowledge of God he ought

   chiefly to search for in Scripture, and be directed as to the mode of

   conducting the search. I am not now adverting to the peculiar covenant by

   which God distinguished the race of Abraham from the rest of the nations.

   For when by gratuitous adoption he admitted those who were enemies to the

   rank of sons, he even then acted in the character of a Redeemer. At present,

   however, we are employed in considering that knowledge which stops short at

   the creation of the world, without ascending to Christ the Mediator. But

   though it will soon be necessary to quote certain passages from the New

   Testament (proofs being there given both of the power of God the Creator,

   and of his providence in the preservation of what he originally created), I

   wish the reader to remember what my present purpose is, that he may not

   wander from the proper subject. Briefly, then, it will be sufficient for him

   at present to understand how God, the Creator of heaven and earth, governs

   the world which was made by him. In every part of Scripture we meet with

   descriptions of his paternal kindness and readiness to do good, and we also

   meet with examples of severity which show that he is the just punisher of

   the wicked, especially when they continue obstinate notwithstanding of all

   his forbearance.


   2. There are certain passages which contain more vivid descriptions of the

   divine character, setting it before us as if his genuine countenance were

   visibly portrayed. Moses, indeed, seems to have intended briefly to

   comprehend whatever may be known of God by man, when he said, “The Lord, The

   Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness

   and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression

   and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity

   of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the

   third and to the fourth generation,” (Ex. 34:6, 7). Here we may observe,

   first, that his eternity and selfexistence are declared by his magnificent

   name twice repeated; and, secondly, that in the enumeration of his

   perfections, he is described not as he is in himself, but in relation to us,

   in order that our acknowledgement of him may be more a vivid actual

   impression than empty visionary speculation. Moreover, the perfections thus

   enumerated are just those which we saw shining in the heavens, and on the

   earth—compassion, goodness, mercy, justice, Judgment, and truth. For power

   and energy are comprehended under the name Jehovah. Similar epithets are

   employed by the prophets when they would fully declare his sacred name. Not

   to collect a great number of passages, it may suffice at present to refer to

   one Psalm (145) in which a summary of the divine perfections is so carefully

   given that not one seems to have been omitted. Still, however, every

   perfection there set down may be contemplated in creation; and, hence, such

   as we feel him to be when experience is our guide, such he declares himself

   to be by his word. In Jeremiah, where God proclaims the character in which

   he would have us to acknowledge him, though the description is not so full,

   it is substantially the same. “Let him that glorieth,” says he, “glory in

   this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which

   exercise loving-kindness, Judgment, and righteousness, in the earth,” (Jer.

   9:24). Assuredly, the attributes which it is most necessary for us to know

   are these three: Loving-kindness, on which alone our entire safety depends:

   Judgment, which is daily exercised on the wicked, and awaits them in a

   severer form, even for eternal destruction: Righteousness, by which the

   faithful are preserved, and most benignly cherished. The prophet declares,

   that when you understand these, you are amply furnished with the means of

   glorying in God. Nor is there here any omission of his truth, or power, or

   holiness, or goodness. For how could this knowledge of his loving-kindness,

   Judgment, and righteousness, exist, if it were not founded on his inviolable

   truth? How, again, could it be believed that he governs the earth with

   Judgment and righteousness, without presupposing his mighty power? Whence,

   too, his loving-kindness, but from his goodness? In fine, if all his ways

   are loving-kindness, Judgment, and righteousness, his holiness also is

   thereby conspicuous. Moreover, the knowledge of God, which is set before us

   in the Scriptures, is designed for the same purpose as that which shines in

   creation—viz. that we may thereby learn to worship him with perfect

   integrity of heart and unfeigned obedience, and also to depend entirely on

   his goodness.


   3. Here it may be proper to give a summary of the general doctrine. First,

   then, let the reader observe that the Scripture, in order to direct us to

   the true God, distinctly excludes and rejects all the gods of the heathen,

   because religion was universally adulterated in almost every age. It is

   true, indeed, that the name of one God was everywhere known and celebrated.

   For those who worshipped a multitude of gods, whenever they spoke the

   genuine language of nature, simply used the name god, as if they had thought

   one god sufficient. And this is shrewdly noticed by Justin Martyr, who, to

   the same effect, wrote a treatise, entitled, On the Monarchy of God, in

   which he shows, by a great variety of evidence, that the unity of God is

   engraven on the hearts of all. Tertullian also proves the same thing from

   the common forms of speech.7 [73] But as all, without exception, have in the

   vanity of their minds rushed or been dragged into lying fictions, these

   impressions, as to the unity of God, whatever they may have naturally been,

   have had no further effect than to render men inexcusable. The wisest

   plainly discover the vague wanderings of their minds when they express a

   wish for any kind of Deity, and thus offer up their prayers to unknown gods.

   And then, in imagining a manifold nature in God, though their ideas

   concerning Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Minerva, and others, were not so absurd

   as those of the rude vulgar, they were by no means free from the delusions

   of the devil. We have elsewhere observed, that however subtle the evasions

   devised by philosophers, they cannot do away with the charge of rebellion,

   in that all of them have corrupted the truth of God. For this reason,

   Habakkuk (2:20), after condemning all idols, orders men to seek God in his

   temple, that the faithful may acknowledge none but Him, who has manifested

   himself in his word.

     _________________________________________________________________


   [73] 9 79 In his book, De Idolatria. See also in Augustine, a letter by one

   Maximus, a grammarian of Medaura, jesting at his gods, and scoffing at the

   true religion. See, at the same time, Augustine’s grave and admirable reply.

   Ep. 42. 43.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 11.


   IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD.—THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A

   DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD.


   There are three leading divisions in this chapter. The first contains a

   refutation of those who ascribe a visible form to God (s. 1 and 2), with an

   answer to the objection of those who, because it is said that God manifested

   his presence by certain symbols, use it as a defence of their error (s. 3

   and 4). Various arguments are afterwards adduced, disposing of the trite

   objection from Gregory’s expression, that images are the books of the

   unlearned (s. 5-7). The second division of the chapter relates to the origin

   of idols or images, and the adoration of them, as approved by the Papists

   (s. 8-10). Their evasion refuted (s. 11). The third division treats of the

   use and abuse of images (s. 12). Whether it is expedient to have them in

   Christian Churches (s. 13). The concluding part contains a refutation of the

   second Council of Nice, which very absurdly contends for images in

   opposition to divine truth, and even to the disparagement of the Christian

   name.


   Sections.


   1. God is opposed to idols, that all may know he is the only fit witness to

   himself. He expressly forbids any attempt to represent him by a bodily

   shape.


   2. Reasons for this prohibition from Moses, Isaiah, and Paul. The complaint

   of a heathen. It should put the worshipers of idols to shame.


   3. Consideration of an objection taken from various passages in Moses. The

   Cherubim and Seraphim show that images are not fit to represent divine

   mysteries. The Cherubim belonged to the tutelage of the Law.


   4. The materials of which idols are made, abundantly refute the fiction of

   idolaters. Confirmation from Isaiah and others. Absurd precaution of the

   Greeks.


   5. Objection,—That images are the books of the unlearned. Objection

   answered, 1. Scripture declares images to be teachers of vanity and lies.


   6. Answer continued, 2. Ancient Theologians condemn the formation and

   worship of idols.


   7. Answer continued,—3. The use of images condemned by the luxury and

   meretricious ornaments given to them in Popish Churches. 4. The Church must

   be trained in true piety by another method.


   8. The second division of the chapter. Origin of idols or images. Its rise

   shortly after the flood. Its continual progress.


   9. Of the worship of images. Its nature. A pretext of idolaters refuted.

   Pretexts of the heathen. Genius of idolaters.


   10. Evasion of the Papists. Their agreement with ancient idolaters.


   11. Refutation of another evasion or sophism—viz. the distinction of dulia

   and latria.


   12. Third division of the chapter—viz. the use and abuse of images.


   13. Whether it is expedient to have images in Christian temples.


   14. Absurd defence of the worship of images by the second so-called Council

   of Nice. Sophisms or perversions of Scripture in defence of images in

   churches.


   15. Passages adduced in support of the worship of images.


   16. The blasphemous expressions of some ancient idolaters approved by not a

   few of the more modern, both in word and deed.


   1. As Scripture, in accommodation to the rude and gross intellect of man,

   usually speaks in popular terms, so whenever its object is to discriminate

   between the true God and false deities, it opposes him in particular to

   idols; not that it approves of what is taught more elegantly and subtilely

   by philosophers, but that it may the better expose the folly, nay, madness

   of the world in its inquiries after God, so long as every one clings to his

   own speculations. This exclusive definition, which we uniformly meet with in

   Scripture, annihilates every deity which men frame for themselves of their

   own accord—God himself being the only fit witness to himself. Meanwhile,

   seeing that this brutish stupidity has overspread the globe, men longing

   after visible forms of God, and so forming deities of wood and stone, silver

   and gold, or of any other dead and corruptible matter, we must hold it as a

   first principle, that as often as any form is assigned to God, his glory is

   corrupted by an impious lie. In the Law, accordingly, after God had claimed

   the glory of divinity for himself alone, when he comes to show what kind of

   worship he approves and rejects, he immediately adds, “Thou shalt not make

   unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven

   above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth,” (Exod.

   20:4). By these words he curbs any licentious attempt we might make to

   represent him by a visible shape, and briefly enumerates all the forms by

   which superstition had begun, even long before, to turn his truth into a

   lie. For we know that the Sun was worshipped by the Persian. As many stars

   as the foolish nations saw in the sky, so many gods they imagined them to

   be. Then to the Egyptians, every animal was a figure of God.8 [74] The

   Greeks, again, plumed themselves on their superior wisdom in worshipping God

   under the human form (Maximum Tyrius Platonic. Serm. 38). But God makes no

   comparison between images, as if one were more, and another less befitting;

   he rejects, without exception, all shapes and pictures, and other symbols by

   which the superstitious imagine they can bring him near to them.


   2. This may easily be inferred from the reasons which he annexes to his

   prohibition. First, it is said in the books of Moses (Deut. 4:15), “Take ye

   therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude in

   the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire,

   lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of

   any figure,” &c. We see how plainly God declares against all figures, to

   make us aware that all longing after such visible shapes is rebellion

   against him. Of the prophets, it will be sufficient to mention Isaiah, who

   is the most copious on this subjects (Isaiah 40:18; 41:7, 29; 45:9; 46:5),

   in order to show how the majesty of God is defiled by an absurd and

   indecorous fiction, when he who is incorporeal is assimilated to corporeal

   matter; he who is invisible to a visible image; he who is a spirit to an

   inanimate object; and he who fills all space to a bit of paltry wood, or

   stone, or gold. Paul, too, reasons in the same way, “Forasmuch, then, as we

   are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like

   unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device,” (Acts

   17:29). Hence it is manifest, that whatever statues are set up or pictures

   painted to represent God, are utterly displeasing to him, as a kind of

   insults to his majesty. And is it strange that the Holy Spirit thunders such

   responses from heaven, when he compels even blind and miserable idolaters to

   make a similar confession on the earth? Seneca’s complaint, as given by

   Augustine De Civit. Dei, c. 10, is well known. He says “The sacred immortal,

   and invisible gods they exhibit in the meanest and most ignoble materials,

   and dress them in the clothing of men and beasts; some confound the sexes,

   and form a compound out of different bodies, giving the name of deities to

   objects, which, if they were met alive, would be deemed monsters.” Hence,

   again, it is obvious, that the defenders of images resort to a paltry

   quibbling evasion, when they pretend that the Jews were forbidden to use

   them on account of their proneness to superstition; as if a prohibition

   which the Lord founds on his own eternal essences and the uniform course of

   nature, could be restricted to a single nation. Besides, when Paul refuted

   the error of giving a bodily shape to God, he was addressing not Jews, but

   Athenians.


   3. It is true that the Lord occasionally manifested his presence by certain

   signs, so that he was said to be seen face to face; but all the signs he

   ever employed were in apt accordance with the scheme of doctrine, and, at

   the same time, gave plain intimation of his incomprehensible essence. For

   the cloud, and smoke, and flame, though they were symbols of heavenly glory

   (Deut. 4:11), curbed men’s minds as with a bridle, that they might not

   attempt to penetrate farther. Therefore, even Moses (to whom, of all men,

   God manifested himself most familiarly) was not permitted though he prayed

   for it, to behold that face, but received for answer, that the refulgence

   was too great for man (Exod. 33:20). The Holy Spirit appeared under the form

   of a dove, but as it instantly vanished, who does not see that in this

   symbol of a moment, the faithful were admonished to regard the Spirit as

   invisible, to be contented with his power and grace, and not call for any

   external figure? God sometimes appeared in the form of a man, but this was

   in anticipation of the future revelation in Christ, and, therefore, did not

   give the Jews the least pretext for setting up a symbol of Deity under the

   human form. The mercy-seat, also (Exod. 25:17, 18, 21), where, under the

   Law, God exhibited the presence of his power, was so framed, as to intimate

   that God is best seen when the mind rises in admiration above itself: the

   Cherubim with outstretched wings shaded, and the veil covered it, while the

   remoteness of the place was in itself a sufficient concealment. It is

   therefore mere infatuation to attempt to defend images of God and the saints

   by the example of the Cherubim. For what, pray, did these figures mean, if

   not that images are unfit to represent the mysteries of God, since they were

   so formed as to cover the mercy-seat with their wings, thereby concealing

   the view of God, not only from the eye, but from every human sense, and

   curbing presumption? To this we may add, that the prophets depict the

   Seraphim, who are exhibited to us in vision, as having their faces veiled;

   thus intimating, that the refulgence of the divine glory is so great, that

   even the angels cannot gaze upon it directly, while the minute beams which

   sparkle in the face of angels are shrouded from our view. Moreover, all men

   of sound Judgment acknowledge that the Cherubim in question belonged to the

   old tutelage of the law. It is absurd, therefore, to bring them forward as

   an example for our age. For that period of puerility, if I may so express

   it, to which such rudiments were adapted, has passed away. And surely it is

   disgraceful, that heathen writers should be more skilful interpreters of

   Scripture than the Papists. Juvenal (Sat. 14) holds up the Jews to derision

   for worshipping the thin clouds and firmament. This he does perversely and

   impiously; still, in denying that any visible shape of Deity existed among

   them, he speaks more accurately than the Papists, who prate about there

   having been some visible image. In the fact that the people every now and

   then rushed forth with boiling haste in pursuit of idols, just like water

   gushing forth with violence from a copious spring, let us learn how prone

   our nature is to idolatry, that we may not, by throwing the whole blame of a

   common vice upon the Jews, be led away by vain and sinful enticements to

   sleep the sleep of death.


   4. To the same effect are the words of the Psalmist (Psalms 115:4, 135:15),

   “Their idols are silver and gold, the works of men’s hands.” From the

   materials of which they are made, he infers that they are not gods, taking

   it for granted that every human device concerning God is a dull fiction. He

   mentions silver and gold rather than clay or stone, that neither splendour

   nor cost may procure reverence to idols. He then draws a general conclusion,

   that nothing is more unlikely than that gods should be formed of any kind of

   inanimate matter. Man is forced to confess that he is but the creature of a

   day (see Book 3 c. 9 s. 2), and yet would have the metal which he has

   deified to be regarded as God. Whence had idols their origin, but from the

   will of man? There was ground, therefore, for the sarcasm of the heathen

   poet (Hor. Sat. I. 8), “I was once the trunk of a fig-tree, a useless log,

   when the tradesman, uncertain whether he should make me a stool, &c., chose

   rather that I should be a god.” In other words, an earth-born creature, who

   breathes out his life almost every moment, is able by his own device to

   confer the name and honour of deity on a lifeless trunk. But as that

   Epicurean poet, in indulging his wit, had no regard for religion, without

   attending to his jeers or those of his fellows, let the rebuke of the

   prophet sting, nay, cut us to the heart, when he speaks of the extreme

   infatuation of those who take a piece of wood to kindle a fire to warm

   themselves, bake bread, roast or boil flesh, and out of the residue make a

   god, before which they prostrate themselves as suppliants (Isaiah 44:16).

   Hence, the same prophet, in another place, not only charges idolaters as

   guilty in the eye of the law, but upbraids them for not learning from the

   foundations of the earth, nothing being more incongruous than to reduce the

   immense and incomprehensible Deity to the stature of a few feet. And yet

   experience shows that this monstrous proceeding, though palpably repugnant

   to the order of nature, is natural to man. It is, moreover, to be observed,

   that by the mode of expression which is employed, every form of superstition

   is denounced. Being works of men, they have no authority from God (Isa. 2:8,

   31:7; Hos. 14:3; Mic. 5:13); and, therefore, it must be regarded as a fixed

   principle, that all modes of worship devised by man are detestable. The

   infatuation is placed in a still stronger light by the Psalmist (Psalm

   115:8), when he shows how aid is implored from dead and senseless objects,

   by beings who have been endued with intelligence for the very purpose of

   enabling them to know that the whole universe is governed by Divine energy

   alone. But as the corruption of nature hurries away all mankind collectively

   and individually into this madness, the Spirit at length thunders forth a

   dreadful imprecation, “They that make them are like unto them, so is every

   one that trusteth in them.”8 [75] And it is to be observed, that the thing

   forbidden is likeness, whether sculptured or otherwise. This disposes of the

   frivolous precaution taken by the Greek Church. They think they do

   admirably, because they have no sculptured shape of Deity, while none go

   greater lengths in the licentious use of pictures. The Lord, however, not

   only forbids any image of himself to be erected by a statuary, but to be

   formed by any artist whatever, because every such image is sinful and

   insulting to his majesty.


   5. I am not ignorant, indeed, of the assertion, which is now more than

   threadbare, “that images are the books of the unlearned.” So said Gregory:8

   [76] a but the Holy Spirit goes a very different decision; and had Gregory

   got his lesson in this matter in the Spirit’s school, he never would have

   spoken as he did. For when Jeremiah declares that “the stock is a doctrine

   of vanities,” (Jer. 10:8), and Habakkuk, “that the molten image” is “a

   teacher of lies,” the general doctrine to be inferred certainly is, that

   every thing respecting God which is learned from images is futile and false.

   If it is objected that the censure of the prophets is directed against those

   who perverted images to purposes of impious superstition, I admit it to be

   so; but I add (what must be obvious to all), that the prophets utterly

   condemn what the Papists hold to be an undoubted axiom—viz. that images are

   substitutes for books. For they contrast images with the true God, as if the

   two were of an opposite nature, and never could be made to agree. In the

   passages which I lately quoted, the conclusion drawn is, that seeing there

   is one true God whom the Jews worshipped, visible shapes made for the

   purpose of representing him are false and wicked fictions; and all,

   therefore, who have recourse to them for knowledge are miserably deceived.

   In short, were it not true that all such knowledge is fallacious and

   spurious, the prophets would not condemn it in such general terms. This at

   least I maintain, that when we teach that all human attempts to give a

   visible shape to God are vanity and lies, we do nothing more than state

   verbatim what the prophets taught.


   6. Moreover, let Lactantius and Eusebius8 [77] be read on this subject.8

   [78] These writers assume it as an indisputable fact, that all the beings

   whose images were erected were originally men. In like manner, Augustine

   distinctly declares, that it is unlawful not only to worship images, but to

   dedicate them. And in this he says no more than had been long before decreed

   by the Libertine Council, the thirty-sixth Canon of which is, “There must be

   no pictures used in churches: Let nothing which is adored or worshipped be

   painted on walls.” But the most memorable passage of all is that which

   Augustine quotes in another place from Varro, and in which he expressly

   concurs:—“Those who first introduced images of the gods both took away fear

   and brought in error.” Were this merely the saying of Varro, it might

   perhaps be of little weight, though it might well make us ashamed, that a

   heathen, groping as it were in darkness, should have attained to such a

   degree of light, as to see that corporeal images are unworthy of the majesty

   of God, and that, because they diminish reverential fear and encourage

   error. The sentiment itself bears witness that it was uttered with no less

   truth than shrewdness. But Augustine, while he borrows it from Varro,

   adduces it as conveying his own opinion. At the outset, indeed, he declares

   that the first errors into which men fell concerning God did not originate

   with images, but increased with them, as if new fuel had been added.

   Afterwards, he explains how the fear of God was thereby extinguished or

   impaired, his presence being brought into contempt by foolish, and childish,

   and absurd representations.8 [79] The truth of this latter remark I wish we

   did not so thoroughly experience. Whosoever, therefore, is desirous of being

   instructed in the true knowledge of God must apply to some other teacher

   than images.


   7. Let Papists, then, if they have any sense of shame, henceforth desist

   from the futile plea, that images are the books of the unlearned—a plea so

   plainly refuted by innumerable passages of Scripture. And yet were I to

   admit the plea, it would not be a valid defence of their peculiar idols. It

   is well known what kind of monsters they obtrude upon us as divine. For what

   are the pictures or statues to which they append the names of saints, but

   exhibitions of the most shameless luxury or obscenity? Were any one to dress

   himself after their model, he would deserve the pillory. Indeed, brothels

   exhibit their inmates more chastely and modestly dressed than churches do

   images intended to represent virgins. The dress of the martyrs is in no

   respect more becoming. Let Papists then have some little regard to decency

   in decking their idols, if they would give the least plausibility to the

   false allegation, that they are books of some kind of sanctity. But even

   then we shall answer, that this is not the method in which the Christian

   people should be taught in sacred places. Very different from these follies

   is the doctrine in which God would have them to be there instructed. His

   injunction is, that the doctrine common to all should there be set forth by

   the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments,—a

   doctrine to which little heed can be given by those whose eyes are carried

   too and fro gazing at idols. And who are the unlearned, whose rudeness

   admits of being taught by images only? Just those whom the Lord acknowledges

   for his disciples; those whom he honours with a revelation of his celestial

   philosophy, and desires to be trained in the saving mysteries of his

   kingdom. I confess, indeed, as matters now are, there are not a few in the

   present day who cannot want such books. But, I ask, whence this stupidity,

   but just because they are defrauded of the only doctrine which was fit to

   instruct them? The simple reason why those who had the charge of churches

   resigned the office of teaching to idols was, because they themselves were

   dumb. Paul declares, that by the true preaching of the gospel Christ is

   portrayed and in a manner crucified before our eyes (Gal. 3:1). Of what use,

   then, were the erection in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone,

   silver and gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached—viz.

   Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that he might

   expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in his blood, and,

   in short, reconcile us to God the Father? From this one doctrine the people

   would learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood and stone. As for

   crosses of gold and silver, it may be true that the avaricious give their

   eyes and minds to them more eagerly than to any heavenly instructor.


   8. In regard to the origin of idols, the statement contained in the Book of

   Wisdom has been received with almost universal consent—viz. that they

   originated with those who bestowed this honour on the dead, from a

   superstitious regard to their memory. I admit that this perverse practice is

   of very high antiquity, and I deny not that it was a kind of torch by which

   the infatuated proneness of mankind to idolatry was kindled into a greater

   blaze. I do not, however, admit that it was the first origin of the

   practice. That idols were in use before the prevalence of that ambitious

   consecration of the images of the dead, frequently adverted to by profane

   writers, is evident from the words of Moses (Gen. 31:19). When he relates

   that Rachel stole her father’s images, he speaks of the use of idols as a

   common vice. Hence we may infer, that the human mind is, so to speak, a

   perpetual forge of idols. There was a kind of renewal of the world at the

   deluge, but before many years elapse, men are forging gods at will. There is

   reason to believe, that in the holy Patriarch’s lifetime his grandchildren

   were given to idolatry: so that he must with his own eyes, not without the

   deepest grief, have seen the earth polluted with idols—that earth whose

   iniquities God had lately purged with so fearful a Judgment. For Joshua

   testifies (Josh. 24:2), that Torah and Nachor, even before the birth of

   Abraham, were the worshipers of false gods. The progeny of Shem having so

   speedily revolted, what are we to think of the posterity of Ham, who had

   been cursed long before in their father? Thus, indeed, it is. The human

   mind, stuffed as it is with presumptuous rashness, dares to imagine a god

   suited to its own capacity; as it labours under dullness, nay, is sunk in

   the grossest ignorance, it substitutes vanity and an empty phantom in the

   place of God. To these evils another is added. The god whom man has thus

   conceived inwardly he attempts to embody outwardly. The mind, in this way,

   conceives the idol, and the hand gives it birth. That idolatry has its

   origin in the idea which men have, that God is not present with them unless

   his presence is carnally exhibited, appears from the example of the

   Israelites: “Up,” said they, “make us gods, which shall go before us; for as

   for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wet

   not what is become of him,” (Exod. 22:1). They knew, indeed, that there was

   a God whose mighty power they had experienced in so many miracles, but they

   had no confidence of his being near to them, if they did not with their eyes

   behold a corporeal symbol of his presence, as an attestation to his actual

   government. They desired, therefore, to be assured by the image which went

   before them, that they were journeying under Divine guidance. And daily

   experience shows, that the flesh is always restless until it has obtained

   some figment like itself, with which it may vainly solace itself as a

   representation of God. In consequence of this blind passion men have, almost

   in all ages since the world began, set up signs on which they imagined that

   God was visibly depicted to their eyes.


   9. After such a figment is formed, adoration forthwith ensues: for when once

   men imagined that they beheld God in images, they also worshipped him as

   being there. At length their eyes and minds becoming wholly engrossed by

   them, they began to grow more and more brutish, gazing and wondering as if

   some divinity were actually before them. It hence appears that men do not

   fall away to the worship of images until they have imbibed some idea of a

   grosser description: not that they actually believe them to be gods, but

   that the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them. Therefore,

   whether it be God or a creature that is imaged, the moment you fall

   prostrate before it in veneration, you are so far fascinated by

   superstition. For this reason, the Lord not only forbade the erection of

   statues to himself, but also the consecration of titles and stones which

   might be set up for adoration. For the same reason, also, the second

   commandment has an additional part concerning adoration. For as soon as a

   visible form is given to God, his power also is supposed to be annexed to

   it. So stupid are men, that wherever they figure God, there they fix him,

   and by necessary consequence proceed to adore him. It makes no difference

   whether they worship the idol simply, or God in the idol; it is always

   idolatry when divine honours are paid to an idol, be the colour what it may.

   And because God wills not to be worshipped superstitiously whatever is

   bestowed upon idols is so much robbed from him.


   Let those attend to this who set about hunting for miserable pretexts in

   defence of the execrable idolatry in which for many past ages true religion

   has been buried and sunk. It is said that the images are not accounted gods.

   Nor were the Jews so utterly thoughtless as not to remember that there was a

   God whose hand led them out of Egypt before they made the calf. Indeed,

   Aaron saying, that these were the gods which had brought them out of Egypt,

   they intimated, in no ambiguous terms, that they wished to retain God, their

   deliverer, provided they saw him going before them in the calf. Nor are the

   heathen to be deemed to have been so stupid as not to understand that God

   was something else than wood and stone. For they changed the images at

   pleasure, but always retained the same gods in their minds;8 [80] besides,

   they daily consecrated new images without thinking they were making new

   gods. Read the excuses which Augustine tells us were employed by the

   idolaters of his time (August. in Ps. 113). The vulgar, when accused,

   replied that they did not worship the visible object, but the Deity which

   dwelt in it invisibly. Those, again, who had what he calls a more refined

   religion, said, that they neither worshipped the image, nor any inhabiting

   Deity, but by means of the corporeal image beheld a symbol of that which it

   was their duty to worship. What then? All idolaters whether Jewish or

   Gentile, were actuated in the very way which has been described. Not

   contented with spiritual understanding, they thought that images would give

   them a surer and nearer impression. When once this preposterous

   representation of God was adopted, there was no limit until, deluded every

   now and then by new impostures, they came to think that God exerted his

   power in images.8 [81] Still the Jews were persuaded, that under such images

   they worshipped the eternal God, the one true Lord of heaven and earth; and

   the Gentiles, also, in worshipping their own false gods, supposed them to

   dwell in heaven.


   10. It is an impudent falsehood to deny that the thing which was thus

   anciently done is also done in our day. For why do men prostrate themselves

   before images? Why, when in the act of praying, do they turn towards them as

   to the ears of God? It is indeed true, as Augustine says (in Ps. 113), that

   no person thus prays or worships, looking at an image, without being

   impressed with the idea that he is heard by it, or without hoping that what

   he wishes will be performed by it. Why are such distinctions made between

   different images of the same God, that while one is passed by, or receives

   only common honour, another is worshipped with the highest solemnities? Why

   do they fatigue themselves with votive pilgrimages to images while they have

   many similar ones at home?8 [82] Why at the present time do they fight for

   them to blood and slaughter, as for their altars and hearths, showing more

   willingness to part with the one God than with their idols? And yet I am not

   now detailing the gross errors of the vulgar—errors almost infinite in

   number, and in possession of almost all hearts. I am only referring to what

   those profess who are most desirous to clear themselves of idolatry. They

   say, we do not call them our gods. Nor did either the Jews or Gentiles of

   old so call them; and yet the prophets never ceased to charge them with

   their adulteries with wood and stone for the very acts which are daily done

   by those who would be deemed Christians, namely, for worshipping God

   carnally in wood and stone.


   11. I am not ignorant, however, and I have no wish to disguise the fact,

   that they endeavour to evade the charge by means of a more subtle

   distinction, which shall afterwards be fully considered (see infra, s. 16,

   and chap. 12 s. 2). The worship which they pay to their images they cloak

   with the name of ei̓dōlodulei�a (idolodulia), and deny to be ei̓dōlolatrei�a

   (idolatria). So they speaks holding that the worship which they call dulia

   may, without insult to God, be paid to statues and pictures. Hence, they

   think themselves blameless if they are only the servants, and not the

   worshippers, of idols; as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than to

   serve. And yet, while they take refuge in a Greek term, they very childishly

   contradict themselves. For the Greek word latreu�ein having no other meaning

   than to worship, what they say is just the same as if they were to confess

   that they worship their images without worshipping them. They cannot object

   that I am quibbling upon words. The fact is, that they only betray their

   ignorance while they attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the simple. But

   how eloquent soever they may be, they will never prove by their eloquence

   that one and the same thing makes two. Let them show how the things differ

   if they would be thought different from ancient idolaters. For as a murderer

   or an adulterer will not escape conviction by giving some adventitious name

   to his crime, so it is absurd for them to expect that the subtle device of a

   name will exculpate them, if they, in fact, differ in nothing from idolaters

   whom they themselves are forced to condemn. But so far are they from proving

   that their case is different, that the source of the whole evil consists in

   a preposterous rivalship with them, while they with their minds devise, and

   with their hands execute, symbolical shapes of God.


   12. I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible

   representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and painting

   are gifts of God, what I insist for is, that both shall be used purely and

   lawfully,—that gifts which the Lord has bestowed upon us, for his glory and

   our good, shall not be preposterously abused, nay, shall not be perverted to

   our destruction. We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God,

   because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without,

   in some degree, tarnishing his glory. And lest any should think that we are

   singular in this opinion, those acquainted with the productions of sound

   divines will find that they have always disapproved of it. If it be unlawful

   to make any corporeal representation of God, still more unlawful must it be

   to worship such a representation instead of God, or to worship God in it.

   The only things, therefore, which ought to be painted or sculptured, are

   things which can be presented to the eye; the majesty of God, which is far

   beyond the reach of any eye, must not be dishonored by unbecoming

   representations. Visible representations are of two classes—viz. historical,

   which give a representation of events, and pictorial, which merely exhibit

   bodily shapes and figures. The former are of some use for instruction or

   admonition. The latter, so far as I can see, are only fitted for amusement.

   And yet it is certain, that the latter are almost the only kind which have

   hitherto been exhibited in churches. Hence we may infer, that the exhibition

   was not the result of judicious selection, but of a foolish and

   inconsiderate longing. I say nothing as to the improper and unbecoming form

   in which they are presented, or the wanton license in which sculptors and

   painters have here indulged (a point to which I alluded a little ago, supra,

   s. 7). I only say, that though they were otherwise faultless, they could not

   be of any utility in teaching.


   13. But, without reference to the above distinction, let us here consider,

   whether it is expedient that churches should contain representations of any

   kind, whether of events or human forms. First, then, if we attach any weight

   to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five

   hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and

   a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from

   visible representations (see Preface, and Book 4, c. 9 s. 9). Hence their

   first admission as an ornament to churches took place after the purity of

   the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute as to the

   rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction of them

   proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find that the latter

   had greatly declined from the purity of the times when images were unknown.

   What then? Are we to suppose that those holy fathers, if they had judged the

   thing to be useful and salutary, would have allowed the Church to be so long

   without it? Undoubtedly, because they saw very little or no advantage, and

   the greatest danger in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on

   rational grounds, than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness. This is

   clearly attested by Augustine in these words (Ep. 49. See also De Civit.

   Dei, lib 4 c. 31) “When images are thus placed aloft in seats of honour, to

   be beheld by those who are praying or sacrificing, though they have neither

   sense nor life, yet from appearing as if they had both, they affect weak

   minds just as if they lived and breathed,” &c. And again, in another passage

   (in Ps. 112) he says, “The effect produced, and in a manner extorted, by the

   bodily shape, is, that the mind, being itself in a body, imagines that a

   body which is so like its oven must be similarly affected,” &c. A little

   farther on he says, “Images are more capable of giving a wrong bent to an

   unhappy soul, from having mouth, eyes, ears, and feet, than of correcting

   it, as they neither speak, nor see, nor hear, nor walk.” This undoubtedly is

   the reason why John (1 John 5:21) enjoins us to beware, not only of the

   worship of idols, but also of idols themselves. And from the fearful

   infatuation under which the world has hitherto laboured, almost to the

   entire destruction of piety, we know too well from experience that the

   moment images appear in churches, idolatry has as it were raised its banner;

   because the folly of manhood cannot moderate itself, but forthwith falls

   away to superstitious worship. Even were the danger less imminent, still,

   when I consider the proper end for which churches are erected, it appears to

   me more unbecoming their sacredness than I well can tell, to admit any other

   images than those living symbols which the Lord has consecrated by his own

   word: I mean Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, with the other ceremonies. By

   these our eyes ought to be more steadily fixed, and more vividly impressed,

   than to require the aid of any images which the wit of man may devise. Such,

   then, is the incomparable blessing of images—a blessing, the want of which,

   if we believe the Papists, cannot possibly be compensated!8 [83]


   14. Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, were I not in a

   manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the celebrated Council which

   Constantine the Great assembled, but one which was held eight hundred years

   ago by the orders and under the auspices of the Empress Irene.9 [84] This

   Council decreed not only that images were to be used in churches, but also

   that they were to be worshipped. Every thing, therefore, that I have said,

   is in danger of suffering great prejudice from the authority of this Synod.

   To confess the truth, however, I am not so much moved by this consideration,

   as by a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the

   infatuation has been carried by those who had a greater fondness for images

   than became Christians. But let us first dispose of this matter. Those who

   defend the use of images appeal to that Synod for support. But there is a

   refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and which is proved

   by its style to be a production of that period. It gives the opinions

   delivered by the bishops who were present, and the arguments by which they

   supported them. John, deputy of the Eastern Churches, said, “God created man

   in his own image,” and thence inferred that images ought to be used. He also

   thought there was a recommendation of images in the following passage, “Show

   me thy face, for it is beautiful.” Another, in order to prove that images

   ought to be placed on altars, quoted the passage, “No man, when he has

   lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel.” Another, to show the utility

   of looking at images, quoted a verse of the Psalms “The light of thy

   countenance, O Lord, has shone upon us.” Another laid hold of this

   similitude: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so ought

   Christians to use the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles.

   They also twisted to the same effect the words, “Lord, I have loved the

   beauty of thy house.” But the most ingenious interpretation was the

   following, “As we have heard, so also have we seen;” therefore, God is known

   not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the seeing of images.

   Bishop Theodore was equally acute: “God,” says he, “is to be admired in his

   saints;” and it is elsewhere said, “To the saints who are on earth;”

   therefore this must refer to images. In short, their absurdities are so

   extreme that it is painful even to quote them.


   15. When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the worship of

   Pharaoh, the staff of Joseph, and the inscription which Jacob set up. In

   this last case they not only pervert the meaning of Scripture, but quote

   what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages, “Worship at his

   footstool”—“Worship in his holy mountain”—“The rulers of the people will

   worship before thy face,” seem to them very solid and apposite proofs. Were

   one, with the view of turning the defenders of images into ridicule, to put

   words into their mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser

   absurdities? But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images,

   Theodosius Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping them by the

   dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as much gravity as if he

   were in possession of a response from heaven. Let the patrons of images now

   go and urge us with the decree of this Synod, as if the venerable Fathers

   did not bring themselves into utter discredit by handling Scripture so

   childishly, or wresting it so shamefully and profanely.


   16. I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they ventured to

   utter, and twice strange that all men did not protest against with the

   utmost detestation.9 [85] It is right to expose this frantic and flagitious

   extravagance, and thereby deprive the worship of images of that gloss of

   antiquity in which Papists seek to deck it. Theodosius Bishop of Amora fires

   oft an anathema at all who object to the worship of images. Another

   attributes all the calamities of Greece and the East to the crime of not

   having worshipped them. Of what punishment then are the Prophets, Apostles,

   and Martyrs worthy, in whose day no images existed? They afterwards add,

   that if the statue of the Emperor is met with odours and incense, much more

   are the images of saints entitled to the honour. Constantius, Bishop of

   Constantia in Cyprus, professes to embrace images with reverence, and

   declares that he will pay them the respect which is due to the ever blessed

   Trinity: every person refusing to do the same thing he anathematises and

   classes with Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think this the

   private opinion of an individual, they all assent. Nay, John the Eastern

   legate, carried still farther by his zeal, declares it would be better to

   allow a city to be filled with brothels than be denied the worship of

   images. At last it is resolved with one consent that the Samaritans are the

   worst of all heretics, and that the enemies of images are worse than the

   Samaritans. But that the play may not pass off without the accustomed

   Plaudite, the whole thus concludes, “Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the

   image of Christ, offer sacrifice to it.” Where is now the distinction of

   latria and dulia with which they would throw dust in all eyes, human and

   divine? The Council unreservedly relies as much on images as on the living

   God.9 [86]

     _________________________________________________________________


   [74] 80 The French adds, “voire jusques aux oignons et porreaux;”—they have

   gone even to onions and leeks.


   [75] 1 81 Calvin translates the words of the Psalmist as an imprecation,

   “Similes illis fiant qui faciunt ea;”—Let those who make them be like unto

   them.


   [76] 2 82 See Gregory, Ep. ad Serenum Massiliens, Ep. 109. lib. 7; and Ep. 9

   lib. 9; images, rather accuses it.


   [77] 3 83 The French adds, “deux des plus anciens Docteurs de l’Eglise;”—two

   of the most ancient Doctors of the Church.


   [78] 4 84 Lact. Inst. Div. lib. 1 c. 15; Euseb. Præf. Evang. lib. 3 c. 3, 4;

   also August. De Civitate Dei, lib. 4 c. 9, 31.


   [79] 5 85 The French is “Pourceque la gloire de sa Divinite est vilipendée

   en une chose si sotte et lourde comme est un marmouset;”—because the glory

   of his Divinity is degraded into an object so silly and stupid as a

   marmoset.


   [80] 6 86 The French is “Neantmoins ils ne disoyent point pour cela au’un

   Dieu fut divisé;”—nevertheless, they did not therefore say that the unity of

   God was divided.


   [81] 7 87 French, “Ne vouloit monstrer sa vertu que sous les images;”—would

   only show his power under the form of images.


   [82] 8 88 The two last sentences in French are, “Car laissans là un

   crucifix, ou une image de leur nostre-dame, ou n’en tenans point grand

   comte, ils mettent leur devotion à un autre. Pourquoy est-ce qu’ils trotent

   si loin en pelerinage pour voir un marmouset, duquel ils ont le semblable Ă

   leur porte?”—For there passing by a crucifix, or an image of what they call

   “Our Lady,” or making no great account of them, they pay their devotion to

   another. Why is it that they trot so far on a pilgrimage to see a marmoset,

   when they have one like it at their door?


   [83] 9 89 The French is “qu’il n’y ait nulle recompense qui vaille un

   marmouset guignant à travers et faisant la mine tortue;”—that no

   compensation can equal the value of a marmoset looking askance and twisting

   its face.


   [84] 90 The French is “une mechante Proserpine nommée Irene;”—a wicked

   Proserpine named Irene.


   [85] 1 91 The French adds, “et qu’il ne se soit trouvé gens qui leur

   crachassent au visage;”—and that people were not found to spit in their

   face.


   [86] 2 92 See Calvin, De Vitandis Superstitionibus, where also see Resp.

   Pastorum, Tigurin. adver. Nicidenitas. See also Calvin, De Fugiendis

   Illicitis Sacris.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 12.


   GOD DISTINGUISHED FROM IDOLS, THAT HE MAY BE THE EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF

   WORSHIP.


   Sections.


   1. Scripture, in teaching that there is but one God, does not make a dispute

   about words, but attributes all honour and religious worship to him alone.

   This proved, 1st, By the etymology of the term. 2d, By the testimony of God

   himself, when he declares that he is a jealous God, and will not allow

   himself to be confounded with any fictitious Deity.


   2. The Papists in opposing this pure doctrine, gain nothing by their

   distinction of dulia and latria.


   3. Passages of Scripture subversive of the Papistical distinction, and

   proving that religious worship is due to God alone. Perversions of Divine

   worship.


   1. We said at the commencement of our work (chap. 2), that the knowledge of

   God consists not in frigid speculation, but carries worship along with it;

   and we touched by the way (chap. 5 s. 6, 9, 10) on what will be more

   copiously treated in other places (Book 2, chap. 8)—viz. how God is duly

   worshipped. Now I only briefly repeat, that whenever Scripture asserts the

   unity of God, it does not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that

   nothing which belongs to Divinity be applied to any other; thus making it

   obvious in what respect pure religion differs from superstition. The Greek

   word eu̓se�beia means “right worship;” for the Greeks, though groping in

   darkness, were always aware that a certain rule was to be observed, in order

   that God might not be worshipped absurdly. Cicero truly and shrewdly derives

   the name religion from relego, and yet the reason which he assigns is forced

   and farfetched—viz. that honest worshipers read and read again, and ponder

   what is true.9 [87] I rather think the name is used in opposition to vagrant

   license—the greater part of mankind rashly taking up whatever first comes in

   their way, whereas piety, that it may stand with a firm step, confines

   itself within due bounds. In the same way superstition seems to take its

   name from its not being contented with the measure which reason prescribes,

   but accumulating a superfluous mass of vanities. But to say nothing more of

   words, it has been universally admitted in all ages, that religion is

   vitiated and perverted whenever false opinions are introduced into it, and

   hence it is inferred, that whatever is allowed to be done from inconsiderate

   zeal, cannot be defended by any pretext with which the superstitious may

   choose to cloak it. But although this confession is in every man’s mouth, a

   shameful stupidity is forthwith manifested, inasmuch as men neither cleave

   to the one God, nor use any selection in their worship, as we have already

   observed.


   But God, in vindicating his own right, first proclaims that he is a jealous

   God, and will be a stern avenger if he is confounded with any false god; and

   thereafter defines what due worship is, in order that the human race may be

   kept in obedience. Both of these he embraces in his Law when he first binds

   the faithful in allegiance to him as their only Lawgiver, and then

   prescribes a rule for worshipping him in accordance with his will. The Law,

   with its manifold uses and objects, I will consider in its own place; at

   present I only advert to this one, that it is designed as a bridle to curb

   men, and prevent them from turning aside to spurious worship. But it is

   necessary to attend to the observation with which I set out—viz. that unless

   everything peculiar to divinity is confined to God alone, he is robbed of

   his honour, and his worship is violated.


   It may be proper here more particularly to attend to the subtleties which

   superstition employs. In revolting to strange gods, it avoids the appearance

   of abandoning the Supreme God, or reducing him to the same rank with others.

   It gives him the highest place, but at the same time surrounds him with a

   tribe of minor deities, among whom it portions out his peculiar offices. In

   this way, though in a dissembling and crafty manner, the glory of the

   Godhead is dissected, and not allowed to remain entire. In the same way the

   people of old, both Jews and Gentiles, placed an immense crowd in

   subordination to the father and ruler of the gods, and gave them, according

   to their rank, to share with the supreme God in the government of heaven and

   earth. In the same way, too, for some ages past, departed saints have been

   exalted to partnership with God, to be worshipped, invoked, and lauded in

   his stead. And yet we do not even think that the majesty of God is obscured

   by this abomination, whereas it is in a great measure suppressed and

   extinguished—all that we retain being a frigid opinion of his supreme power.

   At the same time, being deluded by these entanglements, we go astray after

   divers gods.


   2. The distinction of what is called dulia and latria was invented for the

   very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men

   with apparent impunity. For it is plain that the worship which Papists pay

   to saints differs in no respect from the worship of God: for this worship is

   paid without distinction; only when they are pressed they have recourse to

   the evasion, that what belongs to God is kept unimpaired, because they leave

   him latria. But since the question relates not to the word, but the thing,

   how can they be allowed to sport at will with a matter of the highest

   moment? But not to insist on this, the utmost they will obtain by their

   distinction is, that they give worship to God, and service to the others.

   For latreìa in Greek has the same meaning as worship in Latin; whereas

   douleìa properly means service, though the words are sometimes used in

   Scripture indiscriminately. But granting that the distinction is invariably

   preserved, the thing to be inquired into is the meaning of each. Douleìa

   unquestionably means service, and latreìa worship. But no man doubts that

   to serve is something higher than to worship. For it were often a hard thing

   to serve him whom you would not refuse to reverence. It is, therefore, an

   unjust division to assign the greater to the saints and leave the less to

   God. But several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction. What if

   they did, when all men see that it is not only improper, but utterly

   frivolous?


   3. Laying aside subtleties, let us examine the thing. When Paul reminds the

   Galatians of what they were before they came to the knowledge of Gods he

   says that they “did service unto them which by nature are no gods,” (Gal.

   4:8). Because he does not say latria, was their superstition excusable? This

   superstition, to which he gives the name of dulia, he condemns as much as if

   he had given it the name of latria. When Christ repels Satan’s insulting

   proposal with the words, “It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy

   God, and him only shalt thou serve,” (Mt. 4:10), there was no question of

   latria. For all that Satan asked was proskùnesis (obeisance). In like

   manners when John is rebuked by the angel for falling on his knees before

   him (Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9), we ought not to suppose that John had so far

   forgotten himself as to have intended to transfer the honour due to God

   alone to an angel. But because it was impossible that a worship connected

   with religion should not savour somewhat of divine worship, he could not

   proskùneȋn (do obeisance to) the angel without derogating from the glory

   of God. True, we often read that men were worshipped; but that was, if I may

   so speak, civil honour. The case is different with religious honour, which,

   the moment it is conjoined with worship, carries profanation of the divine

   honour along with it. The same thing may be seen in the case of Cornelius

   (Acts 10:25). He had not made so little progress in piety as not to confine

   supreme worship to God alone. Therefore, when he prostrates himself before

   Peter, he certainly does it not with the intention of adoring him instead of

   God. Yet Peter sternly forbids him. And why, but just because men never

   distinguish so accurately between the worship of God and the creatures as

   not to transfer promiscuously to the creature that which belongs only to

   God. Therefore, if we would have one God, let us remember that we can never

   appropriate the minutest portion of his glory without retaining what is his

   due. Accordingly, when Zechariah discourses concerning the repairing of the

   Church, he distinctly says not only that there would be one God, but also

   that he would have only one name—the reason being, that he might have

   nothing in common with idols. The nature of the worship which God requires

   will be seen in its own place (Book 2, c. 7 and 8). He has been pleased to

   prescribe in his Law what is lawful and right, and thus restrict men to a

   certain rule, lest any should allow themselves to devise a worship of their

   own. But as it is inexpedient to burden the reader by mixing up a variety of

   topics, I do not now dwell on this one. Let it suffice to remember, that

   whatever offices of piety are bestowed anywhere else than on God alone, are

   of the nature of sacrilege. First, superstition attached divine honours to

   the sun and stars, or to idols: afterwards ambition followed—ambition which,

   decking man in the spoils of God, dared to profane all that was sacred. And

   though the principle of worshipping a supreme Deity continued to be held,

   still the practice was to sacrifice promiscuously to genii and minor gods,

   or departed heroes: so prone is the descent to this vice of communicating to

   a crowd that which God strictly claims as his own peculiar right!

     _________________________________________________________________


   [87] 3 93 Cic. De Nat. Deor. lib. 2 c. 28. See also Lactant. Inst. Div. lib.

   4 c. 28.

     _________________________________________________________________


  CHAPTER 13.


   THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, IN SCRIPTURE, FROM

   THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.


   This chapter consists of two parts. The former delivers the orthodox

   doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity. This occupies from sec. 1-21, and may

   be divided into four heads; the first, treating of the meaning of Person,

   including both the term and the thing meant by it, sec. 2-6; the second,

   proving the deity of the Son, sec. 7-13; the third, the deity of the Holy

   Spirit, sec. 14 and 15; and the fourth, explaining what is to be held

   concerning the Holy Trinity. The second part of the chapter refutes certain

   heresies which have arisen, particularly in our age, in opposition to this

   orthodox doctrine. This occupies from sec. 21 to the end.


   Sections.


   1. Scripture, in teaching that the essence of God is immense and spiritual,

   refutes not only idolaters and the foolish wisdom of the world, but also the

   Manichees and Anthropomorphites. These latter briefly refuted.


   2. In this one essence are three persons, yet so that neither is there a

   triple God, nor is the simple essence of God divided. Meaning of the word

   Person in this discussion. Three hypostases in God, or the essence of God.


   3. Objection of those who, in this discussion, reject the use of the word

   Person. Answer 1. That it is not a foreign term, but is employed for the

   explanation of sacred mysteries.


   4. Answer continued, 2. The orthodox compelled to use the terms, Trinity,

   Subsistence, and Person. Examples from the case of the Asians and

   Sabellians.


   5. Answer continued, 3. The ancient Church, though differing somewhat in the

   explanation of these terms, agree in substance. Proofs from Hilary, Jerome,

   Augustine, in their use of the words Essence, Substance, Hypostasis. 4.

   Provided the orthodox meaning is retained, there should be no dispute about

   mere terms. But those who object to the terms usually favour the Arian and

   Sabellian heresy.


   6. After the definition of the term follows a definition and explanation of

   the thing meant by it. The distinction of Persons.


   7. Proofs of the eternal Deity of the Son. The Son the lo�gos of the Eternal

   Father, and, therefore, the Son Eternal God. Objection. Reply.


   8. Objection, that the Lo�gos began to be when the creating God spoke.

   Answer confirmed by Scripture and argument.


   9. The Son called God and Jehovah. Other names of the Eternal Father applied

   to him in the Old Testament. He is, therefore, the Eternal God. Another

   objection refuted. Case of the Jews explained.


   10. The angel who appeared to the fathers under the Law asserts that he is

   Jehovah. That angel was the Lo�gos of the Eternal Father. The Son being that

   Lo�gos is Eternal God. Impiety of Servetus refuted. Why the Son appeared in

   the form of an angel.


   11. Passages from the New Testament in which the Son is acknowledged to be

   the Lord of Hosts, the Judge of the world, the God of glory, the Creator of

   the world, the Lord of angels, the King of the Church, the eternal Lo�gos,

   God blessed for ever, God manifest in the flesh, the equal of God, the true

   God and eternal life, the Lord and God of all believers. Therefore, the

   Eternal God.


   12. Christ the Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Searcher of hearts.

   Therefore, the Eternal God.


   13. Christ, by his own inherent power, wrought miracles, and bestowed the

   power of working them on others. Out of the Eternal God there is no

   salvation, no righteousness, no life. All these are in Christ. Christ,

   consequently, is the Eternal God. He in whom we believe and hope, to whom we

   pray, whom the Church acknowledges as the Saviour of the faithful, whom to

   know is life eternal, in whom the pious glory, and through whom eternal

   blessings are communicated, is the Eternal God. All these Christ is, and,

   therefore, he is God.


   14. The Divinity of the Spirit proved. I. He is the Creator and Preserver of

   the world. II. He sent the Prophets. III. He quickeneth all things. IV. He

   is everywhere present. V. He renews the saints, and fits them for eternal

   life. VI. All the offices of Deity belong to him.


   15. The Divinity of the Spirit continued. VII. He is called God. VIII.

   Blasphemy against him is not forgiven.


   16. What view to be taken of the Trinity. The form of Christian baptism

   proves that there are in one essence. The Arian and Macedonian heresies.


   17. Of the distinction of Persons. They are distinct, but not divided. This

   proved.


   18. Analogies taken from human affairs to be cautiously used. Due regard to

   be paid to those mentioned by Scripture.


   19. How the Three Persons not only do not destroy, but constitute the most

   perfect unity


   20. Conclusion of this part of the chapter, and summary of the true doctrine

   concerning the unity of Essence and the Three Persons.


   21. Refutation of Arian, Macedonian, and Anti Trinitarian heresies. Caution

   to be observed.


   22. The more modern Anti Trinitarians, and especially Servetus, refuted.


   23. Other Anti Trinitarians refuted. No good objection that Christ is called

   the Son of God, since he is also called God. Impious absurdities of some

   heretics.


   24. The name of God sometimes given to the Son absolutely as to the Father.

   Same as to other attributes. Objections refuted.


   25. Objections further refuted. Caution to be used.


   26. Previous refutations further explained.


   27. Reply to certain passages produced from Irenaeus. The meaning of

   Irenaeus.


   28. Reply to certain passages produced from Tertullian. The meaning of

   Tertullian.


   29. Anti Trinitarians refuted by ancient Christian writers; e.g., Justin,

   Hilary. Objections drawn from writings improperly attributed to Ignatius.

   Conclusion of the whole discussion concerning the Trinity.


   1. The doctrine of Scripture concerning the immensity and the spirituality

   of the essence of God, should have the effect not only of dissipating the

   wild dreams of the vulgar, but also of refuting the subtleties of a profane

   philosophy. One of the ancients thought he spake shrewdly when he said that

   everything we see and everything we do not see is God (Senec. Praef. lib. 1

   Quaest. Nat.) In this way he fancied that the Divinity was transfused into

   every separate portion of the world. But although God, in order to keep us

   within the bounds of soberness, treats sparingly of his essence, still, by

   the two attributes which I have mentioned, he at once suppresses all gross

   imaginations, and checks the audacity of the human mind. His immensity

   surely ought to deter us from measuring him by our sense, while his

   spiritual nature forbids us to indulge in carnal or earthly speculation

   concerning him. With the same view he frequently represents heaven as his

   dwelling-place. It is true, indeed, that as he is incomprehensible, he fills

   the earth also, but knowing that our minds are heavy and grovel on the

   earth, he raises us above the worlds that he may shake off our sluggishness

   and inactivity. And here we have a refutation of the error of the Manichees,

   who, by adopting two first principles, made the devil almost the equal of

   God. This, assuredly, was both to destroy his unity and restrict his

   immensity. Their attempt to pervert certain passages of Scripture proved

   their shameful ignorance, as the very nature of the error did their

   monstrous infatuation. The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a

   corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often

   ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of

   intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as

   nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression,

   therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as

   accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of

   course, stoop far below his proper height.


   2. But there is another special mark by which he designates himself, for the

   purpose of giving a more intimate knowledge of his nature. While he

   proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three

   persons. These we must hold, unless the bare and empty name of Deity merely

   is to flutter in our brain without any genuine knowledge. Moreover, lest any

   one should dream of a threefold God, or think that the simple essence is

   divided by the three Persons, we must here seek a brief and easy definition

   which may effectually guard us from error. But as some strongly inveigh

   against the term Person as being merely of human inventions let us first

   consider how far they have any ground for doing so.


   When the Apostle calls the Son of God “the express image of his person,”

   (Heb. 1:3), he undoubtedly does assign to the Father some subsistence in

   which he differs from the Son. For to hold with some interpreters that the

   term is equivalent to essence (as if Christ represented the substance of the

   Father like the impression of a seal upon wax), were not only harsh but

   absurd. For the essence of God being simple and undivided, and contained in

   himself entire, in full perfection, without partition or diminution, it is

   improper, nay, ridiculous, to call it his express image (charakter). But

   because the Father, though distinguished by his own peculiar properties, has

   expressed himself wholly in the Son, he is said with perfect reason to have

   rendered his person (hypostasis) manifest in him. And this aptly accords

   with what is immediately added—viz. that he is “the brightness of his

   glory.” The fair inference from the Apostle’s words is, that there is a

   proper subsistence (hypostasis) of the Father, which shines refulgent in the

   Son. From this, again it is easy to infer that there is a subsistence

   (hypostasis) of the Son which distinguishes him from the Father. The same

   holds in the case of the Holy Spirit; for we will immediately prove both

   that he is God, and that he has a separate subsistence from the Father.

   This, moreover, is not a distinction of essence, which it were impious to

   multiply. If credit, then, is given to the Apostle’s testimony, it follows

   that there are three persons (hypostases) in God. The Latins having used the

   word Persona to express the same thing as the Greek u̔po�statis, it betrays

   excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the term. The

   most literal translation would be subsistence. Many have used substance in

   the same sense. Nor, indeed, was the use of the term Person confined to the

   Latin Church. For the Greek Church in like manner, perhaps, for the purpose

   of testifying their consent, have taught that there are three pro�sōpa

   (aspects) in God. All these, however, whether Greeks or Latins, though

   differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance.


   3. Now, then, though heretics may snarl and the excessively fastidious carp

   at the word Person as inadmissible, in consequence of its human origin,

   since they cannot displace us from our position that three are named, each

   of whom is perfect God, and yet that there is no plurality of gods, it is

   most uncandid to attack the terms which do nothing more than explain what

   the Scriptures declare and sanction. “It were better,” they say, “to confine

   not only our meanings but our words within the bounds of Scripture, and not

   scatter about foreign terms to become the future seed-beds of brawls and

   dissensions. In this way, men grow tired of quarrels about words; the truth

   is lost in altercation, and charity melts away amid hateful strife.” If they

   call it a foreign term, because it cannot be pointed out in Scripture in so

   many syllables, they certainly impose an unjust law—a law which would

   condemn every interpretation of Scripture that is not composed of other

   words of Scripture. But if by foreign they mean that which, after being idly

   devised, is superstitiously defended,—which tends more to strife than

   edification,—which is used either out of place, or with no benefit which

   offends pious ears by its harshness, and leads them away from the simplicity

   of God’s Word, I embrace their soberness with all my heart. For I think we

   are bound to speak of God as reverently as we are bound to think of him. As

   our own thoughts respecting him are foolish, so our own language respecting

   him is absurd. Still, however, some medium must be observed. The unerring

   standard both of thinking and speaking must be derived from the Scriptures:

   by it all the thoughts of ours minds, and the words of our mouths, should he

   tested. But in regard to those parts of Scripture which, to our capacities,

   are dark and intricate, what forbids us to explain them in clearer

   terms—terms, however, kept in reverent and faithful subordination to

   Scripture truth, used sparingly and modestly, and not without occasion? Of

   this we are not without many examples. When it has been proved that the

   Church was impelled, by the strongest necessity, to use the words Trinity

   and Person, will not he who still inveighs against novelty of terms be

   deservedly suspected of taking offence at the light of truth, and of having

   no other ground for his invective, than that the truth is made plain and

   transparent?


   4. Such novelty (if novelty it should be called) becomes most requisite,

   when the truth is to be maintained against calumniators who evade it by

   quibbling. Of this, we of the present day have too much experience in being

   constantly called upon to attack the enemies of pure and sound doctrine.

   These slippery snakes escape by their swift and tortuous windings, if not

   strenuously pursued, and when caught, firmly held. Thus the early

   Christians, when harassed with the disputes which heresies produced, were

   forced to declare their sentiments in terms most scrupulously exact in order

   that no indirect subterfuges might remain to ungodly men, to whom ambiguity

   of expression was a kind of hiding-place. Arius confessed that Christ was

   God, and the Son of God; because the passages of Scripture to this effect

   were too clear to be resisted, and then, as if he had done well, pretended

   to concur with others. But, meanwhile, he ceased not to give out that Christ

   was created, and had a beginning like other creatures. To drag this man of

   wiles out of his lurking-places, the ancient Church took a further step, and

   declared that Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial

   with the Father. The impiety was fully disclosed when the Arians began to

   declare their hatred and utter detestation of the term o̔moou�sios. Had

   their first confession—viz. that Christ was God, been sincere and from the

   heart, they would not have denied that he was consubstantial with the

   Father. Who dare charge those ancient writers as men of strife and

   contention, for having debated so warmly, and disturbed the quiet of the

   Church for a single word? That little word distinguished between Christians

   of pure faith and the blasphemous Arians. Next Sabellius arose, who counted

   the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as almost nonentities;

   maintaining that they were not used to mark out some distinction, but that

   they were different attributes of God, like many others of a similar kind.

   When the matter was debated, he acknowledged his belief that the Father was

   God, the Son God, the Spirit God; but then he had the evasion ready, that he

   had said nothing more than if he had called God powerful, and just, and

   wise. Accordingly, he sung another note—viz. that the Father was the Son,

   and the Holy Spirit the Father, without order or distinction. The worthy

   doctors who then had the interests of piety at heart, in order to defeat it

   is man’s dishonesty, proclaimed that three subsistence were to be truly

   acknowledged in the one God. That they might protect themselves against

   tortuous craftiness by the simple open truth, they affirmed that a Trinity

   of Persons subsisted in the one God, or (which is the same thing) in the

   unity of God.


   5. Where names have not been invented rashly, we must beware lest we become

   chargeable with arrogance and rashness in rejecting them. I wish, indeed,

   that such names were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that

   the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God, and yet that the Son is not the

   Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that each has his peculiar subsistence.

   I am not so minutely precise as to fight furiously for mere words. For I

   observe, that the writers of the ancient Church, while they uniformly spoke

   with great reverence on these matters, neither agreed with each other, nor

   were always consistent with themselves. How strange the formula used by

   Councils, and defended by Hilary! How extravagant the view which Augustine

   sometimes takes! How unlike the Greeks are to the Latins! But let one

   example of variance suffice. The Latins, in translating o̔moou�sios used

   consubstantialis (consubstantial), intimating that there was one substance

   of the Father and the Son, and thus using the word Substance for Essence.

   Hence Jerome, in his Letter to Damasus, says it is profane to affirm that

   there are three substances in God. But in Hilary you will find it said more

   than a hundred times that there are three substances in God. Then how

   greatly is Jerome perplexed with the word Hypostasis! He suspects some

   lurking poison, when it is said that there are three Hypostases in God. And

   he does not disguise his belief that the expression, though used in a pious

   sense, is improper; if, indeed, he was sincere in saying this, and did not

   rather designedly endeavour, by an unfounded calumny, to throw odium on the

   Eastern bishops whom he hated. He certainly shows little candour in

   asserting, that in all heathen schools ou̓si�a is equivalent to

   Hypostasis—an assertion completely refuted by trite and common use.


   More courtesy and moderation is shown by Augustine (De Trinit. lib. 5 c. 8

   and 9), who, although he says that Hypostasis in this sense is new to Latin

   ears, is still so far from objecting to the ordinary use of the term by the

   Greeks, that he is even tolerant of the Latins, who had imitated the Greek

   phraseology. The purport of what Socrates says of the term, in the Sixth

   Book of the Tripartite History, is, that it had been improperly applied to

   this purpose by the unskilful. Hilary (De Trinitat. lib. 2) charges it upon

   the heretics as a great crime, that their misconduct had rendered it

   necessary to subject to the peril of human utterance things which ought to

   have been reverently confined within the mind, not disguising his opinion

   that those who do so, do what is unlawful, speak what is ineffable, and pry

   into what is forbidden. Shortly after, he apologises at great length for

   presuming to introduce new terms. For, after putting down the natural names

   of Father, Son, and Spirit, he adds, that all further inquiry transcends the

   significance of words, the discernment of sense, and the apprehension of

   intellect. And in another place (De Conciliis), he congratulates the Bishops

   of France in not having framed any other confession, but received, without

   alteration, the ancient and most simple confession received by all Churches

   from the days of the Apostles. Not unlike this is the apology of Augustine,

   that the term had been wrung from him by necessity from the poverty of human

   language in so high a matter: not that the reality could be thereby

   expressed, but that he might not pass on in silence without attempting to

   show how the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three.


   The modesty of these holy men should be an admonition to us not instantly to

   dip our pen in gall, and sternly denounce those who may be unwilling to

   swear to the terms which we have devised, provided they do not in this

   betray pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat, but are willing to ponder

   the necessity which compels us so to speak, and may thus become gradually

   accustomed to a useful form of expression. Let men also studiously beware,

   that in opposing the Asians on the one hand, and the Sabellians on the

   other, and eagerly endeavouring to deprive both of any handle for cavil,

   they do not bring themselves under some suspicion of being the disciples of

   either Arius or Sabellius. Arius says that Christ is God, and then mutters

   that he was made and had a beginning. He says, that he is one with the

   Father; but secretly whispers in the ears of his party, made one, like other

   believers, though with special privilege. Say, he is consubstantial, and you

   immediately pluck the mask from this chameleon, though you add nothing to

   Scripture. Sabellius says that the Father, Son, and Spirit, indicate some

   distinction in God. Say, they are three, and he will bawl out that you are

   making three Gods. Say, that there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine

   essence, you will only express in one word what the Scriptures say, and stop

   his empty prattle. Should any be so superstitiously precise as not to

   tolerate these terms, still do their worst, they will not be able to deny

   that when one is spoken of, a unity of substance must be understood, and

   when three in one essence, the persons in this Trinity are denoted. When

   this is confessed without equivocations we dwell not on words. But I was

   long ago made aware, and, indeed, on more than one occasion, that those who

   contend pertinaciously about words are tainted with some hidden poison; and,

   therefore, that it is more expedient to provoke them purposely, than to

   court their favour by speaking obscurely.


   6. But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing

   signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a

   subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from

   them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to

   be understood than essence. For if the Word were God simply and had not some

   property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had

   always been with God. When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God,

   he calls us back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God

   without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though

   connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of

   separation, yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it.

   Now, I say that each of the three subsistences while related to the others

   is distinguished by its own properties. Here relation is distinctly

   expressed, because, when God is mentioned simply and indefinitely the name

   belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father. But whenever the

   Father is compared with the Son, the peculiar property of each distinguishes

   the one from the other. Again, whatever is proper to each I affirm to be

   incommunicable, because nothing can apply or be transferred to the Son which

   is attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction. I have no objections

   to adopt the definition of Tertullian, provided it is properly understood,

   “that there is in God a certain arrangement or economy, which makes no

   change on the unity of essence.”—Tertull. Lib. contra Praxeam.


   7. Before proceeding farther, it will be necessary to prove the divinity of

   the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thereafter, we shall see how they differ from

   each other. When the Word of God is set before us in the Scriptures, it were

   certainly most absurd to imagine that it is only a fleeting and evanescent

   voice, which is sent out into the air, and comes forth beyond God himself,

   as was the case with the communications made to the patriarchs, and all the

   prophecies. The reference is rather to the wisdom ever dwelling with God,

   and by which all oracles and prophecies were inspired. For, as Peter

   testifies (1 Pet. 1:11), the ancient prophets spake by the Spirit of Christ

   just as did the apostles, and all who after them were ministers of the

   heavenly doctrine. But as Christ was not yet manifested, we necessarily

   understand that the Word was begotten of the Father before all ages. But if

   that Spirit, whose organs the prophets were, belonged to the Word, the

   inference is irresistible, that the Word was truly God. And this is clearly

   enough shown by Moses in his account of the creation, where he places the

   Word as intermediate. For why does he distinctly narrate that God, in

   creating each of his works, said, Let there be this—let there be that,

   unless that the unsearchable glory of God might shine forth in his image? I

   know prattlers would easily evade this, by saying that Word is used for

   order or command; but the apostles are better expositors, when they tell us

   that the worlds were created by the Son, and that he sustains all things by

   his mighty word (Heb. 1:2). For we here see that word is used for the nod or

   command of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the

   Father. And no man of sane mind can have any doubt as to Solomon’s meaning,

   when he introduces Wisdom as begotten by God, and presiding at the creation

   of the world, and all other divine operations (Prov. 8:22). For it were

   trifling and foolish to imagine any temporary command at a time when God was

   pleased to execute his fixed and eternal counsel, and something more still

   mysterious. To this our Saviour’s words refer, “My Father worketh hitherto,

   and I work,” (John 5:17). In thus affirming, that from the foundation of the

   world he constantly worked with the Father, he gives a clearer explanation

   of what Moses simply touched. The meaning therefore is, that God spoke in

   such a manner as left the Word his peculiar part in the work, and thus made

   the operation common to both. But the clearest explanation is given by John,

   when he states that the Word—which was from the beginning, God and with God,

   was, together with God the Father, the maker of all things. For he both

   attributes a substantial and permanent essence to the Word, assigning to it

   a certain peculiarity, and distinctly showing how God spoke the world into

   being. Therefore, as all revelations from heaven are duly designated by the

   title of the Word of God, so the highest place must be assigned to that

   substantial Word, the source of all inspiration, which, as being liable to

   no variation, remains for ever one and the same with God, and is God.


   8. Here an outcry is made by certain men, who, while they dare not openly

   deny his divinity, secretly rob him of his eternity. For they contend that

   the Word only began to be when God opened his sacred mouth in the creation

   of the world. Thus, with excessive temerity, they imagine some change in the

   essence of God. For as the names of God, which have respect to external

   work, began to be ascribed to him from the existence of the work (as when he

   is called the Creator of heaven and earth), so piety does not recognise or

   admit any name which might indicate that a change had taken place in God

   himself. For if any thing adventitious took place, the saying of James would

   cease to be true, that “every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from

   above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no

   variableness, neither shadow of turning,” (James 1:17). Nothing, therefore,

   is more intolerable than to fancy a beginning to that Word which was always

   God, and afterwards was the Creator of the world. But they think they argue

   acutely, in maintaining that Moses, when he says that God then spoke for the

   first time, must be held to intimate that till then no Word existed in him.

   This is the merest trifling. It does not surely follow, that because a thing

   begins to be manifested at a certain time, it never existed previously. I

   draw a very different conclusion. Since at the very moment when God said,

   “Let there be light,” the energy of the Word-was immediately exerted, it

   must have existed long before. If any inquire how long, he will find it was

   without beginning. No certain period of time is defined, when he himself

   says, “Now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory

   which I had with thee before the world was,” (John 17:5). Nor is this

   omitted by John: for before he descends to the creation of the world, he

   says, that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” We,

   therefore, again conclude, that the Word was eternally begotten by God, and

   dwelt with him from everlasting. In this way, his true essence, his

   eternity, and divinity, are established.


   9. But though I am not now treating of the office of the Mediator, having

   deferred it till the subject of redemption is considered, yet because it

   ought to be clear and incontrovertible to all, that Christ is that Word

   become incarnate, this seems the most appropriate place to introduce those

   passages which assert the Divinity of Christ. When it is said in the

   forty-fifth Psalm, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” the Jews

   quibble that the name Elohim is applied to angels and sovereign powers. But

   no passage is to be found in Scripture, where an eternal throne is set up

   for a creature. For he is not called God simply, but also the eternal Ruler.

   Besides, the title is not conferred on any man, without some addition, as

   when it is said that Moses would be a God to Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1). Some read

   as if it were in the genitive case, but this is too insipid. I admit, that

   anything possessed of singular excellence is often called divine, but it is

   clear from the context, that this meaning here were harsh and forced, and

   totally inapplicable. But if their perverseness still refuses to yield,

   surely there is no obscurity in Isaiah, where Christ is introduced both us

   God, and as possessed of supreme powers one of the peculiar attributes of

   God, “His name shall be called the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the

   Prince of Peace,” (Isa. 9:6). Here, too, the Jews object, and invert the

   passage thus, This is the name by which the mighty God, the Everlasting

   Father, will call him; so that all which they leave to the Son is, “ Prince

   of Peace.” But why should so many epithets be here accumulated on God the

   Father, seeing the prophet’s design is to present the Messiah with certain

   distinguished properties which may induce us to put our faith in him? There

   can be no doubt, therefore, that he who a little before was called Emmanuel,

   is here called the Mighty God. Moreover, there can be nothing clearer than

   the words of Jeremiah, “This is the name whereby he shall be called, THE

   LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,” (Jer. 23:6). For as the Jews themselves teach that

   the other names of God are mere epithets, whereas this, which they call the

   ineffable name, is substantive, and expresses his essence, we infer, that

   the only begotten Son is the eternal God, who elsewhere declares, “My glory

   will I not give to another,” (Isa. 42:8). An attempt is made to evade this

   from the fact, that this name is given by Moses to the altar which he built,

   and by Ezekiel to the New Jerusalem. But who sees not that the altar was

   erected as a memorial to show that God was the exalter of Moses, and that

   the name of God was applied to Jerusalem, merely to testify the Divine

   presence? For thus the prophet speaks, “The name of the city from that day

   shall be, The Lord is there,” (Ezek. 48:35). In the same way, “Moses built

   an altar, and called the name of it JEHOVAH-nissi,” (Jehovah my exaltation).

   But it would seem the point is still more keenly disputed as to another

   passage in Jeremiah, where the same title is applied to Jerusalem in these

   words, “In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell

   safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our

   Righteousness.” But so far is this passage from being adverse to the truth

   which we defend, that it rather supports it. The prophet having formerly

   declared that Christ is the true Jehovah from whom righteousness flows, now

   declares that the Church would be made so sensible of this as to be able to

   glory in assuming his very name. In the former passage, therefore, the

   fountain and cause of righteousness is set down, in the latter, the effect

   is described.


   10. But if this does not satisfy the Jews, I know not what cavils will

   enable them to evade the numerous passages in which Jehovah is said to have

   appeared in the form of an Angel (Judges 6:7; 13:16-23, &c). This Angel

   claims for himself the name of the Eternal God. Should it be alleged that

   this is done in respect of the office which he bears, the difficulty is by

   no means solved. No servant would rob God of his honour, by allowing

   sacrifice to be offered to himself. But the Angel, by refusing to eat bread,

   orders the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to him. Thus the fact

   itself proves that he was truly Jehovah. Accordingly, Manoah and his wife

   infer from the sign, that they had seen not only an angel, but God. Hence

   Manoah’s exclamation, “We shall die; for we have seen the Lord.” When the

   woman replies, “If Jehovah had wished to slay us, he would not have received

   the sacrifice at our hand,” she acknowledges that he who is previously

   called an angel was certainly God. We may add, that the angel’s own reply

   removes all doubt, “Why do ye ask my name, which is wonderful?” Hence the

   impiety of Servetus was the more detestable, when he maintained that God was

   never manifested to Abraham and the Patriarchs, but that an angel was

   worshipped in his stead. The orthodox doctors of the Church have correctly

   and wisely expounded, that the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then

   began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of Mediator. For

   though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he descended as in an

   intermediate form, that he might have more familiar access to the faithful.

   This closer intercourse procured for him the name of the Angel; still,

   however, he retained the character which justly belonged to him—that of the

   God of ineffable glory. The same thing is intimated by Hosea, who, after

   mentioning the wrestling of Jacob with the angel, says, “Even the Lord God

   of hosts; the Lord is his memorial,” (Hosea 12:5). Servetus again insinuates

   that God personated an angel; as if the prophet did not confirm what had

   been said by Moses, “Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?”

   (Gen. 32:29, 30). And the confession of the holy Patriarch sufficiently

   declares that he was not a created angel, but one in whom the fulness of the

   Godhead dwelt, when he says, “I have seen God face to face.” Hence also

   Paul’s statement, that Christ led the people in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:4.

   See also Calvin on Acts 7:30, and infra, chap. 14, s. 9). Although the time

   of humiliation had not yet arrived, the eternal Word exhibited a type of the

   office which he was to fulfil. Again, if the first chapter of Zechariah

   (ver. 9, &c). and the second (ver. 3, &c). be candidly considered, it will

   be seen that the angel who sends the other angel is immediately after

   declared to be the Lord of hosts, and that supreme power is ascribed to him.

   I omit numberless passages in which our faith rests secure, though they may

   not have much weight with the Jews. For when it is said in Isaiah, “Lo, this

   is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us; this is the Lord:

   we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation,” (Isa.

   25:9), even the blind may see that the God referred to is he who again rises

   up for the deliverance of his people. And the emphatic description, twice

   repeated, precludes the idea that reference is made to any other than to

   Christ. Still clearer and stronger is the passage of Malachi, in which a

   promise is made that the messenger who was then expected would come to his

   own temple (Mal. 3:1). The temple certainly was dedicated to Almighty God

   only, and yet the prophet claims it for Christ. Hence it follows, that he is

   the God who was always worshipped by the Jews.


   11. The New Testament teems with innumerable passages, and our object must

   therefore be, the selection of a few, rather than an accumulation of the

   whole. But though the Apostles spoke of him after his appearance in the

   flesh as Mediator, every passage which I adduce will be sufficient to prove

   his eternal Godhead. And the first thing deserving of special observation is

   that predictions concerning the eternal God are applied to Christ, as either

   already fulfilled in him, or to be fulfilled at some future period. Isaiah

   prophesies, that “the Lord of Hosts” shall be “for a stone of stumbling, and

   for a rock of offence,” (Isa. 8:14). Paul asserts that this prophecy was

   fulfilled in Christ (Rom. 9:33), and, therefore, declares that Christ is

   that Lord of Hosts. In like manner, he says in another passage, “We shall

   all stand before the Judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live,

   saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess

   to God.” Since in Isaiah God predicts this of himself (Isa. 45:23), and

   Christ exhibits the reality fulfilled in himself, it follows that he is the

   very God, whose glory cannot be given to another. It is clear also, that the

   passage from the Psalms (Ps. 68:19) which he quotes in the Epistle to the

   Ephesians, is applicable only to God, “When he ascended up on high, he led

   captivity captive,” (Eph. 4:8). Understanding that such an ascension was

   shadowed forth when the Lord exerted his power, and gained a glorious

   victory over heathen nations, he intimates that what was thus shadowed was

   more fully manifested in Christ. So John testifies that it was the glory of

   the Son which was revealed to Isaiah in a vision (John 12:41; Isa. 6:4),

   though Isaiah himself expressly says that what he saw was the Majesty of

   God. Again, there can be no doubt that those qualities which, in the Epistle

   to the Hebrews, are applied to the Son, are the brightest attributes of God,

   “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth,” &c.,

   and, “Let all the angels of God worship him,” (Heb. 1:10, 6). And yet he

   does not pervert the passages in thus applying them to Christ, since Christ

   alone performed the things which these passages celebrate. It was he who

   arose and pitied Zion—he who claimed for himself dominion over all nations

   and islands. And why should John have hesitated to ascribe the Majesty of

   God to Christ, after saying in his preface that the Word was God? (John

   1:14). Why should Paul have feared to place Christ on the Judgment-seat of

   God (2 Cor. 5:10), after he had so openly proclaimed his divinity, when he

   said that he was God over all, blessed for ever? And to show how consistent

   he is in this respect, he elsewhere says that “God was manifest in the

   flesh,” (1 Tim. 3:16). If he is God blessed for ever, he therefore it is to

   whom alone, as Paul affirms in another place, all glory and honour is due.

   Paul does not disguise this, but openly exclaims, that “being in the form of

   God (he) thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no

   reputation,” (Phil. 2:6). And lest the wicked should glamour and say that he

   was a kind of spurious God, John goes farther, and affirms, “This is the

   true God, and eternal life.” Though it ought to be enough for us that he is

   called God, especially by a witness who distinctly testifies that we have no

   more gods than one, Paul says, “Though there be that are called gods,

   whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many), but

   to us there is but one God,” (1 Cor. 8:5, 6). When we hear from the same

   lips that God was manifest in the flesh, that God purchased the Church with

   his own blood, why do we dream of any second God, to whom he makes not the

   least allusion? And there is no room to doubt that all the godly entertained

   the same view. Thomas, by addressing him as his Lord and God, certainly

   professes that he was the only God whom he had ever adored (John 20:28).


   12. The divinity of Christ, if judged by the works which are ascribed to him

   in Scripture, becomes still more evident. When he said of himself, “My

   Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” the Jews, though most dull in regard

   to his other sayings, perceived that he was laying claim to divine power.

   And, therefore, as John relates (John 5:17), they sought the more to kill

   him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his

   Father, making himself equal with God. What, then, will be our stupidity if

   we do not perceive from the same passage that his divinity is plainly

   instructed? To govern the world by his power and providence, and regulate

   all things by an energy inherent in himself (this an Apostle ascribes to

   him, Heb. 1:3), surely belongs to none but the Creator. Nor does he merely

   share the government of the world with the Father, but also each of the

   other offices, which cannot be communicated to creatures. The Lord proclaims

   by his prophets “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for

   mine own sake,” (Is. 43:25). When, in accordance with this declaration, the

   Jews thought that injustice was done to God when Christ forgave sins, he not

   only asserted, in distinct terms, that this power belonged to him, but also

   proved it by a miracle (Mt. 9:6). We thus see that he possessed in himself

   not the ministry of forgiving sins, but the inherent power which the Lord

   declares he will not give to another. What! Is it not the province of God

   alone to penetrate and interrogate the secret thoughts of the heart? But

   Christ also had this power, and therefore we infer that Christ is God.


   13. How clearly and transparently does this appear in his miracles? I admit

   that similar and equal miracles were performed by the prophets and apostles;

   but there is this very essential difference, that they dispensed the gifts

   of God as his ministers, whereas he exerted his own inherent might.

   Sometimes, indeed, he used prayer, that he might ascribe glory to the

   Father, but we see that for the most part his own proper power is displayed.

   And how should not he be the true author of miracles, who, of his own

   authority, commissions others to perform them? For the Evangelist relates

   that he gave power to the apostles to cast out devils, cure the lepers,

   raise the dead, &c. And they, by the mode in which they performed this

   ministry, showed plainly that their whole power was derived from Christ. “In

   the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,” says Peter (Acts 3:6), “rise up and

   walk.” It is not surprising, then, that Christ appealed to his miracles in

   order to subdue the unbelief of the Jews, inasmuch as these were performed

   by his own energy, and therefore bore the most ample testimony to his

   divinity.


   Again, if out of God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life,

   Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God. Let no one object

   that life or salvation is transfused into him by God. For it is said not

   that he received, but that he himself is salvation. And if there is none

   good but God, how could a mere man be pure, how could he be, I say not good

   and just, but goodness and justice? Then what shall we say to the testimony

   of the Evangelist, that from the very beginning of the creation “in him was

   life, and this life was the light of men?” Trusting to such proofs, we can

   boldly put our hope and faith in him, though we know it is blasphemous

   impiety to confide in any creature.9 [88] “Ye believe in God,”9 [89] says

   he, “believe also in me,” (John 14:1). And so Paul (Rom. 10:11, and 15:12)

   interprets two passages of Isaiah “Whose believeth in him shall not be

   confounded,” (Isa. 28:16); and, “In that day there shall be a root of Jesse,

   which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles

   seek,” (Isa. 11:10). But why adduce more passages of Scripture on this head,

   when we so often meet with the expression, “He that believeth in me has

   eternal life?”


   Again, the prayer of faith is addressed to him—prayer, which specially

   belongs to the divine majesty, if anything so belongs. For the Prophet Joel

   says, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of

   the Lord (Jehovah) shall be delivered” (Joel 2:32). And another says, “The

   name of the Lord (Jehovah) is a strong tower; the righteous runneth into it

   and is safe,” (Prov. 18:10). But the name of Christ is invoked for

   salvation, and therefore it follows that he is Jehovah. Moreover, we have an

   example of invocation in Stephen, when he said, “Lord Jesus, receive my

   spirit;” and thereafter in the whole Church, when Ananias says in the same

   book, “Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to

   thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the chief priests to

   bind all that call on thy name,” (Acts 9:13, 14). And to make it more

   clearly understood that in Christ dwelt the whole fulness of the Godhead

   bodily, the Apostle declares that the only doctrine which he professed to

   the Corinthians, the only doctrine which he taught, was the knowledge of

   Christ (1 Cor. 2:2). Consider what kind of thing it is, and how great, that

   the name of the Son alone is preached to us, though God command us to glory

   only in the knowledge of himself (Jer. 9:24). Who will dare to maintain that

   he, whom to know forms our only ground of glorying, is a mere creature? To

   this we may add, that the salutations prefixed to the Epistles of Paul pray

   for the same blessings from the Son as from the Father. By this we are

   taught, not only that the blessings which our heavenly Father bestows come

   to us through his intercession, but that by a partnership in power, the Son

   himself is their author. This practical knowledge is doubtless surer and

   more solid than any idle speculation. For the pious soul has the best view

   of God, and may almost be said to handle him, when it feels that it is

   quickened, enlightened, saved, justified, and sanctified by him.


   14. In asserting the divinity of the Spirit, the proof must be derived from

   the same sources. And it is by no means an obscure testimony which Moses

   bears in the history of the creation, when he says that the Spirit of God

   was expanded over the abyss or shapeless matter; for it shows not only that

   the beauty which the world displays is maintained by the invigorating power

   of the Spirit, but that even before this beauty existed the Spirit was at

   work cherishing the confused mass.9 [90] Again, no cavils can explain away

   the force of what Isaiah says, “And now the Lord God, and his Spirit, has

   sent me,” (Isa. 48:16), thus ascribing a share in the sovereign power of

   sending the prophets to the Holy Spirit. (Calvin in Acts 20:28). In this his

   divine majesty is clear.


   But, as I observed, the best proof to us is our familiar experience. For

   nothing can be more alien from a creature, than the office which the

   Scriptures ascribe to him, and which the pious actually feel him

   discharging,—his being diffused over all space, sustaining, invigorating,

   and quickening all things, both in heaven and on the earth. The mere fact of

   his not being circumscribed by any limits raises him above the rank of

   creatures, while his transfusing vigour into all things, breathing into them

   being, life, and motion, is plainly divine. Again, if regeneration to

   incorruptible life is higher, and much more excellent than any present

   quickening, what must be thought of him by whose energy it is produced? Now,

   many passages of Scripture show that he is the author of regeneration, not

   by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy; and not only so, but that he is

   also the author of future immortality. In short, all the peculiar attributes

   of the Godhead are ascribed to him in the same way as to the Son. He

   searches the deep things of Gods and has no counsellor among the creatures;

   he bestows wisdom and the faculty of speech, though God declares to Moses

   (Exod. 4:11) that this is his own peculiar province. In like manner, by

   means of him we become partakers of the divine nature, so as in a manner to

   feel his quickening energy within us. Our justification is his work; from

   him is power, sanctification, truth, grace, and every good thought, since it

   is from the Spirit alone that all good gifts proceed. Particular attention

   is due to Paul’s expression, that though there are diversities of gifts,

   “all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit,” (1 Cor. 12:11), he

   being not only the beginning or origin, but also the author;9 [91] as is

   even more clearly expressed immediately after in these words “dividing to

   every man severally as he will.” For were he not something subsisting in

   God, will and arbitrary disposal would never be ascribed to him. Most

   clearly, therefore does Paul ascribe divine power to the Spirit, and

   demonstrate that he dwells hypostatically in God.


   15. Nor does the Scripture, in speaking of him, withhold the name of God.

   Paul infers that we are the temple of God, from the fact that “the Spirit of

   God dwelleth in us,” (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; and 2 Cor. 6:16). Now it ought not

   to be slightly overlooked, that all the promises which God makes of choosing

   us to himself as a temple, receive their only fulfilment by his Spirit

   dwelling in us. Surely, as it is admirably expressed by Augustine (Ad

   Maximinum, Ep. 66), “were we ordered to make a temple of wood and stone to

   the Spirit, inasmuch as such worship is due to God alone, it would be a

   clear proof of the Spirit’s divinity; how much clearer a proof in that we

   are not to make a temple to him, but to be ourselves that temple.” And the

   Apostle says at one time that we are the temple of God, and at another time,

   in the same sense, that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Peter, when he

   rebuked Ananias for having lied to the Holy Spirit, said, that he had not

   lied unto men, but unto God. And when Isaiah had introduced the Lord of

   Hosts as speaking, Paul says, it was the Holy Spirit that spoke (Acts 28:25,

   26). Nay, words uniformly said by the prophets to have been spoken by the

   Lord of Hosts, are by Christ and his apostles ascribed to the Holy Spirit.

   Hence it follows that the Spirit is the true Jehovah who dictated the

   prophecies. Again, when God complains that he was provoked to anger by the

   stubbornness of the people, in place of Him, Isaiah says that his Holy

   Spirit was grieved (Isa. 63:10). Lastly, while blasphemy against the Spirit

   is not forgiven, either in the present life or that which is to come,

   whereas he who has blasphemed against the Son may obtain pardon, that

   majesty must certainly be divine which it is an inexpiable crime to offend

   or impair. I designedly omit several passages which the ancient fathers

   adduced. They thought it plausible to quote from David, “By the word of the

   Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath (Spirit)

   of his mouth,” (Ps. 33:6), in order to prove that the world was not less the

   work of the Holy Spirit than of the Son. But seeing it is usual in the

   Psalms to repeat the same thing twice, and in Isaiah the spirit (breath) of

   the mouth is equivalent to word, that proof was weak; and, accordingly, my

   wish has been to advert briefly to those proofs on which pious minds may

   securely rest.


   16. But as God has manifested himself more clearly by the advent of Christ,

   so he has made himself more familiarly known in three persons. Of many

   proofs let this one suffice. Paul connects together these three, God, Faith,

   and Baptism, and reasons from the one to the other—viz. because there is one

   faith he infers that there is one God; and because there is one baptism he

   infers that there is one faith. Therefore, if by baptism we are initiated

   into the faith and worship of one God, we must of necessity believe that he

   into whose name we are baptised is the true God. And there cannot be a doubt

   that our Saviour wished to testify, by a solemn rehearsal, that the perfect

   light of faith is now exhibited, when he said, “Go and teach all nations,

   baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

   Spirit,” (Mt. 28:19), since this is the same thing as to be baptised into

   the name of the one God, who has been fully manifested in the Father, the

   Son, and the Spirit. Hence it plainly appears, that the three persons, in

   whom alone God is known, subsist in the Divine essence. And since faith

   certainly ought not to look hither and thither, or run up and down after

   various objects, but to look, refer, and cleave to God alone, it is obvious

   that were there various kinds of faith, there behaved also to be various

   gods. Then, as the baptism of faith is a sacrament, its unity assures us of

   the unity of God. Hence also it is proved that it is lawful only to be

   baptised into one God, because we make a profession of faith in him in whose

   name we are baptised. What, then, is our Saviour’s meaning in commanding

   baptism to be administered in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the

   Holy Spirit, if it be not that we are to believe with one faith in the name

   of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?9 [92] But is this any thing

   else than to declare that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God?

   Wherefore, since it must be held certain that there is one God, not more

   than one, we conclude that the Word and Spirit are of the very essence of

   God. Nothing could be more stupid than the trifling of the Arians, who,

   while acknowledging the divinity of the Son, denied his divine essence.

   Equally extravagant were the ravings of the Macedonians, who insisted that

   by the Spirit were only meant the gifts of grace poured out upon men. For as

   wisdom understanding, prudence, fortitude, and the fear of the Lord, proceed

   from the Spirit, so he is the one Spirit of wisdom, prudence, fortitude, and

   piety. He is not divided according to the distribution of his gifts, but, as

   the Apostle assures us (1 Cor. 12:11), however they be divided, he remains

   one and the same.


   17. On the other hand, the Scriptures demonstrate that there is some

   distinction between the Father and the Word, the Word and the Spirit; but

   the magnitude of the mystery reminds us of the great reverence and soberness

   which ought to he employed in discussing it. It seems to me, that nothing

   can be more admirable than the words of Gregory Nanzianzen: “ ̔Ou phtha�nō

   to e̔�i noē̑sai, kaì toȋs trisì perila�mpomai ou̓ phtha�nō tà tri�a

   dieleȋn kaì eìs tò e̔n a̓naphe�romai” (Greg. Nanzian. in Serm. de Sacro

   Baptis.). “I cannot think of the unity without being irradiated by the

   Trinity: I cannot distinguish between the Trinity without being carried up

   to the unity.”9 [93] Therefore, let us beware of imagining such a Trinity of

   persons as will distract our thoughts, instead of bringing them instantly

   back to the unity. The words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, certainly

   indicate a real distinction, not allowing us to suppose that they are merely

   epithets by which God is variously designated from his works. Still they

   indicate distinction only, not division. The passages we have already quoted

   show that the Son has a distinct subsistence from the Father, because the

   Word could not have been with God unless he were distinct from the Father;

   nor but for this could he have had his glory with the Father. In like

   manner, Christ distinguishes the Father from himself when he says that there

   is another who bears witness of him (John 5:32; 8:16). To the same effect is

   it elsewhere said, that the Father made all things by the Word. This could

   not be, if he were not in some respect distinct from him. Besides, it was

   not the Father that descended to the earth, but he who came forth from the

   Father; nor was it the Father that died and rose again, but he whom the

   Father had sent. This distinction did not take its beginning at the

   incarnation: for it is clear that the only begotten Son previously existed

   in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). For who will dare to affirm that the

   Son entered his Father’s bosom for the first time, when he came down from

   heaven to assume human nature? Therefore, he was previously in the bosom of

   the Father, and had his glory with the Father. Christ intimates the

   distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father, when he says that the

   Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and between the Holy Spirit and himself,

   when he speaks of him as another as he does when he declares that he will

   send another Comforter; and in many other passages besides (John 14:6;

   15:26; 14:16).


   18. I am not sure whether it is expedient to borrow analogies from human

   affairs to express the nature of this distinction. The ancient fathers

   sometimes do so, but they at the same time admits that what they bring

   forward as analogous is very widely different. And hence it is that I have a

   great dread of any thing like presumption here, lest some rash saying may

   furnish an occasion of calumny to the malicious, or of delusion to the

   unlearned. It were unbecoming, however, to say nothing of a distinction

   which we observe that the Scriptures have pointed out. This distinction is,

   that to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and

   source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in

   action, while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit.

   Moreover, though the eternity of the Father is also the eternity of the Son

   and Spirit, since God never could be without his own wisdom and energy; and

   though in eternity there can be no room for first or last, still the

   distinction of order is not unmeaning or superfluous, the Father being

   considered first, next the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both. For

   the mind of every man naturally inclines to consider, first, God, secondly,

   the wisdom emerging from him, and, lastly, the energy by which he executes

   the purposes of his counsel. For this reason, the Son is said to be of the

   Father only; the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. This is done in many

   passages, but in none more clearly than in the eighth chapter to the Romans,

   where the same Spirit is called indiscriminately the Spirit of Christ, and

   the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead. And not improperly.

   For Peter also testifies (1 Pet. 1:21), that it was the Spirit of Christ

   which inspired the prophets, though the Scriptures so often say that it was

   the Spirit of God the Father.


   19. Moreover, this distinction is so far from interfering with the most

   perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with

   the Father, inasmuch as he constitutes one Spirit with him, and that the

   Spirit is not different from the Father and the Son, inasmuch as he is the

   Spirit of the Father and the Son. In each hypostasis the whole nature is

   understood the only difference being that each has his own peculiar

   subsistence. The whole Father is in the Son, and the whole Son in the

   Father, as the Son himself also declares (John 14:10), “I am in the Father,

   and the Father in me;” nor do ecclesiastical writers admit that the one is

   separated from the other by any difference of essence. “By those names which

   denote distinctions” says Augustine “is meant the relation which they

   mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which they are

   one.” In this way, the sentiments of the Fathers, which might sometimes

   appear to be at variance with each other, are to be reconciled. At one time

   they teach that the Father is the beginning of the Son, at another they

   assert that the Son has both divinity and essence from himself, and

   therefore is one beginning with the Father. The cause of this discrepancy is

   well and clearly explained by Augustine, when he says,10 [94] “Christ, as to

   himself, is called God, as to the Father he is called Son.” And again, “The

   Father, as to himself, is called God, as to the Son he is called Father. He

   who, as to the Son, is called Father, is not Son; and he who, as to himself,

   is called Father, and he who, as to himself, is called Son, is the same

   God.” Therefore, when we speak of the Son simply, without reference to the

   Father, we truly and properly affirm that he is of himself, and,

   accordingly, call him the only beginning; but when we denote the relation

   which he bears to the Father, we correctly make the Father the beginning of

   the Son. Augustine’s fifth book on the Trinity is wholly devoted to the

   explanation of this subject. But it is far safer to rest contented with the

   relation as taught by him, than get bewildered in vain speculation by subtle

   prying into a sublime mystery.


   20. Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with the measure

   of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known. It is as follows:—When

   we profess to believe in one God, by the name God is understood the one

   simple essence, comprehending three persons or hypostases; and, accordingly,

   whenever the name of God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less

   than the Father, is meant. But when the Son is joined with the Father,

   relation comes into view, and so we distinguish between the Persons. But as

   the Personal subsistence carry an order with them, the principle and origin

   being in the Father, whenever mention is made of the Father and Son, or of

   the Father and Spirit together, the name of God is specially given to the

   Father. In this way the unity of essence is retained, and respect is had to

   the order, which, however derogates in no respect from the divinity of the

   Son and Spirit. And surely since we have already seen how the apostles

   declare the Son of God to have been He whom Moses and the prophets declared

   to be Jehovah, we must always arrive at a unity of essence. We, therefore,

   hold it detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God from the

   Father, because the simple name God admits not of relation, nor can God,

   considered in himself, be said to be this or that. Then, that the name

   Jehovah, taken indefinitely, may be applied to Christ, is clear from the

   words of Paul, “For this thing I besought the Lord thrice.” After giving the

   answer, “My grace is sufficient for thee,” he subjoins, “that the power of

   Christ may rest upon me,” (2 Cor. 12:8, 9). For it is certain that the name

   of Lord (Kuri�os) is there put for Jehovah, and, therefore, to restrict it

   to the person of the Mediator were puerile and frivolous, the words being

   used absolutely, and not with the view of comparing the Father and the Son.

   And we know that, in accordance with the received usage of the Greeks, the

   apostles uniformly substitute the word Kuri�os for Jehovah. Not to go far

   for an example, Paul besought the Lord in the same sense in which Peter

   quotes the passage of Joel, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord

   shall be saved,” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:28). Where this name is specially

   applied to the Son, there is a different ground for it, as will be seen in

   its own place; at present it is sufficient to remember, that Paul, after

   praying to God absolutely, immediately subjoins the name of Christ. Thus,

   too, the Spirit is called God absolutely by Christ himself. For nothing

   prevents us from holding that he is the entire spiritual essence of God, in

   which are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit. This is plain from

   Scripture. For as God is there called a Spirit, so the Holy Spirit also, in

   so far as he is a hypostasis of the whole essence, is said to be both of God

   and from God.


   21. But since Satan, in order to pluck up our faith by the roots, has always

   provoked fierce disputes, partly concerning the divine essence of the Son

   and Spirit, and partly concerning the distinction of persons; since in

   almost every age he has stirred up impious spirits to vex the orthodox

   doctors on this head, and is attempting in the present day to kindle a new

   flame out of the old embers, it will be proper here to dispose of some of

   these perverse dreams. Hitherto our chief object has been to stretch out our

   hand for the guidance of such as are disposed to learn, not to war with the

   stubborn and contentious; but now the truth which was calmly demonstrated

   must be vindicated from the calumnies of the ungodly. Still, however it will

   be our principal study to provide a sure footing for those whose ears are

   open to the word of God. Here, if any where, in considering the hidden

   mysteries of Scripture, we should speculate soberly and with great

   moderation, cautiously guarding against allowing either our mind or our

   tongue to go a step beyond the confines of God’s word. For how can the human

   minds which has not yet been able to ascertain of what the body of the sun

   consists, though it is daily presented to the eye, bring down the boundless

   essence of God to its little measure? Nay, how can it, under its own

   guidance, penetrate to a knowledge of the substance of God while unable to

   understand its own? Wherefore, let us willingly leave to God the knowledge

   of himself. In the words of Hilary (De Trinit. lib. 1), “He alone is a fit

   witness to himself who is known only by himself.” This knowledge, then, if

   we would leave to God, we must conceive of him as he has made himself known,

   and in our inquiries make application to no other quarter than his word. On

   this subject we have five homilies of Chrysostom against the Anomoei (De

   Incomprehensit. Dei Natura), in which he endeavoured, but in vain, to check

   the presumption of the sophists, and curb their garrulity. They showed no

   more modesty here than they are wont to do in everything else. The very

   unhappy results of their temerity should be a warning to us to bring more

   docility than acumen to the discussion of this question, never to attempt to

   search after God anywhere but in his sacred word, and never to speak or

   think of him farther than we have it for our guide. But if the distinction

   of Father, Son, and Spirit, subsisting in the one Godhead (certainly a

   subject of great difficulty), gives more trouble and annoyance to some

   intellects than is meet, let us remember that the human mind enters a

   labyrinth whenever it indulges its curiosity, and thus submit to be guided

   by the divine oracles, how much soever the mystery may be beyond our reach.


   22. It were tedious, and to no purpose toilsome, to form a catalogue of the

   errors by which, in regard to this branch of doctrine, the purity of the

   faith has been assailed. The greater part of heretics have with their gross

   deliriums made a general attack on the glory of God, deeming it enough if

   they could disturb and shake the unwary. From a few individuals numerous

   sects have sprung up, some of them rending the divine essence, and others

   confounding the distinction of Persons. But if we hold, what has already

   been demonstrated from Scripture, that the essence of the one God,

   pertaining to the Father, Son, and Spirit, is simple and indivisible, and

   again, that the Father differs in some special property from the Son, and

   the Son from the Spirit, the door will be shut against Arius and Sabellius,

   as well as the other ancient authors of error. But as in our day have arisen

   certain frantic men, such as Servetus and others, who, by new devices, have

   thrown every thing into confusion, it may be worthwhile briefly to discuss

   their fallacies.


   The name of Trinity was so much disliked, nay detested, by Servetus, that he

   charged all whom he called Trinitarians with being Atheists. I say nothing

   of the insulting terms in which he thought proper to make his charges. The

   sum of his speculations was, that a threefold Deity is introduced wherever

   three Persons are said to exist in his essence, and that this Triad was

   imaginary, inasmuch as it was inconsistent with the unity of God. At the

   same time, he would have it that the Persons are certain external ideas

   which do not truly subsist in the Divine essence, but only figure God to us

   under this or that form: that at first, indeed, there was no distinction in

   God, because originally the Word was the same as the Spirit, but ever since

   Christ came forth God of God, another Spirit, also a God, had proceeded from

   him. But although he sometimes cloaks his absurdities in allegory, as when

   he says that the eternal Word of God was the Spirit of Christ with God, and

   the reflection of the idea, likewise that the Spirit was a shadow of Deity,

   he at last reduces the divinity of both to nothing; maintaining that,

   according to the mode of distribution, there is a part of God as well in the

   Son as in the Spirit, just as the same Spirit substantially is a portion of

   God in us, and also in wood and stone. His absurd babbling concerning the

   person of the Mediator will be seen in its own place.10 [95]


   The monstrous fiction that a Person is nothing else than a visible

   appearance of the glory of God, needs not a long refutation. For when John

   declares that before the world was created the Logos was God (John 1:1), he

   shows that he was something very different from an idea. But if even then,

   and from the remotest eternity, that Logos, who was God, was with the

   Father, and had his own distinct and peculiar glory with the Father (John

   17:5), he certainly could not be an external or figurative splendour, but

   must necessarily have been a hypostasis which dwelt inherently in God

   himself. But although there is no mention made of the Spirit antecedent to

   the account of the creation, he is not there introduced as a shadow, but as

   the essential power of God, where Moses relates that the shapeless mass was

   unborn by him (Gen. 1:2). It is obvious that the eternal Spirit always

   existed in God, seeing he cherished and sustained the confused materials of

   heaven and earth before they possessed order or beauty. Assuredly he could

   not then be an image or representation of God, as Servetus dreams. But he is

   elsewhere forced to make a more open disclosure of his impiety when he says,

   that God by his eternal reason decreeing a Son to himself, in this way

   assumed a visible appearance. For if this be true, no other Divinity is left

   to Christ than is implied in his having been ordained a Son by God’s eternal

   decree. Moreover, those phantoms which Servetus substitutes for the

   hypostases he so transforms as to make new changes in God. But the most

   execrable heresy of all is his confounding both the Son and Spirit

   promiscuously with all the creatures. For he distinctly asserts, that there

   are parts and partitions in the essence of God, and that every such portion

   is God. This he does especially when he says, that the spirits of the

   faithful are co-eternal and consubstantial with God, although he elsewhere

   assigns a substantial divinity, not only to the soul of man, but to all

   created things.


   23. This pool has bred another monster not unlike the former. For certain

   restless spirits, unwilling to share the disgrace and obloquy of the impiety

   of Servetus, have confessed that there were indeed three Persons, but added,

   as a reason, that the Father, who alone is truly and properly God,

   transfused his Divinity into the Son and Spirit when he formed them. Nor do

   they refrain from expressing themselves in such shocking terms as these:

   that the Father is essentially distinguished from the Son and Spirit by

   this; that he is the only essentiator. Their first pretext for this is, that

   Christ is uniformly called the Son of God. From this they infer, that there

   is no proper God but the Father. But they forget, that although the name of

   God is common also to the Son, yet it is sometimes, by way of excellence,

   ascribed to the Father, as being the source and principle of Divinity; and

   this is done in order to mark the simple unity of essence. They object, that

   if the Son is truly God, he must be deemed the Son of a person: which is

   absurd. I answer, that both are true; namely, that he is the Son of God,

   because he is the Word, begotten of the Father before all ages; (for we are

   not now speaking of the Person of the Mediator), and yet, that for the

   purpose of explanation, regard must be had to the Person, so that the name

   God may not be understood in its absolute sense, but as equivalent to

   Father. For if we hold that there is no other God than the Fathers this rank

   is clearly denied to the Son.


   In every case where the Godhead is mentioned, we are by no means to admit

   that there is an antithesis between the Father and the Son, as if to the

   former only the name of God could competently be applied. For assuredly, the

   God who appeared to Isaiah was the one true God, and yet John declares that

   he was Christ (Isa. 6; John 12:41). He who declared, by the mouth of Isaiah,

   that he was to be “for a stone of stumbling” to the Jews, was the one God;

   and yet Paul declares that he was Christ (Isa. 8:14; Rom. 9:33). He who

   proclaims by Isaiah, “Unto me every knee shall bow,” is the one God; yet

   Paul again explains that he is Christ (Isa. 45:23; Rom. 14:11). To this we

   may add the passages quoted by an Apostle, “Thou, Lord, hast laid the

   foundations of the earth;” “Let all the angels of God worship him,” (Heb.

   1:10; 10:6; Ps. 102:26; 97:7). All these apply to the one God; and yet the

   Apostle contends that they are the proper attributes of Christ. There is

   nothing in the cavil, that what properly applies to God is transferred to

   Christ, because he is the brightness of his glory. Since the name of Jehovah

   is everywhere applied to Christ, it follows that, in regard to Deity, he is

   of himself. For if he is Jehovah, it is impossible to deny that he is the

   same God who elsewhere proclaims by Isaiah, “I am the first, and I am the

   last; and beside me there is no God,” (Is. 44:6). We would also do well to

   ponder the words of Jeremiah, “The gods that have not made the heavens and

   the earth, even they shall perish from the earth and from under these

   heavens,” (Jer. 10:11); whence it follows conversely, that He whose divinity

   Isaiah repeatedly proves from the creation of the world, is none other than

   the Son of God. And how is it possible that the Creator, who gives to all

   should not be of himself, but should borrow his essence from another?

   Whosoever says that the Son was essentiated by the Father,10 [96] denies his

   selfexistence. Against this, however, the Holy Spirit protests, when he

   calls him Jehovah. On the supposition, then, that the whole essence is in

   the Father only, the essence becomes divisible, or is denied to the Son,

   who, being thus robbed of his essences will be only a titular God. If we are

   to believe these triflers, divine essence belongs to the Father only, on the

   ground that he is sole God, and essentiator of the Son. In this way, the

   divinity of the Son will be something abstracte [97] from the essence of

   God, or the derivation of a part from the whole. On the same principle it

   must also be conceded, that the Spirit belongs to the Father only. For if

   the derivation is from the primary essence which is proper to none but the

   Father, the Spirit cannot justly be deemed the Spirit of the Son. This view,

   however, is refuted by the testimony of Paul, when he makes the Spirit

   common both to Christ and the Father. Moreover, if the Person of the Father

   is expunged from the Trinity, in what will he differ from the Son and

   Spirit, except in being the only God? They confess that Christ is God, and

   that he differs from the Father. If he differs, there must be some mark of

   distinction between them. Those who place it in the essence, manifestly

   reduce the true divinity of Christ to nothing, since divinity cannot exist

   without essence, and indeed without entire essence.10 [98] The Father

   certainly cannot differ from the Son, unless he have something peculiar to

   himself, and not common to him with the Son. What, then, do these men show

   as the mark of distinction? If it is in the essence, let them tell whether

   or not he communicated essence to the Son. This he could not do in part

   merely, for it were impious to think of a divided God. And besides, on this

   supposition, there would be a rending of the Divine essence. The whole

   entire essence must therefore be common to the Father and the Son; and if

   so, in respect of essence there is no distinction between them. If they

   reply that the Father, while essentiating, still remains the only God, being

   the possessor of the essence, then Christ will be a figurative God, one in

   name or semblance only, and not in reality, because no property can be more

   peculiar to God than essence, according to the words, “I Am hath sent me

   unto you,” (Ex. 3:4).


   24. The assumption, that whenever God is mentioned absolutely, the Father

   only is meant, may be proved erroneous by many passages. Even in those which

   they quote in support of their views they betray a lamentable inconsistency

   because the name of Son occurs there by way of contrast, showing that the

   other name God is used relatively, and in that way confined to the person of

   the Father. Their objection may be disposed of in a single word. Were not

   the Father alone the true God, he would, say they, be his own Father. But

   there is nothing absurd in the name of God being specially applied, in

   respect of order and degree, to him who not only of himself begat his own

   wisdom, but is the God of the Mediator, as I will more fully show in its own

   place. For ever since Christ was manifested in the flesh he is called the

   Son of God, not only because begotten of the Father before all worlds he was

   the Eternal Word, but because he undertook the person and office of the

   Mediator that he might unite us to God. Seeing they are so bold in excluding

   the Son from the honour of God, I would fain know whether, when he declares

   that there is “none good but one, that is, God,” he deprives himself of

   goodness. I speak not of his human nature, lest perhaps they should object,

   that whatever goodness was in it was derived by gratuitous gift: I ask

   whether the Eternal Word of God is good, yes or no? If they say no, their

   impiety is manifest; if yes, they refute themselves. Christ’s seeming at the

   first glance to disclaim the name of good (Mt. 19:17), rather confirms our

   view. Goodness. being the special property of God alone, and yet being at

   the time applied to him in the ordinary way of salutation, his rejection of

   false honour intimates that the goodness in which he excels is Divine.

   Again, I ask whether, when Paul affirms. that God alone is “immortal,”

   “wise, and true,” (1 Tim. 1:17), he reduces Christ to the rank of beings

   mortal, foolish, and false. Is not he immortal, who, from the beginning, had

   life so as to bestow immortality on angels? Is not he wise who is the

   eternal wisdom of God? Is not he true who is truth itself?


   I ask, moreover, whether they think Christ should be worshipped. If he

   claims justly, that every knee shall bow to him, it follows that he is the

   God who, in the law, forbade worship to be offered to any but himself. If

   they insist on applying to the Father only the words of Isaiah, “I am, and

   besides me there is none else,” (Is. 44:6), I turn the passage against

   themselves, since we see that every property of God is attributed to

   Christ.10 [99] There is no room for the cavil that Christ was exalted in the

   flesh in which he humbled himself, and in respect of which all power is

   given to him in heaven and on earth. For although the majesty of King and

   Judge extends to the whole person of the Mediator, yet had he not been God

   manifested in the flesh, he could not have been exalted to such a height

   without coming into collision with God. And the dispute is admirably settled

   by Paul, when he declares that he was equal with God before he humbled

   himself, and assumed the form of a servants (Phil. 2:6, 7). Moreover, how

   could such equality exist, if he were not that God whose name is Jah and

   Jehovah, who rides upon the cherubim, is King of all the earth, and King of

   ages? Let them glamour as they may, Christ cannot be robbed of the honour

   described by Isaiah, “Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him,” (Is.

   25:9); for these words describe the advent of God the Redeemer, who was not

   only to bring back the people from Babylonish captivity, but restore the

   Church, and make her completely perfect.


   Nor does another cavil avail them, that Christ was God in his Father. For

   though we admit that, in respect of order and gradation, the beginning of

   divinity is in the Father, we hold it a detestable fiction to maintain that

   essence is proper to the Father alone, as if he were the deifier of the Son.

   On this view either the essence is manifold, or Christ is God only in name

   and imagination. If they grant that the Son is God, but only in

   subordination to the Father, the essence which in the Father is unformed and

   unbegotten will in him be formed and begotten. I know that many who would be

   thought wise deride us for extracting the distinction of persons from the

   words of Moses when he introduces God as saying, “Let us make man in our own

   image,” (Gen. 1:26). Pious readers, however, see how frigidly and absurdly

   the colloquy were introduced by Moses, if there were not several persons in

   the Godhead. It is certain that those whom the Father addresses must have

   been untreated. But nothing is untreated except the one God. Now then,

   unless they concede that the power of creating was common to the Father,

   Son, and Spirit, and the power of commanding common, it will follow that God

   did not speak thus inwardly with himself, but addressed other extraneous

   architects. In fine, there is a single passage which will at once dispose of

   these two objections. The declaration of Christ that “God is a Spirit,”

   (John 4:24), cannot be confined to the Father only, as if the Word were not

   of a spiritual nature. But if the name Spirit applies equally to the Son as

   to the Father, I infer that under the indefinite name of God the Son is

   included. He adds immediately after, that the only worshipers approved by

   the Father are those who worship him in spirit and in truth; and hence I

   also infer, that because Christ performs the office of teacher under a head,

   he applies the name God to the Father, not for the purpose of destroying his

   own Divinity, but for the purpose of raising us up to it as it were step by

   step.


   25. The hallucination consists in dreaming of individuals, each of whom

   possesses a part of the essence. The Scriptures teach that there is

   essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence both of the Son

   and Spirit is unbegotten; but inasmuch as the Father is first in order, and

   of himself begat his own Wisdom, he, as we lately observed, is justly

   regarded as the principle and fountain of all the Godhead. Thus God, taken

   indefinitely, is unbegotten, and the Father, in respect of his person, is

   unbegotten. For it is absurd to imagine that our doctrine gives any ground

   for alleging that we establish a quaternion of gods. They falsely and

   calumniously ascribe to us the figment of their own brain, as if we

   virtually held that three persons emanate from one essence,10 [100] whereas

   it is plain, from our writings, that we do not disjoin the persons from the

   essence, but interpose a distinction between the persons residing in it. If

   the persons were separated from the essence, there might be some

   plausibility in their argument; as in this way there would be a trinity of

   Gods, not of persons comprehended in one God. This affords an answer to

   their futile question—whether or not the essence concurs in forming the

   Trinity; as if we imagined that three Gods were derived from it. Their

   objection, that there would thus be a Trinity without a God, originates in

   the same absurdity. Although the essence does not contribute to the

   distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not without it,

   or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God, could not be the

   Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God. We say, then,

   that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the

   Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself;

   though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his

   essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God.

   And, indeed, the orthodox writers who in former times spoke of the Trinity,

   used this term only with reference to the Persons. To have included the

   essence in the distinction, would not only have been an absurd error, but

   gross impiety. For those who class the three thus—Essence, Son, and Spirit10

   [101] —plainly do away with the essence of the Son and Spirit; otherwise the

   parts being intermingled would merge into each other—a circumstance which

   would vitiate any distinction.10 [102] In short, if God and Father were

   synonymous terms, the Father would be deifier in a sense which would leave

   the Son nothing but a shadow; and the Trinity would be nothing more than the

   union of one God with two creatures.


   26. To the objection, that if Christ be properly God, he is improperly

   called the Son of God, it has been already answered, that when one person is

   compared with another, the name God is not used indefinitely, but is

   restricted to the Father, regarded as the beginning of the Godhead, not by

   essentiating, as fanatics absurdly express it, but in respect of order. In

   this sense are to be understood the words which Christ addressed to the

   Father, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God,

   and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” (John 17:3). For speaking in the

   person of the Mediator, he holds a middle place between God and man; yet so

   that his majesty is not diminished thereby. For though he humbled (emptied)

   himself, he did not lose the glory which he had with the Father, though it

   was concealed from the world. So in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:10;

   2:9), though the apostle confesses that Christ was made a little lower than

   the angels, he at the same time hesitates not to assert that he is the

   eternal God who founded the earth. We must hold, therefore, that as often as

   Christ, in the character of Mediator, addresses the Father, he, under the

   term God, includes his own divinity also. Thus, when he says to the

   apostles, “It is expedient for you that I go away,” “My Father is greater

   than I,” he does not attribute to himself a secondary divinity merely, as if

   in regard to eternal essence he were inferior to the Father; but having

   obtained celestial glory, he gathers together the faithful to share it with

   him. He places the Father in the higher degree, inasmuch as the full

   perfection of brightness conspicuous in heaven, differs from that measure of

   glory which he himself displayed when clothed in flesh. For the same reason

   Paul says, that Christ will restore “the kingdom to God, even the Father,”

   “that God may be all in all,” (1 Cor. 15:24, 28). Nothing can be more absurd

   than to deny the perpetuity of Christ’s divinity. But if he will never cease