Maſter KNOWLS his Anſwer to the Arguments and Scriptures alleadged by M. Samuel Eaton concerning the Divinity of CHRIST.
IT is a good thing (as the Author to the Hebrews ſpeaks) that the heart be eſtabliſhed in grace: and to me it is an indubitable truth, that unſettlement is ſometimes the next way to a right and firm eſtabliſhment: For Errour, whilſt miſapprehended, is entertained in gracious hearts as a welcome gueſt; and Truth, whilſt received hand over head by tradition onely, is as a Building whoſe foundation is but ſandy, which holds up no longer then the waves and windes hold in. Whether moſt Profeſſors have not ſwallowed without chewing much of that Doctrine they now profeſs, is not my work to determine. It is enough for me with ſhame to confeſs, that I have been of the number of thoſe (if any ſuch be) who ſee with other mens eyes, and pin their faith (as we uſually ſpeak) on the Churches ſleeve. But having now through the goodneſs of God turned over leaf, and learned a new courſe, I am reſolved to examine all things by the Touch-ſtone of Truth, that I may unlearn what I have learnt amiſs, and hold faſt that onely which in my underſtanding is good. Upon this account being ſomewhat willing to make a ſcrutiny into the Common Doctrine of the holy Trinity, (of which in moſt ages there have been ſome ſcruples amongſt men of parts and learning) and exhorting others to the ſame practice for the abovenamed ends; but eſpecially reaſoning thereof as one dubious therein, I6 was ſuſpected (to ſay no more) by you and others, to be in Faith unſound and Heterodox. Wherefore that the Common Doctrine might be ſupported, you publiſhed a Paper, and did caſt the ſame into my hands; which lying open to many Objections, I promiſed (being urged) to preſent you therewith, upon this condition That nothing ſpoken might be taken for my judgment: To which you agreed, and therefore I ſhall act freely, as if I were in judgement directly oppoſite to you; and ſhall deſire that neither you nor others do conclude, before I profeſs what my judgement is. I was about to preſent you with an exact Epitome of the common Doctrine of the holy Trinity, with Interrogations about it, Arguments againſt it, and ſeeming Contradictions in it; but have forborn, till I finde by a modeſt Anſwer to this, that your ſpirit is able to bear.
Now ad rem, to the buſineſs in hand; which is concerning the Deity of Ieſus Chriſt. The Queſtion is not clearly ſtated in your Paper; wherefore give me leave to do it.
The Queſtion is not Whether Jeſus Chriſt be a God in Name and Office Nor whether the Father dwell in him: but Whether he be That moſt high God, whoſe Being and Actings are originally of himſelf. That he is, you aſſert but I deny, and that for the beating out and further clearing up of Truth. The way you have taken (by Scripture and Reaſon) to make good your Aſſertion, I cannot diſlike; the truth is, I like no other way. Whether the Scriptures brought ſpeak on your ſide, and whether your Reaſons have weight in them, is now the thing in debate.
I ſhall begin with your Scriptures, and with that firſt which firſt appears, which is Pſal. 5.6. Thy throne (O God) is for ever and ever: and the Scepter of thy Kingdom is a right Scepter.
Anſw. Firſt, that no Argument can be found in the text to confirm the thing you aſſert: for though it were granted, that this Pſalm is a Prophecie onely of Ieſus Chriſt, (which I ſhall not allow, it being ſpoken, according to a literal ſence, of Solomon the King; to which Willet, Pareus, Hugo Grotius Iunius, Cotton, and almoſt all Interpreters do conſent) yet this Title God will not bolſter up your opinion of Chriſt. For the name Aelohim, which here is attributed unto Chriſt, is common with the moſt High to Creatures,7 both Angels and Men. It is given to Angels, Pſal. 8.5. Thou haſt made him (that is, Chriſt) a little lower then Aelohim Gods, (ſo in the Hebrew) which is tranſlated by the Author to the Hebrews, Chap. 2.7. the Angels. To men, Pſal. 82.1. God judgeth among the Gods, that is, the Rulers of Iſrael. So verſ. 6. I have ſaid, Ye are gods. Likewiſe in Exod. 22.8, 9. where the word is tranſlated Judges.
Secondly, that ſome Arguments may be drawn from this Pſalm to deny the thing you aſſert. Take theſe.
1. He that is bleſſed of God, is not the moſt high God: For without all contradiction, the leſs is bleſſed of the better, Heb. 7.7. But this God (Jeſus Chriſt). is bleſſed of God, verſ. 2. Grace is poured into thy lips, therefore god hath bleſſed thee for ever.
2. That God which hath a God, is not the moſt high God. But this God (Jeſus Chriſt) hath a God: Thou loveſt righteouſneſs, and hateſt wickedneſs; therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladneſs above thy fellows, verſ. 7. Therefore, &c.
3. That God whoſe authority is derivative, is not the moſt high God. But the authority of this God (Jeſus Chriſt) is derivative, verſ. 7. where he is ſaid to be anointed by God, that is to receive Kingly or Godlike power form him. Therefore this God Jeſus Chriſt, is not the moſt high God.
Now I haſten to your ſecond Scripture, Iſa. 9.6. And his name ſhall be called Wonderful, Counſellor, The mighty God, The ever laſting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Anſw. Theſe two Titles, The mighty God, The everlaſting Father, you dig out of the text, and lay them as the foundation of your faith, that Jeſus Chriſt is the moſt high God.
To this Scripture take this Reply:
1. That according to ſome mens reading, thoſe Titles do not at all belong in this place to Jeſus Chriſt: and after ſome mens expounding, they appertain not to Chriſt onely. Some Jews thus read the words: And this is the name by which The Wonderful, Counſellor, The mighty God, &c. ſhall call him, to wit, The Prince of Peace. This lection Calvin mentions; and knowing that the words may admit of this conſtruction, the verb being of a8 neutral as wel as a paſſive ſignification ſpeaks in objecting no more then this; Quorſum tot epitheta in Deum Patrem hoc loce congeſta forent? Calv. Inſtit. l. 1. Cap. 13. p. 35.That is; To what end ſhould ſo many epithets be heaped together in this place on God the Father? when the purpoſe of the Prophet was to adorn Chriſt with famous titles which might build up our faith in him. Wherefore 'tis no doubt, but that by the ſame reaſon he is now called The ſtrong God, as a little before Immanuel.
Others there be that give thoſe Titles typically to King Hezekiah. Amongſt whom,Et vocabitur nomen ejus] In Hebraeo eſt, vocabit. Supple quiſque. Notum autem Hebraeis dici ſic vel ſic vocari aliquem, cui tales tituli aut〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉conveniunt. Hugo Grot. in loc. that learned man Hugo Grotius is one, whoſe Annotations on the place be pleaſed to take.
And his name ſhall be called] Every one (that's ſupply'd) ſhall call him. Now 'tis known to the Hebrews, that any one is thus named, or called thus, to whom ſuch titles or epithets do agree.
Wonderful] For thoſe very excellent vertues which ſhall be in him.
Counſellor, mighty God] Yea rather, one that asketh counſel of the mighty God. One that in all buſineſſes ſeeks counſel from God, to wit, by the Prophets.
The Father of an age] One who ſhould leave after him many poſterities, and for a long time.
2. But were it granted that the Text ſpeaks onely of Jeſus Chriſt, yet would not the thing in queſtion be thence concluded, Becauſe that the Titles amount not to ſo much as moſt high God, which are the terms of the Queſtion. Ael Gibbor, Mighty God, is not ſo much as Ael Shaddai, Almighty God, by which the moſt High is called, Gen. 17.1. And both theſe terms are communicable to the Creature. Ael is uſed Pſal. 82.1. Aelohim ſtandeth in the aſſembly of Ael; which is tranſlated the mighty, but is the ſame with this in Iſaiah, Engliſhed God. That it is here attributed unto Magiſtrates, appears from the Septuagint, reading theſe words thus:〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. God ſtandeth in the aſſembly of gods, the Magiſtrates in Iſrael. And the other epither mighty, is given to the Captains of Nebuchadnezzar's Army, Ezek. 32.12. if we conſult with the Septuagintverſion, where the words are thus read;〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a ſtrong God; to which is exegetically added〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lord, to expound it: or,9 with Symmachus and Theodoret, with whom the words are thus rendred,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, ſtrong, mighty, putting a Comma between the words, as Montanus doth in his Interlinial Bible: we ſhal not find ſo much ſtrength in the words, as ſome ſuppoſe, to bear up the Doctrine now in diſpute.
Now for this Title Everlaſting Father;
1. Our Tranſlation differs from moſt (if not all) both Greek and Latine Verſions. The Septuagint thus renders, [〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] A Father of Eternity (life or world) to come. Sym. thus:〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, A Father of the world. Theod. thus,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is from the Hebrew word for word, and may be thus Engliſhed: A Father unto poſterity. Hierome, pater futuri ſaeculi in the Margin, but in the Line pater aeternitatis, a Father of Eternity; to which Tremellius and Piſcator agree. Now the reaſon ſaith Paraem why he is called a Father of Eternity, is, becauſe he is the Authour of Eternal life.
2. Our Tranſlation gain-ſays a main part of the Common opinion. It is the Doctrine of our Divines, that the Perſons in the Trinity may be diſtinguiſhed, but not divided, nor confounded. The Perſon of the Father (ſay they) is not the Perſon of the Son; nor is the Son the Father, &c. Now there is but one Everlaſting Father. But if Chriſt be the Everlaſting Father, either there are two Everlaſting Fathers, or the Perſon of the Father and the Son are confounded.
3. But in the laſt place, were it granted that thoſe titles belong to Chriſt onely, and that they are equivalent with that of Moſt High God: yet will it not of neceſſity follow, that Jeſus Chriſt is the Moſt High God:
1. Becauſe titles may be tranſlated from one to another, to whom they properly do not belong. Daniel calls Nebuchadnezzar King of Kings, Dan. 2.37. In the Old Teſtament 'tis a uſuall thing, for Angels and Men, who did repreſent God to bear his Name.
2. Becauſe enough may be found in the Text to diſtinguiſh this glorious one, who bears thoſe glorious names, from the Moſt High God: 1. In that thoſe titles of glory are given to the Childe, that ſhould be born, (which was the Man10 Chriſt Jeſus) without making mention of any other nature, v. 6. 2. In that the Perſon to whom thoſe titles appertain is called a Son, and is ſaid to be given. Ʋnto us a Childe is born, unto us a Son is given, &c. which notes out another perſon, and one greater: for he that gives, is greater then he that's given; for none but Superiours can give or diſpoſe of others.
3. Becauſe there is another ſpoken of in the Text, who is exalted above him, to whom thoſe titles belong, by a name more noble, Iehovah of Sabbaoth or Hosts, which by the Apoſtle from Eſay 6.3. is tranſlated Lord Almighty, Rev. 4.8. and given to him that ſits on the Throne, who is diſtinguiſhed from the Lamb, chap. 5.13. And in that all thoſe things ſpoken of the Son are appropriated to another as the Author thereof. The zeal of the Lord of Hoſts ſhall perform or doe this, v. 7.
Now I ſhall cloſe up the Anſwer with an Expoſition, that a learned & godly man gives of the place. His words are theſe:
Ʋnto us a Childe is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government ſhall be upon his ſhoulder, and his name ſhall be called WONDERFUL (by reaſon of his exaltation, which is ſo ſtrange and wonderful, that even the greatest part of Christians cannot believe it, and therefore imagine another nature in Chriſt, beſides his Humane Nature, as thinking a man uncapable of ſo tranſcendent an exaltation) COUNCELLOUR (In being made acquainted with all the Councels of God) MIGHTY GOD (by reaſon of the Divine Empire over all things both in Heaven and Earth, conferred on him by the Father, agreeably whereunto Paul calleth him God over all bleſſed for evermore, Rom. 9.5. A Father of the age (In being the Authour of the age to come, as both the Septuagint, and old Latin Interpreter expound it: or elſe a Father of Eternity, in being Authour of Eternal Life to all that obey him. For to render the words as the Engliſh Tranſlators do, who here call Chriſt the Everlaſting Father, is to confound the Perſon of the Son with that of the Father, and ſo to introduce Sabellianiſm.
Your Third Scripture is,Tit. 3.13. Tit. 3.13. which I ſhall paſs over11 till I come to your ſecond paper, where it is brought forth in a more formal way, and with an appearance of greater ſtrength.
THat which follows is,1 Iohn 5.20. 1 Iohn 5.20. This is the true God, and eternall life.
Anſw. Chriſt is the moſt high God, in that he is, (as you ſuppoſe) here called the true God. The words I confeſs at the firſt bluſh ſeems to ſtand on your ſide: but if well conſidered they ſpeak not a word for your cauſe; for they relate not to the Son, but to the Father onely.
Firſt, if we conſider theſe words, this is the true God, and eternal life, as an intire body of themſelves, not having dependance on the words immediately preceding, as probably they have not, being by a full point ſeparated from them: then they are the Epitome, Abridgement, or ſumme of the whole Epiſtle.
And ſo the Apoſtles mind ſeems to be this: This Father which I have in this my Epiſtle treated of, is the true God; and this Ieſus Chriſt of whom I have ſpoken, and in whom ye have believed is eternal life; that is the way to it.
Secondly, but were it granted, that theſe words, This is the true God, do depend on the foregoing words: yet will it not of neceſſity follow, that the Son, not the Father is the Antecedent to the Relative, this; and ſo that the ſentence muſt be thus underſtood, This Son is the true God. In the precedent words there is mention made of the Father: [And we know (ſaith the Apoſtle) that the Son of God is come,] i. e. We Believers aſſuredly know, that the Son of God is already come in the fleſh, notwithſtanding many at this time gain-ſay and deny it, [And hath given us an underſtanding that we may know him that is true] and this Jeſus Chriſt, being in the boſome of the Father, and having received from him the promiſe of the ſpirit, hath anointed the eyes of our mindes, that we might ſavingly know him that is true, that is, the true God; as ſome Greek Copies have it. [And we are in him that is true, &c.] If with Eraſmus and Tindal we read the words thus: and we are in him that is true through his Son Jeſus12 Chriſt; the meaning is this, We have not only an apprehenſion of, but alſo union and communion with him who is the true God, by the means of his Son Jeſus Chriſt. But if we follow Piſcator, the words hold out that oneneſs and fellowſhip, which the Saints have with the Father, and his Son Jeſus: For thus he would have them read, And we are in him that is true, (to with the Father) and in his Son Ieſus Chriſt. But laſt of all, if we conſent with Hierome, who by making〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉a redundant hath them thus, and we are in this true Son Ieſus Chriſt; they speak only of that oneneſs we have with Chriſt. Now the words that follow, relate to the Father; This is the true God. The Apoſtle intends the Father: But becauſe his aſſertion is contrary to many mens interpretation, take for the backing of it theſe few Reaſons.
1. Becauſe the Text will Grammatically bear it: for the words may be thus rendred, That is the true God; and ſo the Antecedent to the Relative, is not the Perſon immediatly foregoing, which is Jeſus Chriſt, but another ſpoken of at a farther diſtance, to wit the Father.
2. Becauſe Jeſus Chriſt no where in the Scripture is called the true God; and therefore is it the more queſtionable, whether he be ſo called here the place being ſomewhat doubtful and ambiguous.
3. Becauſe the Father is called the true God diſtinct from the Son, 1 Theſſ. 1.9, 10. For they themſelves ſhew of us, what manner of entring in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from Idols, to ſerve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from Heaven, whom he raiſed from the dead, even Ieſus which delivered us from the wrath to come. It is evident from this Text, that the Father diſtinct from the Son, is called the living and true God; and therefore is it probable, that in the Text under Examination, the Father onely is intended in this expreſſion, this is the true God.
4. Becauſe the Father is called the onely true God, John 17.3. And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and whom thou haſt ſent Ieſus Chriſt. Here the Father is called the onely true God, and ſo the Son is excluded from being the true God, and therefore of neceſſity13 in 1 Iohn 5.20. The Father onely is intended.
THe Text which comes next to be ſcanned,Ier. 23 6. is, Ier. 23.6. And this is his name, whereby he ſhall be called, The Lord our Righteouſneſs. Hence is gathered that Ieſus Chriſt is the most High God, becauſe the incommunicable name Jehovah is attributed to him.
Anſw. Firſt, that it is a probable conjecture that our Engliſh Tranſlators ſaw not this Myſtery wrapt up in the name Jehovah. In that they do not here follow their uſuall cuſtome in giving the Hebrew name: for they read not Jehovah, but the Lord our righteouſneſs. Yea, that the Apoſtles themſelves were ignorant of the uſe, where unto the name Jehovah is put by you and others. For though we have in the New Teſtament Hebrew names, yet Jehovah appears not there; but in ſtead thereof〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lord, which is a common name.
Againſt this you once objected, That the name Iehovah cannot be expreſt in the Greek language. But to me this ſeems not true; for there is no letter in Iehovah which the Greeks want, but may be found in other names, which in the New Teſtament are rendred in imitation of the Hebrew; as Iacob, Abraham, David. And it cannot but ſeem ſtrange, that that name, which cannot (as you ſay) be expreſſed in the Greek language (by which the Old and New Teſtament was publiſhed to the greateſt part of the world) ſhould be a foundation for that, which you call a truth fundamental.
Secondly, that it is not an undeniable conſequent that Jeſus Chriſt is the Moſt High God, becauſe called Iehovah; for although the name may moſt properly belong to the moſt High God: yet 'tis communicated in the Scripture unto creatures. To Angels frequently, Gen. 19.24. Then Iehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimſtone and fire from Iehovah out of Heaven; That is, the Angel which did ſuſtain the name of Iehovah, he rained, &c. If credit may be given to ſome, the title Iehovah is in this of Ieremiah appropriated to the people of Iſrael and Iudah. They read the words thus, and this is the name which they ſhall call it, [to wit the people,] Iehovah our righteouſneſs; that is, God14 hath done well for us. In Ier. 33.16. the people of Ieruſalem and Iudah in the letter, but according to a Myſticall ſenſe, the Church of Chriſt is called Iehovah our righteouſneſs. In thoſe days ſhall Iudah be ſaved, and Ieruſalem ſhall dwell ſafely: and this is the name wherewith ſhe ſhall be called, Iehovah our righteouſneſs. Alſo the City Ieruſalem is called Iehovah, Ezek. 48.35. And the name of the City from that day ſhall be Iehovah is there. Yea, the Altar, which Moſes erected when the Amalekites were diſcomfited is called Iehovah Niſſi, The Lord my Hunter, Exodus 17.15. I know you will not ſay, that the Church is the moſt High God, much leſs the Altar or City Ieruſalem; yet you may ſee that the Incommunicable name Iehovah is, communicated to them. How your inference concerning Chriſt may be juſtified, is yet not evident: but remains dubious, not onely for the commonneſs of the name, but alſo becauſe this Iehovah is ſaid to be raiſed by another, v. 5.
THE Scripture which occupies the next place hath been already inſiſted on: wherefore that which follows being Iohn 8.58. John 8.58.Before Abraham was, I am, is now to be ſpoken to.
Anſw. The words rightly underſtood will no ways countenance your inference from them. In the words we have a Grammaticall Figure which they call Enallage, whereby, one time is put for another, as here the preſent tenſe for the praeter, Am for Was, Before Abraham was, I was: and ſo they note out and ſignifie one or both of the things that follow.
1. That Ieſus Chriſt was inſtituted and revealed before Abraham had a being. If we take the word I, to ſignifie the Whole of Chriſt, there is a neceſſity that the words be thus underſtood: for Chriſt according to the fleſh was not in being before Abraham was. That he was revealed before Abraham was, is clear and evident: for the ſeed of the woman at the beginning was made known to Adam. That he was ordained before Abraham had a being is from Scripture not a little manifeſt, as 1 Pet. 1.20. And by the ſame reaſon he may here be ſaid to be before Abraham was, as he is elſewhere15 called the Lamb ſlain from the foundation of the world, Rev. 13.8.
2. That he had a reall being and exiſtence before Abraham was; this cannot be aſſerted of whole Chriſt, and therefore according to this Expoſition the Figure Synecdoche (whereby the whole is put for a part) muſt be underſtood in the Text. It is granted by all that contend for, and by ſome that deny the Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt, that he had a being and exiſtence before Abraham was: but what this being was is the onely doubt. Some affirm that Jeſus Chriſt, before he was born of the Virgin Mary, had no other exiſtence, but in the Godhead, and was onely to be conſidered as the Son eternally begotten of the Father. Others aſſert that this conceit is neither Scriptural nor Rational, but unſound and abſurd: and that he had a created being before Abraham was; yea, that he was the firſt creature, and ſo Lord of all.
That this Controverſie may be decided, I ſhall lay down three Poſitions.
1. That whole Chriſt doth conſiſt of fleſh and ſpirit. Poſition 1
Every man is conſtituted of two parts, fleſh and ſpirit, 2 Cor. 7.1. Iam. 2.26. and ſo is Chriſt, as in Rom. 1.3, 4. where the Apoſtle ſpeaking of whole Chriſt, mentions nothing but fleſh and ſpirit. According to the fleſh, that is, the body of Chriſt, he was of the ſeed of David: But after the spirit of holineſs, he was the Son of God.
He that can finde another part beſides thoſe two, or any nature beſides what belongs to his fleſh and ſpirit, may have liberty to bring forth, (for ought I know) what he may find out.
Poſition 2That Chriſt before he took upon him the ſeed of Abraham did exiſt onely according to the ſpirit. He had no being but a ſpiritual one: But this is no controverſall thing, being on all hands concluded for truth. The onely diſagreement is, whether this ſpirit of holineſs after which Chriſt is the Son of God doth ſignifie the Divine Nature, and Godhead, or elſe the ſoul which was created or formed, and did exiſt diſtinct from the fleſh or body of Chriſt.
Wherefore the third Poſition is:
16Poſition 3That the Spirit of Chriſt, according to which he was the Son of God, is a Creature.
To ſupport this take theſe Reaſons:
1. Becauſe to affirm that the Spirit of Chriſt did exiſt diſtinct from his body, and may be ſpoken of as a perſon, is not in the leaſt abſurd. For the ſpirit or ſoul of a man may exiſt diſtinct from the body, and is ſpoken of as a perſon. What are thoſe spirits of juſt men made perfect, Heb. 12.23. but the ſouls of good men glorified in Heaven, whoſe bodies were in the graves. In Luke 23.43. ſaith Chriſt to the Thief, This day ſhalt thou be with me in Paradiſe; Thou, that is, thy ſoul or ſpirit, ſhall be with me, that is, with my ſpirit in Paradiſe.
2. Becauſe the titles which moſt properly belong to Chriſt before he took fleſh, do hold him forth to be a Creature; firſt, he is called the Son of God, Luke 1.35. Now this title informs us of his Inferiority to God, his Exiſtency of God, and his Superiority over all things.
1. It holds forth his Inferiority to God, God is his Father; but a ſon is inferiour to a father, and by the Law is bound to honour and obey him.
Wherefore Chriſt confeſſeth that his Father was greater then he, Iohn 14.28. My Father is greater then I. And profeſſeth that he did honour his Father, Iohn 8.49. Ieſus anſwered, I have not a Devil: but I honour my Father, and ye do diſhonour me.
That this might be put paſt all doubt, he is called the Son of the Higheſt, Luke 1.32. He ſhall be great, and ſhall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God ſhall give unto him the Throne of his Father David. And therefore not the Higheſt, for there can be but one Higheſt; and he is the Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt.
2. This title Son of God proclaims his Exiſtency on God.
A Son is of a Father, and therefore the being of a Father is before the being of a Son; God as he is a Creator, is the Father of all, Eph. 4.6. And all men as creatures, are Gods off-ſpring. Acts 17.28. Angels and Men who are principall creatures, are called the Sons of God, Job 38.7. Luke 3 38. 17They that hold the Deity of Chriſt, do affirm, that the Son was of the Father by an Eternall Generation. But what this Generation is, they cannot declare, and therefore call it ineffable; Yet M. Perkins will tell us, that the Son was generated of the Father, in that the Divine Eſſence was communicated to him. But who can tell what this Him, was, to whom this Eſſence was communicated? And who can affirm, that this Eſſence was communicated to this Him, and yet aſſert, and evidence that he was never without it? And that he was God, and yet diſtinct from the Eſſence; for it is ſaid that the Eſſence was communicated to Him? Where Scripture doth aſſert, and how reaſon will make out an Eternall Generation, and whether the phraſe Eternall Generation doth not contain in it a meer contradiction, let him that can, ſhew.
Now let it be aſſerted, That Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God as he is a creature, and then let us ſee, whether a definition may not be made of his Generation.
His Generation is that act of Creation, whereby the God of all beings did immediately and in the firſt place, bring forth and produce him.
Generation and Creation, to beget and create, are ſometimes in Scripture terms equivalent: As is evident from the work of God in changing the creature which is ſometimes called a new Creation, ſometimes Regeneration; and the perſon changed is in one place ſaid to be created in another to be begotten.
In the laſt place this title Son of God, ſets forth his ſuperiority over all things. We ſhall find that Son of God, & Chriſt are terms convertible, if we compare Matth. 16.16. with Mark 8.29. when Chriſt asked his Diſciples this quaery, Whom think ye that I am? Then Simon Peter anſwered and ſaid, Thou art Chriſt, the Son of the living God. So Matthew: But Mark in relating the ſame anſwer, gives it thus, Thou art the Chriſt. From which is evident, that Chriſt and the Son of God are terms equivalent; for one Evangeliſt uſeth both, that one might expound the other, but another leaves out one of the terms, becauſe either was ſufficient,18 both being Synonama's. So likewiſe in Acts 9.20. compar'd with verſ. 22. of the ſame chap. And 'tis as manifeſt in the ſcripture, that Chriſt, King of Iſrael; and choſen of God are convertible terms, noting out one and the ſame thing, to wit, Authority, Dominion, and Power. It will appear to you as clear as the ſunn, if you compare theſe Texts together, Matth. 27.42. Filij dicuntur qui aliqua exparte alicui ſunt ſimiles.Mark 15.32. Luke 23.35. Magiſtrates and Princes, by reaſon of that Dominion they have over others, are called the the ſons of the moſt High, Pſ. 82.6. I have ſaid ye are Gods: and all of you are ſons of the moſt High.
So David is called in Pſal. 2.7. which myſtically and more properly belong to Chriſt, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, which ſets forth the Kingly Office of Jeſus Chriſt, according to the confeſſion of all. Now Chriſt is named The ſon of God in way of Eminency, as being King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. That this ſuperiority which Chriſt hath over all things might be the more perſpicuous, he bears this name alſo; The onely begotten Son of God, Jo. 3.16. which title points at his Heirſhip. Jeſus Chriſt by whom God made the world, was appointed to be heir of all things, Heb. 1.2. now he that is an Heir, is (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks) Lord of all, Gal. 4.1. In this ſenſe Iſaac is ſaid to be Abrahams onely begotten ſon, Heb. 11.17. not that Abraham had no other ſon, (for he had one by Hagar, and diverſe by Keturah) but becauſe Iſaac was his heir. To the reſt he gave gifts, but to Iſaac all that he had.
The ſecond Title is the word of God, Rev. 19.13. And his name is called, The Word of God.
This name is impoſed on him for two Cauſes.
Firſt, becauſe he is the Image of Gods inviſibility, God is inviſible, and dwels in unacceſſible light: and therefore in this life he cannot be known as he is; notwithſtanding, becauſe the knowledg of God is eternal life; he hath reveal'd himſelf ſo farr as neceſſary, and in a way ſuitable to our capacity. This diſcovery of God is made in his ſon Jeſus, who is therefore called (Col. 1.15. ) the Image of the inviſible God; and alſo the brightneſs of the Fathers glory, character of his ſubſtance, Heb. 1.3. And this Image Jeſus Chriſt hath his19 Shadows, whereby he reveals himſelf, and ſo conſequently the Father. His ſhadows are the works of God, Chriſt being Gods principall and immediate Inſtrument in all his works: And alſo the words of God are a ſhadow of Chriſt, for by them are the works of God made known or made more clear unto us, and therefore Chriſt is fitly called The word of God, in that a word or ſpeech is the diſcoverer of mans inviſibility. The excellency or deformity of the minde, the tongue makes evident.
Secondly, becauſe he was produced by God immediately. This title declares not only that he was made, but alſo that he was Gods immediate work. Facere verba, to make words is no unuſuall phraſe; mens words are their creatures. And for the producing or making of words no inſtrument diſtinct from the Agent intervenes; but the Agent is the inſtrument: Therefore a word is a lively ſhadow of Jeſus Chriſt, who was the firſt creature that ever God made, and the inſtrument by which he made all things.
The third title is this, The firſt-born of every Creature, Coll. 1.15. It is evident from the Text, that this title is appropriated to Jeſus Chriſt, by whom all things are made: and it cannot be applyable to him any otherwiſe, but as a creature; and it holds him forth to be the firſt of Creatures. A mans firſt-born is the firſt that he begets, and is brought forth to him. The ſame word is uſed to expreſs the firſt-born among the Egyptians children, Heb. 11.28.
The fourth title is, The beginning of the creation of God, Rev. 3.14. The beginning of the creation of God, that is, the firſt of Gods creatures; the words will bear this expoſition: for〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, beginning, ſignifies the firſt part of any thing, or the firſt of things in the ſame kinde: ſo in Luke 1.2. Mat. 24.8. Joh. 2.11. But ſome will ſay, that he is called the beginning, becauſe he is the Prince of the creation. But where the word is uſed in the ſingular number to ſignifie a Prince, I doe not at preſent minde. True it is, that Chriſt is the chief, becauſe he is the firſt of all the Creatures. Others will affirm, that he is thus called, becauſe he is the Author of the creation. But this expoſition is excluded, in that the20 creation whereof he is the beginning, is called the Creation of God, who is the author of all created things.
Now for the third reaſon which doth confirm the third poſition, That the Spirit of Chriſt, according to which he is the Son of God, is a Creature.
Reaſon 3Becauſe whole Chriſt is a creature.
If whole Chriſt be, then doubtleſs every part of Chriſt is a creature.
That whole Chriſt is a creature, theſe following Arguments will demonſtrate.
Argum. 1That which is diſtinct from GOD is a creature.
But whole CHRIST is diſtinct from GOD, therefore whole CHRIST is a CREAIƲRE.
The Major is evident to ſenſe and Reaſon: for God is but one, and 'tis abſurd to imagine him diſtinct from himſelf. But ſome peradventure will make uſe of the uſuall diſtinction betwixt perſon and eſſence, and ſo affirm, that one may be diſtinguiſhed from God perſonally, and yet be one in eſſence with him.
To this diſtinction hear what a learned and godly man ſpeaks: His words are theſe:As for this wretched diſtinctions (to omit the mention of the Fathers) is not onely unheard of in Scripture, but is alſo diſclaimed by Reaſon.For, 1. it is impoſſible for any man, if he would but endevour to conceive the thing, and not delude both himſelf and others with empty terms and words without underſtanding, to diſtinguiſh the perſon from the eſſence of God, and not to frame two beings or things in his minde, and conſequently two Gods. Secondly, if the Perſon be diſtinct from the Eſſence of God, then it is either ſomething or nothing; If nothing, how can it be diſtinguiſhed, ſeeing nothing hath no accidents? If ſomething, then either ſome finite or infinite thing; if finite, then there will be ſomething finite in God, and conſequently (ſince by the confeſſion of the Adverſaries themſelves, every thing in God is God) God will be finite, which the Adverſaries themſelves will confeſs to be abſurd. If infinite, then there will be two infinites in God, to wit, the Perſon and the Eſſence of God, and conſequently two Gods;21 which is more abſurd then the former. Thirdly, to talk of God taken onely eſſentially is ridiculous; not onely becauſe there is no example thereof in Scripture; but becauſe God is the name of a Perſon, and ſignifieth him that ruleth over others; and when it is put for the moſt High God, it denoteth him who with ſoveraign and abſolute authority ruleth over all, but none but a Perſon can rule over others, all actions being proper to perſons: wherefore to take God otherwiſe then perſonally, is to take him otherwiſe then he is, and indeed to miſtake him.
Thus much for the Major.
The Minor, which is, That whole Chriſt is distinct from God, is now to be prov'd. The Scripture being full and frequent in the demonſtration of this, I ſhall ſpeak but a few words to it.
Firſt, Chriſt himſelf doth confeſs it, John 8.42. Jeſus ſaid unto them (to wit the Jews) if God were your Father, yee would love me; for I proceeded forth, and came from God; neither came I of my ſelf, but he ſent me. In this Text we may note theſe few things:
1. That God is a Perſon, and that Father is his name, If God were your Father ye would love me, &c.
2. That Chriſt doth plainly distinguiſh himſelf from God: If God were your Father, ye would love me; for I proceeded forth, and came from God, &c. Yea, he affirms that of himſelf, which denies him to be God; to wit, change of place, I proceeded (ſaith he) and came forth from God. And ſubjection to God; I came not of my ſelf, but he (that is, God) ſent me.
Chriſt alſo diſtinguiſheth himſelf from God, Lu. 18.18, 19. And a certain ruler, asked him, ſaying, Good Maſter, what ſhall I doe to inherit eternall life? Jeſus anſwered, and ſaid, Why calleſt thou me good? none is good ſave one, that is, GOD. Here Chriſt affirmeth, that there is but one God, (to wit, by way of eminency) and excludes himſelf from being this one God. Why calleſt thou me Good, there is but one good, even God. Were Jeſus Chriſt the moſt High GOD, and were this a fundamentall, (as you aſſert;) it is imaginable, that Jeſus Chriſt, who came, not to condemn, but to ſave the22 world, ſhould never ſay it, and ſhould in this place ſo much cloud it.
Secondly, now let us hear ſome teſtimonies that the Apoſtles (who were to ſpeak nothing but what their Lord and Maſter Jeſus Chriſt did command them) have given to the thing in hand, Let Paul (as Peter was wont to doe) ſpeak for the reſt: In 1 Cor. 12.4, 5, 6. He tels us, That there are diverſity of gifts, but the ſame Spirit; and there are differences of adminiſtrations, but the ſame Lord; and there are diver ſity of operations, but 'tis the ſame God which worketh all in all. Here the Apoſtle doth diſtinguiſh the Spirit, and the Lord, from GOD; and ſhews, that thoſe gifts which were diſtributed to men by the Spirit, that they might be fitted for ſeverall miniſtrations in the Kingdome of the Lord Chriſt, did all of them proceed from God.
The ſame Apoſtle in the ſame Epiſtle, Chap. 8.5, 6. doth as one deſigning the thing, diſtinguiſh the Lord Jeſus from God. For though there be ſaith he) that are called Gods, whether in heaven, or in earth, (as there be Gods many and Lords many) but unte us there is one GOD, even the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him: and one Lord Jeſus Chriſt, by whom are all things, and we by him. Here we have the Apostles and Primitive Chriſtians Creed: They beleeve that there is but one GOD, (in way of eminency) to wit, the Father of whom (as the firſt cauſe) are all things, and unto whom (as the ultimate end) Saints are, and ſo all things; and that there is but one Lord, (in way of eminency, amongſt all made Lords) even Ieſus, by whom (as the great inſtrument of God) are all things, and we by him. See Epheſ. 4.4, 5, 6. where a plain diſtinction is made betwixt the Spirit, the Lord, and GOD, But enough of this.
Obj. But Chriſt doth ſay that he is one with the Father, John 10.30.
Sol. 'Tis true, Chriſt doth ſay that he and the Father are one: But one what? one Perſon? that none will aſſert. But are they one God, one Eſſence: Yea, that's the thing, which many will ſubſcribe to, as Chriſts meaning here. But did Chriſt intend to ſignifie that? Doubtleſs no, which appears,23 not only from the abſurdity of the thing, but alſo evidently from Chriſts vindication of himſelf from the accuſation of the Phariſees, who misconſtruing of this did miſ-inferre, from this ſaying of his, I and my Father are one. In this vindication we may obſerve:
Firſt, that Chriſt denies the Premiſe of their concluſion. They concluded that he ſpake blaſphemy, (and therefore went about to ſtone him) becauſe (as they underſtood) he made himſelf God, to wit, the moſt High God) and ſo made more Gods then one, Verſe 33. This Chriſt denies, affirming that his ſaying did amount to no more then this, The ſonne of God, verſe 36. that is, Gods repreſentative.
Secondly, Chriſt aſſerts the lawfulneſs of his ſaying, by an argument drawn à minori ad majus, from the leſs to the greater. If they to whom the Word of GOD came, (to wit, the Judges of the great Synedrion, who received a commandement from God to judge the people of Iſrael) were without blasphemy called Gods: then he whom the Father hath ſanctified and ſent into the world (to have dominion over all mankinde) may without blasphemy be called God, or the Son of God. But they to whom the word of God came were called Gods: This Chriſt proves from Pſalm 82.6. Jeſus anſwered and ſaid, Is it not written in your Law, I ſaid ye are Gods, verſe 34. Therefore he that the Father hath ſanctified and ſent into the world, may without blaſphemy be called God, or the Son of GOD. That this might be applyed to Chriſt, Chriſt himſelf appeals to his works, ſending the Phariſees thither, to ſatisfy themſelves, that he was ſent of the Father. If I doe not (ſaith he) the works of My Father, beleeve me not: But if I doe, though ye beleeve not me, beleeve the works: that ye may know and beleeve that the Father is in me, and I in him, verſe 37, 38.
Thirdly, he declares his inferiority to God; in that he ſaith, that the Father ſanctified and ſent him into the world, that is, prepared and gave him a Commandement for the exerciſe of a very great authority, ver. 36.
Hence may be eaſily ſeen by a judicious ey, that Chriſt intended not by this ſaying of his, I and my Father are one, to hold24 himſelf equall to the Father, or one in Eſſence with him. But how are we then to underſtand the words? This ſentence, I and my Father are one, admits of this meaning. I and my Father are one in work; the ſame work that I doe, my Father he doth alſo. The like phraſe by the conſent of all is taken in the like ſenſe, 1 Cor. 3.8. Now he that planteth, and he that watereth are one: How one, unleſs in work? The context will conſtrain us (if we conſider it well) to baptize Chriſts expreſſion into the ſame acceptation. For the words in diſpute cloſe up a glorious diſcovery of that gracious protection, which Chriſt affords to the ſheep of his Paſture, which alſo he affirms to be the work of his Father: and ſo in work they are one.
Now who can hinder the drawing up of this concluſion, That whole Chriſt is a Creature?
The ſecond Argument contributing ſomething to this Poſition, That whole Chriſt is a Creature, now follows:
Argum. 2He that lives by another is a Creature: But whole Chriſt lives by another: Therefore whole Chriſt is a Creature.
That God lives of himſelf is a generall and undeniable Maxime: Wherefore I ſhould but waſte time, if I ſhould ſpend time in the confirmation of this, that he is a creature who lives not by himſelf but by another.
But for the Minor, That whole Chriſt lives of another, there is need of proof. That ſcripture, which without ſtammering doth ſpeak it forth, is, John 6.57. As the living Father hath ſent me, and I live by the Father: ſo he that eateth me, even he ſhall live by me. Here Chriſt ſpeaks no parable, but plainly ſhews us, that life is originally in the Father; and that he himſelf is ſent by, and ſo ſubject to the Father; and that he lives (not by the God-head as united in one perſon with the Man hood, but) by the Father: even as beleevers live by him, in that they doe not immediately derive their life from the Father, but mediately through the Son. Therefore whole Chriſt is a Creature.
The third Argument, which takes part with the foregoing, appears clothed with theſe expreſſions.
Argum. 3He that hath what he hath from another, is a Creature.
25But whole Chriſt hath what he hath from another.
Therefore whole Chriſt is a creature.
The Major is as clear as the Sun ſhining at noon day, the truth whereof men need not put on ſpectacles to ſee: wherefore I ſhall paſs by it as needleſs to be ſpoken to, and haſten to the Minor, which doubtleſs ſome will deny, That what Chriſt hath, what he hath received from another the Scripture doth abundantly ſpeak, and bear witneſs to. Chriſt confeſſeth that all things are delivered to him of the Father, Luke 10.22. The Father (ſaith John the Baptiſt) loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand, John 3.35. That this may be more evident, I ſhall inſtance in a few particulars, and therein confine my ſelf to the Authority and ſufficiency of Jeſus Chriſt, which are the main, and things including in them all the reſt.
1. I ſhall begin with Chriſts Authority, which though it be exceeding great and glorious; Chriſt being a God, a King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and having a name or authority above every name that is named, not onely in this world, but alſo in that which is to come, yet it is derived from, and ſubjected to the power and authority of another. He is a Lord, but Peter tells us that he is a made Lord, Acts 2.36. Therefore let the houſe of Iſrael (ſaith he) Know aſſuredly, that God hath made that ſame Ieſus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Chriſt. He was appointed and anointed by the Father both for the having and exerciſing of Soveraign Authority and power, Heb. 1.2. with the ninth of the ſame chap. both which places (as all confeſs) ſpeak of Chriſt in the higheſt conſideration. Paul, Epheſ. 1.20, 21, 22. doth plainly informus, that the Father of Glory (whom he calls, v. 17. the God of our Lord Ieſus Christ) having raiſed up Chriſt from the dead, did ſet him at his own right hand in the Heavenly places far above all Principality and Power, and Might and Dominion, and every name that is named, not onely in this world, but in that which is to come, and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the Head over all things to the Church.
That his Name, Power, or Authority, was by gift, doth26 with the greateſt evidence ſhine forth from Matth. 28.18. and Phil. 2.9.
2. Now let us come to the next thing, the Sufficiency of Jeſus Chriſt, which though it be All-ſufficient in reference to his Work and Offices, yet is not Originally his, but from another, as the Fountain thereof. I ſhall illuſtrate this in ſome few particulars.
Firſt, Chriſts ſufficiency to inſtruct in Doctrine was from another; All the treaſures of wiſdome and knowledge are hid in Jeſus Chriſt, Col. 2.3. And his lips have abundantly, yea, ſufficiently dropt the honey and the honey comb, I mean the doctrine of the Goſpel.
This Doctrine was not Originally his, he enjoyed it being conveighed from another to him, and did by the aſſiſtance of another, teach and publiſh the ſame. Chriſt himſelf affirms, that the Doctrine he taught was not his own, but his that ſent him; that it was of God, and that he ſpake not of himſelf, Joh. 7.16, 17.
He received what he hath delivered unto us. Grace was poured into his lips, Pſal. 45.2. He teſtifies what he hath ſeen, and heard, as in John 3.32. What he hath ſeen and heard, that he teſtifieth, and no man receiveth his teſtimony, ſaid Iohn the Baptiſt; This was ſpoken of Chriſt who came from Heaven, as is evident from the precedent verſe; To this Chriſt bears witneſs in that ſaying of his to his Diſciples, Iohn 15.15. Henceforth I call you not ſervants, for the ſervant knoweth not what his Lord doth; But I have called you friends: for all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you. That which Chriſt by the Angel ſignified to Iohn, God gave him Rev. 1.1. He alſo in the work was aſſiſted by another. The Spirit of the Lord was upon him, becauſe he had anointed him to preach the Goſpel to the poor, &c. Luke 4.18.
Secondly, His ſufficiency to effect Miracles was from another.
The teſtimony that Chriſt gives of himſelf, we may without ſcruple receive. The Son (ſaith he) can do nothing of himſelf, John 5.19. he was Gods inſtrument in the Miracles27 wrought by him, Acts 2.22. Yee men of Iſrael (ſaith Peter) hear theſe words, Ieſus of Nazareth a man approved of God, among you, by Miracles, Wonders, and Signes, which God did by him in the midſt of you, as yee your ſelves alſo know, &c. So that God the Father was the Principall Agent in all theſe Miracles, which Chriſt wrought or effected, which is farther confirmed by Chriſts ſaying, Iohn 14.10.
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I ſpeak unto you, I ſpeak not of my ſelf, but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doth the Work. In that the power by which Chriſt did work was the power of God, as is manifeſt from Matth. 12.28. But if I, (ſaith Chriſt) in Gods Spirit (ſo in the Original) caſt out Devils, Then is the kingdome of God come unto you. By Gods Spirit, we are not here to underſtand the Holy Ghoſt, but the Power of God, which was preſent with Chriſt for his aſſiſtance: as will manifeſtly appear by comparing with this Text, Luke 11.20. where the ſame ſpeech is thus repreſented; But if I in (or by) Gods finger caſt out Devils, doubtleſs the Kingdome of God is come unto you. The finger of Gods power manifeſted in operation, as in Exod. 8.19. the like phraſe in the like ſenſe is uſed. And therefore Chriſt is ſaid to do Miracles, (not becauſe he was God but) becauſe God was with him, Acts 10.38. He did his Miracles in his Fathers name, John 10.25. When the Jews deſired Chriſt to tell them plainly, whether he were the Chriſt: the text tells us, that Jeſus anſwered thus; I told you, and yee believed not; The works that I do in my Fathers Name, they bear witneſs of me: Whereby Chriſt owned the Fathers Authority over him, and acknowledged that his power to work was from him: As the Apoſtles did in reference to Chriſt by doing miracles in his name, Ast. 3.6. The works Chriſt did, the Father gave him to finiſh, that they might beare witneſs (not that he was God, but) that the Father ſent him, Jo. 5.36. But I have greater witneſs (ſaith Chriſt) then that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finiſh, the ſame works that I do, bear witnes of me, that the Father hath ſent me. And the Riſe of all was (not his merits, but) the Fathers Love, John 5.20.
28Thirdly, His ſufficiency to beſtow the ſpirit was from another.
The ſpirit is principally from the Father, wherefore Chriſt prayed to the Father for it, Iohn 14.16. And the Father ſent the Spirit in Chriſts name, Iohn 14.26. And Chriſt having received of the Father the promiſe of the Holy Ghoſt, ſhed it forth upon his Diſciples, Acts 2.33.
Fourthly and Laſtly, (to name no more) Chriſts ſufficiency to quicken the dead, is from another, John 5.21. comp. with the 26 v. The Son quickneth the dead, but it is given to him to have life in himſelf.
Now why may not this Concluſion, [therefore whole Chriſt is a creature,] appear with boldneſs, being uſher'd in with ſo ſtrong a guard as the precedent Argument is?
The fourth Argument which drives on the ſame deſigne, now puts forth its hands to the work.
Argum. 4He that acteth in obedience to another, is a creature.
But whole Chriſt acteth in obedience to another.
Chriſt is the Head of the Church, but God is the Head of Chriſt, 1 Cor. 11.3.
The Father is the God, and Father of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt. Chriſt is called Gods Servant, Eſay 42.1. And is ſaid to be ſent of the Father, Iohn 10.36. Now the Maſter is greater then the Servant, and he that ſends, then he that is ſent, Iohn 13.16. He came in his Fathers name, Iohn 5.43. He came into the world to do the will of God, Heb. 10.7. Lo I come to do thy will, O God. He himſelf was not this God, but the Father was this God, whoſe will Chriſt came to do: For he came not to do his will, but the Fathers, Iohn 6.38, 39. I came down from Heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that ſent me, and this is the Fathers will, which hath ſent me, that of all which he hath given me, I ſhould loſe nothing, &c. The Authority and Directory of Jeſus Chriſt was the Fathers Commandment, Iohn 12.49, 50. I have not (ſaith Chriſt) spoken of my ſelf; but the Father which hath ſent me, he gave me a Commandment what I ſhould ſay, and what I ſhould speak, and I know that his Command ment is life everlaſting: Whatſoever I speak therefore, even as the Father ſaid untome, ſo I ſpeak:
29Therefore whole Chriſt is a creature.
The Argument, which at this time is appointed to bring up the rear, witneſſeth what hath been ſaid by the former, to wit,
That whole Chriſt is a creature.
He that acteth with dependance on another, is a creature.
But whole Chriſt acteth with dependance on another.
Therefore whole Chriſt is a creature.
No man is ſo Independant in reſpect of ſenſe and reaſon as to deny the Major: Wherefore let us ſee, whether Scripture, (which in no part thereof is an enemy unto Reaſon) will vote for the Minor.
Argum. 5That whole Chriſt acteth with dependance on another, is made evident from his Petitions and Profeſſions, of which the Scripture is not ſilent.
1. Let us take a view of Chriſts Petitions; Chriſt prays to another, and thereby ſhews his dependance on another. In the work of our Redemption we ſhall finde Chriſt buſie in the work of Prayer. See that Prophecy of Chriſt which you have in the 22 Pſalm, and you will preſently ſee the truth of the thing aſſerted. Reflect your eyes on the 11 verſe, and there ſhall you hear Chriſt praying thus: Be not far from me, for trouble is near, for there is none to help, and ſo on to the 19 ver. where again he doth breath forth the requeſts of his heart. Be not far from me, ô Lord, ô my ſtrength, haſt thee to help mee, &c. Adde to this Prophecy the Authour to the Hebrews teſtimony, concerning its fulfilling, Heb. 5.7. Who (that is, Chriſt) in the days of his fleſh, when he had offered up Prayers and Supplications, with ſtrong crying and tears, unto him that was able to ſave him from death, and was heard in that he feared. So in his working of Miracles, we finde him in the ſame work of Prayer, Mark 7.34. and that to the Father as is clear from Iohn 11.41, 42.
2. Now for Chriſts Profeſſions, Chriſt profeſſeth that God is the object of his dependance, Pſal. 16.1. Preſerve me, O God, for in thee do I put my truſt. And he profeſſeth that the ground of his confidence was anothers aſſiſtance,30 Pſal. 16.8, 9. I have ſet the Lord always before me: becauſe he is at my right hand, I ſhall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoyceth, my fleſh alſo ſhall reſt in hope, &c. Alſo in Eſay 50.7. The Lord God will help me, therefore ſhall I not be confounded, therefore have I ſet my face as a flint; and I know that I ſhall not be aſhamed, &c.
The Minor being made clear, the Concluſion will not hide its face. Therefore whole Chriſt is a Creature. Thus I have done with the third Poſition, and ſo have brought my Anſwer relating to John the 8. & 58. unto a period:
WHerefore I ſhall now ſcan the Scripture which meeteth us next, which is Rev. 1.8:
Anſw. From this Text you would inferr:Rev. 1.8. Anſw. that Jeſus Christ is the moſt High God: and that doubtleſs for this cauſe. Becauſe Chriſt here ſpeaking of himſelf, doth appropriate to himſelf terms equivalent to that of moſt high God: But Sir, how can you demonſtrate that theſe are the words of Chriſt; and that they are here appropriated, and do relate to him? You peradventure will ſay, that the thing is evident, in that he is called the Lord, who here ſpeaks, and to whom thoſe Titles are applied. If this be your demonſtration it is full of darkneſs, and helps nothing to reſolve the ſcruple: For God or the Father diſtinct from Chriſt is called the Lord, Acts 3.19, 20. chap. 4.26. And frequently in this Book of the Revelation. To this Title you will (it may be) add the teſtimony of learned Interpreters, who take the words as ſpoken by Chriſt and of himſelf. Confirmatio ſalutis praecedentis à dei ipſius verbis: quae ſuā operationem in res creatas ſingulas, aeternitatem immutabilè in ſ•ſe, & in omnibus ſuam omnipotentiam aſſerit & illam trinitatem quae ante lict a eſt, divinibus concluditur eſſentiae ſuaeunitate. Bez. Non negamus quoſdam etiam Orthodoxos Interpretes, Lyranum item & Riberam Jeſuitam, haec Deo abſolutè, ſeu Trinitati tribueri hoc loco. Par.It is true, that ſome ſo conceive of the words, but not all; Beza conceives that theſe words are ſpoken of God abſolutely taken. Pareus confeſſeth that certain Orthodox Interpreters do attribute the word to God as they conſihim abſolutely: And therefore if our faith be built upon the ſayings of men, we ſhall not here know what to believe. Wherefore we muſt betake our ſelves to Reaſon, whereby the ſpirit may convince us, of whom the Text in controverſie is to31 be underſtood. That it is to be underſtood of the Father theſe Reaſons may help forwards to ſatisfaction.
1. Becauſe this Text declares the principal Authour of thoſe things, which John the Divine was to communicate to the ſeven Aſian Churches. For theſe words begin a new matter, and are no part of the ſalutation. They ſpeak of God even the Father, who is of higheſt Authority, and from whom originally this Revelation was. Chriſt he is ſpoken of verſe the 11. and is to be conſidered as the Principal Inſtrument in conveying this Revelation to the Churches: for God gave it to him, to ſhew unto his ſervants thoſe things, which were ſhortly to come to paſs, verſe 1.
2. Becauſe thoſe Titles are no where in the Scripture attributed to Jeſus Chriſt. He is indeed call'd Alpha and Omega, the firſt and laſt, verſe 11. but not Alpha and Omega, as ſignifying the beginning and the end.
3. Becauſe the terms in the Text are elſewhere apparently and profeſſedly given to God the Father, diſtinct from the Son. He is called Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, Rev. 21.5, 6. And he that ſate upon the throne ſaid, behold, I make all things New, And he ſaid unto me Write: for theſe words are true and faithfull: And he ſaid unto me, it is done, I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end, &c. The Angel uſeth the ſame phraſe Rev. 22.13. And doubtleſs in the ſame manner. In the fourth verſe of this firſt Chapter: the Father (as all men acknowledge) is ſaid to be, He that is, he which was, and he which is to come.
THe Scripture which follows, and is now to be conſidered of, is John 1.1. In the beginning was the Word,John 1.1. and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Expoſitors on this Text uſually bring forth Platoes invented terms, whereby they do not a little cloud the ſimplicity of the Word of Truth. The words may be thus read. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was a God. And they may have this ſenſe, In the beginning (in the firſt part of time) was the Word, (Ieſus Chriſt according to the ſpirit of holineſs did exiſt) And the Word was32 with the God (This Jeſus Christ was a delight to the moſt high God, and did converſe with him) and the Word was a God. (This Ieſus Chriſt had power committed to him, whereby he might repreſent the Moſt High God.)
Now for your inference from the Text, that Ieſus Chriſt is the moſt high God.
1. I anſwer that nothing is found in the Text, that doth aſſert Ieſus Chriſt to be the moſt high God? He is called GOD, 'tis true; but what of that? Will neceſſity bring in this Concluſion,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Juſt. Mart. p. 490. that he is the moſt high God? Nothing leſſe: For the name (as it hath been ſhewed before) is common with God and Creatures. To what hath been ſaid, I ſhall onely add a ſaying of Juſtin Martyrs, Whatſoever Angels (ſaith he) have appeared in the place of God, or acted with men, they have obtained the name of God, as he which ſpake with Iacob and Moſes: Yea, and men alſo are called Gods; but this appellation is granted to both, for ſome Office committed to them, &c.
2. That ſomething may be found in this Text to deny Ieſus Chriſt to be the moſt high God: he is here diſtinguiſhed from God: for the Text ſaith, the Word was with God: and ſo he was diſtinct from God. That the Phraſe notes out a diſtinction all men grant; I ſhall leave Reaſon to draw up the Concluſion; therefore Jeſus Chriſt is not the most high God. God cannot be diſtinguiſhed from himſelf, therefore he that is diſtinguiſhed from God muſt be conſidered under another notion. But ſome do infer from this diſtinction that which they call perſonality, (which hath already been ſpoken to) taking God in the firſt place to ſignifie the Perſon of the Father, who is wont (ſay they) to be called God in way of eminency; a ſtrange ſaying in the mouths of thoſe, who hold Co-equality amongſt the Perſons in the Trinity.
And alſo Chriſt is here differenced from the moſt high God: in that he is called a God, but he with whom he was The God in way of eminency: the omiſſion of the Article is not a little conſiderable. That which you add from the third verſe of this Chapter, will finde elſewhere a fitter place to receive an Anſwer in.
33NOw I come to Matth. 28.20. Matth. 28.20.Lo I am with you always to the end of the world.
Anſw. Sir, from the ſcope of your Paper it is eaſily ſeen what you would inferr hence; but as yet the Reaſon of your inference lies in the dark: the meaning of this phraſe, I am with you always unto the end of the World; is no more then this, I will do you good, whileſt ye remain imploy'd in my work. My Authour in this Expoſition is old Jacob, no bad Interpreter, Gen. 31.3. the Lord commanded Jacob to return into the Land of his Fathers, and to his kindred, and for his encouragement adds to the promiſe thus, I will be with thee: which Jacob in chap. 32.9. thus expounds, I will deal well with thee, or I will do thee good. Jeſus Chriſt is preſent with his Meſſengers, or deals well with them, when he doth inſtruct, comfort, ſtrengthen, or protect them: and all theſe works he doth in his abſence by his ſpirit, whom the Father hath ſent in his Name, Joh. 14.26. Let me only (for brevity ſake) inſtance in the work of inſtruction. Chriſt inſtructed his Apoſtles, but not immediately; for the ſpirit which came in Chriſts Name, and received of his, was the Inſtrument, by which Jeſus Chriſt did the work, John 16.13, 14, 15. When he the ſpirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he ſhall not ſpeak of himſelf: but whatſoever he ſhall hear that ſhall he ſpeak, and he will ſhew you things things to come. He ſhall glorifie me: for he ſhall receive of mine, and ſhall ſhew it unto you, all things that the Father hath are mine: therefore ſaid I,Hic locus de modo praeſeutiae ſpiritus quo ſe ſuaque nobis communicat: caeterum corpore abeſt. Beza in loc. he ſhall take of mine, and ſhall ſhew it unto you. Christ is now in Heaven, ſitting at the right hand of God, and is preſent with the Saints in Earth by the ſpirit, and glorious influences of grace and mercy, John 14.16, 17, 18. This kinde of preſence by the ſpirit Beza and others underſtand to be intended in Matth. 28.20.
REv. 2.2. is now to be minded,Rev. 2.2. whether it doth joyn with the fore-going Texts, in ſpeaking any thing by way of Juſtification to your Aſſertion or not.
Anſw. Christ could not (ſay you) at ſo great a diſtance know all the works of the Churches as meer man.
34What could he not? Is any thing too hard for the Lord? What could the Prophet Eliſha know at a very great diſtance, what the King of Syria ſaid in his bed-chamber? And yet cannot Chriſt know at a diſtance? He hath the ſpirit (to wit wiſedom, power, &c.) given him without meaſure, John 3.34.
And therefore can know beyond what we can conceive: And yet is not the moſt high God, for his knowledge is of another, John 5.30. I can of mine own ſelf do nothing; as I hear, I judge; and my judgement is juſt, becauſe I ſeek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath ſent me. Though he always knew all things neceſſary for the perfect diſcharge of his Offices; yet there was a time when he was excluded from the knowledge of the hour and day of judgement, Mark 13.32. The words from the Greek are theſe: But of that day and hour no one knoweth, neither the Angels which are in Heaven. Nor the Son, unleſs the Father. Hence it is plain, that the Father onely knew the day and hour of Judgement, and that the Son himſelf was at that time excluded from the knowledge of it; therefore this knowledge was not originally of himſelf nor always perfect.
COl. 1.15. Col. 1.15.I finde next in your Paper, but have already ſpoken to it; yet was willing here to mention it; leaſt you ſhould think I had forgot it. Sir, this Text you ſay, holds forth the Eternal Generation of Jeſus Chriſt. I pray conſider it again, and by your next let me hear what part thereof it is in which Chriſts Eternal Generation may be ſeen.
THe next Scripture is Col. 1.16. Col. 1.16. with John 1.3.To which I ſhall add John 1.3. being reſerv'd for this place.
Anſw. Sir, here you harp upon two other ſtrings, and think they ſound that alowd in your ears which you have entertained in your thoughts, to wit, that Jeſus Chriſt is the moſt high God. But pray Sir, conſider whether your Concluſion be the Eccho of thoſe Texts, or elſe of your own thoughts onely. But you ſeem to gather this Argument from the words to manifeſt the verity of your thoughts.
He by whom all things were made is the moſt high God. But35 all things were made by Jeſus Chriſt.
Therefore Ieſus Chriſt is the moſt High God.
I ſhall anſwer to your Major by diſtinguiſhing betwixt the Agent Principall and Inſtrumental. That there may be in one and the ſame work, one Principal and another Inſtrumentall Agent none will deny. But whether there were in the work of Creation one Principall, and another Inſtrumentall, is a thing to be proved. That the Father was Principall therein, and ſo the moſt high God, comes not under debate. But whether the Son was onely Inſtrumental in that great work of Creation, is the Controverſie, and muſt be the ſubject of our preſent inquiry. I affirm, that Ieſus Chriſt was onely an Inſtrumentall Agent in the Creation of the worlds.
The Reaſons by which, I ſhall at this time guard mine aſſertion from ſuſpition of errour, are theſe that follow.
The firſt is drawn from the ſilence of all creatures. The book of the Creatures, as well as the book of the Scriptures,Ex Creatioue agnoſcitur Deus, ſed non Deus pater, fil. & ſpir. ſi quoni im vis illa efficiens quia mundus fuit creatus, pertinet ad Eſſentiam Dei, non ad ſubſiſtentiam ejus perſonalem, Ameſius. ſpeak forth with open mouth, this ſacred truth that there is one firſt cauſe, and Principall Agent of all things. Of a Trinity of Perſons in Unity of Eſſence, as Principal Agents in the work of Creation; the whole Creation is wholly ſilent: Wherefore our Divines acknowledg, that God is known from the Creation, but not God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, becauſe that efficient power, by which the world was created, belongs to the Eſſence of God, not to his perſonall ſubſiſtence.
Yet by their leave, God is a Perſon, all actions being proper unto perſons; and therefore by their grant, the works of Creation hold forth but one Agent, who muſt needs be the Principall (if not the only) Agent therein; for it is not imaginable, that if there were then one Principall Agent, they ſhould not all be equally diſcovered by the work, being equally concerned in it: Therefore if Chriſt were an Agent, he was but an inſtrumental one.
The Second Reaſon proceeds from the verdict of pure Reaſon. If Reaſon may obtain credit, ſhe will tell us, that there could be in the work of Creation but one Principall36 Agent, becauſe there is by nature and in way of eminency but one God: For if there were two Principall Agents, there muſt be two Gods in way of eminency, (the terms being convertible) which to affirm would be abſurd, and eaſily diſproved. And therefore if Jeſus Chriſt were any, he was but an Inſtrumentall Agent in that work of Creation.
The Third Reaſon iſſues from the nature of Chriſts being. That whole Chriſt is a creature, hath been already proved: yet let me adde a word from Col. 1.15. which doth immediately precede the Text now in queſtion. Chriſt is there called the image of the inviſible God; and ſo is diſtinguiſhed from God, becauſe the image and the thing whereof it is an image are not the ſame; in that nothing can be the image of its ſelf
Now he is called the image of the inviſible God, in that God through him did principally manifeſt and declare his Divine Glory, and in that the chiefeſt Dominion of the creature was by the Father committed to him; in this ſenſe man is called the image and glory of God, 1 Cor. 11.7.
He is alſo called the firſt-born of every creature; whereby he is ranked among the creatures, yet ſo as that he is the Head of them.
Now if whole Chriſt be a creature, then will it unavoidably follow, that he was but an Inſtrument in the work of Creation: for God and creatures are contradiſtinct, and he could not be, unleſs he were God, a Principall Agent.
The fourth Reaſon doth ſpring from the manner of Chriſts working.
1. Though he had an hand in the Creation of the world, yet was it not originally of him, 1 Cor. 8.6. where the Apoſtle doth plainly ſhew us, that all things are of God, even the Father, and that all things are by, not of Jeſus Christ, and ſo the Son is diſtinguiſhed from the Father in the work of Creation; the Father being the firſt cauſe, and originall of all things, and Chriſt the inſtrument of the Father, by whom he did manifeſt his Divine Glory in producing creatures.
2. Inſtrumentum & Miniſt. Ter. In that in the work of Creation the Scripture tells us, that God acted by him, Epheſ. 3.9. where 'tis ſaid, That37 God created all things by Jeſus Chriſt:〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Juſt. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theoph. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Origin. So in Heb. 1.2. which openly hold forth Jeſus Chriſt as Gods inſtrument in creating the world.
He is frequently called by the Fathers the Inſtrument and Servant of God.
But you endeavour to ſtrengthen your Propoſition by a Reaſon (ſuch as 'tis) drawn from impoſſibility; God could (ſay you) make uſe of no inſtrument in the work of Creation. But Sir, this aſſertion derogates from Gods All-ſufficiency. Is any thing impoſſible with God? Is any thing too hard for the Lord?
2. It contradicts your own teſtimony. I remember that in a Conference (where I exerciſed both ſilence and patience, to the Glory of God,) ſince I received your paper, you did affirm in the hearing of not a few, that God might at firſt have made an Angel, or ſome other creature, and by it have made all things.
How to reconcile one with the other is a thing unfeaſible; and therefore you muſt confeſs, that you are not always infallible: yea, that ſometimes you differ from your ſelf; and ſo 'tis no wonder, if you diſagree with others. But what ſhall I take from your preſent judgement? Muſt your laſt words ſtand? If ſo, then you have weakned your cauſe; and I may ſave a labour in returning an anſwer to that, which follows in your paper: If the former, then you muſt recant what you laſt ſaid, and I muſt not here make an end of my Reply to your Major. The truth is, I honour Reaſon ſo much, that I ſhould rather proſtrate my ſelf to its ſhadow and appearance, then to the beſt mans teſtimony and aſſertion: wherefore I ſhall honour Reaſon ſo much as not to paſs by without examination that which appears in your paper, with Reaſons dreſs on it. Your Reaſon thus runs,
Now becauſe Creation is a making of all things out of nothing, and required an infinite power, God can make uſe of no Inſtrument: inaſmuch as God cannot derive and give an infinite power to any creature, becauſe no creature is capable of ſuch a Divine Attribute, for it would make him God, to be Almighty, or to be infinite in power.
38Anſw. I ſhall not anſwer to all in this Reaſon which ſeems not to be ſound doctrine, but only ſo far as the matter in hand requires.
1. Though it be true that Gods infinite power was manifeſted in the work of Creation: yet was not the Infinity of his Power manifeſted fully in that, or any other work; for he hath more power then ever yet he had need to uſe, or then could in any work be fully declared.
2. Your aſſertion plainly denies the man Chriſt Jeſus to be God; Almighty, or Infinite in power; for you ſay that God could not give or derive an infinite power to any creature, and that a creature cannot be God, Almighty, &c. The man Chriſt Jeſus was a creature, how then can that Perſon be God?
3. The ground of your Argument is ſtraw and ſtubble; For infinite power may be manifeſted by them, to whom 'tis not communicated, and ſo their proper power; As is evident in thoſe that wrought miracles and raiſed the dead, in which infinite power was manifeſted, and yet the inſtruments thereof were not in power infinite. The like might be ſaid of Goſpel-Preachers, whom God makes his Inſtruments in mens converſion, as great a work as the worlds Creation. The ſame might be ſaid of Chriſt in his work of our Redemption.
But enough of this.
I ſhall now examine your Minor, which was, That all things were made by Ieſus Christ.
This is true, Chriſt being excepted, of whoſe Creatural being I have already ſpoken.
Obj. But you will ſay, that in Iohn 1.3. it is ſaid, That all things were made by him, and without him was nothing Made, that was Made.
Sol. The words are to be reſtrained to all thoſe things which by the uſe of an inſtrument were made and created. In the firſt verſe of this Chapter, the creation of Jeſus Chriſt is included, and in this third verſe he is ſpoken of as the inſtrument of God in creating all things, and therefore is here to be excepted. As when John the Baptist ſpeaking of Chriſt, (John 3.32. ) ſaid, What he hath ſeen and heard that he teſtifieth,39 and no man receiveth his teſtimony; it is evident that Iohn was to be excepted. Perſons are ſometimes ſegregated from others of the ſame kinde, in way of eminency, being chief amongſt them. Thus in Pſal. 18.1. where 'tis ſaid, that David ſang that ſong, when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul. What, was Saul none of Davide enemies? he was the chiefeſt, and therefore ſegregated from the reſt.
Thus having taken off the Charet wheels of your Argument, the Concluſion cannot advance up by its aſſiſtance.
I Come now to Heb. 7.3. Heb. 7.3. Anſw.
I perceive you are willing to gather from this Text the Eternity of Ieſus Christ; (but on this tree grows no ſuch fruit,) You ſay that Christ is here reſembled, in reference to his Eternity, to Melchiſedek, without beginning of days, or end of life. Pray Sir, was Melchiſedek Eternal? If ſo, then he was God. But he was neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghoſt, whatever ſome have conceived, I hope you will not allow a quaternity of Perſons in Unity of Eſſence. And therefore will allow that the words be taken in a figurative ſenſe. Quod non narratur ponitur quaſi non ſit.Melchiſedek was without beginning of days or end of life, in that there is no mention made either of his birth or death, in the Hiſtory of Moſes: or eſpecially in reference to his Prieſthood, the time of its beginning and ending being not certainly known. So our High Prieſt Jeſus Chriſt is without beginning of days, or end of life.
YOur next Scripture is Prov. 8.22. Prov. 8.22.
Anſw. The Lord poſſeſſed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old: I was ſet up from Everlaſting, from the Beginning, or ever the Earth was.
The meaning is this,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Sept. The Lord who is Poſſeſſour of Heaven and Earth, obtained or created me when he began to work, before all his ancient works. And I was ſet up, or anointed to have the dominion of all things, and that from Everlaſting, that is, from the Beginning, before the Earth was.
The Septuagint have the words thus: The Lord created40 me the beginning of his ways for his works. Dominus acquiſivit me principium viaeſuae, ante opera ex tunc, A ſaeculo principatum babui à capite, ab initiis terrae. Mont. He founded me in the Beginning before the Earth was made. Montanus thus: The Lord obtained me the beginning of his way, before his works from thence; I had dominion from Everlaſting from the Beginning, from the beginning of the Earth.
The thirtieth verſe ſpeaks of Chriſt as having a being before Gods works of old; yet ſo as that it was created one.
THE Scripture which follows next in your Paper,Zach. 13.7. is, Zach. 13.7.
Awake, O Sword, againſt my Shepheard, againſt the man that is my fellow, ſaith the Lord of Hoſts.
Anſw. I ſuppoſe that you would infer hence the coequality of Jeſus Chriſt with the Lord of Hoſts, whoſe words thoſe are. But doubtleſs when you drew up this Concluſion, you hearkned to the ſound, not the ſenſe of our Engliſh word Fellow, which doth not always note equality, as from Pſalm 45.7. and Heb. 1.9. you may be informed, where the Saints are called the Fellows of Chriſt; from which none acquainted with Reaſon or Scripture will conclude their coequality with him. Had you conſulted with the Hebrew word uſed in the Text, you would have been a ſtranger to ſo ſtrange an inference. For the words tranſlated, My Fellow, might be rendred, My Citizen, my Neighbour, my Second,Hebraea vox proximum aut amicum ſonat qui ſtat è regione alterius. Et praeſto eſt à emnia amici officia comparatus quamobrem idem in ſinu patris eſſe, & ad dexteram illius ſedere dicitur intercedens pro nobis. Trem. in Locum. my Lievtenant, my Vicar, my Friend; So the Septuagint [〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the man, my Citizen, or Neighbour. Tremelius, thus: [Virum proximum meum] The man my Second, my Lievetenant, my Neighbour, my Vicar, or the like.
Tremellius and Iunius in their Marginal Notes ſpeak thus. The Hebrew word (ſay they) ſignifies one that is very near, or a friend, who ſtands over againſt another, and is ready at hand for all friendly offices; wherefore the ſame, to wit, Jeſus Chriſt) is ſaid to be in the boſome of the Father, and to ſit at his right hand, interceding for us. And ſo the words acquaint us with theſe two things eſpecially,
1. That Chriſt is the Principall object of Gods deareſt affection. The man my fellow, quem maxime amo, ſaith Groti us, whom I moſt of all love.
412. That Chriſt is Gods Principal Servant in his higheſt tranfactions. One that is Gods Repreſentative, as the word in the Text holds forth, and the Scripture everywhere ſpeaks. I might now collect from the words ſomething to oppoſe the Doctrine you aſſert, they being ſpoken of a man, and in reference to the Lord of Hoſts, who cannot poſſibly have an equall, unleſs it were poſſible to have two Gods;
BUT I ſhall paſs by that, and haſten to the Scripture next appearing, which is, Iohn 3.13. John 3.13.And no man hath aſcended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, the Son of Man which is in Heaven.
Anſw: Sir, what your intent was in alledging this Text, I no whit doubt, but the reaſon of your inference thence is yet to me unknown. Thus the words may be underſtood; [No man hath aſcended up into Heaven] that is, no man hath known thoſe Divine things, the knowledge whereof is reſerved for another life; or thoſe Divine things which are known in this life, as they are in themſelves, nakedly appearing without their earthly habits, and as expreſſed in a remote and Angelicall Language. [But he that came down from Heaven, the Son of Man being in Heaven] that is, The Son being excepted, who was in Heaven, and deſcended thence, for ſome work which he had to do on Earth; or thus, he being excepted who came down from Heaven, to wit, the Son of Man, who is in Heaven, that is, in the boſome of the Father, knowing his Secrets, and Divine things as they are in themſelves; notwithſtanding he ſpeaks only of thoſe things, and in that way which men are now capable of.
I ſhall countenance this Expoſition with a few Reaſons.
1. Becauſe this ſenſe and meaning wherewithall I have cloathed thoſe words, is no way oppoſite to the analogy of faith. There is nothing (as I ſuppoſe) to be picked out of my words, which the Doctrine of the Goſpel will pick a quarrell with. But this Expoſition leſſens the number of thoſe Texts, that plead for Chriſt as moſt high God. But let not Scripture be forced; let every Text ſpeak what it knows. To42 miſapply is to pervert Scriptures.
2. Becauſe the ſenſe, which I would that this text ſhould own and allow, is elſwhere challenged by the like phraſes to themſelves as their due. Aſcendere in coelum, to aſcend into heaven, is to penetrate the ſecrets of heaven, as Grotius ſpeaks on this place. In the like manner doth Muſculus and Bucer underſtand the words.
In the ſame ſenſe is the like phraſe to be taken, Prov. 30.4. and ſo Piſcator expounds it. And thus, to be in heaven, is to enjoy the diſcoveries of Gods hidden ſecrets. Thus Paul was in the third heavens, when he heard unſpeakable words, which is not poſſible for a man to utter, 2 Cor. 12. In this ſenſe Chriſt was in heaven, ſaith Grotius; Chriſtus introſpexit patris intima, ſaith he, Chriſt looked into the moſt ſecret things of the Father.
3. Becauſe this ſenſe which I have joyn'd to this text, makes the text appear as fitly joyn'd with its context. In thoſe two verſes, which immediately precede this; Chriſt doth reprove Nicodemus for his unbelief; which he aggravates from the certainty of the thing ſpoken: Verily, verily, we ſpeak what we know, &c. and then from his perſpicuity in ſpeaking; if I have told you earthly things (that is, either things that may, and are neceſſary to be known in the earth; or elſe the words have reſpect onely to the manner of Chriſts holding them forth) and ye beleeve not: how can ye beleeve, if I ſhould tell you of heavenly things: In this thirteenth verſe you have an excluſion of all men, (Chriſt excepted) from the knowledg of heavenly things which are reſerved for another world, or which are known here, as they are in themſelves.
THe laſt Scripture which I find in your Paper,John 17.15. is Ioh. 17.5. And now, ô Father, glorifie me with thine own ſelf, with the glory I had with thee before the world was.
Anſw. This Verſe is part of Chriſts prayer, and will no way diſreliſh this meaning.
O thou Father, who doſt abound in kindneſs, and art the fountain of goodneſs, the time being come of finiſhing my courſe in earth, and returning to thy ſelf; glorifie me in43 heaven, (who have emptied my ſelf, taking to me a naturall and mortall body, and walking among men in form of a ſervant; and now being ready to humble my ſelf to the death, even the death of the Croſs in obedience to thee) with that glory which I had in heaven before the world was: being then with thee as Heir of all things, clothed with Majeſty and Glory, anſwerable to that high ſtation, wherein thy pleaſure was to ſet me; and to that great dominion, wherewithall thou wast pleaſed to inveſt me.
SIR, What you can fetch from this ſcripture, to confirm your doctrine of Chriſt's Deitie, doth lie (as yet) under the ſhadow of darkneſs, and in the land of obſcurity. That much might be gathered hence, by a good deduction, to make oppoſition againſt your aſſertion, is not a little perſpicuous and apparent. A few things I ſhall preſent you with, as a taſte of that which might be gathered hence, to diſown that point and concluſion, which with ſo much heat and paſſion you endevour to uphold and maintain amongſt us.
It appears from this Scripture, That whole Chriſt is a Creature.
Firſt, in that he directs his prayer to the Father. If our Lord Jeſus were God equal with the Father, there had been no need, nor can cauſe be ſhew'd, why he ſhould ſupplicate to the Father, a Perſon in the Trinity, and not act relyance on the Godhead, which dwelt in him bodily. Theſe words ſpake Ieſus and lift up his eyes to heaven, v. 1.
Secondly, in that the Glory was not divine, which he had with the Father before the world was. Becauſe this Glory, which he had in heaven with the Father before the world was, at this time of his praying was ſeparated from him. This muſt be aſſerted, or I know not how Chriſts prayer can be juſtified.
We doe not pray but praiſe for things we have, if we know, that we have them; but it cannot be imagined that Chriſt was ignorant of what he had. Now, if Chriſt were a perſon in the Trinity, coequall with the Father, and ſo enjoying by the ſame right the higheſt Glory, he could not, eſpecially with the Father (or in heaven) be without it in any ſenſe44 whatſoever, as by the clouding, darkning, or obſcuring of it: Therefore the glory which he had with the Father was not the higheſt glory, but a glory proceeding from the Higheſt: and ſo by good conſequence, He who at that time was the ſubject of it, was really and indeed a Creature.
Thirdly, it appears that the Glory which he had with the Father was not Divine, or the higheſt Glory, becauſe it was to be communicated. Glorifie me, ô Father, with that glory, &c. Now the Higheſt Glory being infinite, could not be given or communicated to the humane nature, which was finite, and ſo uncapable of it; (This is but your own aſſertion, in what you ſpeak relating to the creation) but 'tis abſurd to conceive, that the Divine glory, which is eſſentiall in God, could be communicated to the Divine Nature of Jeſus Chriſt. And therefore this Glory was not the higheſt, and the ſubject of it was a Creature.
Thus I ſhall take my leave of the Scriptures, which you alledg (to confirm, that Jeſus Chriſt is the moſt High God) leaving them for that they are intended for; being without controverſie not uſeleſs, but exceeding uſefull.
SIR, Unto your texts of Scripture you adjoyn one Reaſon (if it pleaſe you ſo to call it) which I ſhall ſet down in your own words, thus.
It may be ſaid truly, that this Doctrine, which makes Chriſt a meer creature, brings in, as it were another Gospel, deſtroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it, and brings in another Scripture in many main points.
Come now let us reaſon together concerning this your Reaſon, which is formidable in appearance to your Antagoniſts; but whether it carries the Sword of truth in its hand, and ſtrength of conviction let us now ſeriouſly conſider. That we may with the more certainty, and facility determine, I ſhall be your leave draw your Reaſon into the form of an Argument, Thus:
That Doctrine which brings in, as it were, another Goſpel, deſtroys the true Goſpel in many of the parts of it, &c. is erroneous and to be rejected.
But that Doctrine which makes Chriſt a meer creature doth ſo. Therefore.
45SIR, I ſhall ſubſcribe with both hands (if need be) to the Major, that it is true: And if the Minor be of the ſame blood, I ſhall conclude with you in the concluſion, and let him be Anathema that holds the contrary. But how will it appear, that that Doctrine which makes Chriſt a meer creature, doth bring in, as it were, another Goſpel, deſtroys the true Goſpel in many of the parts of it, & c? That it might be evident, you bring in twelve Inſtances, which, were they good and true (though fewer) might ſerve for a ſufficient Jury to bring in a finall verdict concerning the thing in debate: but of what moment your Inſtances are, let us now examine.
Inſtance 1If Chriſt be but a meer creature and not God, then the giving ef Divine worſhip, and honour, and ſervice to a meer creature is lawfull and warrantable; which yet everywhere is forbidden in reference to any creature, but is practiſed unto Chriſt in Rev. 5.12, 13, 14. and would be Idolatry if Chriſt were not God.
Anſw. I ſhall put this Inſtance in form of an Argument, that the fallacy and inſufficiency thereof may the better appear.
That it is contrary to the Scripture to give Divine worſhip, honour and ſervice to a meer Creature.
But Divine worſhip, honour and ſervice is by the warrant of the Scripture given to Chriſt Ieſus, Rev. 5.12, 13, 14.
Therefoae Chriſt Ieſus is not a meer creature.
To the Major I ſhall thus reply:
1. I conceive that your expreſſions (having in them ſome ambiguity) need explanation. If by Divine worſhip, honour and ſervice, you mean that worſhip, honor and ſervice, which is in any ſenſe Divine, I utterly deny your Propoſition as erroneous and unſound: For there is no worſhip, honour and ſervice, which of right belongs to the creature, but is in a ſenſe Divine, God being the principall Author, and ultimate Center thereof, Rom. 13. Eph. 5.7.
But if you mean in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, that worſhip, honour, and ſervice which is peculiar unto the moſt High God, then ſhall I ſay with you, that it is Idolatry, and contrary to the Scripture to give it to any creature whatſoever. That worſhip, honour and ſervice which is peculiar unto God, differs from46 that which may be yeelded to the Creature, partly in the matter, but wholly in the manner of it. We muſt pray to God for all things we want, and may pray to men for what they can give; we muſt obey God, and we muſt obey men, who are ſet over us by God; but we may not worſhip, honour, or ſerve men in the like manner as we doe the moſt High God, who is the Principall and Ultimate Object of all worſhip, honour and ſervice; his right thereto being only of himſelf, and he himſelf being the ſole end thereof. According to this ſenſe is that command which our Saviour mentions (Mat. 4. •0.) to be underſtood: Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and him only ſhalt thou ſerve.
2. I wonder at this adjection MEER, which you have added to creature; as if a creature in eſſence could be more then a meer creature; or as if ſome creature might have as its right and due, that honor, worſhip and ſervice which the Scripture doth appropriate to the moſt High God.
Sure I am, that creatures as creatures are excluded from ſharing with GOD in that worſhip and ſervice which is peculiar to him.
Now for your Minor, That Divine worſhip, honor, and ſervice is by Scripture-warrant given to Chriſt Ieſus.
Anſw. Sir, it is granted that Jeſus Chriſt is the intermediate object of Divine worſhip, honour and ſervice, being Gods Viceroy, and acting amongſt men in his Fathers name, which the Scripture you bring helps to confirm. But where the Scripture allows worſhip, honour and ſervice to be given to him, as the Principall and Ʋltimate Object thereof, is not yet made to appear; and therefore the Concluſion may not have liberty to paſs as an unqueſtiouable truth.
Inſtance 2If Chriſt be a meer creature, then it is lawfull and warrantable to beleeve in a meer Creature, which is againſt the tenure of the whole Scripture. But it is commanded in reference unto Chriſt, Joh. 14.1. and ſalvation is annexed to it, Jo. 3.36.
Inſtance 3If Chriſt be a meer creature, then faith in a meer creature can ſave man, which is abſurd and groſſe, and contrary to the Scriptures: for Abraham beleeved God, and it was accounted to him for Righteouſneſs, Rom. 4.3. and ſo was ſaving.
47Anſw. SIR, theſe two inſtances, the one being in reſpect of the other fleſh of its fleſh, and bone of its bone, I have joyn'd together, and ſhall oppoſe unto theſe, two Propoſitions which the Scripture will warrant, and may ſuffice for an Anſwer.
1. That that Faith which is needfull and neceſſary to ſalvation hath a double object, God, and the man Chriſt Jeſus, Joh. 14.1. the Scripture which you quote bears witneſs to this as a truth.
We are to beleeve on him that ſent Jeſus Christ, Joh. 5.24. Verily, verily, I ſay unto you, (ſaith Chriſt) he that heareth my Word, and beleeveth on him that ſent me, hath everlaſting life, and ſhall not come into condemnation, but is paſſed from death to life; And alſo on Jeſus Chriſt that was ſent, John 6.29. As the Serpent was lifted up in the wilderneſs; ſo muſt the Son of man be lifted up: that whoſoever beleeveth in him ſhould not periſh, but have everlaſting life, John 3.14, 15. That faith which hath but a ſingle object is not a ſaving faith. It is impoſſible that men ſhould by a Goſpel-light beleeve in God, and not in Chriſt, or in Chriſt and not in God: Jeſus cryed and ſaid, He that beleeveth on me, beleeveth not on me, but on him that ſent me, John 12.44. For by the Goſpel God appears merciful in the face of Chriſt, & Chriſt appears inſtrumentall in the hand of God, Rom. 4.24. Rom. 10.9. Though in ſome places but one is expreſſed: yet there the other is clearly imply'd.
2. That that Faith which is needfull and neceſſary to ſalvation acts in a diverſe manner on God, and the Lord Chriſt Jeſus.
It acts towards God as the Principall and Ʋltimate, and towards Ieſus Chriſt, as the Secondary and mediate Object of Faith. Peter ſhews that the Saints to whom he wrote did beleeve in God through Ieſus Chriſt; and ſo that God was the Ultimate, and Chriſt the Mediate object of their faith, 1 Pet. 1.21. 'Tis from Gods Commandment that faith in Chriſt is needfull, 1 Iohn 3.23. And 'tis from Gods appointment that faith in Chriſt is ſaving, Joh. 6.4. This is the will of him that ſent me (ſaith Chriſt) that every one which ſeeth the Son, and beleeveth on him, may have everlaſting life.
48Inſtance 4If Chriſt be but a meer creature, then a meer creature is the Saviour of men, ſaving them with a mighty and eternal ſalvation as the Scripture ſpeaks, but this is againſt the whole current of the Gospel which ſpeaks of God our Saviour, Tit. 2.10, 13. and in many other places.
Anſw. Againſt this your inſtance I ſhall levell this Aſſertion, which will be ſufficient to diſcover its weakneſs, and confute it; That to affirm Jeſus Chriſt to be the Saviour of men without God, or equal with God, is contrary to the current of the whole Scripture; which doth diſtinguiſh God from Chriſt in the work of Salvation, calling him a Saviour, as diſtinct from Chriſt, as in the 1 Tim. 1.1. where God is ſaid to be our Saviour, and the Lord Jeſus Chriſt to be our hope; and in the Text you alleadge, and frequently elſewhere.
And in that the Scripture doth prefer God in the work of Salvation before our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, making God to be the principal Agent therein, when it declares that the work of Chriſt in ſaving men was from the purpoſe of God, who appointed him for it, and from the Precept of God, who injoyned him to it, and from the Preſence of God, who aſſiſted him in it, all which from the Scriptures might be abundantly ſet forth unto us: and alſo revealing the Lord Chriſt Jeſus to be in the work of Salvation an inſtrumental Saviour. For this ſee onely Tit. 3. v. 4, 5, 6. which puts it paſt all queſtion. But after that the kindneſs and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteouſneſs which we have done, but according to his mercy he ſaved us, by the waſhof Regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghoſt; which he ſhed on us abundantly, through Jeſus Chriſt our Saviour.
Inſtance 5If Chriſt be but a meer Creature, then a meer Creature is Mediator betwixt God and Men, which cannot be, becauſe a meer creature is no way meet to be a Dayſman for God and becauſe a Mediatour muſt either partake of both God and Man, or of neither, elſe he will rather be a Party then a Mediator, if he partakes of mans nature, and not of Gods if he be man and not God, Therefore this Mediatour betwixt God and man is called Emmanuel, that is God with us, or God manifeſted in the fleſh, 1 Tim. 3.16. or God made fleſh, John. 1.14.
49Anſw. This your fifth Inſtance doubtleſs is intended for the ſame purpoſe as the former. But if it bring not with it more evidence of truth then they afforded, the Doctrine which denies Chriſt to be the moſt high God, may yet be accounted free from thoſe high and capital Crimes, of bringing in as it were another Goſpel, and the like, wherewithall it is accuſed.
That we may the better underſtand what it ſpeaks, I ſhall reduce it into the form of an Argument: and that we may more clearly diſcern what truth it ſpeaks, I ſhall ſpend ſome time to examine it. If we conſider the words of this Inſtance with the ſcope of it, we ſhall perceive, as a natural off-ſpring, this argument to iſſue from it;
Inſtance 5That Doctrine, Which makes the mediatour betwixt God and man to be a meer creature, brings in as it were another Goſpel, destroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it, &c. in that it is againſt Reaſon, that the mediator ſhould be a creature; Becauſe a meer creature is no way meet to be a Dayſman for God; and becauſe a mediatour muſt either partake of both God and man, or of neither, elſe he Will be rather a party then a mediator, &c. and in that it oppoſeth theſe Scriptures, Mat. 1.23. 1 Tim. 3.16. Io. 1.14. But, that Doctrin which denies Jeſus Chriſt to be the moſt high God, makes the mediatour betwixt God and man to be a meer creature. Therefore.
Anſw. Although (Sir) your major deſerves not eſteem, notwithſtanding that attendance of Reaſon and Scripture you have allotted to it; your Reaſons being ſtrangers to Reaſon, and your Scriptures not bearing the Livery of your Doctrine: yet you merit a Reply, for that appearance of Reaſon and Scripture, which you have drawn after your majors heels.
The firſt Reaſon you bring to juſtifie your Accuſation of that Doctrine, which makes the mediatour betwixt God and man to be a meer creature, as deſtructive to the Goſpel in (at leaſt) ſome main part of it is this,
Sir, this Reaſon wants a Reaſon to ſupport it; for 'tis not in it ſelf ſo evident to Reaſon, as that none may ſuſpect it; neither is your word a ſufficient Reaſon for any to believe it.
What ſhould hinder but that a meer Creature (to uſe50 your own terms) may be a Dayſman or mediatour betwixt God and man? Is there any work which belongs to his Office, which is impoſſible for a Creature to perform, notwithſtanding Divine Aſſiſtance with him? I dare aſſert the contrary, and am able to prove in whatſoever work you can in ſance, belonging to Chriſts Mediatorſhip, that of himſelf he was not able to perform it, unleſs by the aſſiſtance of another, which he enjoyed, and ſo is a compleat mediator.
Your ſecond Reaſon which joynes hand with the former, and ſpeaks to as little purpoſe, is this, Becauſe a mediatour muſt either partake of both God and man, or of neither; elſe he Will rather be a party then a mediatour.
Sir, that there is a neceſſity, that Chriſt the mediatour muſt be God and man, or elſe he will be rather a party then a mediatour, you ſay, but why, is yet to be learned. Was not Moſes a mediatour betwixt God (or the Angels) and men? But was Moſes God and man, or Angel and man? Moſes was a meer man, as all will confeſs; but that he was a mediatour betwixt God and men, or Angels and men the Scripture declares. Gal. 3.19. When you brought in this Reaſon, you did you knew not what, for it gives witneſs againſt you. By the aſſiſtance thereof I ſhall expect an Argument, by which the ſuppoſed Deity of the Mediatour will be denied; and ſhall leave you to ſhew where its weakneſs lies.
If Chriſt the mediatour Were God, he was a Party; but Chriſt the mediatour was not a Party; Therefore Chriſt the mediatour was not God.
The major is clear. Let me onely in the work of Reconciliation give an inſtance. In Reconciliation by a mediatour we are to ſuppoſe three, one offended, another offending, and a third mediating for peace betwixt them: God was offended, men were offenders, and Chriſt was the mediatour. Now if Chriſt had been a ſinfull man, he had been of the party offending and if he had been God he was the party offended. But Chriſt, was not a party ſay you, and therefore I need not prove the minor; but from the Propoſition which I have confirmed, and the Aſſumption, which you have acknowledged, draw up the Concluſion, that Chriſt the mediatour is not God.
51Now I ſhall conſider the Scriptures you bring, and hear what teſtimony they afford to the thing you aſſert, that Chriſt the mediatour is the most high God. Your firſt Scripture is Matth. 1.23. where Chriſts name is called Emmanuel, the ſignification whereof is God with us. Whence you would collect that there are two natures in Chriſt the mediatour.
This is I confeſs a common inference, but that it is natural from it I cannot yet underſtand. Emmanuel was not the name of Chriſt, but a ſignification of his name Jeſus, which is evident if you compare the 21, 22, & 23. verſes of this chap. together; now the name Jeſus ſignifies not the nature, but the office of Chriſt, as the Angel expounds it, verſe 21. Thou ſhalt call his Name Jeſus, for he ſhall ſave his people from their ſins. And ſo Emmanuel notes out that certain aid that God would afford by Jeſus Chriſt to the Church.
THe next Scripture is 1 Tim. 3.16. Without controverſie great is the myſtery of godlineſs, God was manifeſted in the fleſh, &c. Ancient interpreters (ſaith a learned man) as the Latine, the Syriack, the Arabick, Ambroſe and Auguſtine,1 Tim. 3.16. make this Reading to be ſuſpected, for they reade not as we do, for thus they reade the words, And Without controverſie great is the myſtery of godlineſs which (myſtery) was manifeſted in the fleſh, &c.
And Hincmarus addeth that this word God was put in the Text by the Neſtorians. But if we allow our Reading, this Text will make nothing for your purpoſe; for it is not denied, but that Chriſt was a God, and the Text ſaith but this, a God was manifeſt in fleſh, that is appeared viſibly amongst men, when he took unto him a body.
YOur third and laſt Scripture is, John 1.14. where 'tis ſaid That the Word Was made fleſh; the meaning is this, That Creature which was immediately made by God, took unto it a body; I finde no place where the fleſh of Chriſt ſignifies any thing more then his body, according to which he died,1 John 14. and is nowhere taken for the Humane Nature.
Let me now oppoſe your Propoſition by two or three Reaſons, which I ſhall leave you to pauſe upon. Christ the Mediatour is a meer Creature;
521. Becauſe whole Chriſt is a creature: For this ſee before. Now if whole Chriſt be a creature, then either a meer creature is the Mediatour, or Chriſt is not a Mediator.
2. Becauſe a Mediatour is not of one, Gal. 3.20. now if Chriſt be God, then he is a Mediatour of one: for he cannot be a Mediatour to himſelf, and there is but one God.
3. Becauſe Chriſt is a Mediatour betwixt God and Men, 1 Tim. 2.5. Now if he were God, he could not be a Mediatour betwixt God and Men, for he could not be a Mediatour to himſelf. And Paul in that of Timothy cals the Mediator betwixt God and Men, the Man Christ Jeſus. Thus having taken away the Major, though the Minor were granted: yet would not your Concluſion ſtand, having but one legge to reſt upon.
I am now come to your ſixth Inſtance: which is this,
Inſtance 6If Chriſt be but a meer creature, then the Righteouſnes of Christ, which is imputed to Believers, is not the Righteouſneſs of God, but the righteouſneſs of a meer creature; but this is against the tenure of the Scriptures, in Phil. 3.9.
Anſw. Sir, I ſuppoſe from ſome terms in this your Inſtance, and from the Text you alledge, that by Righteouſneſſe you mean that righteouſneſs Whereby Believers ſtand in the ſight of God free and clear from all ſin, in reference to the curſe of the Law. This is the Righteouſneſs of God, by the Faith of Jeſus Chriſt, (that is, that in Jeſus Chriſt which is to be the object of our faith) unto all and upon all that believe, Rom. 3.22. God is the Principal Authour of this Righteouſneſs, and Chriſt is an Inſtrumental Agent therein. Now that in Chriſt which is imputed to us for righteouſneſs, is his obedience; which was both active and paſſive. The opinion now-a-days is, that the active obedience of Chriſt, whereby he did perfectly fulfill the Law, and his paſſive obedience, whereby he did perfectly ſuffer the curſe of the Law, are imputed to us for righteouſneſs. Now he could not obey the Law as he was God, nor could the ſuffer the curſe of the Law, but as he was Man; and ſo that righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which was imputed unto us, was a creatures righteouſneſs.
Now I ſhall haſten to your ſeventh Inſtance, which here follows.
53Inſtance 7If Chriſt Were a meer creature, then to pardon ſin belongs not to him, becauſe the Scripture teſtifies, that none can forgive ſins but God, becauſe all ſin is againſt God; therefore none can for give it but God: but it is evident, that Chriſt took the Authority of forgiving ſin: Son (ſaith Chriſt) thy ſins are forgiven thee, Luke 7.48.
Anſw. Becauſe many think that ſome weight lies in theſe words, I ſhall be a little the more large in my Anſwer to it; I ſhall without marring it, make this Argument of it.
None can forgive ſin but God.
But Chriſt did forgive ſin, Luke 7.48.
Therefore Chriſt is God.
I ſhal reply to your Major, that none can forgive ſin but God.
1. By objecting againſt the witneſs you bring for it; for your proof alludes to that which we have in Mark 2.7. Who can for give ſins but God only? This though it be in the Scripture, yet is it no part of the Standard; for the dark Scribes who were enemies to Chriſt, did ſpeak it.
2. By objecting againſt the Doctrine you teach in it. That none can for give ſin in any ſenſe, but God onely, may paſs for an errour: for it is the duty of all men, to for give others thoſe ſins they commit against them, Matth. 6.14. And it is the priviledge of ſome men to forgive all ſins, in reference to the curſe of the Law, John 20.23. Whoſe ſoever ſins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and Whoſe ſoever ſins ye retain, they are retained. That none can forgive ſins as God doth, ſhall have my leave to paſs for a truth. God in forgiving of ſin is Principall, doing it by his own Authority, not receiving power from another.
Now for your Minor, That Christ did for give ſin. 'Tis true, that Chriſt did forgive ſin; and that he the Sonne of Man had on Earth power to do it, as he himſelf ſpeaks, Mar. 2.10. But what will this help to bring in the Concluſion, that Chriſt is God? Doubtleſs no, becauſe meer creatures (as above) have in ſome ſenſe power to forgive ſin. If it can be proved, that Chriſt is Principall in forgiving, ſomething may done. But that cannot be, becauſe the Scripture cannot oppoſe it ſelf. The Scripture tells us, that we are juſtified54 by the Man Christ Ieſus, Acts 13.38, 39. Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveneſs of ſins. And by him all that believe are juſtified from all things, from which yee could not be juſtified by the Law of Moſes. And it alſo ſhews us that Christ is not the Principall forgiver of ſins; in that he prayed to another (on the Jews behalf) for the forgiveneſs of ſin, Luke 23.34. Then ſaid Jeſus, Father forgive them, for they know not What they do. And in that he received from another his power of forgiving ſins, Acts 5.30, 31. The God of our Fathers raiſed up Jeſus, whom yee ſlew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance unto Iſrael, and forgiveneſs of ſins.
Thus I have blockt up the way, that your Concluſion cannot paſs, but opened a way for my ſelf, to paſs from your ſeventh Inſtance to that which follows.
Inſtance 8If Chriſt be a meer creature, then the value of that offering, which Chriſt offered, when he offered himſelf to God, is taken away, and the ſatisfaction which Chriſt gave to Divine Juſtice is deſtroyed: for if the perſon that died were a meer man, and the bloud that was ſhed were the bloud of a meer man, and not of God, as it is called, Acts 20.28. then how could it ſatisfie for the ſins of many tranſgreſſours; for there is no proportion betwixt one meer man dying for ſin, and many men ſinning and deſerving death, each of them for the ſins they have committed. And how an Infinite Juſtice offended ſhould be ſatisfied with the ſacrifice finite in value, is unconceivable and againſt the tenure of the Scripture.
Anſw. Conſidering the words of this Inſtance with its ſcope, we may draw up this Argument.
That Doctrine which takes away the value of Chriſts offering, and deſtroys the ſatisfaction which he gave to Divine Iuſtice brings in as it were another Goſpel, &c.
But that Doctrine which makes Chriſt a meer creature doth ſo. Therefore.
I ſhall grant the Major; but how prove you the Minor? You would confirm your Doctrine by asking two Queries:
551. If Chriſt was (ſay you) a meer creature, then who could he ſatisfie for the ſins of many tranſgreſſours, & c?
Sir, if it pleaſe you to conſider Rom. 5.12. and ſo forward, you may anſwer your own Query, or ſee as good Reaſon of this, which I ſhall now propound.
If Adam were a meer creature, how could his ſin make many tranſgreſſours? If through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, by one man, Ieſus Chriſt hath abounded unto many, Rom. 5.15. Chriſt (as well as Adam) was a common perſon, and therefore the Lord having laid upon him the iniquities of us all, and he bearing the curſe of the Law, his Members are delivered from both the ſin and the curſe.
Your Second Query is this, How is it conceivable that an Infinite Iuſtice offended ſhould be ſatisfied by a Sacrifice finite in value?
What matters it (Sir,) if it be unconceivable? muſt it therefore be uncredible? Doubtleſs in all Controverſall doctrines, you will not hold this for an Orthodoxall tenent. In the Doctrine of the Trinity credit muſt be given to things unconceivable; but the like liberty (it ſeems) will not be allowed in Chriſts Mediatorſhip. Eut Sir, the foundation you build upon is not a little queſtionable: you take that for granted, and ſo infer from it, which you are to confirm. Sure I am, that not a few errours may lie under your Non-Scripturall-Language. Ye tell us of an Infinite Sacrifice, but what you mean by it, and where Scripture tells us, I am yet for to learn. The Scripture tells us, that Chriſt was made ſin, or a ſin offering for us, by taking our ſins and bearing the curſe: But how this Sacrifice was infinite, remains to me unconceivable. If the ſuffering of Chriſt had been Infinite, there had been no end of it: If the curſe had been Infinite, man could not have born it, being uncapable of any thing Infinite in the Infinity of it. It is enough for me, to believe that my Lord Jeſus ſuffered for me, whatever I deſerved to ſuffer; and that was the curſe of the Law, be that what it will.
There is a Scripture which I finde in your Inſtance, and56 that is Acts 20.28. and I knew no fitteer place then the cloſe of my Anſwer for it.
Sir, I ſhall offer theſe few things to your conſideration:
1. That there may be ſome miſtake in the Text. God may be put for Lord or Chriſt, which if granted, the words are thus to be read: Take heed therefore to your ſelves, and to all the ſlock, over which the holy Ghoſt hath made you overſeers, to feed the Church of Chriſt, which he hath purchaſed with his own bloud. The Churches of the Saints are called the Churches of Chriſt, Rom. 16.16. This conceit of a miſtake may receive countenance from the poſſibility, probability and facility thereof. It is poſſible that the Scribe through careleſneſs, or ſomething worſe, might here put God for Chriſt. There are two places, one in the Old Teſtament, another in the New, which Willet conceiveth to have been miſtaken by the Scribes negligence, or ſomething worſe.
The firſt is Pſal. 22.16. where Caari, ſignifying as a Lion, is put for Caru, they pierced. The other is Rom. 12.11. we have〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉time for Lord, Alſo it is probable, that here is a miſtake, for as Grotius obſerves, many Copies have Lord, and the Syriack Chriſt, not God. Laſtly, it was eaſie to miſtake taking one for the other, from that compendious writing which was anciently much in uſe: where for〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉they wrote onely〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and for〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
2. But in the next place, if it be proved that there is no miſtake in the Text, yet there may be a defect in the words. For the laſt clauſe ſome Greek copies thus have it; which he hath purchaſed with the blood of his own, and ſo the word Son is to be underſtood with the blood of his own Son.
3. Laſt of all, if both theſe may bee removed, yet the words may have another meaning then what you and many others allot to them. Chriſts blood may be ſaid to be Gods own blood, in way of eminency, it being more excellent by farre then the blood of the Legall Sacrifices. In the old Teſtament tall trees are called Cedars of God; the like Phraſes are frequently there to be found. And the New Teſtament is not wholly a ſtranger to the like Phraſes. In this ſence Chriſt is called the Lamb of God, Joh. 1.36. becauſe he was far more57 excellent then either the Paſchall Lamb, or any other Lamb, which was to be ſlain in way of Sacrifice, under the Leviticall Prieſthood. The Divine Authour to the Hebrewes ſpeaking both of the blood of legall ſacrifices, and of Chriſt Jeſus, preferres the blood of Chriſt far before all other blood that was ſhed for the expiation of ſinne Heb. 9.13.14.
Now I haſten to your ninth ſubſtance, which is this.
Inſtance 1If Chriſt be a meere creature, then the interceſſion of Chriſt is overthrown, for Chriſt if meere man being in heaven, cannot know the ſtate of the Church in all places upon earth, therefore cannot intercede for it.
Anſw. Sir, the reducing of this your Inſtance into an Argument will be ſufficient to diſcover its vanity and weakneſſe.
Thus it may be formed without the leaſt injury to your meaning, if your mind agree with the import of your words.
That Doctrine which utterly overthrows the Interceſſion of Chriſt, brings in as it were another Goſpel, &c.
But the Doctrine which makes Chriſt to be a meere creature, utterly overthrows the interceſſon of Chriſt. Therefore.
Sir, to your major I yield the fulleſt conceſſion, being ſo much a friend to Chriſts Incerceſſion.
Your minor brings in an high accuſation, but pray Sir, how is it attended with probation? you onely ſay, that if Chriſt were a meere creature, being in heaven, he could not know the ſtate of the Churches in all places upon earth, and therefore if he were but a meere creature he could not intercede.
What muſt we again take your word for a proffer? I wiſh a better, for there is no goodneſſe in that. We have already been too long troubled with the word, I ſay in ſtead of proof. What have you learn'd to meaſure the knowledge of him, who hath receiv'd the ſpirit without meaſure? cannot he as man know in heaven what things are done in earth?
Who told you ſo?
None but the man Chriſt Jeſus can intercede, it being abſurd to conceive, that God can interede, unleſſe it might be conceived that God hath a Superiour. Now if the man Chriſt Jeſus doth intercede for his Church he knows her ſtate, and why he may not know the ſtate of the Church by a communication of power from the Father, notwithſtanding he be not58 God and man in one Perſon, is a riddle for the unfolding whereof I would willingly plow with your heifer. Thus I take leave of your ninth Inſtance, that I may viſit the tenth, which becauſe it is of the ſame value, and in that part which I would deny it, already anſwerd'd in my reply to Matth. 28.20. whither I refer you. I ſhall paſſe it by, and be take my ſelf to examine the eleventh which now follows.
••••nce 11.If Chriſt be a meere creature then a meere creature is the Judge of the World, which is againſt the Scritpure, for the Judg of the World is God, before whom Abraham ſtood in Gen. 18.25. When he pleaded for Sodom, Rom. 2.5, 6. tho day of judgment is called the day of Revelation of the righteous Judgement of God, who will render to every man according to his words.
Anſw. Sir, this Argument will ſpeak out the midd of this Inſtance.
That Doctrine which makes a meer creature the judg of the world, is againſt the Scripture, Gen. 18.15. Rom. 2.5, 6. But Chriſt is the judg of the world. Therefore that doctrine which makes Chriſt a meer creature, is againſt the Scripture.
To your Major take theſe Anſwers: 1. That in a ſenſe it is falſe; for Christ ſhall judg the world. But you will ſay he is not a meer creature. But what ſay you to the Apoſtles? were not they meer creatures: but what will you ſay, if I ſhal ſhew from the word, that they ſhall be judges at the laſt day: ſee Mat. 19.28. and you ſhall hear Chriſt telling Peter, that they of the Apoſtles, Who had followed him in the regeneration, ſhould ſit upon 12 Thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Iſrael. And are not all the Saints meer creatures? Doubtleſs at that inſtant, when you fram'd this Inſtance, you had not in your mind what Paul ſpeaks in 1 Cor. 6.2, 3. Do ye not know, ſaith he, that the Saints ſhall judge world? and if the world ſhall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judg the ſmalleſt matters; Know ye not that we ſhall judge Angels? 2. That in a ſenſe it is true, no creature can be as God is, the judg of the world; for God is Principal in the judgment, being both the Alpha & Omega of it, deriving his power frō none, being the original of al power.
Thus you may ſee, that your Propoſition is, and is not true. I pray for the future make diſtinctions, where need requires.
Now for your Minor, that Chriſt is the judge of the world.
59Sure you take this for a granted truth, that no proof is brought to confirm it. I ſhall grant it. What then?
Will your deſign of drawing up the Concluſion proſper? nothing leſs: For it hath been brought to light, that meer creatures ſhall be Judges of the world. Wherefore if you cannot from evident ſcriptures demonſtrate this, That Jeſus Chriſt is Principall in judging the world; deriving from none his power of judgment, you will doe nothing to purpoſe.
But Sir, that I may preſerve you from ſuch an endleſs labour, I ſhalll ay down theſe Propoſitions, which alſo will ſpoil your preſent Market.
Propoſ. 1. That the moſt High God, who is the worlds Principall judg, will not immediately, but by a Delegat judg the world. In Acts 17.31. the Apoſtle tels us, That God hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteouſneſs, by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given aſſurance unto all men, in that he hath raiſed him from the dead. In Iohn 5.22. Chriſt thus ſpeaks, The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all Iudgment to the Son: Chriſt muſt raign till all enemies are put under his feet; and when all things ſhall be ſubdued to him, then ſhall the Son alſo himſelf be ſubject to the Father, that God may be all in all, 1 Cor. 15.28.
That Jeſus Chriſt is a ſubordinate Judg in reference unto God the ſupream Judg; but ſuperintendent in reference to the Saints his aſſeſſors in judgment.
That Chriſt is not the ſupream Judg, is evident from theſe Scriptures. In Acts 10. Peter ſhews, that the Apoſtles were commanded of God to preach unto the people, and to teſtifie That Ieſus Chriſt is ordained of God to be Iudg of quick and dead. Chriſt when he comes ſhall be ſent, Acts 3.20. and ſhall come in the glory of the Father, as Viceroy and Lord Deputy, Mat. 16.27. The Father hath given him authority to execute Judgement, Io. 5.27. And all that honour which ſhall be given to him, ſhall be for the Fathers glory, Phil. 2.11.
J am now to deal with your laſt Jnſtance, which is like to deal as unkindly with you as the former.
If Chriſt be a meer creature,Inſtance 12then Prayer to him being now in Heaven, is altogether vain and frivolous, inaſmuch60 as perſons may cry loud long enough, before Chriſt hear them at that distance, but the Saints have been wont not onely to pray to God in Chriſts Name, but to pray to Chriſt directly and immediatly, in Acts 7.59. Rev. 22.20. Lord Ieſus receive my spirit. Come Lord Jeſus.
Anſw. By the rule of the Goſpel we are to pray to God, or the Father in the Name of Chriſt Jeſus. You have nothing to countenance Prayer to Chriſt, but the two Texts you mention. Jf Stephen did pray directly to Jeſus Chriſt, his act might be warranted by the viſible appearance of Chriſe; As Lot prayed to the Angel, being viſible, That in the Revelation is no Prayer, but an intimation of the Churches deſire after Chriſts coming. The like manner of ſpeaking we have Rev. 6.16. which is no Prayer. I cannot but look upon that as vain and frivolous; which you ſet as the Walls and Bulwarks of your Argument.
If Chriſt were but a meer creature, being in heaven, we might cry loud and long enough before he could hear us.
I would only ask you this queſtion, whether Chriſt could not hear as far as Stephen could ſee. Stephen could ſee from Earth to Heaven, though he was but a man. What will hinder the Man Chriſt from hearing as far?
Thus I have with much brevity (though a conſiderable Volume might have been written) concluded my anſwer to your Inſtances, which are twelve in number after your own reckoning, though they might have been fewer by many, being branches one of another. I have ſtudied to forget your perſon, and endevoured onely to diſcover the weakneſs of your arguing. Whether I have done any thing to purpoſe, I leave you to be Iudge, when with ſobriety and impartiality you are capable to examine. And ſo in the midſt of my many other occaſions, I have brought my whole Anſwer to a full period; and have time to ſay no more but this, that my deſires are, that the God of light and ſtrength would be pleaſed to enlighten your eyes, that you may rightly diſcern all things; and ſo order your ſpirit, that by modestlineſs you may breath forth truth in replying to him who is,