But are not we told in scripture, that _God delights in the works of his hands_, that _he takes pleasure in his saints_, that _he rejoices in Zion_, and _rests in his love_ to his church; that Jesus Christ, even as man and Mediator, is the _beloved of his soul, in whom he is well-pleased_? Yes, surely, this is one way whereby he represents his own divine satisfactions in our language, and after the manner of men. But we must not imagine that he ever goes out of himself, and descends to creatures, as though he needed any thing from them, who are all before him as nothing, and less than nothing, and vanity. It is from his own wisdom, power, and goodness, as they appear in all his works, that his delight arises; and it is in these glories of his nature, and in the gracious purposes of his will, as they are manifested in his works, that the saints and angels, and all the happy ranks of beings, find their highest satisfaction. It is in the contemplation of God, and in the exercises and sensations of divine love, that all supreme felicity consists, so far as we are capable of being acquainted with it. The only reflection with which I shall conclude the subject, is this, that communion with God, which has been impiously ridiculed by the profane wits of the last and the present age, is no such visionary and fantastic notion as they imagine; but as it is founded in the words of scripture, so it may be explained with great ease and evidence to the satisfaction of human reason. That it is founded in scripture, appears sufficiently in several verses of the xvii. chapter of St. John’s gospel, where the divine union and blessedness of the Father and the Son, are made a pattern of our union to God, and our blessedness; John xvii. 21, 22, 23-26. _That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they may be one in us_: And in this sense, but in a lower degree, even here on earth, _our communion, or fellowship, is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ_; 1 John i. 3. Though our communion with Christ includes also some particular varieties in it, which is not my present business to explain. That this doctrine is exactly agreeable to reason, may be thus demonstrated: