The Case Against Evolution (Henry M. Morris, 1918-2006)

 In this chapter and the next we shall summarize the evidence against evolution by showing, first, that there is no evidence of evolution occurring at present and, second, that there is no evidence that evolution has occurred in the past. In doing this, it is necessary to start with the Biblical record. Particularly in the past, prior to human historical records, it is manifestly impossible to prove scientifically whether evolution took place or not. In the nature of the case, the history of the earth and its inhabitants cannot be subject to scientific experimentation; the events are non-reproducible and, therefore, not legitimately subject to analysis by means of the so-called “scientific method.”

One must, therefore, either start with the assumption that God is the Creator and the Author of history, or else with the assumption that there is no God and that the history of the earth and the universe is to be explained without him. The way one approaches the study of this history must necessarily depend upon the assumption with which he starts. If one more or less arbitrarily ignores God in developing such a history, even though he may not deliberately intend to exclude the possibility of God, in effect he is making the second assumption and is taking the approach of atheism. For it should be plainly emphasized that, if God does exist and if he is the Creator and Sustainer of history, then it is foolhardy to attempt to understand history apart from his revealed Word. In other words, the only way we can know with certainty the time of creation, the order of creation, the meaning of creation, the methods of creation, and anything else concerned with pre-historical events, is for God to tell us these things. He was there and we were not. Therefore, in every case, we believe that the only legitimate method of reasoning in this sphere is the deductive method. One starts with either one assumption or the other and then develops his system and his conclusions. He cannot use the inductive method, attempting to build up a historical record on the basis of bits of evidence he may be able to find in the present world. In doing this, he is in reality using the deductive method but starting with the atheistic assumption that God has not already spoken concerning these things.

We, therefore, must simply start with the assumption that God exists and is the Creator and Sustainer of this universe. Consequently we must acknowledge that God can reveal himself if he so wills and that it is not possible for us really to understand anything (since our very minds have been created by him) unless he does so. The Bible claims in numberless ways to be this revelation, and has validated its claims in equally innumerable ways. Therefore, in any historical or scientific argumentation, here is where we start.

With respect to the possibility of evolution occurring in the present or in the past, we must first of all define clearly what is meant by evolution. Evolution does not simply mean change. This is important, because the evidence cited by most writers in favor of their claim that evolution is a fact is simply evidence of change. But true evolution is a certain kind of change.

Once again, we shall let evolution^’s chief present-day spokesman and protagonist, Sir Julian Huxley, settle this particular question:

“Evolution is a one-way process, irreversible in time, producing apparent novelties and greater variety, and leading to higher degrees of organization, more differentiated, more complex, but at the same time more integrated.”¹

This statement was intended to include both inorganic and organic evolution, and to comprehend the whole of the physical and biological universes. That is, everything in the universe has been developed by this process of evolution, of development, of progress, of higher and higher levels of organization and complexity.

With this definition in mind, we come to examine the question of whether there is any evidence that such a process is now taking place in the world. And the answer, both Scripturally and scientifically, is, unequivocally, no!

As far as the Bible is concerned, this process of organization, of increasing complexity, of development, of integration, is simply the process of creation. And, according to Scripture, creation is no longer taking place.

“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made” (Genesis 2:1-3).

“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:11).

“It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed” (Exodus 31:17).

“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:6, 9).

“Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all” (Nehemiah 9:6).

“By the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water” (II Peter 3:5).

“The works were finished from the foundation of the world” (Hebrews 4:3).

“For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Hebrews 4:10).

These passages of Scripture, in both Old and New Testaments, make it plain that the work of creation was terminated at the end of the six days. God is now preserving everything he had created in the six days, but he is no longer creating anything.

God has, therefore, told us plainly in his Word that nothing is now being either created or destroyed, and we are, therefore, not surprised when, as we study the laws of nature, we find that the most basic, the most universal, the best-proved, law of all science is the law of Conservation!

Actually, there are many so-called conservation laws of science. Conservation of mass, conservation of linear momentum, conservation of electric charge, conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of energy are the most important. And without doubt the one truly universal conservation law is that of energy conservation, especially when broadened to include possible mass-energy conversions.

Energy, defined as “capacity for doing work,” actually includes everything in the physical universe. Because of mass-energy equivalence, all forms of matter are, in a very real sense, merely forms of energy. Energy may also appear as mechanical, electrical, electro-magnetic, chemical, light, heat, sound, and other types of energy.

“The First Law of Thermodynamics is merely another name for the Law of Conservation of Energy.... This law states that energy can be transformed in various ways, but can neither be created nor destroyed.”²

All processes in the universe — physical, geological, biological, etc. — involve transformations of energy. It is not too much to say that the whole of physical reality is merely the outworking of the energies of the universe. And all of this is fundamentally described and controlled by the law of energy conservation, which states that mass-energy is neither being created nor destroyed. And this is precisely what the Biblical revelation has told us!

Furthermore, it ought to be evident that this universal law squarely contradicts, and therefore disproves, the evolutionary hypothesis, which maintains that “creation” — that is, increasing organization and integration and development — is continually taking place in the present.

And if the first law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, what could one say about the second law of thermodynamics! The second law, equally universal and also proved beyond any scientific doubt whatever, states that in all energy transformations there is a tendency for some of the energy to be transformed into non-reversible heat energy. That is, the availability of the energy of the system or process for the performance of work is reduced. It “runs down” or “wears out.” The term entropy is used as a measure of the amount of energy thus depleted from the system, and the second law states, therefore, that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease, but rather always tends to increase.

The second law of thermodynamics was originally developed by Carnot, Clausius, and Kelvin, starting from work on the engineering problems of steam engines. In its early forms, it was developed at about the same time as Darwin’s publication of Origin of Species. However, its broader implications were only gradually becoming understood by the end of the 19th century. Even today, it is obvious that most people, especially most evolutionists, have very little understanding of the tremendous implications of the second law.

“Understanding of the law has continued to grow since the time of Clausius and Kelvin.... In its most modern forms, the Second Law is considered to have an extremely wide range of validity. It is a remarkable illustration of the ranging power of the human intellect that a principle first detected in connection with the clumsy puffing of the early steam engines should be found to apply to the whole world, and possibly even to the whole cosmic Universe.”³

The physicist R. B. Lindsay, Dean of the Brown University Graduate School, says concerning the universal importance of the two laws of thermodynamics:

“Thermodynamics is a physical theory of great generality impinging on practically every phase of human experience. It may be called the description of the behaviour of matter in equilibrium and of its changes from one equilibrium state to another. Thermodynamics operates with two master concepts or constructs and two great principles. The concepts are energy and entropy, and the principles are the so-called first and second laws of thermodynamics. ...”⁴

There is no real question, either, that the two laws apply to biological systems as well as physical systems. In fact, practically all evolutionary biologists today reject vitalism in biology, insisting that all biological processes are really only physico-chemical processes, with no “vital force” or “vital energy” involved. It thus follows that these physico-chemical processes in living systems must conform to the two laws of thermodynamics. The significance of this becomes clear when the second law is defined in most general terms. As implied above, its implications are far wider than contained in the tendency for processes to produce irrecoverable heat energy. The thermodynamic application is in reality only a special case of a universal tendency for everything to become more “probable” — that is, more disorganized, more “random.” The Princeton biologist, Harold Blum, applying this fact to biological systems, makes this quite clear:

“A major consequence of the second law of thermodynamics is that all real processes go toward a condition of greater probability. The probability function generally used in thermodynamics is entropy.

...The second law of thermodynamics says that left to itself any isolated system will go toward greater entropy, which also means toward greater randomization and greater likelihood.”⁵

It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. The entropy principle involves a continual decrease of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true!

Of course, it is quite possible for entropy to decrease in an open system. In fact, every instance of a local increase in organization — the growth of a child, the development of a crystal, the raising of a building — is an example of the influx of an excess of “energy” or “information” into the particular open system, so that its innate tendency toward decay is temporarily offset. But that child, or crystal, or building, or anything else will eventually start to grow old or wear out or decay. Even the temporary, supposedly natural growth of an organism is really to be attributed ultimately to the creation and maintenance by God of a marvelous mechanism of reproduction and sustenance.

And remember that evolution, in the minds of its proponents, is not a localized phenomenon anyway, but rather a universal law, explaining alike the development of species in biology, elements in chemistry, and suns in astronomy! As Huxley insists: “The whole of reality is evolution.”

It is hard to believe that the leaders in evolutionary thought, not to mention their hosts of uncritical followers, have ever really confronted this gross contradiction between their theory of evolution (which they protest overmuch to be a “fact”) and the second law of thermodynamics. For example, the great Darwinian Centennial Celebration at the University of Chicago in 1959, which brought together the acknowledged leaders in this field from all over the world, and which produced many original papers and much discussion, apparently never even recognized the existence of this problem. In the three volumes of papers and discussions emanating from this conference, it is almost impossible to find any mention of questions of this sort at all. Although of course some may have been missed, a fairly careful search indicates that only two of the writers” in this Symposium refer to it, and these only briefly and cursorily.

And until this fundamental contradiction is thoroughly cleared up and harmonized, creationists are abundantly justified in insisting that evolution as a universal principle is not only unproved but statistically almost impossible! The second law of thermodynamics plainly and relentlessly insists that there is a universal tendency toward decay and disorder, not growth and development. This is true on the cosmic scale and, even though it may temporarily be negated on a small scale by local increases in order resulting from external influences, even these are only temporary and will eventually decay.

But this is not at all surprising to the Christian, for this is what is taught in the Word of God. Not only has God told us that he has finished his creation, and is now preserving it, so that nothing further is being created nor is anything being destroyed, but he has also told us that there is everywhere in the world a tendency toward decay and death. Everything, left to itself, tends to grow old and to run down and finally to die.

“Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed” (Psalm 102:25, 26).

“Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished” (Isaiah 51:6).

“For the creation was made subject to vanity. . . . For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Romans 8:20, 22).

“For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man is as the flower of grass. The grass withereth and the flower thereof falleth away” (I Peter 1:24).

“All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again” (Ecclesiastes 3:20).

“Heaven and earth shall pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

Not only does the Bible tell us the fact of decay in the creation, but it also gives us the explanation for it, something which thermodynamics has not been able to do. The universal validity of the second law of thermodynamics is demonstrated, but no one knows why it is true. It is strictly an empirical law, which has always been found to be true wherever it could be tested, but for which there is no known natural explanation.

But the Biblical explanation is that it is involved in the curse of God upon this world and its whole system, because of Adam^’s sin. At the end of the six days of creation, the Scripture says that “God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). If there be any doubt as to what is meant by this, it is clarified by the description of conditions in the new earth, which will be created by God after this present system has passed away. In Revelation 21:4, it is promised that there will then be no more (1) sorrow, (2) pain, (3) crying, or (4) death. That all of these things are associated with the curse on the present world is evident from the parallel statement in Revelation 22:3, which says that in the new earth, “there shall be no more curse.” And it is also evident from the actual description of the curse as given in Genesis 3:17, as we shall note below.

Therefore, we conclude that the Bible teaches that, originally, there was no disorder, no decay, no aging process, no suffering, and above all, no death, in the world when the creation was completed. All was “very good.”

But, “by one man, sin entered the world, and death by sin” (Romans 5:12). Eve sinned, and Adam sinned, the essence of both acts being rejection of the word of God. Eve listened to the words of Satan, and Adam harkened to the words of his wife, and both thereby explained away the word of God, and then flagrantly refused to obey his word. Fellowship with their Creator was broken, and the perfect order of God^’s creation and purpose was disturbed by the entrance of disorder and rebellion into the world. Since Adam had been designated master of all the earth and everything in it (Genesis 1:28), the curse likewise comprehended everything under Adam^’s dominion.

According to the Biblical record, the curse is as follows:

“Cursed is the ground [or earth, which is an alternate rendering of the Hebrew] for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return” (Genesis 3:17-19).

As noted above in connection with the eventual removal of the curse from the earth, there are four main elements in it: (1) sorrow; (2) pain — symbolized by the thorns and thistles; (3) crying, that is, the groaning and struggle and intense effort necessary to wrest a living from a reluctant earth, all intimated by the sweat; and (4) death, when the highly organized protein and other structures of the body will finally break down and decay and eventually return to the basic elements — the “dust of the earth” from which it was made.

All of this can be summarized in terms of a great principle of decay and disorder in the earth. Adam was originally commissioned to “subdue” the earth and to exercise dominion over it, but now he and his descendants must reckon with an earth which resists his efforts. Only by continual effort and overcoming all manner of difficulties can order be maintained or increased. In the struggle there will be encountered much pain and sorrow, both of which manifest an inharmonious environment, external and internal. And ultimately, regardless of all the sorrow and sweating and pain overcome in “eating of” the earth, the earth will finally be victorious and will regain her “dust.”

Can there be any doubt that here, and here only, we have the real explanation for the relentless increase of entropy in the world? As the physicist, R. B. Lindsay, has said, concerning the second law of thermodynamics:

“All experience points to the fact that every living organism eventually dies. This is a process in which the highly developed order of the organism is reduced to a random and disorderly collection of molecules. We are reminded that we are ‘dust’ and to ‘dust’ we ultimately return.”⁷

The exact physiological mechanism which is responsible for aging and death of an animal has never been fully determined, and this is in fact an active area of modern research. As Howard Curtis, of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, says:

“Everyone realizes that he will undergo adverse changes, with the passage of time, which will eventually lead to death in one form or another, and accepts this as inevitable. It is difficult to think of a biological process of more interest to most adults, and yet through the years the explanations for this phenomenon have mostly been couched in vague generalities. Even today gerontologists cannot agree upon a definition of aging.”⁸

After discussing various suggested causes for aging, Curtis presents strong modern evidence that the main cause is found in somatic mutations. These are sudden changes in the structure of the somatic cells (as distinct from the germ cells which transmit genetic character from parent to offspring), brought about by radiation or other mutagens affecting the organs and general body cell structure of the animal. He says:

“Certainly the vast majority of mutations must be deleterious, so if the organs of older animals contain appreciable numbers of cells which are carrying mutations, it is a virtual certainty that the organs are functioning less efficiently than they otherwise would.”⁹

These somatic mutations have no effect upon evolution, because, as is now well established, acquired characters cannot be inherited. However, similar mutations occur in the germ cells, and these can be and are transmitted to descendants, as discussed later. These genetic mutations must have a similarly deleterious effect upon the species as a whole, just as the somatic mutations seem clearly to lead to the aging and death of the individual. However, the germ cells are much better protected from factors causing mutation than are the somatic cells. As Curtis says:

“It is suggested that the mutation rates for somatic cells are very much higher than the rates for gametic cells, and that this circumstance insures the death of the individual and the survival of the species.”¹⁰

But even many species eventually decay and die, with the accumulated effects of generations of mutations and a hostile environment, including especially the presence of man. The effects of the Fall and the Curse are both worldwide and age-long, and there is really no other satisfactory way of accounting for the fact that the “whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” In a recent Phi Beta Kappa address, the noted anthropologist, Loren Eiseley, has said:

“As one gropes amid all this attic dust it becomes ever more apparent that some lethal factor, some arsenical poison seems to lurk behind the pleasant show of the natural order or even the most enticing cultural edifices that man has been able to erect.”¹¹

But, of course, the Word of God not only reveals the cause of the universal decay, but also reveals that it will not last forever. The so-called “heat death” anticipated by scientists as the ultimate fate of the universe, when all free energy has been utilized, and converted into non-available heat energy, will never be reached.

“Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption [that is, decay] into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Romans 8:21).

“For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the manifestation [that is, revealing] of the sons of God” (Romans 8:19).

“Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (II Peter 3:13).

This, perhaps, is not the best place for a gospel message, but all this is nevertheless an outworking of the gospel. The revealing of the redeemed children of God, the deliverance of the creation, the new heavens and the new earth, are all made possible by the tremendous fact of Jesus Christ. God, in Christ, has redeemed the world from sin and death by himself dying for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2) and his bodily resurrection from the grave. At present, he is “taking out a people for his name” (Acts 15:14), regenerating those whom he calls and who “believe on his name” (John 1:12, 13), making them, through the indwelling of his Holy Spirit, the “sons of God” (Romans 8:14), who will be openly manifested as such when Christ “shall appear” (I John 3:2, 3) — that is, when Christ comes again to this world at the end of this age.

But until he comes, the whole creation continues in the bondage of decay. Physical systems, left to themselves, run down and stop; biological organisms grow old and die; societies isolated from uplifting influences deteriorate and vanish away; individuals, who reject or neglect the regenerating influences of the gospel or its by-products, soon drift downward morally and spiritually, as well as physically, and finally die.

“Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death” (James 1:15).

And this is all so absolutely contrary to the whole concept and philosophy of evolution that one could scarcely conceive more diametrically opposed systems. The two systems are alike in only one respect, in that both involve continual change. But one is a change up, the other a change down. One is development, the other deterioration; one growth, the other decay.

Here we encounter in our study of this subject a very remarkable phenomenon. This fact of change, which is both Biblically and scientifically observed to be a universal implication of the second law of thermodynamics, has been appropriated by evolutionists as the evidential basis for their theory.

No one would question that change occurs. New varieties of various species are developed, by means of various types of biological mechanisms. In most cases, however, these changes are quite definitely within narrow limits. All the varieties of dogs remain inter-fertile and are still dogs, for example. Within all recorded human experience, it is highly questionable whether evolutionists can point with assurance to more than this kind of change occurring. The Mendelian laws of heredity provide for much variation on the basis of the outworking of the genetic factors present in the chromosome structure of the germ cells of each species. But such variation (or, depending on definitions, perhaps sometimes speciation) always has definite limits.

This is exactly the situation that would be expected on the basis of the Genesis account of creation. Nothing in the account indicates how many original “species” there were, or what constitutes a “species.” However, it does clearly indicate that there were meant to be definite limits to the possible biological changes that might take place. The only biological unit identified therein is called a kind, and at least ten times in the first chapter of Genesis is it mentioned that the various types of living creatures were to bring forth “after their kind.” This states, quite plainly, that there were to be definite limits to possible biological change, perhaps, by implication, these limits being those of interfertility. But within those limits, it can surely be inferred that variation and speciation are possible. An interesting comment on the unsettled state of the “species problem” in modern biological research is given in a recent article by two Stanford biologists:

“The term species should be retained only in its original, less restrictive sense of ‘kind.’ There seems to be no reason why quantitative methods should not be used to study phenetic relationships (those based on similarity rather than imagined phylogeny) at what we now loosely call the species level.”¹²

But changes of this type have nothing much to do with what evolutionists consider to be true evolution. Mere reshuffling of genetic factors already present is not evolution. This process corresponds analogically to energy transformations in a physical system, with nothing really gained or added — just the form changed. Rather, some permanent and hereditable change must occur of an entirely different type than those potentially present already. Such changes are called “mutations,” and are brought about by a definite and sudden change in one or more genes in the germ cell. Bonner says:

“[Mutation] is really the factor of fundamental importance. Since mutation means a chemical change in the gene structure, all progressive advancements must ultimately be by mutation, and all that can be done by recombination is to shuffle what is given by mutation. Gene mutation provides the raw material for evolution, and recombination sets this material out in different ways so that selection may be furthered by being provided with a whole series of possible arrangements.”¹³

That true mutations do occur, and that these are hereditable, and may result in permanent change in the species, no creationist need question in the least. But the important point is that these changes are fully in line with the universal law of deterioration; in fact, that is exactly what such changes amount to.

For a mutation is essentially a sudden and apparently random change in the genetic structure of the germ cell, brought about by penetration of the cell by radiation, a mutagenic chemical or some other disorganizing agent. The effect is analogous to what would happen to, say, a television picture tube if a bomb were exploded inside it. There would be a change, all right, but it would, in all probability, not be an improvement! (This might depend on one’s point of view with respect to television programs, however.)

“Mutations and mutation rates have been studied in a wide variety of experimental plants and animals, and in man. There is one general result that clearly emerges: almost all mutations are harmful. The degree of harm ranges from mutant genes that kill their carrier, to those that cause only minor impairment. Even if we didn^’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutations would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it.”¹⁴

Evolutionists are hard pressed to find any actually observed mutations, as distinguished from mere recombinations of genetic factors, which are helpful in the struggle for existence. Occasionally a rare mutation, such as bacterial resistance to penicillin, may accidentally result in improved ability to cope with a changed environment. And it is these occasional helpful mutations occurring in artificially changed environments which arc actually proposed by evolutionists as the biological mechanism accounting for the entire development of all living organisms through geologic time! The hypothetical process of natural selection is supposed to act on these occasional mutations in such a way as to preserve those rare ones which are beneficial. Actually, the more complex an organism, the less chance there is of a mutation being beneficial in any environment. This is a principle of such generality as to have status fully as valid as that of most other physical “laws,” or putting it another way, the more complex a structure, the less probable it is that a random change will increase its complexity. Therefore, the mutation concept of evolution seems about as logical as to say that, if a man travels south ninety-nine miles, then north one mile, then south ninety-nine miles, then north one mile, and so on, he will reach the North Pole before he reaches the South Pole!

Mutations really, therefore, offer a perfect illustration of the second law of thermodynamics, which says that the natural tendency of all change is to create a greater degree of disorder and randomness. This would mean that the overall direction of change of a biological “kind” would he deteriorative rather than developmental. This is evident not only in the case of present genetic changes, but also in those evidences that have been cited in favor of past evolutionary changes. For example, the evidence of vestigial organs is often cited as an argument for evolution. But it is immediately evident that the loss of organs through disuse is an illustration of deterioration.

Similarly, paleontology reveals that practically every type of living creature in the present world has ancestors in the fossil record which are larger than their present-day descendants. One thinks, for example, of the mammoths, the cave bears, saber-tooth tigers, giant bisons, the dinosaurs, the giant beavers, cockroaches, rhinos, and even giant men! The evolutionary increase in size and complexity supposedly revealed by the fossil record apparently breaks down in the transition from the hypothetical sequences of the geologic past to the actual creatures of the present! And, as we shall see later, these hypothetical phylogenies of the fossil record can be interpreted in an alternate manner which supports, rather than contradicts, the second law of thermodynamics.

Before leaving this subject, it would be well to note a recent theory that has attempted to sidestep the problems posed by the second law of thermodynamics.

“A recent suggestion is that for the Universe considered as a whole the law of entropy increase is brought to a standstill by the ‘continuous creation^’ of matter. The hypothesis of ^‘continuous creation^’ has in fact been introduced in the attempt to neutralize the law of entropy-trend on the cosmic scale.”¹⁵

This theory of the “steady-state” universe has been widely publicized and popularized in recent years. A group of British astronomers, especially Hoyle and Bondi, have been the leaders in the promulgation of this strange hypothesis. It is miscalled the “continuous creation” theory, since it does not postulate that God is still creating anything. In fact, it is thoroughly atheistic, since it assumes that the universe never had a beginning at all, and will never have an end. It arbitrarily decides that the universe should always be essentially the same, at any point of time or space. In order to eliminate the profound difficulty imposed upon such a theory by the second law of thermodynamics, which rigidly interpreted would require both a beginning and an end of the universe as observed, it allows for the continual evolution (not “creation”) of matter out of nothing!

It must be clearly recognized that there cannot possibly be any observational or experimental basis in support of such a notion. It is simply required by the assumption of a “steady-state” universe, with neither beginning nor end. Its proponents argue that this assumption is so reasonable that it warrants the otherwise absurd idea of continual evolution of matter out of nothing.

This is merely a striking confirmation of the earlier assertion that a man^’s presuppositions will determine how he handles the scientific data. But even many uniformitarian scientists are appalled at the presumption of Hoyle and his colleagues in promoting such a theory as this in the name of science. In a recent review of several new books bearing on this theme, G. C. McVittie, Head of the University of Illinois Astronomy Department, says:

“The temptation to substitute logic for observation is peculiarly hard to resist in astronomy. This is because astronomical data are hard to come by, and the data rapidly diminish in number and accuracy as the objects we observe recede from the earth.... Nevertheless, the fact that data may be scarce and inaccurate is no reason for failing to use them as our main guides in the formulation of theory....Once upon a time, British science was sometimes criticized for being too empirical. During the past 30 years a number of a priori theories of cosmology, of which the steady-state theory is one, have completely reversed the trend, which is a curious and unexpected development.^”16

We conclude this section, then, by reiterating that the revealed Word of God, supported completely by all true science, teaches that the evolutionary principle, as applied to present processes and events, is not only not valid but is essentially impossible. The basic processes at the present time are those of conservation and deterioration, not innovation and development.

---

Notes

Ibid., p. 44. See also footnote 4, chapter 1.
A. R. Ubbelohde: Man and Energy (New York; George Braziller, Inc., 1955), p. 149. Dr. Ubbelohde is Professor of Thermodynamics at the Imperial College of Science and Technology in the University of London, and also Dean of the Faculty of Science at Queen^’s University in Belfast.
Ibid., p. 146.
“Entropy Consumption and Values in Physical Science,” American Scientist, V. 47, September, 1959, p. 376.
“Perspectives in Evolution,” American Scientist, V. 43, October, 1955, p. 595.
Hans Gaffron: “The Origin of Life,” in The Evolution of Life (Vol. I of Evolution after Darwin, Sol Tax, Ed., University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 40.

Alfred E. Emerson: “The Evolution of Adaptation in Living Systems.” Ibid., p. 312.
“Entropy Consumption and Values in Physical Science,” American Scientist, Vol. 47, September, 1959, p. 384.
“Biological Mechanisms Underlying the Aging Process,” Science, Vol. 141, August 23, 1963, p. 686.
Ibid, p. 688.
Ibid, p. 694.
“Man, the Lethal Factor,” American Scientist, Vol. 51, March, 1963, p. 72.
Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm: “Patterns and Populations,” Science, Vol. 137, August 31, 1962, p. 655.
The Ideas of Biology (New York; Harper and Brothers, 1962), p. 64.
James F. Crow: “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January, 1958, pp. 19-20.
A. R. Ubbelohde: Man and Energy, p. 177.
“Rationalism versus Empiricism in Cosmology,” Science, Vol. 133, April 21, 1961, p. 1236.

---

Author

Henry M. Morris attended the University of Minnesota (M.S.; Ph.D.), and Rice University (B.S.).

He was Head of the Civil Engineering Department at Southwestern Louisiana University; Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at University of Minnesota; Instructor of Civil Engineering at Rice University; Junior Engineer to Assistant Hydraulic Engineer, International Boundary and Water Commission. He was also Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Head of the Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

Books authored by him are Applied Hydraulics in Engineering; The Bible and Modern Science; That You Might Believe; and The Genesis Flood, co-authored with John C. Whitcomb.

This article is taken from his book The Twilight of Evolution, (Baker: Grand Rapids) 1963, pp. 29-46.

https://www.the-highway.com/

An Exposition of John 3:16 (John Owen, 1616-1683)

 

John 3:16

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

CHAPTER II

An entrance to the answer unto particular arguments.

Now we come to the consideration of the objections wherewith the doctrine we have, from the word of God, undeniably confirmed is usually, with great noise and clamour, assaulted; concerning which I must give you these three cautions, before I come to lay them down: —

The first whereof is this, that for mine own part I had rather they were all buried than once brought to light, in opposition to the truth of God, which they seem to deface; and therefore, were it left to my choice, I would not produce any one of them: not that there is any difficulty or weight in them, that the removal should be operose or burdensome, but only that I am not willing to be any way instrumental to give breath or light to that which opposeth the truth of God. But because, in these times of liberty and error, I suppose the most of them have been objected to the reader already by men lying in wait to deceive, or are likely to be, I shall therefore show you the poison, and withal furnish you with an antidote against the venom of such self-seekers as our days abound withal.

Secondly, I must desire you, that when ye hear an objection, ye would not be carried away with the sound of words, nor suffer it to take impression on your spirits, remembering with how many demonstrations and innumerable places of Scripture the truth opposed by them hath been confirmed, but rest yourselves until the places be well weighed, the arguments pondered, the answers set down; and then the Lord direct you to "prove all things, and hold fast that which is good."

Thirdly, That you would diligently observe what comes near the stress of the controversy, and the thing wherein the difference lieth, leaving all other flourishes and swelling words of vanity, as of no weight, of no importance.

Now, the objections laid against the truth maintained are of two sorts; — the first, taken from Scripture perverted; the other, from reason abused.

We begin with the first, the OBJECTIONS TAKEN FROM SCRIPTURE; all the places whereof that may any way seem to contradict our assertion are, by our ‘strongest adversaries, in their greatest strength, referred to three heads: — First, Those places that affirm that Christ died for the world, or that otherwise make mention of the word world in the business of redemption. Secondly, Those that mention all and every man, either in the work of Christ's dying for them, or where God is said to will their salvation. Thirdly, Those which affirm Christ bought or died for them that perish. Hence they draw out three principal arguments or sophisms, on which they much insist. All which we shall, by the Lord's assistance, consider in their several order, with the places of Scripture brought to confirm and strengthen them.

I. The first whereof is taken from the word "world," and is thus proposed by them, to whom our poor pretenders are indeed very children: —

"He that is given out of the love wherewith God loved the world, as John iii. 16; that gave himself for the life of the world, as John vi. 51; and was a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, as 1 John ii. 2" (to which add, John i. 29, iv. 42; 2 Cor. v.19, cited by Armin. pp. 530, 531, and Corv. ad Molin. p. 442, chap. 29); "he was given and died for every man in the world; — but the first is true of Christ, as appears by the places before alleged: therefore he died for all and every one," Remon. Act. Synod. p. 300. And to this they say their adversaries have not any colour of answer.

But granting them the liberty of boasting, we flatly deny, without seeking for colours, the consequent of the first proposition, and will, by the Lord's help, at any time, put it to the trial whether we have not just cause so to do. There be two ways whereby they go about to prove this consequent from the world to all and every one; — first, By reason and the sense of the word; secondly, From the consideration of the particular places of Scripture urged. We will try them in both.

First, If they will make it out by the way of reasoning, I conceive they must argue thus: —

The whole world contains all and every man in the world; Christ died for the whole world: therefore, etc.

Ans. Here are manifestly four terms in this syllogism, arising from the ambiguity of the word "world," and so no true medium on which the weight of the conclusion should hang; the world, in the first proposition, being taken for the world containing; in the second, for the world contained, or men in the world, as is too apparent to be made a thing to be proved. So that unless ye render the conclusion, Therefore Christ died for that which contains all the men in the world, and assert in the assumption that Christ died for the world containing, or the fabric of the habitable earth (which is a frenzy), this syllogism is most sophistically false. If, then, ye will take any proof from the word "world," it must not be from the thing itself, but from the signification of the word in the Scripture; as thus: —

This word "world" in the Scripture signifieth all and every man in the world; but Christ is said to die for the world: ergo, etc.

Ans. The first proposition, concerning the signification and meaning of the word world is either universal, comprehending all places where it is used, or particular, intending only some. If the first, the proposition is apparently false, as was manifested before; if in the second way, then the argument must be thus formed: —

In some places in Scripture the word "world" signifieth all and every man in the world, of all ages, times, and conditions; but Christ is said to die for the world: ergo, etc.

Ans. That this syllogism is no better than the former is most evident, a universal conclusion being inferred from a particular proposition. But now the first proposition being rightly formed, I have one question to demand concerning the second, or the assumption, — namely, whether in every place where there is mention made of the death of Christ, it is said he died for the world, or only in some? If ye say in every place, that is apparently false, as hath been already discovered by those many texts of Scripture before produced, restraining the death of Christ to his elect, his sheep, his church, in comparison whereof these are but few. If the second, then the argument must run thus: —

In some few places of Scripture the word "world" doth signify all and every man in the world; but in some few places Christ is said to die for the world (though not in express words, yet in terms equivalent): ergo, etc.

Ans. This argument is so weak, ridiculous, and sophistically false, that it cannot but be evident to any one; and yet clearly, from the word world itself it will not be made any better, and none need desire that it should be worse. It concludes a universal upon particular affirmatives, and, besides, with four terms apparently in the syllogism; unless the some places in the first be proved to be the very some places in the assumption, which is the thing in question. So that if any strength be taken from this word, it must be an argument in this form: —

If the word "world" doth signify all and every man that ever were or shall be, in those places where Christ is said to die for the world, then Christ died for all and every man; but the word "world," in all those places where Christ is said to die for the world, doth signify all and every man in the world: therefore Christ died for them.

Ans. First, That it is but in one place said that Christ gave his life for the world, or died for it, which holds out the intention of our Saviour; all the other places seem only to hold out the sufficiency of his oblation for all, which we also maintain. Secondly, We absolutely deny the assumption, and appeal for trial to a consideration of all those particular places wherein such mention is made.

Thus have I called this argument to rule and measure, that it might be evident where the great strength of it lieth (which is indeed very weakness), and that for their sakes who, having caught hold of the word world, run presently away with the bait, as though all were clear for universal redemption; when yet, if ye desire them to lay out and manifest the strength of their reason, they know not what to say but the world and the whole world, understanding, indeed, neither what they say nor whereof they do affirm, And now, quid dignum tanto? what cause of the great boast mentioned in the entrance? A weaker argument, I dare say, was never by rational men produced in so weighty a cause; which will farther be manifested by the consideration of the several particular places produced to give it countenance, which we shall do in order: —

1. The first place we pitch upon is that which by our adversaries is first propounded, and not a little rested upon; and yet, notwithstanding their clamorous claim, there are not a few who think that very text as fit and ready to overthrow their whole opinion as Goliath's sword to cut off his own head, many unanswerable arguments against the universality of redemption: being easily deduced from the words of that text. The great peaceable King of his church guide us to make good the interest of truth to the place in controversy which through him we shall attempt; — first, by opening the words; and, secondly, by balancing of reasonings and arguments from them. And this place is John iii. 16, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

This place, I say, the Universalists exceedingly boast in; for which we are persuaded they have so little cause, that we doubt not but, with the Lord's assistance, to demonstrate that it is destructive to their whole defence: to which end I will give you, in brief; a double paraphrase of the words, the first containing their sense, the latter ours. Thus, then, our adversaries explain these words: — "‘God so loved,' had such a natural inclination, velleity, and propensity to the good of ‘the world,' Adam, with all and every one of his posterity, of all ages, times, and conditions (whereof some were in heaven, some in hell long before), ‘that he gave his only-begotten Son,' causing him to be incarnate in the fulness of time, to die, not with a purpose and resolution to save any, but ‘that whosoever,' what persons soever of those which he had propensity unto, ‘believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,' should have this fruit and issue, that he should escape death and hell, and live eternally." In which explication of the sense of the place these things are to be observed: — First, What is that love which was the cause of the sending or giving of Christ; which they make to be a natural propensity to the good of all. Secondly, Who are the objects of this love; all and every man of all generations. Thirdly, Wherein this giving consisteth; of which I cannot find whether they mean by it the appointment of Christ to be a recoverer, or his actual exhibition in the flesh for the accomplishment of his ministration. Fourthly, Whosoever, they make distributive of the persons in the world, and so not restrictive in the intention to some. Fifthly, That life eternal is the fruit obtained by believers, but not the end intended by God.

Now, look a little, in the second place, at what we conceive to be the mind of God in those words; whose aim we take to be the advancement, and setting forth of the free love of God to lost sinners, in sending Christ to procure for them eternal redemption, as may appear in this following paraphrase:

"‘God' the Father ‘so loved,' had such a peculiar, transcendent love, being an unchangeable purpose and act of his will concerning their salvation, towards ‘the world,' miserable, sinful, lost men of all sorts, not only Jews but Gentiles also, which he peculiarly loved, ‘that,' intending their salvation, as in the last words, for the praise of his glorious grace, ‘he gave,' he prepared a way to prevent their everlasting destruction, by appointing and sending ‘his only-begotten Son' to be an all-sufficient Saviour to all that look up unto him, ‘that whosoever believeth in Him,' all believers whatsoever, and only they, ‘should not perish, but have everlasting life,' and so effectually be brought to the obtaining of those glorious things through him which the Lord in his free love had designed for them."

In which enlargement of the words, for the setting forth of what we conceive to be the mind of the Holy Ghost in them, these things are to be observed: —

First, What we understand by the "love" of God, even that act of his will which was the cause of sending his Son Jesus Christ, being the most eminent act of love and favour to the creature; for love is velle alicui bonum, "to will good to any." And never did God will greater good to the creature than in appointing his Son for their redemption. Notwithstanding, I would have it observed that I do not make the purpose of sending or giving Christ to be absolutely subordinate to God's love to his elect, as though that were the end of the other absolutely, but rather that they are both coordinate to the same supreme end, or the manifestation of God's glory by the way of mercy tempered with justice; but in respect of our apprehension, that is the relation wherein they stand one to another. Now, this love we say to be that, greater than which there is none.

Secondly, By the "world," we understand the elect of God only, though not considered in this place as such, but under such a notion as, being true of them, serves for the farther exaltation of God's love towards them, which is the end here designed; and this is, as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in any nation, kindred, and language under heaven.

Thirdly, Ina pas o pisteuwn, is to us, "that every believer," and is declarative of the intention of God in sending or giving his Son, containing no distribution of the world beloved, but a direction to the persons whose good was intended, that love being an unchangeable intention of the chiefest good.

Fourthly, "Should not perish, but have life everlasting," contains an expression of the particular aim and intention of God in this business; which is, the certain salvation of believers by Christ. And this, in general, is the interpretation of the words which we adhere unto, which will yield us sundry arguments, sufficient each of them to evert the general ransom; which, that they may be the better bottomed, and the more clearly convincing, we will lay down and compare the several words and expressions of this place, about whose interpretation we differ, with the reason of our rejecting the one sense and embracing the other: —

The first difference in the interpretation of this place is about the cause of sending Christ; called here love. The second, about the object of this love; called here the world. Thirdly, Concerning the intention of God in sending his Son; said to be that believers might be saved.

For the First; By "love" in this place, all our adversaries agree that a natural affection and propensity in God to the good of the creature, lost under sin, in general, which moved him to take some way whereby it might possibly be remedied, is intended. We, on the contrary, say that by love here is not meant an inclination or propensity of his nature, but an act of his will (where we conceive his love to be seated), and eternal purpose to do good to man, being the most transcendent and eminent act of God's love to the creature.

That both these may be weighed, to see which is most agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost, I shall give you, first, some of the reasons whereby we oppose the former interpretation; and, secondly, those whereby we confirm our own.

First, If no natural affection, whereby he should necessarily be carried to any thing without himself; can or ought to be ascribed unto God, then no such thing is here intended in the .word love; for that cannot be here intended which is not in God at all. But now, that there neither is nor can be any such natural affection in God is most apparent, and may be evidenced by many demonstrations. I shall briefly recount a few of them: — First, Nothing that includes any imperfection is to be assigned to Almighty God: he is God all-sufficient; he is our rock, and His work is perfect. But a natural affection in God to the good and salvation of all, being never completed nor perfected, carrieth along with it a great deal of imperfection and weakness; and not only so, but it must also needs be exceedingly prejudicial to the absolute blessedness and happiness of Almighty God. Look, how much any thing wants of the fulfilling of that whereunto it is carried out with any desire, natural or voluntary, so much it wanteth of blessedness and happiness. So that, without impairing of the infinite blessedness of the ever-blessed God, no natural affection unto any thing never to be accomplished can be ascribed unto him, such as this general love to all is supposed to be.

Secondly, If the Lord hath such a natural affection to all, as to love them so far as to send his Son to die for them, whence is it that this affection of his doth not receive accomplishment? whence is it that it is hindered, and doth not produce its effects? why doth not the Lord engage his power for the fulfilling of his desire? "It doth not seem good to his infinite wisdom," say they, "so to do." Then is there an affection in God to that which, in his wisdom, he cannot prosecute. This among the sons of men, the worms of' the earth, would be called a brutish affection.

Thirdly, No affection or natural propensity to good is to be ascribed to God which the Scripture nowhere assigns to him, and is contrary to what the Scripture doth assign unto him. Now, the Scripture doth nowhere assign unto God any natural affection whereby he should be naturally inclined to the good of the creature; the place to prove it clearly is yet to be produced. And that it is contrary to what the Scripture assigns him is apparent; for it describes him to be free in showing mercy, every act of it being by him performed freely, even as he pleaseth, for "he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy." Now, if every act of mercy showed unto any do proceed from the free distinguishing will of God (as is apparent), certainly there can be in him no such natural affection. And the truth is, if the Lord should not show mercy, and be carried out towards the creature, merely upon his own distinguishing will, but should naturally be moved to show mercy to the miserable, he should, first, be no more merciful to men than to devils, nor, secondly, to those that are saved than to those that are damned: for that which is natural must be equal in all its operations; and that which is natural to God must be eternal. Many more effectual reasons are produced by our divines for the denial of this natural affection in God, in the resolution of the Arminian distinction (I call it so, as now by them abused) of God's antecedent and consequent will, to whom the learned reader may repair for satisfaction. So that the love mentioned in this place is not that natural affection to all in general, which is not But, —

Secondly, It is the special love of God to his elect, as we affirm, and so, consequently, not any such thing as our adversaries suppose to be intended by it, — namely, a velleity or natural inclination to the good of all. For,—

First, The love here intimated is absolutely the most eminent and transcendent love that ever God showed or bare towards any miserable creature; yea, the intention of our Saviour is so to set it forth, as is apparent by the emphatical expression of it used in this place. The particles "so," "that," declare no less, pointing out an eximiousness peculiarly remarkable in the thing whereof the affirmation is [made], above any other thing in the same kind. Expositors usually lay weight upon almost every particular word of the verse, for the exaltation and demonstration of the love here mentioned. "So," that is, in such a degree, to such a remarkable, astonishable height: "God," the glorious, all-sufficient God, that could have manifested his justice to eternity in the condemnation of all sinners, and no way wanted them to be partakers of his blessedness: "loved," with such an earnest, intents affection, consisting in an eternal, unchangeable act and purpose of his will, for the bestowing of the chiefest good (the choicest effectual love): "the world," men in the world, of the world, subject to the iniquities and miseries of the world, lying in their blood, having nothing to render them commendable in his eyes, or before him: "that he gave," did not, as he made all the world at first, speak the word and it was done, but proceeded higher, to the performance of a great deal more and longer work, wherein he was to do more than exercise an act of his almighty power, as before; and therefore gave "his Son;" not any favourite or other well-pleasing creature; not sun, moon, or stars; not the rich treasure of his creation (all too mean, and coming short of expressing this love); but his Son: "begotten Son," and that not so called by reason of some near approaches to him, and filial, obediential reverence of him, as the angels are called the sons of God; for it was not an angel that he gave, which yet had been an expression of most intense love; nor yet any son by adoption, as believers are the sons of God; but his begotten Son, begotten of his own person from eternity; and that "his only-begotten Son;" not any one of his sons, but whereas he had or hath but one only-begotten Son, always in his bosom, his Isaac, he gave him: — than which how could the infinite wisdom of God make or give any higher testimony of his love? especially if ye will add what is here evidently included, though the time was not as yet come that it should be openly expressed, namely, whereunto he gave his Son, his only one; not to be a king, and worshipped in the first place, — but he "spared him not, but delivered him up" to death "for us all," Rom. viii. 32. Whereunto, for a close of all, cast your eyes upon his design and purpose in this whole business, and ye shall find that it was that believers, those whom he thus loved, "might not perish," — that is, undergo the utmost misery and wrath to eternity, which they had deserved — "but have everlasting life," eternal glory with himself; which of themselves they could no way attain; and ye will easily grant that "greater love hath no man than this." Now, if the love here mentioned be the greatest, highest, and chiefest of all, certainly it cannot be that common affection towards all that we discussed before; for the love whereby men are actually and eternally saved is greater than that which may consist with the perishing of men to eternity.

Secondly, The Scripture positively asserts this very love as the chiefest act of the love of God, and that which he would have us take notice of in the first place: Rom. v. 8, "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us;" and fully, 1 John iv. 9, 10, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." In both which places the eminency of this love is set forth exceeding emphatically to believers, with such expressions as can no way be accommodated to a natural velleity to the good of all.

Thirdly, That seeing all love in God is but velle alicui bonum, to will good to them that are beloved, they certainly are the object of his love to whom he intends that good which is the issue and effect of that love; but now the issue of this love or good intended, being not perishing, and obtaining eternal life through Christ, happens alone to, and is bestowed on, only elect believers: therefore, they certainly are the object of this love, and they alone; — which was the thing we had to declare.

Fourthly, That love which is the cause of giving Christ is also always the cause of the bestowing of all other good things: Rom. viii. 32, "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" Therefore, if the love there mentioned be the cause of sending Christ, as it is, it must also cause all other things to be given with him, and so can be towards none but those who have those things bestowed on them; which are only the elect, only believers. Who else have grace here, or glory hereafter?

Fifthly, The word here, which is hgapho", signifieth, in its native importance, valde dilexit, — to love so as to rest in that love; which how it can stand with hatred, and an eternal purpose of not bestowing effectual grace, which is in the Lord towards some, will not easily be made apparent. And now let the Christian reader judge, whether by the love of God, in this place mentioned, be to be understood a natural velleity or inclination in God to the good of all, both elect and reprobate, or the peculiar love of God to his elect, being the fountain of the chiefest good that ever was bestowed on the sons of men. This is the first difference about the interpretation of these words.

SECONDLY, The second thing controverted is the object of this love, pressed by the word "world;" which our adversaries would have to signify all and every man; we, the elect of God scattered abroad in the world, with a tacit opposition to the nation of the Jews, who alone, excluding all other nations (some few proselytes excepted), before the actual exhibition of Christ in the flesh, had all the benefits of the promises appropriated to them, Rom. ix. 4; in which privilege now all nations were to have an equal share. To confirm the exposition of the word as used by the Universalists, nothing of weight, that ever yet I could see, is brought forth, but only the word itself; for neither the love mentioned in the beginning, nor the design pointed at in the end of the verse, will possibly agree with the sense which they impose on that word in the middle. Beside; how weak and infirm an inference from the word world, by reason of its ambiguous and wonderful various acceptations, is, we have at large declared before.

Three poor shifts I find in the great champions of this course, to prove that the word world doth not signify the elect. Justly we might have expected some reasons to prove that it signified or implied all and every man in the world, which was their own assertion; but of this ye have a deep silence, being conscious, no doubt, of their disability for any such performance. Only, as I said, three pretended arguments they bring to disprove that which none went about to prove, — namely, that by the world is meant the elect as such; for though we conceive the persons here designed directly men in and of the world, to be all and only God's elect, yet we do not say that they are here so considered, but rather under another notion, as men scattered over all the world, in themselves subject to misery and sin. So that whosoever will oppose our exposition of this place must either, first, prove that by the world here must be necessarily understood all and every man in the world; or, secondly, that it cannot be taken indefinitely for men in the world which materially are elect, though not considered under that formality. So that all those vain flourishes which some men make with these word; by putting the word elect into the room of the word world; and then coining absurd consequences, are quite beside the business in hand. Yet, farther, we deny that by a supply of the word elect into the text any absurdity or untruth will justly follow. Yea, and that flourish which is usually so made is but a bugbear to frighten weak ones; for, suppose we should read it thus, "God so loved the elect, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish," what inconvenience will now follow? "Why," say they, "that some of the elect, whom God so loved as to send his Son for, may perish." Why, I pray? Is it because he sent his Son that they might not perish? or what other cause? "No; but because it is said, that whosoever of them believeth on him should not perish; which intimates that some of them might not believe." Very good! But where is any such intimation? God designs the salvation of all them in express words for whom he sends his Son; and certainly all that shall be saved shall believe. But it is in the word whosoever, which is distributive of the world into those that believe and those that believe not. Ans. First, If this word whosoever be distributive, then it is restrictive of the love of God to some, and not to others, — to one part of the distribution, and not to the other. And if it do not restrain the love of God, intending the salvation of some, then it is not distributive of the fore-mentioned object of it; and if it do restrain it, then all are not intended in the love which moved God to give his Son. Secondly, I deny that the word here is distributive of the object of God's love, but only declarative of his end and aim in giving Christ in the pursuit of that love, — to wit, that all believers might be saved. So that the sense is, "God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave his Son with this intention, that by him believers might be saved." And this is all that is by any (besides a few worthless cavils) objected from this place to disprove our interpretation; which we shall now confirm both positively and negatively: —

First, Our first reason is taken from what was before proved concerning the nature of that love which is here said to have the world for its object, which cannot be extended to all and every one in the world, as will be confessed by all. Now, such is the world, here, as is beloved with that love which we have here described, and proved to be here intended: — even such a love as is, first, the most transcendent and remarkable; secondly, an eternal act of the will of God; thirdly, the cause of sending Christ; fourthly, of giving all good things in and with him; fifthly, an assured fountain and spring of salvation to all beloved with it. So that the world beloved with this love cannot possibly be all and every one in the world.

Secondly, The word world in the next verse, which carries along the sense of this, and is a continuation of the same matter, being a discovery of the intention of God in giving his Son, must needs signify the elect and believers, at least only those who in the event are saved; therefore so also in this. It is true, the word world is three times used in that verse in a dissonant sense, by an inversion not unusual in the Scripture, as was before declared. It is the latter place that this hath reference to, and is of the same signification with the world in verse 16, "That the world through him might be saved," — ina swqh, "that it should be saved." It discovers the aim, purpose, and intention of God, what it was towards the world that he so loved, even its salvation. Now, if this be understood of any but believers, God fails of his aim and intention, which as yet we dare not grant.

Thirdly, It is not unusual with the Scripture to call God's chosen people by the name of the world, as also of all flesh, all nations, all families of the earth, and the like general expressions; and therefore no wonder if here they are so called, the intention of the place being to exalt and magnify the love of God towards them, which receives no small advancement from their being every way a world. So are they termed where Christ is said to be their Saviour, John iv. 42; which certainly he is only of them who are saved. A Saviour of men not saved is strange. Also John vi. 51, where he is said to give himself for their life. Clearly, verse 33 of the same chapter, he "giveth life unto the world:" which whether it be any but his elect let all men judge; for Christ himself affirms that he gives life only to his "sheep," and that those to whom he gives life "shall never perish," chap. x. 27, 28. So Rom. iv. 13, Abraham is said by faith to be "heir of the world;" who, verse 11, is called to be father of the faithful. And Rom. xi. 12, the fall of the Jews is said to be "the riches of the world;" which world compriseth only believers of all sorts in the world, as the apostle affirmed that the word bare fruit "in all the world," Col. i. 6. This is that "world" which "God reconcileth to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them," 2 Cor. v.19; which is attended with blessedness in all them to whom that non-imputation belongeth, Rom. iv. 8. And for divers evident reasons is it that they have this appellation; as, — First, to distinguish the object of this love of God from the nature angelical, which utterly perished in all the fallen individuals; which the Scripture also carefully doth in express terms, Heb. ii. 16, and by calling this love of God filanqrwpia, Titus iii. 4. Secondly, To evert and reject the boasting of the Jews, as though all the means of grace and all the benefits intended were to them appropriated. Thirdly, To denote that great difference and distinction between the old administration of the covenant, when it was tied up to one people, family, and nation, and the new, when all boundaries being broken up, the fulness of the Gentiles and the corners of the world were to be made obedient to the sceptre of Christ. Fourthly, To manifest the condition of the elect themselves, who are thus beloved, for the declaration of the free grace of God towards them, they being divested of all qualifications but only those that bespeak them terrene, earthly, lost, miserable, corrupted. So that thus much at least may easily be obtained, that from the word itself nothing can be opposed justly to our exposition of this place, as hath been already declared, and shall be farther made manifest.

Fourthly, If every one in the world be intended, why doth not the Lord, in the pursuit of this love, reveal Jesus Christ. to every one whom he so loved? Strange! that the Lord should so love men as to give his only-begotten Son for them, and yet not once by any means signify this his love to them, as to innumerable he doth not! — that he should love them, and yet order things so, in his wise dispensation, that this love should be altogether in vain and fruitless! — love them, and yet determine that they shall receive no good by his love, though his love indeed be a willing of the greatest good to them!

Fifthly, Unless ye will grant, — first, Some to be beloved and hated also from eternity; secondly, The love of God towards innumerable to be fruitless and vain; thirdly, The Son of God to be given to them who, first, never hear word of him; secondly, have no power granted to believe in him; fourthly, That God is mutable in his love, or else still loveth those that be in hell; fifthly; That he doth not give all things to them to whom he gives his Son, contrary to Rom. viii. 32; sixthly, That he knows not certainly beforehand who shall believe and be saved; — unless, I say, all these blasphemies and absurdities be granted, it cannot be maintained that by the world here is meant all and every one of mankind, but only men in common scattered throughout the world, which are the elect.

The THIRD difference about these words is, concerning the means whereby this love of the Father, whose object is said to be the world is made out unto them. Now, this is by believing, ina o pisteuwn, — "that whosoever believeth," or "that every believer." The intention of these words we take to be, the designing or manifesting of the way whereby the elect of God come to be partakers of the fruits of the love here set forth, — namely, by faith in Christ, God having appointed that for the only way whereby he will communicate unto us the life that is in his Son. To this something was said before, having proved that the term whosoever is not distributive of the object of the love of God; to which, also, we may add these following reasons:— First, If the object be here restrained, so that some only believe and are saved of them for whose sake Christ is sent, then this restriction and determination of the fruits of this love dependeth on the will of God, or on the persons themselves. If on the persons themselves, then make they themselves to differ from others; contrary to 1 Cor. iv. 7. If on the will Of God, then you make the sense of the place, as to this particular, to be, "God so loved all as that but some of them should partake of the fruits of his love." To what end, then, I pray, did he love those other some? Is not this, "Out with the sword, and run the dragon through with the spear?"

Secondly, Seeing that those words, that whosoever believeth, do peculiarly point out the aim and intention of God in this business, if it do restrain the object beloved, then the salvation of believers is confessedly the aim of God in this business, and that distinguished from others; and if so, the general ransom is an empty sound, having no dependence on the purpose of God, his intention being carried out in the giving of his Son only to the salvation of believers, and that determinately, unless you will assign unto him a nescience of them that should believe.

These words, then, whosoever believeth, containing a designation of the means whereby the Lord will bring us to a participation of life through his Son, whom he gave for us; and the following words, of having life everlasting, making out the whole counsel of God in this matter, subordinate to his own glory; it followeth, — That God gave not his Son, — 1. For them who never do believe; 2. Much less for them who never hear of him, and so evidently want means of faith; 3. For them on whom he hath determined not to bestow effectual grace, that they might believe.

Let now the reader take up the several parts of these opposite expositions, weigh all, try all things, especially that which is especially to be considered, the love of God, and so inquire seriously whether it be only a general affection, and a natural velleity to the good of all, which may stand with the perishing of all and every one so beloved, or the peculiar, transcendent love of the Father to his elect, as before laid down; and then determine whether a general ransom, fruitless in respect of the most for whom it was paid, or the effectual redemption of the elect only, have the firmest and strongest foundation in these words of our Saviour; withal remembering that they are produced as the strongest supportment of the adverse cause, with which, it is most apparent, both the cause of sending Christ and the end intended by the Lord in so doing, as they are here expressed, are altogether inconsistent.

This article is taken from John Owen's magnificent work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, (Book IV, Chapter II) of the Banner of Truth edition: London, 1963.

John Owen

John Owen (1616-1683), is unquestionably one of the greatest Puritan divines. Owen was actively involved in political affairs, and during the Protectorate was at the head of Oxford University. He was appointed dean of Christ Church in 1651 and Vice Chancellor of the University in 1652. In 1653 he was awarded the D.D. by Oxford. 

https://reformedperspectives.org/

God's Anatomy Upon Man's Heart (Thomas Watson, 1620-1686)

 

Hebrews 4:13

“Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.”

We have met this day to humble our souls, and to bring our censer, as once Aaron did, and step in—that the wrath of the great God may be appeased. And was there ever more need to lie in sackcloth, than when the kingdom almost lies in ashes? or to shed tears, than when this nation has shed so much blood? These days are called in scripture, Soul-afflicting days, Lev. 23:9. “For whatever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.” And certainly that may be one reason why there is so much state-affliction, because there is so little soul-affliction. Our condition is low, but our hearts are high in pride. God sees with what hearts we now come, what is our spring, what our center; his eye is upon us. So says my text, “All things are naked and open.”

We have here a map of God’s knowledge. But before I extract anything, I will first open the terms. In the law, first the lamps were lighted before the incense was burned: I may allude, first the judgment is to be enlightened by doctrine, before the affections are set on fire. Ministers must be first shining—and then burning lamps.

“All things are naked.” It is a metaphor from the taking off the skin of any beast, which does then appear naked. Thus our hearts are said to be naked; they lie open to the eye of God, they have no covering; there is no veil over the heart of a sinner, but the veil of unbelief; and this covering makes him naked.

This is not all, the apostle goes higher: they are naked and open. It alludes to the cutting up of the sacrifices under the law, where the priest cut the beast in pieces, and so the inward parts, were made visible. Or it may allude to an anatomy, where there is a dissection and cutting up of every part, the mesentery, the liver, the arteries. Such a kind of anatomy, does God make—a heart-anatomy. He cuts open and dissects the thoughts and motives of the heart. He makes a dissection, as the knife that divides between the flesh and the bones, the bones and the marrow, the sinews and the veins. “All things are open;” they are cut open for his inspection.

The next word is all things. There is nothing which escapes his eye: and herein God’s knowledge does infinitely differ from ours. We cannot see in the dark, nor can we see many things at once. But it is not so with him. There is nothing so deep, but God will bring it above-board, “who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness.” He sees many things at once—just as if there were only one thing to view.

The eyes of Him. Eyes are ascribed to God, not properly, but metaphorically. Idols have eyes—“yet they see not.” God has no eyes—yet he sees. The eye of God is put in scripture for his knowledge; all things are naked to his eye, that is, they are obvious to his knowledge. We cannot sin, but it must be in the face of our Judge!

The last word is, With whom we have to do. That is—to whom we must give an account. To whom we must be responsible. The words thus opened fall into these parts

Here is the Judge— that is God.
The matter of fact— All things.
The evidence given in— All things are naked.
The clearness of the evidence— Naked and open.
The witnesses— his eyes.
The persons to be adjudged either for life or death, “we”—that is, every individual person. There are none excepted from this general assize. With whom we have to do.

The proposition I shall dilate on is this:

Doctrine. That the most secret designs of man’s heart are all unlocked and clearly anatomized before the Lord.

I might produce a whole cloud of witnesses, giving in their full vote and agreement to this truth. I shall rest in two or three, that in the mouth of three witnesses this great truth may be established.

“He knows the secrets of the heart,” Psalm 42.21. in the original it is, the hidden things of the heart—those which are most veiled and masked from human perception.

And Psalm 139.2. “You know my thoughts afar off.” Here are two words that set out the infiniteness of God’s knowledge.

1. You know my thoughts, there is nothing which can be so secret—as a thought.

First, For its subtlety (secrecy), it is called “the imagination of the thought,” Gen. 6:5. or, as the word may bear, the first embryo and forming of the thought, that is, a thing very subtle, and scarce discernable.

Secondly, For its celerity (quickness), our thoughts are winged, like the cherubim, they will in an instant travel over the world. They are `swifter than eagles,” 2 Sam. 1.23. But he who rides upon the swift cloud can overtake them—he can out-march them.

Thirdly, For its complexity: our thoughts are snarled and tangled one with another; yet even these thoughts are known to God, and set in their proper sphere. What David says of his members, may be said of our thoughts, “Are they not all written in your book?”

2. Afar off, that is,

1. God knows our thoughts before we ourselves know them! He knows what designs are in the heart, and which men would certainly pursue—did not God turn the wheel another way. God knew what was in Herod’s mind before Herod himself knew it, namely, that he would have destroyed the child Jesus. God knew his thoughts afar off—he sees what blood and venom is in the heart of a sinner, though it never comes to have vent. He looks at the intention—though it is never put in execution.

2. Afar off; that is, God knows our thoughts when we have forgotten them! They are afar off to us—but they are present with him. “These things have you done, and I kept silence: you thought I was such an one as yourself.” That is, you thought that I had a weak memory, “but I will reprove you, and set your sins in order before you,” Psalm 50.21. Millions of years are but as a short parenthesis to God. That we may not think God forgets—he keeps a book of records, Rev. 20.12. “I saw the dead, small and great, stand before the Lord, and the books were opened:” God writes down, “Item—such a sin.” And if the sins on the book be not discharged, there will be an heavy reckoning! To every believer, the debt-book of sins is crossed out; the black lines of sin are crossed out in the red lines of Christ’s blood!

To instance in one scripture more, “Even in darkness I cannot hide from you. To you the night shines as bright as day. Darkness and light are both alike to you,” Psalm 139.12. The clouds are no canopy; the night is no curtain to draw between, or to hide from his all-seeing eye. We cannot write our sins in so small or strange a character, but God can read them—he has a key to unravel them. He understands our hearts without our permission; he is privy to all our treachery! We cannot climb so high—but he sees us; we cannot dig so low—but he takes notice. The men of Babel were climbing very high, they would make a city and tower, the top whereof should reach to heaven, and so indeed it did, for God saw them all the while: and what became of it? “He confused their language,” Gen. 11.7,8. Achan digs deep to hide his counsels, saying, “No eye shall see me!” He takes the Babylonish garment, and hides it in the earth, with the wedge of gold; but God unmasks his thievery! Josh. 7.12.

If there are any here, that when they should have been doing God’s work, have been by stealth hiding the Babylonish garment, making themselves rich, feathering their own nests; who, instead of driving in nails into God’s temple to fasten it, have been driving a wedge of gold into their chests—God sees it! Let me tell you—God has a window which looks into your hearts! God is the great superintendent; we come into the world as upon a theater, every man acts his part or scene; God is both the Spectator and the Judge.

You have seen the Doctrine proved.

For the amplification, let us consider what the knowledge of God is. It is a most pure act by which he does at one instant know all things past, present, and to come—in a most perfect, exquisite, and infallible manner.

How does God know all things?

Reason 1. From his creation. God is the Father of lights, therefore must needs see. It is his own argument, “He who planted the ear, shall he not hear? he who formed the eye, shall he not see,” Psalm 94.9. He who makes a watch, knows all the pins and wheels in it; and though these wheels move contrary one to another, he knows the true and perfect motion of the watch, and the spring which sets these wheels a going. “He who formed the eye, shall he not see?” Man may be compared to a spiritual watch. The affections are the wheels; the heart is the spring; the motion of this watch is false; the heart is deceitful. But God who made this watch knows the true motion of it (be it ever so false) and the springs which set the wheels a going. God knows us better than we know ourselves! He is as Ezekiel’s wheels—full of eyes! Augustine says, “God is all eye!”

Reason 2. From his Ubiquity. He is omniscient, because he is omnipresent, Jer. 23.24. “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” He excluded from nowhere; yet he is not bound in any one place. His circumference is everywhere. God has an eye in every council. He makes an heart-anatomy; he sees what men’s designs are, and where they are driving. If hatred wears the livery of friendship; if ambition comes masked with humility; if religion is made a stirrup to get into the saddle of advancement—God sees it. “And though they dig into hell, from thence shall my hand take them,” Amos 9.2. God can unlock hell.

God observes all our actings, but he himself is not seen, as the apostle argues, 1 Tim. 6.16. Man may be circumscribed, the angels may be defined—but God is in every place. His center is everywhere, and his eye is ever in his center.

Objection. 1. But is it not said, Gen. 18.21. “I will go down and see whether it be done altogether according to the cry?”

Answer. It could not be that God was ignorant; because there is mention made of a cry. This is spoken after the manner of a judge, who will first examine the cause before he will pass the sentence. Therefore, to answer that scripture, “I will go down and see,” it implies two things:

First, The close examination which God uses when he is upon a work of justice; God does not make the sword the judge. He first weighs things in the balance; he always lays judgment to the line, before he draws the line of judgment. God, when he is upon a work of justice, is not in a rush, as if he did not care where he hits, but goes in the way of close examination against offenders. “I will go down and see;” he does not punish rashly. This is a good hint to those who have power in their hand, they must work by line and plummet, judging the cause rather than the person; they must proceed in righteousness; else seeming zeal is no better than wild-fire; it is not justice, but violence.

Secondly, “I will go down and see.” This denotes God’s patience in waiting for sinners; he staid until the cry came up. God puts up with a great deal of injury at our hands, before justice draws the sword. He spins out mercy into patience, and ekes out patience into long-suffering. Oh! had not God’s patience been infinite, we would have exhausted it. But let no sinner presume. Though God is long-suffering, he does not tell us how long. When the cry comes up—God comes down. If pride, lust, oppression abound, God will hear the cry, and will quench the fire of sin with a shower of blood!

Objection. 2. Zeph. 2.1. “I will search Jerusalem with candles.” Implying, that something is hidden from his sight.

Answer. Not that God needs any candles to see by. This candle is not for him to see by, but for us. Therefore this searching implies two things:

First, The exactness of God’s knowledge: he has such a deep insight as usually men have upon search. (2.) God threatens to search, because he would have us search. Lam. 3.40. “Let us test and examine our ways. Let us turn again in repentance to the Lord.” God’s searchers are now abroad, his judgments; let us find out our sins, or else our sins will find us out.

Use 1. Information. And this has two branches.

Branch 1. “What manner of people ought we to be?” Has God a window which opens into our hearts? Does he make a close examination upon our actions? Oh what holiness, what sincerity, what exemplary piety befits us—being in such a presence! Were we to come before some great monarch, what solemn preparations would we make? Shall the eye of a king do so much, and not the eye of God? The king can only see the outside; there may be a treason within, for anything he knows. But God has a key for the heart, Jer. 17.10. “I the Lord search the heart!” Will not this command reverence?

In these days of solemn humiliation, God’s eye is principally upon the heart. God looks there most, where we look least; some have no heart at all; sin has stolen away their heart; others have a double heart, Psalm 12.2. Others have hearts good for nothing, earthly hearts, like “Saul that was hidden among the stuff,” 1 Sam. 10.22. Some have angels tongues, but, as Nebuchadnezzar he had the heart of a beast given to him. Brethren, did our hearts stand where our faces do, open to everyone—this would be a day of blushing, we would be ashamed to look one upon another! Remember, God has a key for the heart.

When we come to these solemn duties, God asks that question, as Jehu did Jehonadab, 2 Kings 10.15. He greeted him, and said to him, “Is your heart one with mine?” “Yes, it is—Jehonadab replied.” “If you are,” Jehu said, “then give me your hand.” So Jehonadab put out his hand, and Jehu helped him into the chariot.”

This is God’s question. You come this day to humble yourselves and make atonement, but “Is your heart one with God’s?” If we can answer as he did, “Lord, you know it is; though I have much weakness, yet my heart is right, I have no false bias upon it. Though I am not perfect, I hope I am sincere;” then will God say, “Give me your prayers, give me your tears, come up with me into the chariot.” A tear from a bleeding heart is a precious perfume in heaven. Oh did we consider this all-seeing eye, we dared not bring so much strange fire into the Divine presence! We read of Ezekiel’s wheels, they had a wheel within a wheel. Thus God has a thought within a thought: he comes between us and our thoughts.

The goddess Minerva, as the Poets feign, was drawn in such lively colors, that which way soever one turned, still Minerva’s eye was upon him. Thus, turn which way you will—fall in love with any sin—still God looks upon you! He has an eye in your heart. What kind of people ought we to be?

Branch 2. Of how dangerous consequence is it to act anything against God? He sees it, and his knowledge is armed with power! He who has an eye to see—will find an hand to punish! If there are any designs against God, though carried on ever so subtlety, remember there is a council of war which sits in heaven.

“Against God?” will some say. “By no means.”

There are four things; and if we act either directly or indirectly against any of these, we act against God, and he sees it; he writes it down.

1. First, if we act against his Truth, we act against God. Truth is a beam of God, it is his essence; it is the most orient pearl of his crown. Take away his truth, and we ungod him. Truth is the precious seed by which we are begotten to life; it is the pillar of our salvation. Truth is not only the rule of faith, but it is the root out of which faith grows. Take away truth, and what is faith, but fancy? We would only be believing ourselves into hell. Truth is the great purchase of Christ’s blood, and it has been transmitted to us in the blood of many saints and martyrs. If we strike at truth, we strike at God; and does not God see this?

Give me permission to plead in God’s cause. Is not this pure wine of truth, mixed with water, nay, with poison? How are the truths of God, almost lost in the crowd of errors? Most truths of God’s Word, are now called in question? some denying the scriptures, others denying the Lord who bought them; not only the foundations of the earth are out of course, but even the foundations of scripture are shaken. We read that, when the bottomless pit was opened, there arose a smoke as the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened. The late errors sprung out of the furnace of hell, have made such a smoke and mist in the church of God, that the bright sun of truth is much eclipsed in our horizon. How many religions are there now among us, and every day in a new dress? They are but old heresies, newly vamped. Our Savior says, “If the son of man comes, shall he find faith on the earth?” Yes surely, he may now find many faiths; so many men—almost so many faiths! These things are done, are they not countenanced? God sees! Silence, when truth is wounded, is a great sin!

2. Secondly, We act against God, when we act against his Covenant. The covenant is a serious thing. Let us look upon our solemn league and covenant; I tremble when I read it: we covenanted not only against prelacy but popery; not only against hierarchy, but heresy; not only sin, but schism. And have we not gone against the letter of it? how is the covenant slighted by some as an almanac out of date? Those who once lifted up their hand to it, do now lift up their heel against it. We have begun to play fast and loose with God, and for a trifle will venture the curse of the covenant, “But they like men have transgressed the covenant,” Hos. 6.7. Or as in the Hebrew, They like Adam; how is that? for a poor apple; so for a trifle, a penny in the shop, men will set their covenant and conscience to sale. God sees this; hear what he says, “I will bring a sword, which shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant!” Lev. 26.25. Covenant-violation is a high affronting sin, and an affront will make God draw his sword! We set our hand and seal to the covenant, and then to tore off the seal! If the covenant will not hold us—God has chains which will!

That which enhances the sin is, it must needs be against light; it is to be presupposed no man would take a covenant blindfold: either he was informed, or else might have been. This is that which dyes the sin in grain! Take any sin, put it in the scales, and put in this weight with it, that before, and when it was done—it was against clear knowledge. This circumstance is as much as the sin itself; though it be but one sin, it weighs as much as two.

The covenant is a marriage knot; for a woman to go away from her husband after solemn contract, is sin of an high nature. The covenant is a girdle or golden clasp, which binds us to God, and God to us. The girdle in ancient times was an emblem of chastity. When the covenant is broken, the church loses her virginity. Israel was a people espoused to God in covenant; but having stained this federal relation by idolatry, (a sin that directly cuts asunder the marriage-knot) God gives her a bill of divorce. Says he, “she is not my wife!” Hosea 2.2.

The Scythians had a law, that if any man did bind two sins together, a lie and an oath, he was to lose his head, because this was the way to take away all faith and truth among men. If all liars and perjurers in this age should come to trial, I think we should scarcely find men enough to bring them to the bar!

3. We act against God when we act against his ambassadors. I mean not such as have stolen into the priests’ office, such as are gone out, 1 John 4.1; not sent out—they are gone without God’s commission. But such as are in a scripture method instituted into this holy ministry; he who acts against these, acts against God! Remember God sees, he writes it down! Whatever injury is done to the ambassador, the King takes as done to his own person! So says Christ, “He who despises you, despises me.” What a black veil is drawn over the face of the ministry? Let me plead with you: God might have come in his own person, and have preached to you in flames, as when he once delivered the law upon mount Sinai; but then you would have said, “Oh let not God speak, lest we die; let Moses speak!” God might have preached to you in the ministry of angels, but you would not have been able to bear it: “God is not in the fire, nor in the earthquake, but in the still small voice.” 1 Kings 19.11,12. He is pleased, in a sweet kind of humility, to send his ambassadors, and he puts an olive-branch in their mouth; they woo and beseech, in all in the affections of Christ; will not love conquer?

This nation has discarded the bread of life. When God sees his mercies lying on the floor, it is just with him to call to the enemy to take them away. I heartily pray that plenty of ordinances does not as much hurt in this city, as famine has done in other places of the land; and if we once say, “what is this manna?” it would be no wonder if we begin to say, “who is this Moses?” Oh what a sad change is there in our days! Those that once would have counted our feet beautiful, who would have been ready to have pulled out their eyes for their minister, are now ready to pull out their minister’s eyes! And what is the quarrel? even this, “Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”

If ministers would preach smooth things, make the way to heaven easier than ever Christ made it, then they would be admired. (You have more people gaze at a Comet or shooting star, than at the sun.) But if they come to lay the ax of the law to the root of conscience; if they fall a hewing and cutting down men’s sins, “The land is not able to bear their words.” If the prophet goes to tell king Asa of his great sin in joining with a wicked army; “Herein you have done foolishly.” if he goes about to imprison his sin, he himself shall be imprisoned. “Asa became so angry with Hanani for saying this that he threw him into prison.” This was Jerusalem’s sin, and it drew tears from Christ; “O Jerusalem, you who stone the prophets!” Mat. 23. And she stoned them so long—until she had not one stone left upon another.

Those that would annihilate the ministry—try to pull the stars out of Christ’s hand; and they will find it a work not feasible; it will fare with them as with the eagle, that going to fetch a piece of flesh from the altar, a coal sticking to her feathers, she burnt herself and the young ones in the nest. 2 Chron. 36.16, “They mocked the messengers of God, and misused his prophets, until there was no remedy.”

4. We act against God, when we act against that order and government which he has set up in his church. God is the God of order, he has set everything in its proper sphere. The order and harmony of the world does consist in degrees, one thing still above another. For there can be no music, if all the sounds are alike. In nature, the sun is commander in chief among the planets. Thus in the body politic, God has set kings, nobles, judges, still in a descent; and this makes the harmony. And these powers are of God, Romans 13.1. “The powers that be, are of God.” Magistracy is the hedge of a nation, “And he who breaks an hedge, a serpent shall bite him.”

Use 2. Reproof. Here is a just impeachment against two sorts of people.

Branch 1. The LIBERTINE. And there are two kinds of them.

First, The profane libertine, who fabricates a God made up of mercy; and therefore he engulfs himself in sin, he is upon the spur to go to hell, as if he were afraid hell would be full before he could get there. He says, “God shall not see!”

Secondly, The religious libertine, who sins because grace abounds. He says, “God sees no sin in his people. After we are in Christ, we cannot sin; therefore repentance is out of date.” Whom I shall refute in two ways.

1. There must be repentance after we are in Christ: for though sin in a believer is covered, yet it is not perfectly cured. There are still some remainders of corruption; and certainly, as long as there is an issue of sin open, there must be an issue of sorrow kept open.

2. Every sin, after we are in Christ, is a sin of unkindness, the sin of a spouse; and if anything will melt and break the heart, this will. The sins of the regenerate wound Christ’s heart deeper than others. Has not Christ suffered enough already? Will you wound him whom God has wounded? Will you give him more vinegar to drink? O rather “Give wine to him that is of an heavy heart;” cheer him with your tears! Look on a bleeding Christ with a bleeding heart.

Branch 2. It impeaches the HYPOCRITE, who is a practical atheist—who says, “God shall not see!” The word in the Hebrew signifies to dissemble. The Syriac word, a face-taker. The hypocrite wears a mask of sanctity. Aquinas calls hypocrisy the counterfeiting of virtue. The hypocrite is a charlatan, he pretends that which he is not. He is like those angels that assumed the dead bodies, but there was no soul to animate them, Gen. 19.1. He is an apparition, he is not really pious. The hypocrite is a walking picture, a rotten post painted over. He is like the painted grapes which deceived the living birds; or the beautiful apples of Sodom—touch them, and they moulder to dust.

In short, hypocrites are like turning pictures, which have on one side the image of a lamb, on the other side a lion. Just so, they are on their outside saints, but their inside devils. Hypocrites may be compared to trumpets that make a great sound, but within they are hollow. Do these believe the all-seeing eye? The hypocrite turns all religion into mere externals; he walks with a dark lantern, saying, “No eye shall see!” He goes about to juggle with God, as Jeroboam’s wife did think to do with the prophet, 1 Kings 14.6. But he pulled off her mask, “Come in you wife of Jeroboam.” The hypocrite knows God is of purer eyes than to behold sin; yet for all this will play at devotion; he will venture to abuse God, that he may delude men. The hypocrite takes more care to make a covenant, than to keep it; and is more studious to enter into religion, than that religion should enter into him. This text arraigns the hypocrite: All things are naked, God sees our jugglings!

I shall give you two distinguishing characters whereby you may know an hypocrite.

Character 1. He is one who is partial in his goodness. He is zealous in lesser things, but remiss in greater things. As our Savior complained in his time, they “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” He is one who sweats only in some part, but is cool in all the rest, which is a sign his zeal is distempered. He is zealous against a ceremony, a relic or painted glass (not that I plead for these), but in the mean time lives in known sin, lying, immorality, extortion, &c. Just as the High Priests, “It is not lawful, say they, to put the money into the treasury, because it is the price of blood,” Matt. 27.6. They speak like conscientious men. Oh do not defile the treasury! But let me ask the question, “Why did they shed that blood? it was innocent blood.” They will not take the price of blood into the treasury, but they never scruple to take the guilt of blood into their souls! They were zealous for the purity of the temple, but were murderers of the Son of God.

And we have a parallel scripture to this, Romans 2.22. “You say it is wrong to commit adultery, but do you do it? You condemn idolatry, but do you steal from pagan temples? You are so proud of knowing the law, but you dishonor God by breaking it.” Who at the first sight, would not have taken these for very holy, devout men—who were zealous against idolatry? But see a root of hypocrisy! They were partially good, they hated one sin, but not another! They hated idolatry, but not sacrilege. Though it was an abominable sin, and there was an express law of God against it; yet these seeming zealots make no conscience of robbing God of his tithes.

And here as in a scripture looking-glass, we may see our own faces! Have we not many now-a-days seemingly zealous against popery? If they see a cross, (though it be in a coat of arms), they are much offended, and are in a kind of convulsion: but in the mean time make no conscience of sacrilege, starving out the ministry, they put out the fire on God’s altar, shut the doors of his temple; is not this visible hypocrisy? There are some, it may be, will not be heard to swear, as it will not stand with their saintship; (this were to call the devil “father” aloud,) but they will defraud and defame, and take away a man’s name—which is no better than murder. And if these are saints, there are as good saints in hell.

Character 2. The second character of an hypocrite is, he makes religion a mask to cover his sin.

Herod pretended to worship Christ, but his zeal was no other than malice, for it was to have destroyed him. Thus, often bad purposes lie hid under good pretenses. Jezebel, that she may cloak her murderous intentions, proclaims a fast. Absalom, to color over his treason, pretends a religious vow. How cunning is the heart to go to hell! Judas hides his covetousness under a pretense of charity, “This ointment might have been sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor,” John 12.5. How charitable was Judas! But his charity began at home—for he carried the money bag. Many make religion a cloak for their ambition, “Come, see my zeal, says Jehu, for the Lord.” 1 Kings 10.16. No! Jehu—your zeal was for the kingdom! Jehu made religion hold the stirrup until he got possession of the crown; here was double-dyed hypocrisy.

The hypocrite sets himself against God.

First, He opposes him in his essence; God is a substance, the hypocrite is only a shadow.

Secondly, In his unity; God is one, and made man one at first; but the hypocrite has made himself a double hearted man; he gives God the tenth, and leaves the rest for that which he loves better.

Thirdly, In his goodness, God is good, and in him is no mixture. The hypocrite is therefore good in show, that he may be bad in deed. He is a devil in Samuel’s mantle. Pilate would make the world believe he had a tender conscience: he washes his hands. But he could not say as David, “I will wash my hands in innocency;” for then he would never have given his vote for the shedding of innocent blood.

God sees our prevarications. How odious is the hypocrite? We ourselves cannot endure treacherous dealing. Therefore in the common-wealth, he who poisons another, has a greater punishment, than he who kills with the sword, because he offers it hypocritically under a pretense of friendship. “Judas, do you betray the Son of man with a kiss?” We may as well betray Christ with a tear, as Judas did with a kiss. You may see God’s great dislike of this sin, in that he forbids his people in the old law, the very resemblances of it, and by his expostulation, Psalm 50.16. “What have you to do to take my covenant into your mouth, seeing you hate to be reformed?” You hypocrite, what have you to do to meddle with religion, to pretend saint-ship? You make religion odious, and the offering of God to be abhorred? Hear that dreadful sentence, Isaiah 29.14. “They draw near to me with their lips.” They have God in their mouths, “but their heart is far from me;” therefore, verse 14. “I will take away the wisdom of the wise men;” I will blast their proceedings, I will confuse their counsels. They are hypocrites!

In one chapter, Christ pronounces seven woes against this sin of hypocrisy! Matt. 23. “Woe to you hypocrites,” Woe! Woe! Woe! etc. To be a hypocritical nation, and to be the generation of God’s wrath—are made synonymous in scripture, Isa 10.6. And when the Holy Spirit would enhance and aggravate the torments of hell, he sets them out under this notion, “The place of hypocrites,” as if hell were taken up on purpose for the hypocrite to quarter in.

Use 3. A word of Exhortation. If the secrets of our hearts are unveiled and unmasked, walk as under the eye of God. Methinks that saying of Hagar should be a Christian’s motto, “You God see me!” And David’s prospect should be ever in our eye, Psalm 16.8. “I have set the Lord always before me!” Some set their bags of money always before them, others set the fear of men always before them; but a wise Christian will set God, and judgment, and eternity always before him. If indeed God’s eye were at any time off from us, we might take the more liberty; but if all things are naked and open to his eye, we cannot sin but in the face of our Judge. Oh then reverence this eye of God.

First, God’s eye should be a bridle to keep us from sin: “How shall I do this and sin against God?” Seneca gives his friend Lucilius this counsel, “Whatever he was doing, he should imagine that some of the Roman nobles were watching him, and then he would do nothing dishonorable.” The eye of God should be ever in our eye; this would be as a counter poison against sin. Nor is it enough to prune sin, namely, to cut off the external acts; but we must kill the root. Crucify darling sins; let not your heart sit brooding upon sin. Again, let God’s omniscience deter you from hiding sin. Who would hide a traitor? Now it sucks your breast, shortly it will suck your blood. Men think, that to sin in the dark, and to carry their sins under a canopy—that no eye shall see them (like those who have bad eyes think that the sky is ever cloudy, whereas the fault is not in the sky, but in their eyes). So when the prince of the world has blinded men’s eyes, because there is darkness within, they think it is dark abroad too, and now the sky is cloudy, and they imagine that God cannot see. But remember, all things are naked and open to God! Do not go about to hide sin—confess, confess! Confession does that to the soul, which the surgeon does to the body; it opens a spiritual vein, and lets out the bad blood. The only way to make God not see sin, is to see it ourselves, but not with dry eyes; point every sin with a tear!

2. God’s eye is a spur to virtue: are you zealous for God? do you exhaust yourself in the cause of religion? God sees it! You shall loose nothing. For the present you have a promise, which is God’s bill of exchange, and when God comes to make up your accounts, you shall be paid with extra. The more any man has disbursed for God, the greater sums of glory are still behind.

3. God’s eye is a whetstone to duty. O you Christian that are much in private, that set hours apart for God, (a sign he has set you apart) you shed many tears in your closet: the world takes no notice. But remember, God’s eye is upon you, your prayers are registered, your tears are bottled up, “and he who sees in secret will reward you openly.” How should this add wings to prayer, and oil to the flame of our devotion? let us take heed of slacking our pace in religion, let not our tears begin to freeze. If slackness does not lose our crown—yet it may lessen our crown.

Use 4. Here is a breast of consolation to the saints of God (in these sad times), in the midst of all those hard treatment that they meet with. Let the world frown, let men persecute and calumniate, (and it may be, think they do God service), here is sap in the vine, a strong cordial to take, “all things are naked and open to God.” They do nothing but what our Father sees! They make wounds, and then pour in vinegar; God writes down their cruelty, he sees what rods they use, and how hard they strike. He who has an eye to see—has also a hand to punish! ”I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people,” not only with an eye of providence, but with an eye of pity.

This was a great comfort to David in his affliction, and was like a golden shield in the hand of his faith, “My groaning is not hidden from you,” Psalm 38.6. When I weep, Christ weeps in my tears, he bleeds in my wounds. There are two bloods which will cry: the blood of souls, when they have been starved or poisoned, and the blood of saints. I do not mean saints without sanctity, nominal saints, but such as have Christ engraved in their hearts, and the word copied out into their lives! It is dangerous meddling with their blood; if we spill their blood, it is no better than spilling Christ’s blood, for they are members of his body, “In all their afflictions, he was afflicted.”

The people of God are precious to him. There is blood royal running in their souls, “they are his jewels,” Mal. 3.17, and his heart is exceedingly protective of them; it is wounded with love. “I am very jealous for Zion; I am burning with jealousy for her!” Zech. 8.2. Jealousy, we know, proceeds from love; I am very zealous for Zion; zeal is the flame of love. Oh then you saints of God, be of good comfort; whatever your treatment is, God sees it, Exod. 14.24. “In the morning-watch the Lord looked through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians.” Remember, God has an eye in the cloud!

Use 5. Caution. God being so infinite in wisdom; if things go cross in church or state, take heed of charging God with folly. Do not censure him—but admire hom. All things are naked and open before him! There is not anything which stirs in the world—but God has a design in it, for the good of his church! He carries on his designs by mens’ designs: all things are unveiled to the eye of providence. God is never perplexed: he knows when to deliver, and how to deliver.

1. God knows when to deliver.

David says, “My times are in your hand,” Psalm 31.15. If our times were in our own hand, we would have deliverance too soon; if they were in our enemy’s hand, we would have deliverance too late: But my times are in God’s hand; and God’s hand is ever best. Everything is beautiful in its season: when the mercy is ripe, we shall have it. It is true, we are now between the hammer and the anvil: we may fear we shall see the death of religion, before the birth of reformation. But do not cast away your anchor; God sees when the mercy will be in season. When his people are low enough, and the enemy high enough—then usually appears the church’s morning-star! Let God alone, to his time.

2. God knows how to deliver.

“All things are naked and open before God.” God delivers sometimes in that way in which we think he will destroy. It might seem strange, when he would deliver Israel, he stirred up the hearts of the Egyptians to hate them. Could this be a likely way? yet by this means, was deliverance ushered in. So now the hearts of many are stirred up to hate the people of God, to hate the covenant; but God can make use of their power and rage, as once he did of the High Priest’s malice, and Judas’ treason—for our greater advantage. There was no way for Jonah to be saved, but to be swallowed up; he sails safe to land in the whale’s belly. God brings his people many times to shore upon the broken pieces of the ship. God can make the enemies do his work; he does sometimes play his own game by their hand. Well then may we cry out with the apostle; “O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” God will not make us privy of his counsel, his path is in the deep. If we cannot see a reason of his proceedings; let us censure our own shallowness—not his depth.

It is a word of counsel, it shows us where to have recourse in all our straits and doubts. Go to God! All things are naked to his all-seeing eye, he is the oracle of wisdom: “If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask it of God,” James 1.5. We are here in the dark; pray with David, “Lord, light my candle!” shed some beams of divine knowledge into my soul. Beg of God, that as things are naked and open before his eyes, so they may be naked in our eyes—that we may see the sinfulness of sin, and the beauty of holiness. The times are evil: let us pray to God that he would be our pilot to steer us; that he would teach us to walk jealously towards ourselves, piously towards him, prudently towards others; that he would give us the graces of our relation which bespangle and grace our profession; that so guiding us by his counsels, we may at last be received to glory!

---

Author

Thomas Watson (c. 1620-1686) was an English, Puritan preacher and author. He was ejected from his London parish after the Restoration, but continued to preach privately. He was educated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where he was noted for remarkably intense study. In 1646 he commenced a 16-year pastorate at St. Stephen's, Walbrook.

Watson showed strong Presbyterian views during the civil war, with, however, an attachment to the king, and in 1651 he was imprisoned briefly with some other ministers for his share in Christopher Love's plot to recall Charles II of England. He was released on 30 June 1652, and was formally reinstated as vicar of St. Stephen's Walbrook. He obtained great fame and popularity as a preacher until the Restoration, when he was ejected for Nonconformity. Notwithstanding the rigor of the acts against dissenters, Watson continued to exercise his ministry privately as he found opportunity.

Upon the Declaration of Indulgence in 1672 he obtained a licence to preach at the great hall in Crosby House. After preaching there for several years, his health gave way and he retired to Barnston, Essex, where he died suddenly, while praying in secret. He was buried on 28 July 1686.

https://www.the-highway.com/