This objection I easily overcome by saying that God is not a murderer, because when a judge has heard a case and passed sentence he is not a murderer. He only is a murderer who kills a man under the influence of some wrong personal emotion, as anger, hate and greed. If a judge yields to influences of this sort, he also is a murderer however imposingly he sits upon his seat. On the other hand, when such motives are absent, even a private person is absolved from the charge of murder, as when one restrains force by force or slays a wicked and godless foe in open war. And since God cannot be exposed to influences of that kind, He cannot commit murder. The law and the divine nature are again reconcilable in this way. To kill in accordance
with law is not forbidden to man. Therefore to kill is not contrary to the nature of God. For if the law may kill, the Deity also may kill. When a judge, the guardian of justice and right, sentences one to death with judicial impartiality, he is free from any stain of guilt, and can God, who is the essence of justice and whose are all things in the universe, commit murder when He slays a man? He can do naught but what is just and holy. It is true, then, that the law, when we look at it closely, is in essence God’s character, will, and nature.
Therefore, whenever the law of God is proclaimed it has a wonderfully quickening effect upon whatever possesses the knowledge of God. Hence it follows that those creatures who have not the knowledge of God derive no satisfaction or advantage from the hearing of the law. When, therefore, God communicates His will to man by the law, by this communication He assures us of two things, one, that we are born to attain to a knowledge of God, the other, that we are destined to enjoy Him. These things are manifest, because if we were not born to attain to a knowledge of God, He would not present and manifest Himself to us, and when He discloses Himself to us, He gives proof enough that we ought to lay hold on Him. This part of the matter is readily comprehended by anybody.
The other, though thus far not expounded, is yet easily deduced from the first, namely:—If man had not been created to enjoy God, it would be superfluous to have a knowledge of Him. For the same end would await man and beast. Man would get nothing from the knowledge of God more than the mere fact of having lived, if after this life he did not live and enjoy Godand that is the lot even of the brute. But since God manifests Himself unto us, and presents Himself for a more intimate comprehension, this is done not vainly, but to the end that we shall possess Him, and fully comprehend Him with whom we have begun fellowship here. And if a good part of mankind are bound over to everlasting imprisonment and chains, and though they deserve that for their rebelliousness, yet they were born by Divine Providence to the end that, being made examples of, they might proclaim His justice. For even the Evil Spirit, damned because of his pride, does he not commend to us the justice of God, as soon as we consider him? Equally so, therefore, do the rest who are damned by the same judgment.
That man was born, then, to know and enjoy God follows of necessity, from the fact that God by the law communicates His will and character to man. No other living creature has such knowledge and understanding of Him, and yet they all exist and live and manifest their activity in Him. And since, as I hinted a little while ago, that which has no knowledge of God, revolts from His law and will, and the flesh is the property of those that have not the knowledge of God, it follows that the spirit is receptive for holy things, but the flesh resists, as I have said. For the maker reserved intact unto each part its own character, that man might be a wonderful work. For if the flesh laid aside its dullness and rebelliousness at the coming of the spirit, or if the spirit upon union with the flesh sank to its level, man would be either an angel or a brute. In order that man remain a special kind of creature, each part of him must retain its special characteristics. Hence, while we are willing to embrace the law according to the desire of the mind, another law which has been written upon our members, that is, the flesh, resists, so that through the wickedness of the flesh we perform not what in the integrity of the spirit we really desire. And since the strength of each is not its own but God’s in it, who is the being, existence and power of all things, it comes to pass that of His will and knowledge the flesh growls at the spirit, just as the spirit desires to obey His commands. Thus the law seems to be given in vain, since the ever rebellious flesh rejects it and can never be so tamed and subdued as not to revolt again, and the spirit seems wrongfully damned for the wantonness of the flesh, since whatever the flesh does, it does of and through God.
After having thus set forth many statements I would make answer to this objection, which is the real gist of this chapter, or, rather, 1 would sum up the answer already given more at length, and say, “So difficult a problem must be approached with a reverent and religious spirit” Even Paul, the chosen instrument of God, coming to consider the problem closely, exclaimed in view of its vastness, “Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” [Rom. 11:33]. How much more is it to be treated with fear and trembling by the average preacher, such as I do not yet call myself! But having learned that to the believer nothing is impossible and that
the truth maketh the believer free, I am set free by the truth from fear though not from religious awe, and shall venture reverently to try to answer the question.
Enough and more has been said to show how each part of man retains the character of its own class. The mind, therefore, has to be inspired from above in order to be maintained in its appropriate life, that is, in light and the knowledge of God, just as much as the body has to be supplied by the power of the same deity with its being, existence and life. In order, therefore, that man should be man and not beast, he must be illumined by the divine Spirit just as the pure dew drops from above in pearls. Hence it is clear that the law and the setting forth of the divine will are not superfluous simply because the flesh refuses to receive them. Rather the more the flesh resists, the more necessary is a reinforcement of the spirit which is brought in unknown to the flesh. For unless the spirit, thus fortified by this aid, held out against or frustrated the attacks of the flesh, man would not be man but a brute, even though he retained his human form. Take from man the knowledge and care of divine things, and his skill and care in human things will not take him out of the ranks of the brutes. For the brutes all have a care for themselves and their kind, and, as Cicero says, protect themselves, their bodies and lives. If, therefore, man sees, cares and hopes for nothing more, the care of human things is not a whit different from that of the brutes. In order to be man, then, and not a brute, man must have a care for and knowledge of things nobler and better, and only when that is given him from above does he become man. For that creature which is to be neither simply angel nor simple brute must have a spirit and a body. But that God supports and maintains the obstinate flesh, though it war constantly against the soul, happens for the same reason the soul is inspired from above. For man must be a wonderful creature by just this fact that he aspires to the divine and makes use of the body.
[The passage of Cicero Zwingli refers to is probably the following,]
[De Officiis, Bk. 1, 4, “Nature hath implanted in animals of every kind, a]
[disposition to preserve life and health to avoid injury, and to pursue and]
[procure the means necessary to any prolongation of their being.” But the]
[idea that animals tend to perseverare in esse suo, appears in all of Cicero’s]
[philosophical writings.]
Hence it is, to touch the point in passing, that, save the one Son of God, no one is so perfectly learned, wise and just that he does not in something betray that he is man. We wonder that some men err, when not to err is the wonderful thing. We wonder when they show ignorance of anything who, with their little bit of learning, we foolishly imagined knew all things, when not only no one man but not even the whole company of men and angels knows all things; for that belongs to God alone. We wonder that some men fall from righteousness, when it is impossible to live with this flesh without defilement. You might as well expect a person whom you had ordered to sit down in dirty mire to come out with garments bright and clean as to demand spotless righteousness of man. The flesh is mire; hence whatever comes from man is stained. The Cumaean lion shows his ears somewhere. ἢ
Today there is a dispute as to whether the body of Christ is eaten in the Eucharist essentially or physically and actually. There are ment who distinctly declare this, whom the Lord knows so well that unless He gave them life and strength for this and other things, they would not even be alive, much less indulge in discussions. But by such errors He shows us that those are but men, whom we are beginning to regard as something more than human, that we may see that unchangeableness and infallibility are His alone.
Since then, God shows Himself as a friend to man, by revealing His will and character to him through the law, when man in his boldness disobeys either from the negligence of the spirit or the violence of the body, he is rightly condemned. To live exempt from the law has in no wise been permitted to man. For he who is exempt from law knoweth not the will of God, and
[This is an allusion to the well-known fable of the ass in the lion’s]
[skin. It is given at length by Erasmus, in his Adagia, chil. I, cent. III,]
[prov. 66; cf. also the proverb, Asinus apud Cumanos, Erasmus, Adagia,]
[chil. I, cent. VII, prov. 12. Zwingli alludes to this fable elsewhere, see his]
[Werke, ed. Egli and Finsler, Vol. II, 1908, p. 156. One form of this fable]
[is found in the Fables of Avianus, written in the 4th century A. D., see the]
[edition by Robinson Ellis, Oxford, 1887, No. 5, p. 7; the town Cuma is]
[added in Lucian’s Piscatores, see the Works of Lucian, ed. London, 1781,]
[Vol. II, p. 30.]
[~The Lutherans. IThe text reads ἀυάλητον, a misprint for ἀνάλωτον,]
that which knoweth not the will of God was not created for His friendship and companionship. Man, therefore, would be counted among the host of the beasts, if he were not through the law and the knowledge of God placed in the company of the angels and the blessed.
Herewith I think it has been shown that the law also is the gift of Divine Providence, though that Providence cares for all things and orders even those upon whom no law 15 imposed. For It determined by means of the law to indicate Its will to man, and to guide and educate him by means of it as by means of a teacher, in such a way that the law is the knowledge of God itself, by which He is known to be the Lord and Moderator of all things. Nor are governing by providence and educating by the law two processes. Providence gives the law in order rightly to regulate that most remarkable of creatures, the race of man. This will be made clearer in what follows.
Fifth Chapter
Divine Wisdom was not making a mistake, either in creating man or in teaching him by the law when it knew he would fall.
Now one might grant the admission that the law was not superfluous after man had been thus created out of mind and body, but he might hold that the very wisdom of God had made an error in creating such a being. For if He knew that man was going to fall, His divine goodness comes under suspicion. Why did He not guard against the fall? If He did not know it, man must suffer because of his ignorance, like a person who is lame because his broken leg was not properly set through carelessness or ignorance on the part of the surgeon. This point must not be passed over, although it seems to belong rather to the subjects of wisdom and goodness than that of Providence. For, having in the beginning shown that Providence is necessarily implied in truth, wisdom, goodness and omnipotence, it will not be irrelevant to settle a question in which the goodness and wisdom, which go to make up Providence, are involved. For if they fall, Providence collapses.
As to goodness, therefore, I will say that the divine good-
ness did not cease to act when it did not guard against the fall of man, but manifested itself in a two-fold manner, in creating man and restoring him when created. In creating, because, since God’s natural and inmost cause for creating is goodness (since, influenced by this, He made the universe and was favorable towards it that it might enjoy Him), goodness must have had its share in the creation of man as well as of other things. This, with the aid of that goodness, I will show a little more clearly.
The whole vast creation is divided into two classes of creatures, those endowed with intellect, and those without intellect. Those endowed with intellect again comprise two classes, those destined to live without a body and those destined to live with a body. The first class consists of the angels, the second of men. Both of these, angels as well as men, were endowed with intellect, that they might know first the supreme good and secondly the things created by it. But since the goodness of God, of which mention has been made above, contains in itself justice and righteousness as well as kindness and mercy, it was necessary that when the intellects of both angels and men were to be created they should be so made as to recognize God’s righteousness just as much as His kindness. But how can righteousness be recognized if there be not also unrighteousness? So kindness and gentleness cannot be known unless there be violence and fierceness. For what good is cannot be known unless there be evil, by comparing and judging which one gets the notion of the good. No one would ever have sought the sweet so eagerly, unless astonished by the taste of the bitter, he had learned that the one was preferable to the other. This the philosophers knew when they taught that virtue would have amounted to nothing if vice and wickedness had not shown how pleasant and profitable virtue was, and the philosopher Demetrius, according to the testimony of Seneca, wisely called a life without care and free from the inroads of fortune a “dead sea.” And since the Deity could not posssibly show us unrighteousness in His own person, inasmuch as He is by
[Seneca, in his “Epistolae Morales,” Letter 67, $14, writes: “In this]
[connection I think of our friend Demetrius, who calls an easy existence,]
[untroubled by the attacks of Fortune, a Dead Sea.” See the edition of]
[Otto Hense, Leipzig, 1898, Vol. III, p. 215.]
nature perfectly true, holy and good, He produced an example of unrighteousness by means of a created being, not as if the created being produced it of itself, since it has neither being, life, nor activity without the Deity, but the Deity is Himself the. author of that which to us is unrighteousness, though not in the least so to Him.
Since, therefore, both angel and man were to know righteousness, and this without its opposite, unrighteousness, would be obscure and unintelligible, He prescribed unto both what is right and holy and forbad, on the other hand, what was wicked and wrong. There was no unrighteousness yet, because no one had yet transgressed the law. Both, therefore, transgressed, because both had to know what righteousness and integrity were, and as soon as they transgressed they saw the faceof righteousness. One [the angel] was driven from the abode of the blessed and given over to everlasting fire; the other [man] was deprived of his happy home, but yet was saved through mercy, just as one who might be killed by the law of war is yet saved and made a slave. God wrought both of these things, but by means of an instigator as instrument, in the case of the angel, his ambitious spirit, in the case of man, the flesh and the devil. Yet He is not Himself unrighteous, nor is what He did unrighteousness as far as He is concerned, for He is not under the law. When He commanded the angel, “Thou shalt obey me, Thou shalt worship me,” and commanded man, “Thou shalt abstain from this fruit and worship me,” it is easy to see that the Deity is not bound by these laws. When, therefore, He makes the angel and man transgressors, He still does not stand forth as a transgressor Himself, since the law is not applicable to Him. Therefore what God did is not sin, but to man and the angel it is, for the law pursues and accuses them. God may deal freely with His creatures, as a householder may with his property or a potter with his clay. Though, therefore, He instigate the creature to this, or drive him to that, so far is it from His sinning that He does not do these things without some distinet good, though meantime man, to whom the law has been given, sins, even when he is instigated thereto, for he acts in contravention of the law.
This will become clearer through two illustrations. The head of the family has given certain domestic laws to keep his
children from dainties and laziness. He who touches a jar of honey, shall be whipped. He who does not put on his shoes as he should or who, having put them on, takes them off without suitable occasion or loses them, shall go barefoot. And the like. Now if the good wife or the grown up children not only touch the honey but use it, they are not straightway whipped. For they are not bound by the law. But the children are whipped if they touch. For the law has been given to them. If a steer covers and impregnates a whole herd it is accounted a merit in him. If the owner of the steer knows a single woman besides his wife, he is accused of adultery. The reason is that upon him has been imposed the law, “Thou shall not commit adultery.” No law restrains the other. So Paul expressed the fundamental thought of this argument briefly and truly, as he does all things, when he says, “Where there is no law, there is no transgression” [Rom. 4:15]. Upon God, as upon the head of the family, no law has been imposed. Therefore He sinneth not when He does in man that which is sin to man but not to Himself.
When, therefore, to return to the question, angel and man were to be created to contemplate His truth and righteousness, it was necessary for them that there should be falsehood and unrighteousness. For the good, therefore, of angels and men both were so fashioned that they could fall. For by the fall of the angel faithlessness and falsehood made their appearance, by the fall of man, unrighteousness and sin. And these show their faces to both classes as a sort of guide to truth and faithfulness, integrity and righteousness. Thus by creating man so that he could fall, God manifested His goodness. For by the fall the splendor of the divine righteousness was made apparent. Thus it appears again incidentally that the wretched proclaim the glory of God, for, being illustrations of His righteousness, what more could they render unto Him?
We have as witnesses to this truth not only men and angels of whom I have already spoken, but all other living creatures also. For they are all either gentle and kind or savage and cruel. The tiger and the crocodile proclaim the majesty of God just as much as do the ox and the sheep. For as the one pair exhibits His goodness so the other shows His righteousness, not as if their dispositions aimed at anything in harmony with
righteousness or like unto it, but because all they do smacks of violence and injury. They cruelly tear to pieces, and live not by honest toil, but by plunder, nor do they commit their depredations in fair and open battle, but circumvent their victims with stealth and treachery as it were. And do not the most wicked of men abominate their ways? Why? On account of their cruelty, violence, and unrighteousness, to be sure. The most unrighteous, therefore, bear witness to righteousness, in thus condemning in the wild beast that was created to live by plunder the bloodshed, robbery, depredations, plundering, burning, pillaging, plots and treachery which they allow to themselves. For thus even the most worthless of men are warned to correct in themselves that which they abhor in the brutes. When, therefore, these brutes by their natures bring unrighteousness before our eyes, in picturing unrighteousness, without which the face of righteousness cannot be recognized, they manifest the righteousness of God just as much as the domestic cattle that proclaim His goodness. Thus all creatures, reduced to two classes—those which profit and those which injure man—equally extol the righteousness and kindness of God. It is clear, therefore, that the goodness of God shone forth and did not lie dormant when He so created man that he could fall. For in this way he came to the knowledge of the divine righteousness.
In the second place, His goodness displayed itself in the restoration of man. For when He might have restored the fallen in any way He pleased, He preferred to adopt none other than that by which He who had been man’s Creator became his Redeemer, that there might be no less goodness and righteousness in the redemption than in the creation. This goodness appears in the creation, in that man, created to enjoy God, falls into unrighteousness in order to recognize righteousness. This goodness also appears in the redemption, in that He who had freely created man out of kindness frees him, and frees him in order that, when freed, he may enjoy God. When the Righteous redeems the unrighteous, so that redeemed he recognizes that God only and alone is righteous, and sees how great a thing sin and unrighteousness are, so great, namely, as to have needed an atonement,—and when our unrighteousness has been explated by the Son of God, it is plain that nothing is so re-
pugnant to God as sin, and on the other hand nothing is so pleasing to Him as devotion to righteousness and integrity. This much to show that the divine goodness was not jeopardized when He created man, knowing that he was going to fall.
Now we must show that His wisdom did not make a mistake either, as if man had come out otherwise than it had determined. I say, then, that what has been said before applies to this part of the subject also. For it is the part of wisdom to find a way by which to bring a thing out into clear light. Hence it belongs to wisdom to prepare a way for man to the knowledge of righteousness. Then also that wisdom was not deceived is clear from the fact that man’s redemption was not determined upon as an afterthought to his creation. For whatever the Deity has must be everlasting. But He has wisdom. Hence it is everlasting. Hence, the redemption was determined upon from eternity just as much as the creation. But the redemption could not have been determined upon, unless wisdom had seen that man was going to fall. For who appoints a remedy for a disease he knows not of? Divine wisdom, therefore, could not fail to know that man was going to fall, for it provided a remedy therefor. And since the Deity cannot do anything new as an afterthought, it is evident that the redemption was determined upon from eternity and that wisdom had an insight into the disease which needed the remedy of the redemption. Man 18, therefore, not, if we consider anything carefully, a work of ignorance but of the wisdom which knoweth all things and knoweth the course of all things from the beginning to the end. Therefore, we ought not to put to this wisdom the question why it made man so, or any other thing whatever, but we ought to reflect that since man has been made so, he must have been so made with perfect wisdom, just as we do not ask of the stars why they were so made or why they keep their particular course, but when by long observation we have discovered their limits and power we bear witness that they were wisely made. So to take God to task on account of the creation of man is arrogant, impudent and rebellious, but to be moved by the study of man to wondering appreciation of the divine wisdom is pious and holy. For who could imagine the reasons of man’s creation and redemption, to say nothing of understanding them before these took place? When we see him created and redeemed, we
contemplate the fact with reverence and cannot praise enough the wisdom, goodness, power, and providence of the Creator in all things. The Deity is to be reverenced by us, not taken to task nor asked the reason of His acts. His work is to be studied and His wisdom and power in it to be admired with gratitude, not found fault with, improved, or set aside. For nothing can come from that Good Being which is not absolutely and perfectly adapted to the use for which it was made. He sees all things even before they take place. He orders all things as they ought to be done and accomplished. He considers and decides nothing that is not sure and enduring. This will become clearer, when I treat of election from the words of the Apostle which will bring testimony in support of all that has been said.
Sixth Chapter
On Election, which the Theologians call Predestination; that it is sure and unchangeable, and that its source is goodness and wisdom.
That I treat this part of the subject at length is not accidental. I do it to make clear that not only justice, as the theologians have generally held, is the source of predestination, but also goodness, and that recognizing Providence thus is not to shield the wicked, as Chrysostom complains, but to damn them. Thus, to make a brief recapitulation of the preceding serve as an introduction to what is to follow, God is all-knowing, allpowerful, and good. Hence nothing escapes His notice, nothing evades His orders and His sway, nothing which He does is anything but good. When He was upon the point of creating man, an animal with intellect, that he might know and enjoy Him, He saw how he must be taught the knowledge of His righteousness. He saw how he was going to fall, He saw how that fall was going to open his eyes, so that at one glance as it were he would recognize both the righteousness of God and his own unrighteousness. For as soon as he had run counter to the command of the law, he feared the voice of God calling to him as that of the righteous person whom he had offended. And when God foresaw this and did not guard against it, this was from goodness, not from malignity or ignorance. For not to have learned the righteousness in Him would be to remain in
ignorance of His highest endowment and the most excellent part of His character. And since what this righteousness is could not be shown except for its opposite, unrighteousness, man fell for his own good, namely in order to come to the knowledge of righteousness. For man had to be such that, consisting of soul and body, he might contemplate the divine and heavenly with his soul, and live with the brutes with his body. And that the spirit might not go over to the brutes and sink to their level, if the rebellious flesh should rush into continual resistance unrestrained by fear of the law, the law was given as a guard which the spirit ever listens to and follows, but which the flesh ever resists and seeks to evade.
All these things were so ordered for man’s good. For he among all creatures had to be of the nature of a heavenly creature such as there is none beside him. From this we clearly gather that goodness is the source of these things, as a sort of genus comprehending justice and kindness or mercy, not justice alone, so far as it is a species of goodness. But if we make justice a sort of genus, like goodness, so that justice shall contain in itself mercy and kindness, as the holy Scriptures often use it, as in “In thy justice deliver me” [Ps. 31:1], then I have no objection to the doctrine that justice is the origin of election and predestination. For justice and goodness will then be the same. And if this seems to anybody rather overdone or too subtle, he ought to reflect that I am only trying to show that all of God’s doings in regard to man savor of goodness no less than of justice. For since man was made the kind of creature he is, he must have been well and wisely made by Him who can do nothing but what is good, so that the things that we consider to be evils are really done for our good. Of this I shall speak later by examples.
In the second place, I treat this matter at such length in order that no one may be influenced by the complaint of Chrysostom. As if I were wrong to put punishment upon the wicked, while attributing all things to Divine Providence, and the rest of the numerous complaints he makes so rhetorically. For inasmuch as the law has been given to man, he always sins when he runs counter to the law, however true it is that man neither exists nor lives nor displays activity except in God, of God, and through God. But what God brings about through
man’s agency is imputed a crime to man, but not also to God. For the one is under the law, the other is the free spirit and mind of the law. And when we say that Divine Providence did this or that wrong which one man or another has perpetrated, we speak improperly. For in so far as God does it, it is not sin, because it is not against the law. The law has certainly not been imposed upon Him as the Righteous One. For “the law is not made for a righteous man,” according to the view of Paul [I. Tim. 1:9]. One and the same deed, therefore, adultery, namely, or murder, as far as it concerns God as author, mover and instigator, is an act, not a crime, as far as it concerns man, is a crime and wickedness. For the one is not bound by the law, the other is even damned by the law.
What God does, He does freely, uninfluenced by any evil emotion, therefore, also, without sin. David’s adultery, so far as concerns God as the author of it, is no more a sin to God, than when a steer covers and impregnates a whole herd. And even when He slays a man whom He kills by the hand of a robber or of an unjust judge, He sins no more than when He kills a wolf by means of a wolf or an elephant by means of a dragon. For all things are His, and He has no wrong feeling towards anything. Therefore He is not under the law, because he who cannot be influenced by any evil emotions has no need of law. But man sins. For he has need of a law, because he yields to emotions and when he transgresses the law, he becomes liable to punishment. Hence, the same deed which is done at the instigation and direction of God, brings honor to Him, while it is a crime and sin to man. Therefore it is right that the guilty be punished whether here by the judge or on the other side by the King of kings and Lord of lords. For they have sinned against the law, not as principals, but as accessory instruments, which God can use as He will more freely than the father of a family may drink water or pour it out upon the ground. And although He impels men to some deed which is a wickedness unto the instrument that performs it, yet it is not such unto Himself. For His movements are free. Nor does He do wrong to the instrument, since all things are His more than any artisan’s tools are his own, and to these he does no wrong if he turns a file into a hammer or a hammer into a file. He instigates the robber, therefore, to kill even the innocent and those un-
prepared for death. For the hairs of our heads are numbered in His sight [Matth. 10: 30]. How much more our souls!
No one shall say here, “Why does He slay the righteous and innocent man at the hands of the robber?” He does not slay him, but gives him life. For He transports him hence to the abode of the blessed. It has been appointed that man shall die once. He, therefore, summoned this man at the time when it seemed suitable to Him. Nor should any one say, “The robber, therefore, is innocent, for he killed at the instigation of God.” He sinned against the law. “But,” you will say, “he was forced to sin.” I grant that he was forced to sin, but for this purpose, that the one should be translated, the other nailed to the cross. Here the champions of free will, the logical opponents of Providence are under a delusion. They stop when they have said, “If the robber killed at the instigation of God, he is wrongfully punished,” when they ought always to go on, as Providence Itself never rests, and to say, “The robber smote at the instigation of God to this end that the smitten might pass hence to heaven, or, if he too is wicked, to hell, and that the robber might be sentenced to the cross by the judge.” For the same Providence does all this. It not only influences and impels men until murder takes place, but goes further, and forces the judge by the law, goads him with the sting of conscience, drives him by the example of cruelty to bind the robber and raise him upon the cross. The answer, therefore, is ready, when the opponents of Infinite Providence say, “If there is no freedom of decision in man, we are forced to admit that thefts, murders, and all kinds of crimes are committed by Divine Providence. For, I say, I recognize Providence as caring for and doing all things.” But do not stop, when you have said, “Providence influenced the robber.” Go on, and say, “He influenced the robber, but He also influenced and roused the judge against the robber, that an example may be made, and the wicked mind that had been hidden may be revealed to the world.” In short, God instigated the killing, but He instigates the judge just as much to sacrifice the slayer to justice. And He who instigates, does it without any suspicion of crime. For He is not under the law. But he who is instigated is so far from being free from guilt, on the contrary he does practically nothing without being bespattered with stains, because he is under the law.
After this preamble I proceed to the subject of election. This I will first define, then expound the definition, finally present confirmatory evidence from Paul and others. Election, then, is the free disposition of the divine will in regard to those that are to be blessed. This definition contains the generic term disposition, which I take in the sense of decree, determination, or even appointment, though otherwise it means also decision or resolution, which I do not wish to use as the generic term, because they are generally subject to necessity. For a decision is adopted in regard to some action when some necessity shows itself which bids us adopt the decision that the situation demands, not the one we are most inclined to. “Disposition,” therefore, is more appropriate to the divine authority and majesty, which have no need of long deliberation. And as legislators and princes can freely dispose of things in accordance with what is fair and just, so the Divine Majesty is free to determine what is in accordance with Its own nature, which is the essence of goodness. Therefore to “disposition” I have added “free,” that we may understand that this disposition is free, not dependent upon nor following our arranging and disposing.
And this I want understood thus:—The view of Thomas Aquinas upon predestination, if only I remember his doctrine correctly, was this:—God, seeing all things before they take place, predestined man’s fate at the time when by His wisdom He saw what he was going to be like. This opinion pleased me once, when I cultivated scholasticism, but when I abandoned that and adhered to the purity of the divine oracles, it displeased me very greatly. For St. Thomas believes that God’s disposition in regard to us follows our own disposition. After He saw by His wisdom what we were going to be like, that is, how we were going to act and decide, then and then only, did He pronounce his decision regarding us. What else is this than making God’s decision and disposition like unto the judgment and decision of a human judge? He does not pronounce judgment until he has heard the case, because he cannot see before that what the right and wrong of the matter in question is. Therefore, he must de-
[See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pars I, Quaest. XXIII,]
[art. 5, 1: Ergo videtur quod praesentia meritorum sit causa praedestina-]
[tionis.]
pend upon the exposition of the case. Such a judge they make out God to be for us, who in this fashion make predestination to follow judicial examination. Moreover, they inadvertently bring God’s goodness and omnipotence into danger. For if God before the creation of the world saw what Adam, Cain, or Judas was going to be like, and did not take measures to prevent them from falling into crime, He would seem to have forgotten His goodness. If, on the other hand, He could not prevent the fall which he foresaw, though He would gladly have done so, His power does not keep pace with His will, and accordingly His omnipotence 15 called in question.
Besides, if predestination followed our decision, we should be or become something of ourselves before God determined about us, and I have shown already what a groundless contention that is. And though I am well aware that the Deity’s attributes, namely, wisdom, knowledge, prudence and the rest, are such that whatever 1s one of them is also the other (for that which is deity is absolutely simple everywhere, with all its endowments and powers), yet there 1s a sort of natural order in these things, that 1s, they are naturally grasped one after another by the human understanding, which is not made to see all things together at one glance, as God sees them. Thus those who follow Thomas’s opinion can easily say, that, though we know wisdom, or prescience in their nomenclature, it does not actually precede predestination, yet adapting ourselves to the natural order of our perception, we make wisdom the basis of predestination. In saying this, I claim, they are disputing with words when they maintain that naturally, that 1s, aecording to our understanding, wisdom predestines after having foreseen our actions, though actually this sequence does not exist. For both I, or rather Paul, himself and I with Paul, hold that predestination is the free disposition of God with regard to us, and without any respect to good or evil deeds. Of this somewhat later when we come to the confirmatory illustrations.
To come now to another part of the definition, this disposition is the work of will as its principal cause, not of wisdom, though the Divine Will never acts blindly without wisdom, as man’s will is always blinded by passions so that it pursues and seeks what the mind and understanding disapprove. For among God’s endowments there is no discord. The Deity is simple.
Hence nothing can be done by Him to which all His attributes do not equally contribute. For they are yet one simple and indivisible thing, however much distinctions are made between them in our understanding. Yet to no one attribute or another is attributed what belongs to all, just as certain special characteristics are attributed to the individual persons, though they belong to all three. Thus the creation of the whole world as well as of man is attributed to wisdom, though providence and will had no less a part in it than wisdom. Care and provision for things are attributed to providence, though wisdom and will are no less concerned in them than is providence.
Election and predestination to the life of the blessed are attributed to will, though wisdom and providence equally contribute thereto. But meanwhile a special work is attributed to each, that the attributes of the Deity may be the clearer to us, and the works proceeding from Him better known. For is not His wisdom manifested in the creation of the whole world, and does not the creation of all things rouse the greater wonder and admiration when we see they were made by infinite wisdom, aided, to be sure, by goodness, justice, righteousness, power, foresight, and inclination or will, though wisdom, as the mistress, as it were, claims the credit of the work for herself? Although the handmaids are such that they did no less labor than the mistress herself, they cannot get the glory of the creation of the world for this reason especially, because wisdom is the first requisite for such work. So in destining men to salvation, the Divine Will is the first power, but attended by the handmaidens wisdom, goodness, righteousness, and the other attributes. Therefore it is attributed to will, not to wisdom, (otherwise God’s gift and disposition would seem to depend upon our acts, as I indicated) not to righteousness, (for everlasting bliss would then be again the result of the works of righteousness), nor to divine bounty. Thus, whichever way you turn among the individual attributes of God, the work of election belongs to will, as chief mistress here.
The last part of the definition is, “with regard to those who are to be made blessed.” Thus election is attributed to those only who are to be blessed, but those who are to be damned are not said to be elected, though the Divine Will makes a disposition with regard to them also, but He rejects, expels and
repudiates them, that they may become examples of His righteousness. Election, therefore, is the free but not blind disposition of the Divine Will, as the principal cause, though not alone, but accompanied by majesty and authority, and applying to the blessed, not the damned.
Now I pass on to the testimony of Scripture, by which not only the definition of election is confirmed, but the whole matter of Providence is set before our eyes. ‘“Miseror,” says the Lord to Moses, Exod. 33: 19, “quem voluero; et benignus sum ei cui voluero.” For that is the meaning in Latin—[in English: “I pity whom I have willed and am kind to whom I have willed”] —of those Hebrew forms of expression which we render by “I will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy,” and “will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,” though the Hebrew seems to be more forcible than the Latin. For what else is it to say, “7 will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy,” than to make a fixed proclamation after the fashion of rulers, “I bestow mercy according to my pleasure; not according to the prayers of suppliants nor the misery of those that wail, but according to the gift and grace of election.” For even the impious sometimes supplicate for help.
This view will be more clearly understood, when we weigh the words of the Lord Himself when He encouraged Moses—1 will harden Pharaoh’s heart,” He says, “and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you,” Exod. 7: 3, 4. And this language He repeats often, not threatening by hyperbole, as some people say, but admonishing and telling man beforehand the secrets of His ordination by which He had decreed to make clear to the world by Pharaoh’s rebelliousness and wickedness his rejection and damnation, which He had ordained in His heart before He created the world. For the Lord says also, Exod. 9: 16, “And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up for to shew thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.” By this we are clearly given to understand that the Lord shows both His power and His righteousness to the world by means of such examples of boldness and obstinacy. For
[The text has 17. iZwingli reads tibi, “to thee,” following the Hebrew and not the]
[Vulgate.]
when He hardens them so that they resist Him, there is no doubt that He does it simply to set them up before the world as examples of His righteousness.
On the other hand, it is plain, that when He makes Moses leader of the people and David king, when He shows mercy on the thief dying upon the cross and on Peter not only abandoning his Lord in time of danger but wantonly denying Him, He puts forth examples of His goodness. Whence also St. Paul says, “Whom he will he pitieth, and whom he will he hardeneth,” [Rom. 9:18]. What else does he show by these words than that election and rejection are the work of God’s free will?
These first proofs from Scripture, then, confirm the second part of my definition of election, namely that the disposition of election is the work of will. Paul also speaks in the same passage in these words, “When Rebecca was with child from our father Isaac, and the twins had not yet been born” (so far were they from having done either good or evil, that the purpose of the divine election might remain inviolate, coming, as it does, not from works but from the one who elects), “it was told unto her that the elder should serve the younger,” ete. [Rom. 9: 10- 12]. By these words of Paul in the first place all controversy about the merit of our works is done away with. In the second place the view of the followers of Thomas is refuted, according to which they believed that election was not determined by God until He had seen what kind of people the individuals were going to be. For Paul says distinctly that so far is it from being true that election has to do with our disposition or determination, that Rebeeca’s twins were elected before they were born. Nay, they were elected aecording to the inviolable purpose of God before they were conceived, in fact before the world was made. Then he says with equal distinctness that election does not come from works but is due to Him who elects. By this we understand first that the disposition of God is free, not depending upon any secondary consideration or cause, which is the second part of our definition. Secondly, we see that the merit of our works is overthrown. For either free election must fall or our merit must. For if blessedness is bought by works, it is no longer given free. If it is given free, it is not the reward of good works, as the same Paul plainly says in Rom. 11: 6.
Since, all the same, the Holy Scriptures so often promise
blessedness as the reward of our works, it happens that the untrained fall into the evil of contention. Hence that strife about free will and merit which arising long ago still continues, one side seeing that Providence and the free gratuitous election of God are the essential thing, the other side declaring that it is freedom of will and the reward of good works. This evil strife could be concluded immediately, if men would once turn to the contemplation of the Deity as the safest bulwark of religion. The supreme good is the Deity. All that is, is from Him, and, being from Him, needs His power in order to be and exist. On the other hand, the Deity needs no one’s help, exists by His own might, rejoices from native goodness that whatever is, shares His bounty, wishes well to all, cares for all, is the light of all knowledge, nay is the only source of understanding. Henee whatever we see live, understand, and act, lives, understands, and acts in Him.
How, therefore, can we give the credit for anything to ourselves, who do not even exist, much less live or act without Him? Since, therefore, nothing is or exists by its own power, nor lives, nor acts, nor understands, nor deliberates, but the present power of the Deity does all these things, how could human will be free? To be and to live undoubtedly precede the power and act of understanding. Since, then, even the poets of the heathen recognize that they depend upon the Deity alone, why, alas, do not the cultivators of true piety rise to the height of seeing that all the activity of all their faculties and powers is from the same source whence the whole universe flows?
And there is no reason why the fact that Holy Seripture still holds out rewards for our works, should be a stumbling block, since we have already heard that through the bounty of the Deity it happens, as with human things, that what truly belongs to the originator and master-builder is credited to the instrument. Thus remission of sins, as I have said, is attributed to the apostles who only proclaim it, when God alone can pardon sins and by His Spirit give us the sure consciousness of pardon granted. So to external things, namely, sacraments and symbols, is attributed what nothing but the Divine Power can give, to baptism which is the first pledge and bond of membership in the Christian army, is attributed the washing away of sins, when atonement is made only by the blood of Christ, and
grace given only by His bounty; to the eucharist is attributed the atonement itself when that was made only at the time when the God-man Christ was sacrificed for human nature, while in the eucharist there is nothing but the calling to mind of this atonement and thanksgiving for it. Although the gift and bounty of the divine goodness are extolled therein, they are not brought to us by the power of the symbols, except in so far as the symbols and the words of the preacher proclaim them. For it is alone the Spirit that draws the mind to that fountain by which the soul, that has pined away through despair over its sins, 15 refreshed and renewed in youth. For if the celebration could do anything of this kind, Judas would have returned to his senses, and not have gone off to betray his leader, scorning the fellowship of his companions. Nay, those very bloodthirsty villains who brought Christ to the cross or vilified Him as He hung upon it, would have changed their purpose and kept their wicked hands off from Him, if external things brought faith or remission of sins. For they saw not only represented by symbols but accomplished before their own eyes that by which the sins of the whole world were atoned. But nothing of the sort happened. Only those repented whom the Spirit illumined within so that they recognized that this was the Saviour, and whom the Father drew to come to Him and accept Him.
Since, furthermore, externals can do nothing more than proclaim and represent (and when faith is brought into activity by them, certainly a faith is thus brought into activity which was there before), and since faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, it is clear that the Spirit operated before the external symbols were introduced. Nevertheless, Christ Himself does not disdain to call the bread His body, which to quote Augustine’s words, is only the sign of His body. And holy men, following the example of their master,t represent the eucharist as all that for which we return thanks in that celebrated service of praise. They call it the body of the Lord, because in it is commemorated the fact that Christ took upon Himself flesh and died for us. They call it the remission of sins, because we return thanks for the forgiveness of our sins through the death of Christ. They Augustine says: “The Lord hesitated not to say, This is my body,’ when he was giving a sign of His body.” Against Adimantus, chap. 12, 3. Tf ἀρχηγόν.
call it the food of the soul, because He who alone is the sure pledge of our hope is praised in it. Not as if the material bread were the material body of Christ, or as if, when eaten and digested, it washed away the poison of sin, or as if the material bread or the material body of Christ could feed the soul, but because the Divine Goodness is so pleasant and friendly to us that It deigns to present even to our senses certain shadowy forms of internal and spiritual things, which are called by the same name as the things themselves for the reason that they are the sacraments and representations of the real things.
Hence also the holy Fathers said that the sacraments consisted of two things, the sign and the thing signified, the visible and the invisible, the perceptible and the spiritual. Not as if, to take the eucharist as an illustration again, the bread of the Supper were at once sign and thing signified, bread, namely, and the material body of Christ, as certain men ignorant of real piety and learning think, but because the bread is a sign, and the thing itself is Christ who was really delivered up and made an offering for us, and this thing is proclaimed, preached and believed by those who celebrate the Lord’s Supper, yet the bread is but a symbol of this thing which is presented to the senses, the thing itself is present to the mind. Not as if the bread were at once material and visible bread and the material but invisible body of Christ, but because the bread is material and visible, while that which feeds the soul, namely the fact that God gave His Son wholly for us, is invisible, and the bread is a sign of this invisible thing. Not as if the bread were at once material and natural bread and spiritual power, but because the natural bread typifies the spiritual renovation of the mind, and unless Thus, e. g., Augustine says: “In sacraments it is always considered, not what they are, but what they exhibit; since they are signs of things; being one thing, and signifying another.” (Contra Max. Arian., Bk. II, c. 22, 83). Again he says: “How is the bread His body? And the cup, or that which the cup contains, how is it His blood? These things, brethren, are therefore called sacraments, because one thing is seen in them, another is understood. That which is seen has corporal form, that which is understood has spiritual fruit.” (Sermon 272). And again: “Discoursing on signs, I make this remark, that no one must fix his attention in them on what they are, but rather that they are signs, that is, they signify something. For a sign is a thing, which, besides the form it presents to the senses, causes something else external to itself to come into the mind." (De Doct. Christiana, Bk. II, c. 1, 1).
this has first taken place, he who is about to celebrate the supper approaches it to his danger; for it is written: —“Let the man prove himself,” etc.
It is no wrong, therefore, that godly men spoke thus by periphraset both because they followed the example of their teacher, Christ, and because they saw that the divine benefits could not be worthily proclaimed by any word painting. But it is wrong for us to be so dull as to attribute to a material thing what belongs to God alone, and to turn the Creator into the creature and the creature into Creator. Clear and sure knowledge of the truth is not a thing to let itself be deceived by the artifice of words. Thus it ought not to be a stumbling block to us that that is promised as the reward of works which is bestowed gratuitously by the Divine Goodness. For this comes not from the nature of the thing, but from the Divine Goodness, which disdaineth not to let that be attributed to us which is really its own alone. To our merit, therefore, is credited what is received only as the gift of divine bounty. This will be made clearer by the illustration of faith, and when I have treated that, the subjects of eleetion and of providence will both be rendered plainer.
Regarding Faith
“Faith,” says the Apostle [Hebr. 11: 1], is the essence of things hoped for and the evidence of things invisible.” For thus I translate word for word the Greek ἔστι δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων. — In this definition I translate ὑπόστασις by “essence,” not by “sub-. stance,” for the reason that “substantia” in Latin is more readily ambiguous than “essentia,” like ὑπόστασις in Greek, which word the heretics once distorted so cleverly that Jerome said poison lay hid in it. I have no objection however to the term “substantia.” The meaning of the Apostle is, therefore, that
[ϑεσπίους ἄνδρας. T καϑ’ ὑπεροχήν. iJerome, in Letter XV, 3, writes: “I ask them (the Arians) what]
[three hypostases are supposed to mean. They reply three persons sub-]
[sisting. I rejoin that this is my belief. They are not satisfied with the]
[meaning. They demand the term. Surely some secret venom lurks in the]
[words.” Migne, Patrologia Latina, XXII, 356; also Schaff, Nicene]
[Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VI, p. 19.]
faith is the essence or substance of things hoped for, that is, the essential thing to the soul, not a cursory notion that pops lightly into a mind that wavers and believes or thinks now this, now something else.
It is the firm and real confidence of the soul by which it trusts wholly in the things to be hoped for, that is, in the thing for which solely and only it hopes without fear of disappointment. Thus “things hoped for” is a periphrase for the Supreme Deity in whom alone hope is rightly placed. Yet the Apostle said “things hoped for” in the plural number, after the fashion of the Hebrews, who much like the Germans, use the plural number for amplification. They use D178 [Elohim], that is, gods, for one God, not, by heaven, as if they desired to introduce the notion of a plurality of gods, but because in this way they honor and magnify the name of the Deity according to the idiom of their language. Intentionally I did not want to translate:— “Faith is that firm and real thing in the soul by which it is led to God, in whom it hopes without fear of disappointment,” though this is the sense of the words. For those words ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, that is, “the essence of things hoped for,” have still another force, namely, they emphatically express the idea, “Faith is that real and firm quality in our souls which was given by Him who is the reality and object of our hope.” I therefore translated indefinitely “essence” or “essential fact of things hoped for,” that both meanings might be included.
Secondly, I used “evidence” to translate the Greek ἔλεγχος, the word most often used by Greek writers for demonstration, evidence, and certainty,” such as rises upon a firm foundation from reasoning. So I translated “evidence,” to indicate a certainty clear, sure and plain to us. And this unshaken evidence and certainty explains, as it were, the previous part of the definition, namely, that faith is a real and substantial thing, that is, the clear light and certainty of the soul.
Finally I used “things invisible” as the translation of πραγμάτων οὐ βλεπομένων. How thoroughly are these words misunderstood by many. Some twist them so far that, whatever tale they bring forward in which you refuse to have faith, they say: “You must believe. For the things of faith are not visible.” In this way any lie which a hypocrite invents can be thrust upon us by this definition. Hence all this license to lie.
At one time, fictitious stories of saints are brought forward, which they declare must be believed even if all history cries out against them, because “faith is of things invisible.” At another time, wonders sufficiently miraculous in themselves and made more miraculous by the clumsiness and shamelessness of the liars, are defended as credible by the same shield, though they were never known in art or literature or history, for “faith is of things invisible.”
Others, like the sacramentarians, (those are justly called sacramentarians, who attribute to the sacraments what they do not contain, and by high-sounding but false and made-up promises, lead men away from simple trust in the one God to belief in the power of symbols. Therefore if any one hereafter finds sacramentarians” in my writings, I want him to understand that class of men who attribute to symbols what belongs only to Divine Power and to the Holy Spirit, personally working in our souls, which symbols and the external word only proclaim and represent), the sacramentarians, I say, either not understanding or not wishing to understand the usage and meaning of our Lord’s words, twist this language so far as to venture to assert that the things themselves are really and materially conveyed by the sacraments by virtue of the words joined with the elements, and they defend their error by saying, “Faith is of things invisible.” You do not see grace in baptism,” they say, “but it is certainly conveyed by virtue of the words, as soon as the clergyman has said, ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” ” When you demand proof of this proposition, they say: “Faith is of things invisible.”
They fail to notice that baptism is not given to any one unless he first confesses that he has faith, if he 1s a grown person, or unless he has the promise in virtue of which he is counted a member of the Church, if he is a child. Thus this thing which the sacramentarians maintain is conveyed invisibly by the sacrament was actually conveyed before. For he who confesses faith had it before he confessed it and, therefore, before he was baptized. For confession precedes immersion. Thus the faith which was given by the light and gift of the Spirit was there before the candidate was admitted to the sacrament, or if he did not have faith, it is certainly not brought to him by baptism.
For neither Judas nor Simon the sorcerer, who were without faith when they were baptized, received faith by baptism. But if an infant is to be baptized, since he cannot himself confess faith, he must have the promise which counts him within the Church. The promise is, that the Gentiles, when they have obtained the knowledge of God, and true religion, shall be just as much of the church and people of God as the Hebrews. This all the prophets heralded and Christ Himself most plainly promises. “They shall come from the east and from the west, and shall recline with the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.” And “The last shall be first,” and “The vineyard shall be given to other husbandmen,” and “There shall be one shepherd and one fold.”
Since, therefore, the children of the Hebrews have always been counted with the Church with their parents, and the divine promise is sure, it is clear that the children of Christians belong to the Church of Christ just as much as their parents. This promise is not conveyed in baptism, but he to whom it has been previously given is baptized, that by a visible sign he may bear witness that he is of the number of those who through the goodness of God are called the people of God. Here surely nothing new 15 brought in, but that which has been previously given is recognized by a religious rite, and the name is given when the symbol and pledge have been received.
So, too, in regard to the Eucharist they err from ignorance, when they assert that the material body of Christ is conveyed by the words, “This is my body.” “The word conveys,” they say, “we must believe the words.” And, when you point out the contradiction with other words of Christ, as, “The flesh profiteth nothing,” and, “Hereafter I shall not be in the world,” and others of this kind, they defend themselves with this weapon, “Faith is of things invisible; these things take place in some inexplicable and incomprehensible way.” As if any juggler and even the Roman pontiff could not say of any juggling of his own, “This that I promise takes place, but invisibly and incomprehensibly. For faith is of things invisible and incomprehensible!” Cannot the Roman pontiff just as well defend the doctrine that the bread is transubstantiated into the body of
[Matth. 8: 11; cf. Matth. 19: 50; 21: 41; John 10: 16. But the word]
[“God of” is omitted in the Greek as well as in the Vulgate.]
Christ, by saying in the same way, “This happens incomprehensibly and invisibly, for faith is of the invisible,” as the sacramentarians, when they say that the natural body of Christ is conveyed, defend themselves on the basis of this statement that faith is of things invisible?
All the detrimental errors of this kind come from not seeing that the part of the definition of faith, “things invisible,” is a Hebrew periphrase for the one God, whom they call “things invisible” in the plural number after their own fashion of amplification. For they constantly bestow upon God this epithet, “unseen and not visible,” as in Col. 1: 15, “Who is the image of the invisible God,” and in I Tim. 1: 17 [“Now unto the King eternal, immortal], invisible, the only wise God,” ete. Hence arises that kind of periphrase by which “things invisible” is put for God, the Creator of all things, and “things visible” is put for the creation. Thus, Rom. 1:20, “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,” and II Cor. 4: 17-18, “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” Here in both places “things invisible” is put by periphrase for God Himself and all His power, which is nothing else than Himself. For nothing invisible is offered man to look at save God alone. Thus, also in this passage “things invisible” is a periphrase for God, so that this is the meaning of the definition of faith: —“Faith is that real and unwavering thing given man by the Deity in whom alone he has the right to hope, by which he firmly and surely trusts in the invisible God.”
So faith is, furthermore, πληροφορία, that is, full, clear and sure knowledge of God and hope in Him. And this is the meaning of the Apostle, as the whole epistle indicates, especially the part where before our definition he says, “Let us approach with true hearts, with πληροφορία, that is, with sure, evident, and fixed faith” [Hebr. 10:22]. “This is also shown by the fact that the apostle exhorts us to bear adversity through faith, and declares that all who suffer shipwreck in faith have been
driven from the haven of happiness, and, finally, because he interprets the words of the prophet, “The just man shall live by faith,” to mean that the life of the just man is regulated by faith in God, since faith is so efficacious, present and life-giving a medicine that he who drinketh of it is saved and secure.
Since, therefore, faith is that light and security of the soul by virtue of which it knows that its recognition of the one true God is its salvation and horn of plenty, and that this God is so rich that He has all things and can do all things, and is so bountiful and kind that He gives willingly and delights to give (for He delivered up His son to us, that we might become sharers in His riches),—since, I say, faith is this light and food of the soul, nothing else can happen than that faith should be to the just man, that is, the man who thus has faith and security in regard to the goodness of God and his inheritance therein, —— that faith should be his life and strength, through devotion to which he is defended against all adversity. But this power is not from man (for otherwise every one would wish to have the greatest faith possible), since all have not faith, but is from God alone. Paul attributes it to the Holy Spirit [Gal. 5: 22]. For those who are of the earth, have the thoughts of the earth, but those who have been regenerated from above have the thoughts of heaven. Surrender man to himself, and whence will he acquire faith and get it for himself, since his thoughts and desires are of the earth? It is, therefore, God’s gift alone.
Since, therefore, faith is God’s gift (for none cometh to Christ save him whom the Father hath drawn thither [John 6:44]), how is it that everlasting bliss and salvation from sin are attributed to faith in so many passages of Scripture? For if faith is a gift, and forgiveness of sin is attributed to faith, then one gift is thus attributed to another. ‘To return to our path, then, we ought to examine and see just to whom faith is given. For we have already concluded that it is the free gift of God. Faith is given to those who have been elected and ordained to eternal life, but so that election precedes, and faith follows election as a sign of it. For Paul says, Rom. 8: 30, “Whom he did predestinate (or ordain), them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified (or absolved); and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” This statement of Paul brings The text has v. 29.
a wonderfully clear light into our argument. For he wishes to show that the decision and ordination of God are the origin and cause of our being given everlasting glory. When this decision or ordination had been made, man was called by God, not only with that general summons which makes the external preaching of the apostles, but also with that call by which the Spirit takes the eleet, so to speak, by the ear, so that they desire to listen to what God orders or promises. ’ And whom he calls, them he also justifies” or absolves from sin. For the Hebrews use the word justification instead of absolution.
Now, what other justification is there than that of faith? For Christ and the apostles make the whole aim of their teaching to show that there is no other justification or absolution than that of faith. Those who have faith are heirs of the everlasting glory. By all this we learn that faith is given to those who have been elected. And those who have faith are justified, that is, absolved, so-that no damnation awaits them. Not as if faith were a work to which forgiveness of sins was due as a reward, but because those who have faith in God know beyond all question that God has become reconciled to them through His Son, and the record of their sin has been blotted out [Col. 2:14], for it is only sin which precludes and shuts us out from entering upon the heritage. If that be taken away, we return into favor with God, just as bodies of water rush together if the space or barrier between them be removed.
When, therefore, the mind of man has been so taught by God as to know that His Son was made an offering for our sins, it is so charmed by the taste of the Divine Goodness as to trust in that only and alone which has wiped away the poisonous effect of sin. Finally it becomes so devoted to God only and alone that it is just as ready to die as to live for Him. Then there is nothing which can damn the soul of man. For, however much the Roman pontiff hurl his anathema, the sure knowledge of faith will presently leap forth as its champion with the weapon, “Thou knowest God is thine. For His Son is a pledge of the reconciliation of His goodness and righteousness. The accusation this man now brings is, therefore, a slander. Who shall bring anything to the charge of the elect, especially when he who is accused knows by what covenant and faith he has God as his bondsman?” Let sin accuse him, which is so in-
timately connected with us that if we boast of freedom from it we are vain fools; straightway the light of faith takes up the defense, declaring that sin is not such that on its account God refuses His kindness, if only we frankly confess our fault and are ashamed of it. For the sins of the whole world could not prevent Him from leading His Son to the altar to atone for them. Let the devil accuse us; faith will charge forward with all its strength, and will not only rout the enemy, but so turn him to flight that however often he return, accompanied by seven others worse than himself, he cannot win the day. For he that hath real faith trusteth the Lord, and feareth not what all the assaults of flesh will do unto him.
He, then, who is thus protected by the shield of faith, knows that he is elect of God by the very security based on his faith. And this is the pledge by which the Spirit binds our souls to Himself, so that we give to Him alone our love, our reverence, and our trust. This is that bread which he that eateth shall neither hunger nor thirst. This is the water which he that drinketh shall be refreshed and revived forever. And he who has not this certainty so that he feels it stand forth dauntless and immovable, in the veins of his soul, as it were, nay leap also to meet any adverse fortune, he, I say, should pray daily, “Thy kingdom come,” and, “Lord, increase our faith.” For they that possess the light and power of this faith are sure that neither death nor life can take from them that treasure for which they have sacrificed all to buy it. And their election is such that it is known not only to God but also to the elect themselves.
There follows now another piece of testimony, by which we learn that faith is given to the elect only, so that we shall not believe that that 1s really faith which some men pretend to have, when they confess God in prosperity, but desert and betray Him when temptation comes. In the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 13: 48, it is written, “and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Lo! those who were destined and ordained to a life of happiness believed. It is plain, therefore, that those who believe know that they are blest. For those who believe have been elected. Election, therefore, precedes faith. Hence those who have been elected and do not come to a knowledge of faith, like infants, attain everlasting happiness none the less. For it is election which gives the happiness, and this is so absolutely
free that no account is taken in it of our works or merits, as I think has been firmly enough established above. Also they who hear the message of faith and accept it not are destined and ordained to everlasting punishment. For those who believed the preaching of the apostles had been ordained to eternal life. On the other hand, those who did not believe, as Christ says Himself [Mk. 16: 15], when the Gospel has been preached and heard (for the words, “preach the Gospel to every creature,” precede this), are damned altogether, and unbelief is just as sure a sign of this as faith is of election. Accordingly, be it said in passing, the divine oracles ought to be carefully examined, for they speak by syneedoche when they say of the believers that they only shall be saved. For only those believers are comprised under this law who have heard and believed.
So it is with the damnation of the unbelievers. “Those only are understood who have heard and not believed. About the others we cannot pronounce an opinion, because we do not know about the election of any, partly because Paul promises that, if uncircumeision [the heathen] do the works of the law, it shall become cireumeision (for they show the law of God written upon their heart), and because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Virgin Mother of God, Peter and Paul were elected of God when they were still infants and had not faith, nay before the world was made. It is not, therefore, a universal rule that he who has not faith is damned, but him who has heard the doctrine of faith expounded and remains and dies in unbelief, we can perhaps count among the wretched. For many have not believed immediately upon hearing, but only when laid hold on by the Spirit and drawn to belief, like Paul. Therefore we may pass judgment only on those who remain in unbelief to their death. Although some give plain signs by their eruelty or lust that they are rejected of God, yet, since so often the worst men have returned to the right way, we ought not to condemn any one before his end, or his passing away, as the poet says. And in this way are reconZwingli is here thinking of a passage in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, 111, 135, which reads: Ultima semper expectanda dies homini est, dicique beatus Ante obitum nemo supremaque funera, debet, i. e., “The approach of your last day always attend, And call none happy till his death and end.” It is based on the famous remark of Solon to king Croesus, as given by Herodotus, see his History, I, 32.
ciled these two statements, “He that believeth not is damned” and “If the uncircumeision doeth the righteous works of the law, its uncircumecision is turned to circumcision,” etc., or “For when the heathen who have not the law do by nature what is in accordance with the law, they are a law unto themselves, though they have not the law; for they show the work of the law written upon their hearts,” etc. [Rom. 2: 14, 15]. For nothing prevents God from choosing from among the heathen men to revere Him, to honor Him, and after death to be united to Him. For His election is free.
I certainly, if the choice were given me, should prefer to choose the lot of Socrates or Seneca, who, though they knew not the one Deity, yet busied themselves with serving Him in purity of heart, than that of the Roman pontiff who would offer himself as God if there were only a bidder at hand, or the lot of any king, emperor or prince, who serves as defender of such a little tin god. For though those heathen knew not religion in the letter of it and in what pertains to the sacraments, yet as far as the real thing is concerned, I say, they were holier and more religious than all the little Dominicans and Franciscans that ever lived. These for a long time have been so far from humbling themselves and giving God the glory for their holiness that there is no need of the touchstone of the Word of God to detect their hypocrisy. Their boldness, luxury, unrestrained recklessness, unbelief and cruelty show that their hearts are without God so completely that no one is so ignorant and boorish as to fail to see it clearly.
Therefore, when the gaining of eternal salvation is attributed to faith, that is attributed to the secondary thing and the seal, as it were, which belongs to the primary and the instrument. Faith is the sign of the election by which we obtain real blessedness. If election as a blossom had not preceded, faith would never have followed. So also merit is attributed to works, which even if they are of faith, like the works of Abraham, yet do not merit salvation. This is set forth by Paul so strongly in Romans and Galatians that there is no need of further confirmation of it now. And when Scripture says, “Do this and thou shalt live” [Luke 10: 28], “If thou wouldst enter into life, keep the commandments” [Matth. 19: 17], we ought to Mark 16: 16 and Rom. 2: 26.
understand that these things and things like them are said by synecdoche, that is, they put the effect for the cause. For, as justification and salvation are attributed to faith, when they belong only to the divine election and bounty, while faith so follows election that those who have it know, by seal and pledge as it were, that they have been elected, so those who do the works of faith give proof to themselves and others when they act bountifully and from love of God and their neighbor, not from vain glory, that they worship God, that is, that they have faith. For it is just as certain that where faith is, there are good works also, as it is that a furnace gives out warmth when a fire has been kindled in it.
Accordingly merit, about which we dispute so much in these days, is a name rather than a thing, that is Divine Bounty suffers Its gifts to be called the reward of merit, and shows Itself so altogether friendly to us that it suffers that which belongs to Itself alone to be ascribed unto us. Forgiveness of sin It attributed to the apostles, also the blessings of miracles which can belong to nothing but the power of God. No wonder, then, that that is promised as a sort of reward for good works which belongs only to God’s greatness and excellence. For it is He who not only moves us to action, but gives us life, and not only gives it but preserves it. Thus will the human heart more effectively aspire to love of Him, when He thus makes us sharers and heirs of what is His, and not only enriches us, but advances us in honor, when He promises to our works what He gives from His own bounty.
Free will or merit can, therefore, in reality not be maintained, though no one can deny that they are named and mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, but assuredly only as the names of things which belong to God only, but are given to us as a sort of gracious accommodation, proving his friendship, or loans, as it were, given to us chiefly because all things are of Him and to Him. For nothing can be lost to Him, and pious men recognize in this sharing on God’s part, His goodness rather than their own. Hence it is evident that there is no hyperbole in statements like, “The hairs of your head are numbered,” [Matth. 10: 30], not even a sparrow, two of which are sold for a farthing, falls to the ground without the knowledge of your Father” [Matth. 10: 29], and others of the sort, as a certain
genius at word-tinkering has tried to persuade the world in our time.
On the other hand things like the following are exaggerations and hyperboles— If thou wouldst enter into life, keep the commandments” [Matth. 19: 17], “He who doeth the will of my Father, is my brother,” ete. [Matth. 10: 50], and all the other promises made to our works. They are true only by consequence, so to speak, if you insist. For we are made brothers of Christ not by our actions, but by recognizing and embracing Him in consequence of election. For who would do anything without cause and purpose? Faith, then, is not acquired by deeds, but works by faith. For those who do the will of God, show by their deeds as the fruit thereof that they are filled with God. But if you consider the thing rather than words, the kind of promise by which the divine wealth in things pours out upon and attributes to us what belongs only to Itself 1s really a hyperbole.
I will add this one thing. When Paul writes to the Romans [Romans 10:17] that faith comes from hearing [the Word] he attributes in the same way to the nearer cause that is better known to us what belongs only to the Spirit, not to external preaching, as the sacramentarians are apt to contend. And this is so true that it is not only gathered from such testimony in the Holy Scriptures as, “No one cometh to me except my Father draw him,”t and, “To another is given faith by the same gift of the Spirit,” and the like, but is also learned by experience. For we see daily certain men hear the preaching of the Gospel, yet not believing any more than before.
Paul’s meaning, then, is only that it is necessary, as far as is shown by Scripture examples, that the Word be preached, in order that then God, who giveth the increase, may plant the seed of faith by means of this tool, as it were, but with His own hand as the immediate cause. For the apostle’s work also is from the hand of God, but indirectly, the internal drawing is the work of the Spirit acting directly.
‘The sum total of the whole matter 1s that all things which have to do with man, either as to his body or as to his soul, are so completely from God as their only real cause, that not even the
[Erasmus of Rotterdam. 1John 6: 44; and I Cor. 12: 8 ff.]
work of sin is from any one else than God, though it is not sin in Him, as I said early in the discussion. When we attribute anything to the nearer instrument or cause, it really comes from these, if you look at the matter closely, no more than the harvest from the husbandman. If that came from him, what would hinder his taking care to have his granaries always overflowing with plenty? Why should he not keep want afar off? No, it is Another who furnishes all things, however much the farmer may not withdraw his hand from the plow and rest. Thus whatever we do or think is of God, the Doer and Disposer of all things.
And let not this question about infants trouble anybody, —since all the elect were elected before the creation of the world, and the infants of the faithful are of the Church, there is no doubt that when these infants die, they are received into the number of the blest according to election, which the Apostle says remains sure. Are we then all elect while we are infants, or not? I am speaking of us who are born and live within the Church. For we are sons of the line of Isaac, the heathen, of the line of Ishmael. If we are all elect, and election remains sure, however we live or believe after we are grown up, we yet attain salvation. For he who has once been elected, remains always elect. If not, those who die in infancy and have not been elected are sentenced to eternal punishment, without having deserved anything of the kind, since they have been delivered from original sin through the mediation of Christ, and they have themselves done no wrong.
In order that what I mean may be clearly understood, I raise, for the sake of an illustration, the following question:— Jacob and Esau, when infants, were both counted, as belonging to the Church. For both had been introduced into it by the symbol of circumcision. Since, then, Esau had been rejected by the will of God before he was conceived in the womb, would he have been received into the number of the blest, if he had died in infancy, or not? If he would have been received, rejection was not permanent, consequently neither is election. For Esau had not been elected, and would have had to be elected afterwards. If he would not have been received among the saints, to be counted within the Church and to have been Romans 9: 11.
marked with its sign would have profited nothing. Thus to be counted within the Church would be no sure sign that we are the sons of God.
Nevertheless, this question seems to be of the class of those which seem to be begotten of curiosity rather than of piety (for we ought rather to recognize what is done by the Lord as rightly and properly done than to demand reasons why He did 50), yet, since there is no godlessness in contemplating with wondering admiration the things which we unequivocally acknowledge as done rightly by the Lord, and then in searching from experience for the reasons why they were done or were so done (for the Deity Himself gives the reasons why He created the sun and the moon), it will not be irreligious to satisfy the minds of those who, while not without religion, are endowed with so meagre an appreciation of things that they find a casual stumbling block, not in religion itself, in which they remain steadfast, even if ignorant of much that is clear to others, but in the light or knowledge, which is not the least part of the contemplation of God’s works. And this stumbling block, although not able to injure faith, yet often keeps the intellect troubled. For though to believe that there is only one Deity and to trust in Him belongs to all who have true religion, yet the knowledge of the ways and characteristics of the Deity belongs only to the experienced and those endowed with a clear understanding, nay to those more intimately taught by God. So, then, I answer, that neither Esau nor Jacob could have died in infancy, however much they were under the general law of mortality. For before the creation of the world Divine Providence had just as much determined about their acts and life as about their creation and birth. For if the hairs of our head are numbered, if nothing can escape Divine Wisdom, if Providence is nowhere at rest, if Goodness neither neglects nor postpones anything, it is clear that what follows life and existence is just as much regulated as the bestowal of these. For among causes, these two are the chief, the efficient and the final. And since nothing can be done by Divine Wisdom without reference to its end, it follows that nothing is created by Divine Wisdom of which the end and all the attending circumstances to the end have not been foreseen and settled long before they take place. Life and activity, Gen. 1: 16.
therefore, are just as much arranged by Divine Providence for every man as are his birth and generation.
On the other hand, death and the cutting of the thread of life are just as much ordained as creation and the course of life. For these are properly the end. Hence it is to be inferred that no one dies in infancy whose fate has not been determined from eternity, and no power can effect that he for whom this or that limit has been fixed can overleap it. The fifteen years that the Lord granted to Hezekiah [II Kings 20: 6] as an addition had been put down as an addition before the establishment of the world. For what has once been arranged remains fixed forever. Hezekiah’s end, therefore, had been so arranged that the years should be added in this way, and only after them should Atropos really eut the thread which she had only threatened to cut before.
Since, then, neither Esau could have died in infancy, because the Lord had arranged differently in his case, nor that little son of David, whom he begot in faithless and wicked adultery, could have lived, because the Lord had determined to slay him, it is evident that when the infant children of the faithful die, it is a sign of their election and summons to the glory of the blessed. For they are taken away that wickedness may not stain their souls, that is, that they might not by a wicked life betray their rejection to the world, as they would do if they had been rejected.
Those who survive and become intractable and rebellious like Esau, are saved for this, that their rejection and casting out may be made manifest by their godless life. But those who survive and remain pious and obedient to God, like Jacob, are saved for this, that by their good deeds the kindness of God and their own election may be made evident. Meantime, as long as they are counted within the Church as infants or young children, and we cannot tell how they are going to turn out, whether they be destined to life or death, we follow the same rule of judgment as with grown persons, namely, that they are of the Church and are elected of God, as long as they do not by monstrous deeds of shamelessness show that they are unregenerate. As there are among grown persons many who are not discovered by us to be unregenerate until they betray it by One of the three goddesses of Fate.
great wickedness, and, on the other hand, many who after living some time in wickedness, return to the right way, and by repentance and honesty of life show that they have been elected by the Lord, so, in general, all the children of Christian parents (for of these we have the clear promise of the Word) are included by us in the number of the sons of God. Meantime God either shows their election by an early death or by a longer life of integrity, so led in consequence of faith, or makes plain their rejection by their long, but profligate life.
Thus there are none of whose election we are more sure than of those children who are taken away young, while still without the law. For the life of men is sometimes not really, but only in appearance, upright, but in children who are born of believing parents, there can be no blemish. For original sin has been atoned for by Christ [Rom. 5: 15] (for as in Adam we all die, so in Christ we are all restored to life, we, that is, who believe or who are of His Church according to the promise), and no stain of wicked deeds can defile them, for they are not yet under the law. And since no cause but sin separates from Godand they are without all sin, it is clear that no one is so incontrovertibly known to be among the elect as those children who finish their days while young. For dying is just as much a sign of election in them as faith is in grown people. And those who are unregenerate and have been rejected of God do not die in this condition of innocence, but are preserved by Divine Providence that their rejection may be made known by their wicked life. “That this is true all that precedes proves, unless one denies Providence, and with such I have nothing to do. So much about man, how he and all the details of his life are just as much regulated by God as are the things without minds and souls.
Seventh Chapter
A Confirmation of all that precedes by examples.
]t is now evident enough that God is not like man. For man’s plans often turn out so unsuccessfully that he says, “I didn’t think of that,” or “It did not succeed this way, let us try another.” God can form no plan without full knowledge. Therefore, what He determines upon remains unchanged, be-
cause He foresees everything so that nothing can happen to interfere with or prevent what He undertakes. His decrees remain unalterable, because He is Himself unalterable and unchangeable. Hence we may infer that what God once was towards His creatures, He is also today, so that if He ever showered His goodness upon the good and pursued the wicked with righteousness, He maintains the same attitude today also in the freedom of His will. Therefore, as He once was toward the ’ elect, so He is now, and likewise toward the rejected. As He was in the beginning toward all His creatures, so is He still toward all.
First, then, I will bring forward illustrations by which it will be shown that the things lower than man do not happen by chance but are regulated by Providence, although the deluge in the time of Noah seems to have fallen upon and overflowed things as if nature (as the philosophers call it) had brought it on. For it is said that the floodgates of heaven broke loose and rain fell continuously for forty days. Yet no nature did this, but the Author of all things, who is the real nature and power of all that is. He could not only have commanded the rivers to swell and overflow their banks and drown everything without any rain, but eould have destroyed everything with one word, nay have reduced everything to nothing by withdrawing His power. But He preferred in this way, by rain, namely, to put a new aspect upon the world. When we have comprehended that He had decided upon this, we see without any trouble that whether He brought on the rain naturally, according to the order of things once established, or whether He called it forth out of the natural course, it did not rain by accident when the world was submerged. How much less does it rain by accident when the earth is moistened for the good of man! For though we grant that all things above and below worked together in natural course at that time to produce all that quantity of water, yet this had preceded: Divine Providence, when It created the world, foresaw and arranged things so that everything should take place in proper eourse and time. “Things were bound to happen, therefore, according to the way Divine Providence had determined from eternity to punish mankind, which was to become very bad at Noah’s time, by submerging it in the flood. Hence it follows, —whether things above had been so arranged
as to pour out that quantity of water in natural course at that time, or whether the water was sent down by a new miracleit follows, I say, that either event was so patent to Divine Providence when It created the world that It so regulated the course and order of things above that they should pour out all that water at the time when the wicked were to be destroyed, or so, that while things above kept their own special course, a new miracle should overwhelm the evildoers with water.
When at the prayer of Elijah rain was given after so long a course of years, a little cloud not bigger than a man’s hand appeared, then grew as clouds are wont to do, and poured out such generous showers that all things were restored [I Kings 18:44, 45]. If this rain was accidental or given by the power of nature, not by Providence, who could have made Elijah sure of its coming, when he promised rain so persistently, especially in so weighty a matter in which he had brought forward the rain as witness that his Lord who had given the promise was God? Since, then, the rain fell by the Providence and arrangement of God, it is immaterial to us whether it was poured out by a combination of natural forces adapted to do this at the time or by a new miracle, provided we understand that before the foundation of the world Providence so foresaw all things and had all things so clearly before It, that It knew that the conjunction of the natural forces which should produce all that abundance of water would coincide with the wickedness of the world which It wiped out by the waters at the time of Noah.
So also with the plentiful showers that were brought on after the long drought. For whether these things occurred in regular course or out of course, the warning and prophecy about them show that they were done by Providence. For if they happened in regular course, if a flood in natural course coincided with the wickedness of man, Divine Wisdom and Providence are reflected from them. If the waters were poured forth out of course, again we see both these, Righteousness as well as Power. For God does miracles out of the ordinary course of things, that the astronomers and those who, like them, wage war against the sovereignty of the Deity like the giants, may not be able forever to attribute everything to some force of nature, but may be compelled to recognize a greater force than visible Zwingli refers to the end of the world, predicted for the year 1524.
things possess, whether they will or no, when they see fire fall from heaven and suddenly engulf five cities by its flames [Gen. 19: 24], or the sun at one time stand still in mid course [Josh. 10:13], when Joshua, Israel’s leader, needs light to pursue the enemy, or at another time lay aside its light and be darkened, when Jesus, the Saviour of the world, overcomes the enemy by His death.
If, then, those rains, by which the flood and the refreshment of the earth were brought about, were poured forth by Providence, why should we attribute any rain to some natural force? Does that Providence which is the essence of being sometimes wake and sometimes sleep? If, on the other hand, rain is brought on by chance, why is rain alone poured forth by chance and not all things? If everything comes by chance, Providence is done away with, and if Providence is done away with, the Deity also is done away with. For if anything goes by chance, then everything must go by chance. For if Providence were idle in one single thing, It would not be Providence. It must apply to all things, because the power of the Deity is over all, and if it were not over all, He would not be the Deity. And if His power were over all, and not also His providence, all the attributes of the Deity would not be equal, and accordingly the Deity would not be the Supremely Simple. Hence, if one shower is poured out by Providence, all are poured out from the same source. Rains, therefore, are just as much showered upon the world by appointment of the Deity now as they used to be, and so with droughts, with abundance of harvests and with scarcity.
It is, therefore, clear that the movements and arrangements of the things above are ordered by Providence, not by nature, unless you take nature for the Deity, by antonomasia. If Elijah’s rain was given in accordance with an arrangement of heavenly bodies determined before, not by a new miracle, it must have been given by Providence, who before the creation of the world saw that this arrangement of the stars and this pressing need of mankind would coincide. If it was given by a new miracle, this was done by Providence. For who can do miracles but He who can regulate and rule all things? Though eclipses, earthquakes and lightnings were accounted as miracles when the world was still ignorant, they have been found to take place That is, the substitution of a general for a specific term.
in natural course, that is, according to the arrangement of heavenly bodies, as nearer and better known cause, and this discovery has taken away abnormal wonder at them, though they are just as much brought about by the power of the Deity alone as are those miracles which take place out of the natural course of events. And they are more wonderful as the result of an established order which maintains and performs its functions forever than are those things which are done only for the moment and occasion. Although, therefore, showers poured out in natural course, that is, according to an order established in the beginning, seem to be produced by agencies nearer and better known to us, yet they are just as much the work of Providence as when they occur miraculously.
← 25. V. Reproduction from Memory of a Sermon · Contents · 27. V. Reproduction from Memory of a Sermon →