God infuseth not any sin into his creatures, but forbears to infuse
his grace, and restrain their lusts, which, upon the removal of his
grace, work impetuously: God only gives them up to that which he knows
will work strongly in their hearts. And, therefore, the apostle wipes
off from God any positive act in that uncleanness the heathens were
given up to (Rom. i. 24, “Wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness,
through the lusts of their own hearts.” And, ver. 26, God gave them up
to “vile affections;” but they were their own affections, none of God’s
inspiring,) by adding, “through the lusts of their own hearts.” God’s
giving them up was the logical cause, or a cause by way of argument;
their own lusts were the true and natural cause; their own they were,
before they were given up to them, and belonging to none, as the author,
but themselves, after they were given up to them. The lust in the heart,
and the temptation without, easily close and mix interests with one
another: as the fire in a coal pit will with the fuel, if the streams
derived into it for the quenching it be dammed up: the natural passions
will run to a temptation, as the waters of a river tumble towards the
sea. When a man that hath bridled in a high‑mettled horse from running
out, gives him the reins; or a huntsman takes off the string that
held the dog, and lets him run after the hare,――are they the immediate
cause of the motion of the one, or the other?――no, but the mettle
and strength of the horse, and the natural inclination of the hound,
both which are left to their own motions to pursue their own natural
instincts. Man doth as naturally tend to sin as a stone to {b168}
the centre, or as a weighty thing inclines to a motion to the earth:
it is from the propension of man’s nature that he “drinks up iniquity
like water:” and God doth no more when he leaves a man to sin, by
taking away the hedge which stopped him, but leave him to his natural
inclination. As a man that breaks up a dam he hath placed, leaves
the stream to run in their natural channel; or one that takes away a
prop from a stone to let it fall, leaves it only to that nature which
inclines it to a descent; both have their motion from their own nature,
and man is sin from his own corruption. The withdrawing the sunbeams
is not the cause of darkness, but the shadiness of the earth; nor is
the departure of the sun the cause of winter, but the coldness of the
air and earth, which was tempered and beaten back into the bowels of
the earth by the vigor of the sun, upon whose departure they return to
their natural state: the sun only leaves the earth and air as it found
them at the beginning of the spring or the beginning of the day.[929]
If God do not give a man grace to melt him, yet he cannot be said to
communicate to him that nature which hardens him, which man hath from
himself. As God was not the cause of the first sin of Adam, which was
the root of all other, so he is not the cause of the following sins,
which, as branches, spring from that root; man’s free‑will was the
cause of the first sin, and the corruption of his nature by it the
cause of all succeeding sins. God doth not immediately harden any man,
but doth propose those things, from whence the natural vice of man
takes an occasion to strengthen and nourish itself. Hence, God is said
to “harden Pharaoh’s heart” (Exod. vii. 13), by concurring with the
magicians in turning their rods into serpents, which stiffened his
heart against Moses, conceiving him by reason of that, to have no more
power than other men, and was an occasion of his farther hardening:
and Pharaoh is said to “harden himself” (Exod. viii. 32); that is, in
regard of his own natural passion.
3. God is holy and righteous, because he doth not withdraw from man,
till man deserts him. To say, that God withdrew that grace from Adam,
which he had afforded him in creation, or anything that was due to him,
till he had abused the gifts of God, and turned them to an end contrary
to that of creation, would be a reflection upon the Divine holiness.
God was first deserted by man before man was deserted by God; and man
doth first contemn and abuse the common grace of God, and those relics
of natural light, that “enlighten every man that comes into the world”
(John i. 9); before God leaves him to the hurry of his own passions.
Ephraim was first joined to idols, before God pronounced the fatal
sentence, “Let him alone” (Hos. iv. 17): and the heathens first changed
the glory of the incorruptible God, before God withdrew his common
grace from the corrupted creature (Rom. i. 23, 24); and they first
“served the creature more than the Creator,” before the Creator gave
them up to the slavish chains of their vile affections (ver. 25, 26).
Israel first cast off God before God cast off them; but then “he
gave them up to their own hearts’ lusts, and they walked in their own
counsels” {b169} (Ps. lxxxi. 11, 12). Since sin entered into the world
by the fall of Adam, and the blood of all his posterity was tainted,
man cannot do anything that is formally good; not for want of faculties,
but for the want of a righteous habit in those faculties, especially in
the will; yet God discovers himself to man in the works of his hands;
he hath left in him footsteps of natural reason; he doth attend him
with common motions of his Spirit; corrects him for his faults with
gentle chastisements. He is near unto all in some kind of instructions:
he puts many times providential bars in their way of sinning; but when
they will rush into it as the horse into the battle, when they will
rebel against the light, God doth often leave them to their own course,
sentence him that is “filthy to be filthy still” (Rev. xxii. 11), which
is a righteous act of God, as he is rector and governor of the world.
Man’s not receiving, or not improving what God gives, is the cause
of God’s not giving further, or taking away his own, which before
he had bestowed; this is so far from being repugnant to the holiness
and righteousness of God, that it is rather a commendable act of his
holiness and righteousness, as the rector of the world, not to let
those gifts continue in the hand of a man who abuses them contrary to
his glory. Who will blame a father, that, after all the good counsels
he hath given to his son to reclaim him, all the corrections he
hath inflicted on him for his irregular practice, leaves him to his
own courses, and withdraws those assistances which he scoffed at,
and turned the deaf ear unto? Or, who will blame the physician for
deserting the patient, who rejects his counsel, will not follow his
prescriptions, but dasheth his physic against the wall? No man will
blame him, no man will say that he is the cause of the patient’s death,
but the true cause is the fury of the distemper, and the obstinacy
of the diseased person, to which the physician left him. And who can
justly blame God in this case, who yet never denied supplies of grace
to any that sincerely sought it at his hands; and what man is there
that lies under a hardness, but first was guilty of very provoking
sins? What unholiness is it to deprive men of those assistances,
because of their sin, and afterwards to direct those counsels and
practices of theirs, which he hath justly given them up unto, to
serve the ends of his own glory in his own methods?
4. Which will appear further by considering, that God is not obliged to
continue his grace to them. It was at his liberty whether he could give
any renewing grace to Adam after his fall, or to any of his posterity:
he was at his own liberty to withhold it or communicate it: but, if he
were under any obligation then, surely he must be under less now, since
the multiplication of sin by his creatures: but, if the obligation
were none just after the fall, there is no pretence now to fasten any
such obligation on God. That God had no obligation at first, hath been
spoken to before; he is less obliged to continue his grace after a
repeated refusal, and a peremptory abuse, than he was bound to proffer
it after the first apostasy. God cannot be charged with unholiness in
withdrawing his grace after we have received it, unless we can make it
appear that his grace was a thing due to us, as we are his creatures,
and as he is governor of the world. What prince looks upon himself as
obliged to reside in any particular {b170} place of his kingdom? But
suppose he be bound to inhabit in one particular city, yet after the
city rebels against him, is he bound to continue his court there, spend
his revenue among rebels, endanger his own honor and security, enlarge
their charter, or maintain their ancient privileges? Is it not most
just and righteous for him to withdraw himself, and leave them to their
own tumultuousness and sedition, whereby they should eat the fruit of
their own doings? If there be an obligation on God as a governor, it
would rather lie on the side of justice to leave man to the power of
the devil whom he courted, and the prevalency of those lusts he hath
so often caressed; and wrap up in a cloud all his common illuminations,
and leave him destitute of all common workings of his Spirit.
_Prop. VIII._ God’s holiness is not blemished by his commanding those
things sometimes which seem to be against nature, or thwart some other
of his precepts; as when God commanded Abraham with his own hand to
sacrifice his son (Gen. xxii. 2), there was nothing of unrighteousness
in it. God hath a sovereign dominion over the lives and beings of his
creatures, whereby as he creates one day, he might annihilate the next;
and by the same right that he might demand the life of Isaac, as being
his creature, he might demand the obedience of Abraham, in a ready
return of that to him, which he had so long enjoyed by his grant. It is
true, killing is unjust when it is done without cause, and by a private
authority; but the authority of God surmounts all private and public
authority whatsoever. Our lives are due to him when he calls for them;
and they are more than once forfeit to him by reason of transgression.
But, howsoever the case is, God commanded him to do it for the trial
of his grace, but suffered him not to do it in favor to his ready
obedience; but had Isaac been actually slain and offered, how had it
been unrighteous in God, who enacts laws for the regulation of his
creature, but never intended them to the prejudice of the rights of his
sovereignty? Another case is that of the Israelites borrowing jewels
of the Egyptians, by the order of God (Exod. xi. 2, 3; xii. 36). Is not
God Lord of men’s goods, as well as their lives? What have any, they
have not received? and that not as proprietors independent on God, but
his stewards; and may not he demand a portion of his steward to bestow
upon his favorite? He that had power to dispose of the Egyptians’ goods,
had power to order the Israelites to ask them. Besides, God acted the
part of a just judge in ordering them their wages for their service in
this method, and making their task‑masters give them some recompense
for their unjust oppression so many years; it was a command from God,
therefore, rather for the preservation of justice (the basis of all
those laws which link human society), than any infringement of it.
It was a material recompense in part, though not a formal one in the
intention of the Egyptians; it was but in part a recompense; it must
needs come short of the damage the poor captives had sustained by the
tyranny of their masters, who had enslaved them contrary to the rules
of hospitality; and could not make amends for the lives of the poor
infants of Israel, whom they had drowned in the river. He that might
for the unjust oppression of his people have taken away all their lives,
destroyed {b171} the whole nation, and put the Israelites into the
possession of their lands, could, without any unrighteousness, dispose
of part of their goods; and it was rather an act of clemency to leave
them some part, who had doubly forfeited all. Again, the Egyptians were
as ready to lend by God’s influence, as the Israelites were to ask by
God’s order: and though it was a loan, God, as Sovereign of the world,
and Lord of the earth, and the fulness thereof, alienated the property
by assuming them to the use of the tabernacle, to which service, most,
if not all of them, were afterwards dedicated. God, who is lawgiver,
hath power to dispense with his own law, and make use of his own
goods, and dispose of them as he pleases; it is no unholiness in God to
dispose of that which he hath a right unto. Indeed, God cannot command
that which is in its own nature intrinsically evil; as to command a
rational creature not to love him, not to worship him, to call God to
witness to a lie; these are intrinsically evil; but for the disposing
of the lives and goods of his creatures, which they have from him in
right, and not in absolute propriety, is not evil in him, because there
is no repugnancy in his own nature to such acts, nor is it anything
inconsistent with the natural duty of a creature, and in such cases
he may use what instruments he please. The point was, that holiness is
a glorious perfection of the nature of God. We have showed the nature
of this holiness in God; what it is; and we have demonstrated it, and
proved that God is holy, and must needs be so; and also the purity of
his nature in all his acts about sin: let us now improve it by way of
use.
IV. Is holiness a transcendent perfection belonging to the nature of
God? The first use shall be of instruction and information.
_Inform. 1._ How great and how frequent is the contempt of this eminent
perfection in the Deity! Since the fall, this attribute, which renders
God most amiable in himself, renders him most hateful to his apostate
creature. It is impossible that he that loves iniquity, can affect that
which is irreconcileably contrary to the iniquity he loves. Nothing so
contrary to the sinfulness of man as the holiness of God, and nothing
is thought of by the sinner with so much detestation. How do men
account that which is the most glorious perfection of the Divinity,
unworthy to be regarded as an accomplishment of their own souls! and
when they are pressed to an imitation of it, and a detestation of what
is contrary to it, have the same sentiment in their heart which the
devil had in his language to Christ, Why art thou come to torment
us before our time? What an enmity the world naturally hath to this
perfection, I think is visible in the practice of the heathen, who
among all their heroes which they deified, elevated none to that
dignity among them for this or that moral virtue that came nearest to
it, but for their valor or some usefulness in the concerns of this life.
Æsculapius was deified for his skill in the cure of diseases; Bacchus,
for the use of the grape; Vulcan, for his operations by fire; Hercules,
for his destroying of tyrants and monsters; but none for their mere
virtue; as if anything of purity were unworthy their consideration in
the frame of a Deity, when it is the glory of all other perfections;
so essential it is, that when men reject the imitation of this, God
regards it as a total rejection of himself, {b172} though they own all
the other attributes of his nature (Ps. lxxxi. 11): “Israel would none
of me:” why? because “they walked not in his ways” (ver. 13); those
ways wherein the purity of the Divine nature was most conspicuous; they
would own him in his power, when they stood in need of a deliverance;
they would own him in his mercy, when they were plunged in distress;
but they would not imitate him in his holiness. This being the lustre
of the Divine nature, the contempt of it is an obscuring all his other
perfections, and a dashing a blot upon his whole escutcheon. To own
all the rest, and deny him this, is to frame him as an unbeautiful
monster,――a deformed power. Indeed, all sin is against this attribute;
all sin aims in general at the being of God, but in particular at the
holiness of his Being. All sin is a violence to this perfection; there
is not an iniquity in the world, but directs its venomous sting against
the Divine purity; some sins are directed against his omniscience,
as secret wickedness; some against his providence, as distrust; some
against his mercy, as unbelief; some against his wisdom, as neglecting
the means instituted by him, censuring his ways and actings; some
against his power, as trusting in means more than in God, and the
immoderate fear of men more than of God; some against his truth, as
distrusting his promise, or not fearing his threatening; but all agree
together in their enmity against this, which is the peculiar glory of
the Deity: every one of them is a receding from the Divine image; and
the blackness of every one is the deeper, by how much the distance of
it from the holiness of God is the greater. This contrariety to the
holiness of God, is the cause of all the absolute atheism (if there be
any such) in the world; what was the reason “the fool hath said in his
heart, There is no God,” but because the fool is “corrupt, and hath
done abominable work” (Ps. xiv. 1)? If they believe the being of a
God, their own reason will enforce them to imagine him holy; therefore,
rather than fancy a holy God, they would fain fancy none at all.――In
particular,
1. The holiness of God is injured, in unworthy representations of
God, and imaginations of him in our own minds. The heathen fell under
this guilt, and ascribed to their idols those vices which their own
sensuality inclined them to, unworthy of a man, much more unworthy of a
God, that they might find a protection of their crimes in the practice
of their idols. But is this only the notion of the heathens? may there
not be many among us whose love to their lusts, and desires of sinning
without control, move them to slander God in their thoughts, rather
than reform their lives, and are ready to frame, by the power of their
imaginative faculty, a God, not only winking, but smiling, at their
impurities? I am sure God charges the impieties of men upon this score,
in that Psalm (l. 21) which seems to be a representation of the day of
judgment, as some gather from ver. 6, when God sums up all together:
“These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that
I was altogether such an one as thyself;” not a detester, but approver
of thy crimes: and the Psalmist seems to express God’s loathing of
sin in such a manner, as intimates it to be contrary to the ideas
and resemblances men make of him in their minds (Ps. v. 4); “For thou
art not a God that hast {b173} pleasure in wickedness;” as we say, in
vindication of a man, he is not such a man as you imagine him to be;
thou art not such a God as the world commonly imagines thee to be, a
God taking pleasure in iniquity. It is too common for men to fancy God
not as he is, but as they would have him; strip him of his excellency
for their own security. As God made man after his image, man would
dress God after his own modes, as may best suit the content of his
lusts, and encourage him in a course of sinning; for, when they can
frame such a notion of God, as if he were a countenancer of sin, they
will derive from thence a reputation to their crimes, commit wickedness
with an unbounded licentiousness, and crown their vices with the name
of virtues, because they are so like to the sentiments of that God
they fancy: from hence (as the Psalmist, in the Psalm before mentioned)
ariseth that mass of vice in the world; such conceptions are the
mother and nurse of all impiety. I question not but the first spring is
some wrong notion of God, in regard of his holiness: we are as apt to
imagine God as we would have him, as the black Ethiopians were to draw
the image of their gods after their own dark hue, and paint him with
their own color: as a philosopher in Theodoret speaks; If oxen and
lions had hands, and could paint as men do, they would frame the images
of their gods according to their own likeness and complexion. Such
notions of God render him a swinish being, and worse than the vilest
idols adored by the Egyptians, when men fancy a God indulgent to their
appetites and most sordid lusts.
2. In defacing the image of God in our own souls. God, in the
first draught of man, conformed him to his own image, or made him
an image of himself; because we find that in regeneration this image
is renewed (Eph. iv. 24); “The new man, which, after God, is created
in righteousness and true holiness.” He did not take angels for his
pattern, in the first polishing the soul, but himself. In defacing this
image we cast dirt upon the holiness of God, which was his pattern in
the framing of us, and rather choose to be conformed to Satan, who is
God’s grand enemy, to have God’s image wiped out of us, and the devil’s
pictured in us: therefore, natural men, in an unregenerate state,
may justly be called devils, since our Saviour called the worst man,
Judas, so (John vi. 1), and Peter, one of the best (Matt. xvi. 23):
and if this title be given, by an infallible Judge, to one of the
worst, and one of the best, it may, without wrong to any, be ascribed
to all men that wallow in their sin, which is directly contrary to
that illustrious image God did imprint upon them. How often is it seen
that men control the light of their own nature, and stain the clearest
beams of that candle of the Lord in their own spirits, that fly in the
face of their own consciences, and say to them, as Ahab to Micaiah,
Thou didst “never prophesy good to me;” thou didst never encourage
me in those things that are pleasing to the flesh; and use it at
the same rate as the wicked king did the prophet, “imprison it in
unrighteousness” (Rom. i. 18), because it starts up in them sometimes
sentiments of the holiness of God, which it represents in the soul of
man! How jolly are many men when the exhalations of their sensitive
part rise up to cloud the exactest principle of moral nature in
their minds, and render the monstrous {b174} principles of the law of
corruption more lively! Whence ariseth the wickedness which hath been
committed with an open face in the world, and the applause that hath
been often given to the worst of villanies? Have we not known, among
ourselves, men to glory in their shame, and esteem that a most gentle
accomplishment of man, which is the greatest blot upon his nature,
and which, if it were upon God, would render him no God, but an impure
devil; so that to be a gentleman among us hath been the same as to be
an incarnate devil; and to be a man, was to be no better, but worse,
than a brute? Vile wretches! is not this a contempt of Divine holiness,
to kill that Divine seed which lies languishing in the midst of
corrupted nature; to cut up any sprouts of it as weeds unworthy to grow
in their gardens, and cultivate what is the seed of hell; prefer the
rotten fruits of Sodom, marked with a Divine curse, before those relics
of the fruits of Eden, of God’s own planting?
3. The holiness of God is injured in charging our sin upon God.
Nothing is more natural to men, than to seek excuses for their sin,
and transfer it from themselves to the next at hand, and rather than
fail, shift it upon God himself; and if they can bring God into a
society with them in sin, they will hug themselves in a security that
God cannot punish that guilt wherein he is a partner. Adam’s children
are not of a different disposition from Adam himself, who, after he was
arraigned and brought to his trial, boggles not at flinging his dirt
in the face of God, his Creator, and accuseth him as if he had given
him the woman, not to be his help, but his ruin (Gen. iii. 12); “And
the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of
the tree, and I did eat.” He never supplicates for pardon, nor seeks
a remedy, but reflects his crime upon God: Had I been alone, as I was
first created, I had not eaten; but the woman, whom I received as a
special gift from thee, hath proved my tempter and my bane. When man
could not be like God in knowledge, he endeavored to make God like him
in his crime; and when his ambition failed of equalizing himself with
God, he did, with an insolence too common to corrupted nature, attempt,
by the imputation of his sin, to equal the Divinity with himself. Some
think Cain had the same sentiment in his answer to God’s demand where
his brother was (Gen. ii. 9); “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Art not thou
the Keeper and Governor of the world? why didst not thou take care of
him, and hinder my killing him, and drawing this guilt upon myself, and
terror upon my conscience? David was not behind, when, after the murder
of Uriah, he sweeps the dirt from his own door to God’s (2 Sam. xi. 25);
“The sword devoureth one as well as another;” fathering that solely
upon Divine Providence which was his own wicked contrivance: though
afterwards he is more ingenuous in clearing God, and charging himself
(Ps. li. 4): “Against thee, thee only have I sinned;” and he clears God
in his judgment too. It is too common for the “foolishness of man to
pervert his way;” and then “his heart frets against the Lord” (Prov.
xix. 3). He studies mischief, runs in a way of sin, and when he hath
conjured up troubles to himself, by his own folly, he excuseth himself,
and, with indignation, charges God as the author both of his sin and
misery, {b175} and sets his mouth against the heavens. It is a more
horrible thing to accuse God as a principal or accessary in our guilt,
than to conceive him to be a favorer of our iniquity; yet both are bad
enough.
4. The holiness of God is injured when men will study arguments from
the holy word of God to color and shelter their crimes. When men will
seek for a shelter for their lies, in that of the midwives to preserve
the children, or in that of Rahab to save the spies, as if, because
God rewarded their fidelity, he countenanced their sin. How often is
Scripture wrested to be a plea for unbecoming practices, that God,
in his word, may be imagined a patron for their iniquity? It is not
unknown that some have maintained their quaffing and carousing (from
Eccles. viii. 11), “That a man hath no better thing under the sun than
to eat, drink, and be merry:” and their gluttony (from Matt. v. 11),
“That which goes into the belly defiles not a man.” The Jesuits’ morals
are a transcript of this. How often hath the Passion of our Saviour,
the highest expression of God’s holiness, been employed to stain it,
and encourage the most debauched practices! Grace hath been turned
into wantonness, and the abundance of grace been used as a blast to
increase the flames of sin, as if God had no other aim in that work
of redemption, but to discover himself more indulgent to our sensual
appetites, and by his severity with his Son, become more gracious
to our lusts; this is to feed the roots of hell with the dews of
heaven, to make grace a pander for the abuse of it, and to employ
the expressions of his holiness in his word to be a sword against the
essential holiness of his nature: as if a man should draw an apology
for his treason out of that law that was made to forbid, not to protect,
his rebellion. Not the meanest instrument in the temple was to be
alienated from the use it was by Divine order appointed to, nor was it
to be employed in any common use; and shall the word of God, which is
the image of his holiness, be transferred by base interpretations to
be an advocate for iniquity? Such an ill use of his word reflects upon
that hand which imprinted those characters of purity and righteousness
upon it: as the misinterpretation of the wholesome laws of a prince,
made to discourage debauchery, reflects upon his righteousness and
sincerity in enacting them.