Discourses upon the Existence and Attributes of God

1. God might have acted, in settling his Law only as a Sovereign. Though he might have dealt with Man upon the score of his absolute Dominion over him as his Creature, and signified his pleasure upon the right of his Sovereignty, threatening only a Penalty if Man transgressed, without the promising a bountiful acknowledgement of his Obedience by a Reward as a Benefactor: yet he would treat with Man in gentle Methods, and Rule him in a tract of Sweetness as well as Sovereignty; He would preserve the rights of his Dominion in the Authority of his Commands, and honour the condescensions of his Goodness in the allurements of a Promise. He that might have solely demanded a compliance with his Will, would kindly Article with him, to oblige him to observe him out of love to himself as well as Duty to his Creator; that he might have both the interest of avoiding the Threatened Evil to affright him, and the interest of attaining the promised Good to allure him to Obedience. How doth he value the Title of Benefactor above that of a ⟨p. 613⟩Lord! when he so kindly Solicits, as well as Commands, and engageth to Reward that Obedience which he might have absolutely claimed as his due, by enforcing fears of the severest Penalty. His Sovereignty seems to stoop below it self for the elevation of his Goodness; and he is pleased to have his Kindness more taken notice of than his Authority. Nothing imported more condescension than his bringing forth his Law in the Nature of a Covenant, whereby he seems to humble himself, and veil his Superiority to treat with Man as his equal, that the very manner of his Treatment might oblige him in the richest Promises he made to draw him, and the startling Threatenings he pronounced to link him to his Obedience: And therefore is it observable, that when after the Transgression of Adam God comes to deal with him, he doth not do it in that thundering Rigour, which might have been expected from an enraged Sovereign, but in a gentle Examination,^* Hast thou eaten of the Tree whereof I commanded thee, that thou shouldst not eat? To the Woman, he said no more than, What is this that thou hast done? And in the Scripture we find, when he cites the Israelites before him for their Sin, he Expostulates with them not so much upon the absolute right he had to challenge their Obedience, as upon the equity and reasonableness of his Law, which they had transgressed: