De Moor X:3: The Existence of Providence, Part 1

[A fundraising break-through: We have surged to about 40% of our goal! Thanks be to the Most High God!

We still have some ground to cover. If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

The Existence of Providence, one may see admirably well demonstrated everywhere in Our Men, and the illustrious work of the Most Eminent NIEUWENTYT^[1] especially aims at this, which work he entitled Cosmotheoriam.  Worthy of consultation is the demonstration of this truth exhibited by BARTHOLOMEUS VAN VELSEN[2] in his Philosophia Scripturaria, tome 2, chapter XVII, § 3 and following, pages 669, etc.  JOHANNES LULOFS comprehends in a few words many things that are quite conducive to the demonstration of Providence, Theologia Naturali theoretica, § C-CIII:  see also SPANHEIM, Decadum theologicarum VI, § 1, 2, opera, tome 3, columns 1226, 1227; WALCH,^[3] Miscellaneis Sacris, book II, Exercitation I, § 1-5; BUDDEUS, de Atheismo et Superstitione; and LULOFS, ad Buddeum de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter VII, § 1, pages 387-391, 396-399.  REIMARUS[4] establishes Divine Providence, and dexterously removes the difficulties of the Epicureans and Theists moved to the contrary, over de voornaamste Waarheden van den natuurlichen Godtsdienst, Parts 8, 9, pages 549-663.  A posteriori from the consideration of this World STAPFER[5] solidly disputes in favor of divine Providence against the Epicureans, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter VIII, § 64-76.

1.  Scripture everywhere either supposes or teaches the Providence of God, and every single page of it recalls to mind for us Abraham’s ‎יְהוָ֣ה׀ יִרְאֶ֑ה, Jehovah-jireh:[6]  while with the greatest possible frequency it also teaches us from the works of Providence to acknowledge God and His Virtues.  The books of Job and of the Psalms are especially excellent on this matter:  see the book of Job everywhere, Psalms 8; 19; 104; 107; 146; 147; 148; etc.  And it is also observed in those places that it belongs to impious men κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, pre-eminently, to fools, and to men devoid of common sense, to deny the Providence of God, in which very thing the same sacred books assert that the Existence of God is at the same time called into doubt, Psalm 10:4, 11; 14:1, 4; 94:3, 7-11.

2.  Indeed, this is the truth of such evidence, that the Gentiles commonly and their Philosophers have acknowledged this and have given their assent to it, if you except only the Epicureans, teaching that all things are carried along by Chance, lest some inconvenience be created for the blessed Tranquility of the Deity:  although not all Philosophers appropriately extend Providence also to Sublunary and human affairs.

Of course, it was the opinion of Epicurus:[7]  What is blessed and eternal, that has no trouble itself, and does not bring it to another.  According to him, God does nothing, is involved in no occupations, undertakes no works.  Indeed, according to the judgment of the Epicureans, if God is one who rules, who governs, who maintains the course of the stars, the changes of the times, the vicissitudes of affairs, and, contemplating earth and sea, looks to the interests and lives of men; He is certainly involved in business troublesome and laborious:  see CICERO, book I de Natura Deorum, chapters XVII, XIX, XX.  Thus it stands also in LUCRETIUS,[8] de Rerum Natura, book I, page 13:

For the nature of the gods must in itself of necessity

Enjoy immortality with consummate peace,

Far removed and withdrawn from our affairs.

For, exempt from all sorrow, exempt from dangers,

It, fortified with its own resources, having no need of us,

Is neither bound by the well-deserving, nor touched by wrath.

ORIGEN, contra Celsum, book II, page 68:  Εἴπερ ἐχρῆν διὰ δόγματα ἐπὶ ἠγεμόνας καὶ βασιλεῖς ἄγεσθαί τινες·  καὶ τίνας ἐχρῆν ἄλλους, ἢ Ἐπικουρείους τοὺς πάντῃ πρόνοιαν ἀναιροῦντας; If any people ought to be brought before governors and kings on account of their doctrines, whom else should it be than the Epicureans, who completely deny providence?  Consult also WALCH, Miscellaneis Sacris, book II, Exercitation I, § 6, pages 234, 235, book III, Exercitation III, § 14, pages 588, 589; BUDDEUS, de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter I, § 19, pages 42-44, Lulofs edition, § 21, pages  56, 57; LELAND,[9] de Utilitate et Necessitate Revelationis Christi, part I, section II, chapter XVII, pages 475-480.

Aristotle, confining the Providence of God within the limits of Heaven, denied it in Sublunary matters, which he believed to be governed by some hidden force of heaven and the stars:  see PFANNER’S^[10] Systema theologiæ Gentilis purioris, chapter VIII, § 5; WALCH’S Miscellanea Sacra, book II, Exercitation I, § 7; BUDDEUS, de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter I, § 15, pages 27, 28; LELAND, de Utilitate et Necessitate Revelationis Christi, part I, section II, chapter XVII, pages 480, 481; WILHELMUS WILHELMIUS’[11] Disputationem Philosophicam de Origine Mali Moralis, § XXVII.  In AMBROSE, book I de Officiis, chapter XIII, opera, tome 4, column 8, you read:  The assertion of those that think that God has no care of the world, just as Aristotle asserts, that His Providence descends only to the Moon.  Although, otherwise, the saying of the Author of the book de Mundo, chapter VI, which is circulated under the name of Aristotle, is able to yield an illustrious sense in favor of the acknowledgement of the Providence of God:  ὥσπερ ἐν νηῒ κυβερνήτης, ἐν ἅρματι δὲ ἡνίοχος, ἐν χορῷ δὲ κορυφαῖος, ἐν πόλει δὲ νόμος, ἐν στρατοπέδῳ δὲ ἡγεμών, τοῦτο θεὸς ἐν κόσμῳ, as the helmsman is in a ship, the charioteer in a chariot, the chorus-leader in a chorus, the law in a city, and the general in an army, so is God in the cosmos.  According to CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Protreptico, page 44, Aristotle is defeated by himself; since he terminates the Providence of God at the Moon, μέχρι τῆς σελήνης διορίζων τὴν πρόνοιαν, and at the same time thinks that God is the Soul of the World, τοῦ κόσμου τὴν ψυχὴν θεὸν ὑπολαμβάνων; τὸν ἄμοιρον τοῦ Θεοῦ, Θεὸν δογματίζων, whoever is without God thinks himself to be God.

On the other hand, other Philosophers both acknowledged the Θεοῦ πρόνοιαν, providence of God, and extended that to all sublunary matters also and the government of this lower world, and gave this as their opinion, proven by a number of arguments; as it can be seen in the works of SENECA, and in CICERO’S libris de Natura Deorum.  PFANNER is also worthy of consultation, in the chapter just now cited, Systemate theologiæ Gentilis purioris, chapter VIII; and WILLEM SLUITER[12] in his Idea Theologiæ Stoicæ, chapter II, where nevertheless the errors of the Stoics in this matter are also noted; which is also done by BUDDEUS, de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter VII, § I, pages 391, 392, and LULOFS, ad Buddeum de Atheismo et Superstitione, pages 399, 400 (296).  The many illustrious arguments that are here and there set forth by CICERO furnish this conclusion, which you may read in book II de Natura Deorum, chapter LIII:  Thus from every direction it is most rationally concluded, that by the divine mind and counsel all things in this world are wonderfully administered for the well-being and preservation of all.

Ἔστι μέγας ἐν οὐρανῷ

Ζεύς, ὃς ἐφορᾷ πάντα καὶ κρατύνει,

Great in heaven is

Zeus, who sees and rules all.

is in SOPHOCLES’[13] Electra, verses 173, 174:  and similar things are found in SENECA Tragicus,

Every kingdom is under a more glorious kingdom…

God spins our affairs about

In a swift whirlwind….

Whatever we mortals suffer,

Whatever we do, comes from on high:

as it is both in Thyeste, verses 610, 619, 620, and in Œdipo, verses 983, 984.  ÆLIAN,[14] Varia Historia, book II, chapter XXXI, asserts,  that all Barbarians acknowledged both the Existence of God, and Providence:  Καὶ τίς οὐκ ἂν ἐπῄνεσε τὴν τῶν βαρβάρων σοφίαν;  εἴγε μηδεὶς αὐτῶν εἰς ἀθεότητα ἐξέπεσε, μηδὲ ἀμφιβάλλουσι περὶ θεῶν, ἆράγε εἰσιν, ἢ οὔκ εἰσιν·  καὶ ἆράγε ἡμῶν φροντίζουσιν, ἢ οὔ.  —Λέγουσι τῶν βαρβάρων οἱ προειρημένοι, καὶ εἶναι θεοὺς, καὶ προνοεῖν ἡμῶν, And who would not commend the wisdom of the barbarians? since none of them has fallen into atheism, nor do they waver concerning the gods, whether they exist or not, and whether they care for us or not.  …The aforementioned of the barbarians say, both that the gods exist, and that they exercise providence over us.  PLATO, in Epinomide, page 1008, Frankfurt edition, is found, φράζων ὡς εἰσι θεοὶ ἐπιμελούμενοι πάντων, σμικρῶν καὶ μειζόνων, declaring that there are gods exercising care over all things, both small and great.  The Egyptians, wishing to represent the divine Superintendence over all things, were wont to fashion an Eye and a Scepter, according to PIERIO VALERIANO,[15] Hieroglyphicis, book XXXIII, chapter II, signifying that thus the most high God governs and regulates all things by his mere gaze, as it were, without toil and annoyance.  Yet often the Philosophers of the Gentiles, who sometimes philosophized concerning Providence very clearly, at other times call this doctrine into doubt again, and dispute both sides of it:  see AB OOSTEN DE BRUYN’S[16] de Philosophia Gentile Doctrinæ moralis, pages 97, 98.  And, although the Sages of the Gentiles everywhere acknowledge Providence, yet their errors concerning this doctrine are many and grievous, which clearly show the necessity of Revelation, as LELAND observes, de Utilitate et Necessitate Revelationis Christi, part I, section II, chapter XVII, pages 463-500.

3.  Certainly, if we consult Reason, it renders us more certain of divine Providence.

              א.  One may argue here a priori;

                             α.  From the Independence of God compared with the Dependence and Imperfection of Creatures, even the most noble.  For in this God and Creatures are as far removed from one another as possible, that God is altogether Independent and Sufficient unto Himself, but the Creature depends upon God in every way, and is obliged to God no less for the continuance of being than for its first being; such that, if God should withdraw His hand for even a moment, the Creature would not be able to preserve itself:  for, if the Creature could subsist of itself even for a moment, it would be able to subsist always in the same way; but thus it would be completely independent, and the distinction between God and the Creature would be removed; the Creature would be God, and thus a plurality of gods would be introduced, which is absurd.  But if the Creature is not able to subsist independently, neither is it able to act independently; for the mode of operation follows the mode of being:  and so the same Independence of God also makes the Concursus of God with the actions of Creatures necessary.

                             β.  From God’s Wisdom, Power, and Goodness compared with His Immutability.  Of course, God, since He is the highest Reason, is not able to work without a definite End proposed to Himself:  because of the Independence of God, that End must ultimately terminate in God Himself.  Neither is the End able to arise from Need, since God is alone sufficient for Himself, and nothing is ever able to be added to Him to increase His Blessedness.  And so God was able to set forth to Himself no other End in creating the World, than the demonstration and recognition of His Perfections and Glory.  If God is going to obtain this end, He must preserve and govern the World by His Providence:  for, a.  if to the Creatures now produced He should yield the ability to preserve themselves in being, they would legitimately conclude, that to the Power of God their first production is not necessarily to be ascribed, but that one Creature is sufficient for the production of another; and so the honor of Creation would not return to God.  b.  But, since it is impossible, that to the Creature is communicated power whereby it would be sufficient to sustain itself; without the Providence of God it would be the case, that the whole World, created in one moment, would have to return to nothing the next moment:  but thus would be lost the occasion for the acknowledgement of the invisible things of God and His virtues manifested in the Creation; and so thus He also would have created the World in vain, and would not have obtained the End proposed to Himself.  c.  But if such a manner of acting does not suit the wisdom of men, much less of God:  who because of His Immutability is not able to repent of His Counsel once established concerning the manifestation of His virtues through Creation.  Therefore, if God should fail to sustain the World through Providence, it will have to be ascribed to a defect of Wisdom, Power, or Goodness; so that He was ignorant, unable, or unwilling to put into execution that which He once proposed to Himself for His Glory:  but all defects of this sort are far removed from God.

              ב.  A posteriori our AUTHOR appeals:

                             α.  To the stable course of all things; to which have regard the perennial motions of the celestial stars, the perpetually recurring successions of nights and days and seasons of the year, on occasion of which not only does Scripture send us to the Providence of God, Genesis 8:22; Jeremiah 31:35, 36; Psalm 104:19, 20; but the Gentiles also acknowledged the hand of God in these things.  In CICERO’S book II de Natura Deorum, chapter XXXVII, it is affirmed out of ARISTOTLE, that if there were those that had always dwelt under the earth, and had received by report that there is a certain divinity and power of the gods; and if these, with passages of the earth opened at a certain point, were able to go forth unto these places that we inhabit:  when they suddenly beheld the sun, that it brings about the day; and when the night had drawn a veil over the earth, and they then saw the whole heaven adorned with stars, and the varying lights of the moon, both waxing and waning, and the rising and setting of them all, and their courses fixed and immutable forever:  when they saw these things, I say, they would conclude that there are gods, and that these great things are the works of the gods.  SENECA has similar things, libro de Providentia, or Quare bonis Viris mala accident? chapter I, It is superfluous to show in the present, that such a work does not stand without some custodian, and that this fixed course of the stars is not the result of a fortuitous motion, and that what things chance sets in motion are often cast into confusion and quickly dashed into pieces:  that this unimpeded velocity proceeds under the command of eternal law…that this order is not the result of wandering matter, etc.

              β.  Our AUTHOR names Unforeseen Events, either you have regard to the unexpected deliverances of the pious and punishments of the wicked; or to the end of many cases against all expectation and likelihood, beyond the intention of the acting creatures, and directly tending to far different ends than the acting creatures had proposed to themselves:  consider the deliverance of the Israelites and the destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, the deliverance of Samaria from the unbreakable siege; the sufferings of Joseph, the afflictions of Christ, with the purpose of God intended in these things; the afflictions of the People of God by the Assyrians as the rod of divine wrath, tending to aggravate their own guilt and punishment; the Babylonian captivity of the Jews lasting for seventy years, and to be put to an end by Cyrus, King of Persia:[17]  which sort all the more argue the divine hand, when He made the same to have already previously been foretold by the Prophets:  see Exodus 14, especially verses 13-18; 2 Kings 6; 7, especially 2 Kings 7:16-20; Genesis 45:3-8; 50:20; John 11:49-52; Isaiah 10:5-34, compared with Isaiah 36; 37; Jeremiah 25:11; Daniel 9:2; Isaiah 44:24-28; 45:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:22, 23.

              γ.  Arguments are able to be added, a.  From all the certain Predictions of contingent Futures, which are so many in Sacred Scripture, and are always found certainly to be fulfilled in their appointed seasons, Isaiah 34:16; indeed, TACITUS[18] rightly said, Histories, book I, chapter XVIII:  What things remain fixed by fate, although signified beforehand, are not avoided.  Now, Future things could not be so certainly predicted by divine Knowledge, unless the same were governed by the divine Will and Power.  Hence, as many as God made Prophets, are just so many witnesses of Providence.  b.  From the sense of Conscience fearing and praying:  for whence those vexing and insuperable stings of Conscience on account of sins committed, although hidden, except from the recognition of God and the omniscient, almighty, and most holy Governor and Judge of human affairs:  that is, according to OVID,[19] Fastis, book I, verse 485, As each man’s conscience is, so he conceives within his breast hope or fear according to his own deeds.  Similarly, by instinct of nature itself, in straits mortals have learned to flee to the Divine Being through Prayer:  whence I ask, except that they are obliged to acknowledge, willingly or unwillingly, that the dispensation of worldly affairs belongs to God, Jonah 1:5-7.  Hence TERTULLIAN, Apologia, chapter XVII:  And this is the height of the offense of those unwilling to acknowledge Him, of whom they are not able to be ignorant….  Is it your desire that we prove it from the testimony of the soul itself? which, although pressed in the prison of the body, although surrounded by depraved institutions, although animated by wantonness and lusts, although subjected to false gods, yet when it comes to its senses again, as from drunkenness, as from sleep, as from some illness, and experiences its sanity, it calls Him God for this reason alone, that properly this is the one true God, good and great (or, by this name alone, as proper to the true God, the Great God, the Good God), and may God grant it is the expression of all men.  It also bears witness that He is Judge, God sees, and I commend myself to God, and God shall repay me.  O the testimony of the soul, Christian by nature!  c.  From the stable Harmony of opposite things, for example, of motion and of rest, of heat and of cold, of dryness and of moisture, of water and of fire:  for, that neither of these ever altogether suppresses and causes to cease the other; but that both opposites remain in the nature of things, in such a measure, and exerting their force then and there, where it is expedient; this argues a most wise and powerful Governor of the universe:  as also that the individual things are preserved without confusion in their kinds, which obtains in the produce of the earth, wheat, barley, oats, etc.; in the trees and their fruits, with so many diverse species of pears and apples, etc., for example, Matthew 7:16-18; in fish, animals, and birds, the many species of which and both sexes in all these are continually preserved; as also in men, the males and females of which are found to be preserved in nearly equal number:  see NIEUWENTYT, Cosmotheoria, chapter XXVIII, § 12, 13, pages 840-843.  GROTIUS,[20] de Veritate Religionis Christianæ, book I, § 12, seeks an argument for the Providence of God from the Preservation of Empires; § 13 and following, from Miracles.

[1] Bernard Nieuwentyt (1654-1718) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and Cartesian philosopher.

[2] Bartholomeus van Velsen (1675-1733) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and philosopher.  He held multiple ministerial posts during his career, and is remembered for his opposition to Spinozism.

[3] Johann Georg Walch (1693-1775) was a German Lutheran theologian, serving as Professor of Rhetoric and Poetry (1719-1724), and then as Professor of Theology (1724-1775), at Jena.

[4] Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768) was a German Enlightenment philosopher and Deist.  He was an advocate for a pure, natural religion, as opposed to revealed religion; and he stimulated some of the investigation into the historical Jesus.

[5] John Frederick Stapfer (1708-1775) was a Swiss Reformed divine of the first order.  He served as a Pastor in the canton of Berne.  His Institutiones theologicæ, polemicæ, universæ, ordine scientifico dispositæ ranks among the best elenctic theologies.

[6] Genesis 22:14:  “And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh (‎יְהוָ֣ה׀ יִרְאֶ֑ה):  as it is said to this day, In the mount of Jehovah it shall be seen (‎בְּהַ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה יֵרָאֶֽה׃).”

[7] Epicurus himself lived from 341 to 270 BC.

[8] Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 99-c. 55 BC) was a Roman poet and Epicurean philosopher.

[9] John Leland (1691-1766) was an English Presbyterian minister.  The focus of his authorship is the opposition of Deism.

[10] Tobias Pfanner (1641-1716) was a German Lutheran theologian, and served as secretary of the archives to the duke of Saxe Gotha.

[11] Wilhelmus Wilhelmius (1631-1677) was a Dutch philosopher.

[12] Willem Sluiter (c. 1700-1776) was a Dutch Reformed minister; he spent his entire ministerial career (more than fifty years) in Rouveen.

[13] Sophocles (c. 495-406) was a Greek playwright.  Of his one hundred and twenty-three plays, only seven tragedies survive.

[14] Claudius Ælianus (c. 175-c. 235) was a Roman rhetorician and teacher.

[15] Pierio Valeriano (1477-1558) was an Italian Renaissance humanist, antiquarian scholar, educator, and poet.

[16] Gerrit Willem van Oosten de Bruyn (1727-1797) was a Dutch lawyer, expert in civil and ecclesiastical law.

[17] 2 Chronicles 36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1-3; Isaiah 44:28; 45:1.

[18] Publius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56-c. 117) was a Roman historian.  The information that he preserves about his era and its emperors is invaluable.

[19] Ovid (43 BC-17 AD) was a Roman poet.

[20] Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) distinguished himself in the field of international law, but he was interested in many fields of learning, including Christian apologetics, theology, and Biblical criticism and exegesis.  He was a strict practitioner of the historical-contextual method of exegesis, and both his methods and conclusions are on display in his influential Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum.  He is also remembered for his role in the Arminian controversy, siding with the Remonstrants, and for his governmental theory of atonement.