Secondly, This doctrine is rational.
1. ’Tis rational to suppose that there is really such an excellency in divine things, that is so transcendent and exceedingly different from what is in other things, that, if it were seen, would most evidently distinguish them. We cannot rationally doubt but that things that are divine, that appertain to the Supreme Being, are vastly different from things that are human; that there is that godlike, high and glorious excellency in them, that does most remarkably difference them from the things that are of men; insomuch that if the difference were but seen, it would have a convincing, satisfying influence upon anyone, that they are what they are, viz., divine. What reason can be offered against it? Unless we would argue that God is not remarkably distinguished in glory from men.
If Christ should now appear to anyone as he did on the
mount at his transfiguration; or if he should appear to the world in the glory
that he now appears in heaven as he will do at the day of judgment; without
doubt, the glory and majesty that he would appear in, would be such as would
satisfy everyone that he was a divine person, and that religion was true: and
it would be a most reasonable and well-grounded conviction too. And why may
there not be that stamp of divinity or divine glory on the word of God, on the
scheme and doctrine of the gospel, that may be in a like manner
distinguishing and as rationally convincing, provided it be but seen! ’Tis
rational to suppose that when God speaks to the world, there should be something
in his word or speech vastly different from men’s word. Supposing that God
never had spoken to the world, but we had noticed that he was about to do it;
that he was about to reveal himself from heaven and speak to us immediately
himself, in divine speeches or discourses, as it were from his own mouth, or
that he should give us a book of his own inditing: after what manner should we
expect that he would speak? Would it not be rational to suppose that his speech
would be exceeding different from men’s speech, that he should speak like a
God; that is, that there should be such an excellency and sublimity in his
speech or word, such a stamp of wisdom, holiness, majesty, and other divine
perfections, that the word of men, yea of the wisest of men, should appear mean
and base in comparison of it? Doubtless, it would be thought rational to expect
this, and unreasonable to think otherwise. When a wise man speaks in the
exercise of his wisdom, there is something in everything he says that is very
distinguishable from the talk of a little child. So, without doubt, and much
more, is the speech of God (if there be any such thing as the speech of God) to
be distinguished from that of the wisest of men, agreeable to Jer. xxiii. 28,
29. God having there been reproving the false prophets that prophesied in his
name and pretended that what they spake was his word when indeed it was their
own word, says, “The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he
that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the
wheat? saith the Lord. Is not my word like a fire? saith the Lord; and like
a hammer that breath the rock in pieces?”
