Again, what he concludes from his arbitrary supposition,—namely, that hence “it doth not follow that God took counsel with others besides himself,”—is nothing to the argument in hand; for we prove
SECT. 7.] IN THE COUNSEL OF GOD. 51
not hence that God consulted with others besides himself, nor would it be unto our purpose so to do. But this the words evince, that he who thus consulted with himself is in some respect more than one. But will this author abide by it, that this is the sense of the place, and that thus the words are to be interpreted? This he hath not the least thought of, nor will maintain that it is according unto truth: for so they can invent exceptions against our interpretation of any testimony of Scripture, they never care to give one of their own which they will adhere unto and defend; which way of dealing in sacred things of so great importance is very perverse and froward. Thus our author, here relinquishing this conjecture, proceeds:—
“Sed demus esto, Deum hic aliquos compellasse, queramus qui- nam isti fuerint. Aiunt adversarii hos omnino debuisse esse sermonis et rationis capaces. Quomodo enim Deus alloqueretur eos, qui nec loqui nec intelligere possint; sed hoc non satis firmum est. Nam scimus Deum szepe etiam cum sensu et ratione carentibus collo- quium instituere; ut in Esa. i., ‘ Audite, cceli.’”
Rather than this man would omit any cavil, he will make use of such as are sapless and ridiculous. God doth not here speak unto others that are not himself, but by speaking as he doth, he declares himself to exist in a plurality of persons, capable of mutual consul- tation and joint operation. But here he must be supposed, as some of the Jews fancied before him, to speak unto the inanimate parts of the creation, as he speaks in the first of Isaiah, “ Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth.” But in such rhetorical apostrophes they are in truth men that are spoken unto, and that scheme of speech is used merely to make an impression on them of,the things that are spoken. Apply this unto the words of God in the circumstance of the crea- tion of man, and it will appear shamefully ridiculous. Wherefore he trusteth not unto this subterfuge, but proceeds to another :—
“Sed demus etiam hoc, istos Deo presentes fuisse rationales, quid postea? Addunt hos non fuisse creaturas, quia Deus non soleat in suum consilium adhibere creaturas; oportet ergo ut fuerint creatores, Filius cum Spiritu. Verum isti meminisse debebant, Scripturam sacram nusquam Deum solitarium statuere, sed semper illi apparitores et agmina angelorum attribuere, ut ex visionibus prophetarum patet. Quod autem in consultationem non adhibeat creaturas Deus, hoc quoque ex eisdem visionibus refellitur. Nam etsi verum est Deum proprie cum nullo consulere, neque ullius egere consilio, tamen prophetz illum consultantem cum spiritibus repre- sentant, 8 Reg. xxii; Esa. vi; Job. i. Jam vero cum Adamus for- mabatur, extitisse angelos sequens historia Mosis docet. Ergo po- tuerunt illi Deo de condendo homine consultanti assistere, et coram illis potuit Deus hee protulisse.”
52 ORIGINAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [ EXERC. XXVII.
This man seems willing to grant any thing but the truth. That which this whole discourse amounts unto is, that “God spake these words unto the angels,” as the Jews pretend. So Jarchi says that God spake unto them Sy» q13, “by way of condescension,” that they should not be troubled to see a creature made little less excel- lent than themselves. Others of them say that God spake unto them as he is attended with them, or as they wait upon his throne, which they call his “ house of judgment;” and this sense Enjedinus and those that follow him fence withal. But this we have disproved already, so that it need not here be much insisted on. The Scripture expressly denies that God took counsel with any besides himself in the whole work of the creation, Isa. xl. 12-14. Creation is a pure act of infinite monarchical sovereignty, wherein there was no use of any intermediate, instrumental causes, as there is in the government of the world. Wherefore, in the course of providence, God may be in- troduced as speaking with or unto the creatures whom he will employ in the execution thereof, and who attend his throne to receive his commands; but in the work of creation, wherein none were to be employed, this can have no place, nor can God be represented as consulting with any creatures in the creation without a disturbance of the true notion and apprehension of it. Besides, nothing of this nature can be proved, no not even with respect unto providential dis- pensations, from the places alleged. For Isa. vi, it is the prophet only whom God in vision speaks unto, calling out his faith and obedience, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” verse 8; but whereas he speaks both in the singular and plural number, “ Whom shall [ send, and who will go for us?” there is also a plurality of persons in the same individual essence expressed; and unto the other persons besides the Father is this place applied by the Holy Ghost, John xi. 41; Acts xxviii. 26. In the other two places, 1 Kings xxi, Jobi., God is introduced speaking to the devil; which it is some marvel to find cited unto this purpose by persons of more sobriety and modesty than Enjedinus.