The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined
But this is that which is now to be put to the trial; whether the Asserting of the Diety of Christ be repugnant to the Scriptures or no? and as we shall see in, the issue, that as these Catechists have not been able to answer, or evade the evidence of any one Testimony of Scripture, of more then an hundred, that are produced for the confirmation of the Truth of his Eternal Deity, so notwithstanding the pretended flourish here at the entrance, that they are not able to produce any one place of Scripture, so much as in appearance, rising up against it. For that Right Reason, which in this matter of mere divine Revelation they boast of, and give it the preeminence in their disputes against the Person of Christ, above the Scripture, unless they discover the consonancy of it to the Word, to the Law, and Testimonies, what ever they propose on that account, may be rejected with as much facility, as it is proposed. But yet! if by Right Reason, they understand Reason, so far captivated to the obedience of Faith, as to acquiesse in what ever God hath revealed, and to receive it as Truth, then which duty, there is not anymore eminent dictate of Right Reason indeed: We forever deny the first part of this Assertion, and shall now attend to the proof of it; nor do we here plead, that Reason is blind and corrupted, and that the natural man cannot disceone the things of God, and so require that men do prove themselves regenerate, before we admit them to judge of the Truth of the propositions under debate, which though necessary for them, who would know the Gospel for their own good, so as to be wise unto salvation, yet it being the Grammatical and literal sense of Propositions, as laid down in the Word of the Scripture, that we are to judge of in this case, we require no more of men to the purpose in hand, but an assent to this Proposition (which if they will not give, we can by undeniable demonstration compel them to) what ever God, who is Prima veritas, hath revealed, is true, whether we can comprehend the things revealed or no: which being granted, we proceed with our Catechists in their Attempt.
Q. 1. Declare how it is contrary to Right Reason.
A.
2.
And this is all which these Gentlemen offer to make good their Assertion, that the Diety of Christ is repugnant to Right Reason; which therefore upon what small pretence they have done, will quickly appear.
1. It is true, that there cannot be such a personal uniting of two substances with such diverse Properties, so as by that Union to make an Exequation, or an equalling of those diverse properties; but that there may not be such a concurrence, and meeting of such different substances in one Person, both of them preserving entire to themselves their essential Properties, which are so diverse, there is nothing pleaded nor pretended. And to suppose that there cannot be such an union, is to beg the thing in Question, against evidence of many express Testimonies of Scripture, without tendering the least inducement for any to grant their Requests.
2. In calling these Properties of the several natures in Christ, adverse or contrary, they would insinuate a consideration of them as of Qualities in a subject, whose mutual contrariety should prove destructive to the one, if not both; or by amixture cause an Exurgency of Qualities of another temperature. But neither are these properties such Qualities, nor are they inherent in any common sub • ect, but inseparable Adjuncts of the different natures of Christ, never mixed with one another, nor capable of any such thing to Eternity, nor ever becoming properties of the other nature, which they belong not unto, though all of them do denominate the Person, wherein both the natures do subsist. So that instead of pleading Reason, which they pretended they would, they do nothing in this first part of their Answer, but beg the thing in Question; which being of so much importance, and concernment to our Souls, is never like to be granted them on any such terms. Will, Christ on their entreaties, cease to be God?
Neither is their Second pretended Argument of any other kind. We deny, that the Human Nature of Christ had any such subsistence of its own, as to give it a proper personality, being from the time of its Conception, assumed into subsistence with the Son of God. This we prove by express Texts of Scripture, Isa: 7. 14. Chap: 9. 6. John. 1. 14. Rom: 1. 3. Chap. 9. 5. Heb. 2. 15. Luk. 1. 35. Heb. 9. 14. Act. 3. 15. Act. 20. 28. Phil. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 2. 8. &c. And by Arguments taken from the assigning of all the diverse Properties by them mentioned before, and sundry others, to the same person of Christ, &c. That we would take it for granted, that this cannot be, is the modest Request of these Gentlemen with whom we have to do.
2. If by natures constituting Persons, they mean those, who antecedently to their union, have actually done so, we grant they cannot meet in one Person; so that upon this union they should cease to be two Persons. The personality of either of them being destroyed, their different Beings could not be preserved. But if by constituting, they understand only that which is so in potentia, or a next possibility of constituting a Person; then, as before, they only beg of us, that we would not believe, that the Person of the Word did assume the human nature of Christ, that holy thing, that was borne of the Virgin, into subsistence with it self; which for the Reasons before mentioned, and others like to them, we cannot grant.
And this is the substance of all that these men plead, and make a noise with in the world, in an opposition to the Eternal Deity of the Son of God. This Pretence of Reason, (which evidently comes short of being anything else) is their shield & buckler in the cause they have unhappily undertaken. When they tell us of Christ's being hungry, and dying, we say, it was in the human nature, wherein he was obnoxious to such things no less then we, being therein made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted. When of his submission and subjection to his Father, we tell them it is in respect of the Office of Mediator, which he willingly undertook; and that his Inequality unto him, as to that Office, doth no way prejudice his Equality with him, in respect of his nature and Being. But when with Scriptures, and Arguments from thence, as clear and convincing, as if they were written with the beams of the Sun, we prove our dear Lord Jesus in respect of a divine nature whereof he was partaker from Eternity, to be God blessed forever: they tell us it cannot be, that two such diverse natures, as those of God and man, should be united in one person: and it cannot be so, because it cannot be so, there is no such union among other things. And these things must be, that those who are approved may be tried: but let us hear them out.
But whereas they show, that Christ consisteth of a Divine and human nature, as a man consisteth of soul and body, what is to be answered them?
A.
1. R. In what sense it may be said, that Christ, that is, the Person of Christ, consisteth of a divine & human nature, was before declared. The Person of the Son of God assumed the Human Nature into subsistence with it self, and both, in that one Person are Christ.
2. If our Catechists have no more to say to the illustration given to the Union of the two Natures in the Person of Christ, by that of the soul and body in one human person, but that there is a great difference in something btween them, they do but filch away the grains that are allowed to every similitude; and show wherein the compara • s differ, but answer not to that wherein they do agree.
3. All that is intended by this similitude, is to show, that besides the change of things, one into another, either by the loss of one, as of water into wine by Christ, and besides the Union that is in Physical Generation by mixture, whereby, and from whence, some third thing ariseth, that also there is a substantial union, whereby one thing is not turned into another, nor mixed with it. And the end of using this similitude, (which to please our Catechists we can forbear, acknowledging, that there is not among created beings anything that can fully represent this, which we confess without controversy to be a great mystery) is only to manifest the folly of that assertion of their Master on Joh. 1. that if the word be made flesh in our sense, it must be turned into flesh; for saith he, one thing cannot be made another, but by change, conversion, and mutation into it. The Absurdity of which assertion is sufficiently evinced, by the substantial union of soul and body, made one person, without that alteration and change of their natures which is pleaded for. Neither is the word made flesh by Alteration, but by Union.
4. It is confessed, that the soul is not said to be made the body, nor the body said to be made the soul, as the word is said to be made flesh; for the union of soul and body, is not an union of distinct substances, subsisting in one common subsistence, but a union of two parts of one nature, wherereof the one is the form of the other. And herein is the dissimilitude of that similitude. Hence will that predication be justified in Christ; the word was made flesh, without any change or alteration, because of that subsistence whereunto the flesh, or human nature of Christ was assumed, which is common to them both. And so it is in accidental predications. When we say a man is made white, black, or pale, we do not intend that He is, as to his substance, changed into whiteness &c. but that he who is a man, is also become white.
5. It is true that the soul is not a person, nor the body; but a Person is the Exurgency of their conjunction; and therefore we do not say, that herein the similitude is urged; for the divine nature of Christ had its own personality antecedent to this union: nor is the union of his Person, the union of several parts of the same nature, but the Concurrence of several natures in one subsistence.
6. That 'tis of necessity that Christ's human nature should of its self constitute a person, is urged upon the old account of begging the thing in question. This is that which in the case of Christ we deny; & produce all the proofs before mentioned to make evident the Reason of our deny all. But our great Masters here, say the contrary; and our under-Catechists are resolved to believe them. Christ was a true man, because he had the true Essence of a man, soul and body, with all their essential properties. A peculiar personality belongeth not to the essence of a man, but to his existence in such a manner. Neither do we deny Christ to have a person, as a Man, but an human Person. For the human nature of Christ subsisteth in that, which thought it be in it self divine, yet as to that act of sustentation, which it gives the human nature, it is the subsistence of a man. On which account the subsistence of the human nature of Christ is made more noble and excellent, then that of any other man whatever. And this is the whole plea of our Catechists from Reason, that whereto they so much pretend, and which they give the preeminence unto, in their attempts against the Deity of Christ, as the chief, if not the only, engine they have to work by. And if they be thus weak in the main body of their forces, certainly that reserve which they pretend from Scripture, whereof indeed they have the meanest pretence and show, that ever any of the sons of men had, who were necessitated to make a plea from them, in a matter of so great concernment, as that now under consideration, will quickly disappear. Thus then they proceed.
Q. Declare also how it is repugnant to Scripture, that Christ hath a divine nature.
A.
And this is that which our Catechists have to pretend from Scripture against the Diety of Christ, concluding, that any such divine nature in him would be superfluous and needless, themselves being Judges. In the strength of what here they have urged, they set themselves to evade the Evidence of near fifty express Texts of Scripture, by themselves produced, and insisted on, giving undeniable Testimony to the truth they oppose. Let then what they have brought forth be briefly considered.
1. The Scripture doth indeed propose unto us one only God by nature, and we confess, that that only true God, is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we say, that the Son is partaker of the Fathers nature, of the same nature with him, as being his proper Son, and by his own Testimony one with him. He is such a Son, (as hath been declared) as is begotten of the Essence of his Father, and is therefore God blessed forever. If the Father be God by nature, so is the Son, for he is of the same nature with the Father.
2. To conclude that Christ is not God, because he is man, is plainly and evidently to beg the thing in Question. We evidently demonstrate in the person of Christ, Properties that are inseparable Adjuncts of a divine nature, and such also, as no less properly belong to an human nature: from the asserting of the one of these, to conclude to a denial of the other, is to beg that which they are not able to dignity for.
3. There is a twofold communication of the Father to the Son; 1. By Eternal Generation, so the Son receives his personality, and therein his Divine nature, from him, who said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: and this is so far from disproving the Deity of Christ, that it abundantly confirms it: and this is mentioned, John: 5. 19, 20, 21, 22. This Christ hath by nature. 2. By Collation of Gifts, Honor and Dignity, Exaltation, and Glory upon him as Mediator, or in respect of that Office, which he humbled himself to undergo, and for the full execution whereof, an investiture with Glory, Honor, and Power, was needful, which is mentioned, Math: 28. 18. Phil: 2. 9. 1 Cor: 15. 27. which is by no means derogatory to the Deity of the Son; for inequality in respect of Office is well consistent with Equality in respect of nature. This Christ hath by Grace. Mat. 28. 18. Christ speaks of himself as thoroughly furnished with Authority, for the accomplishing of the work of Mediation, which he had undertaken. It is of his Office, not of his Nature, or Essence that he speaks. Phil: 2. 9. Christ is said to be exalted, which he was in respect of the Real Exaltation given to his Human Nature, and the manifestation of the Glory of his Divine, which he had with his Father before the World was, but had eclipsed for a season: 1 Cor: 15. 27. relates to the same Exaltation of Christ as before.
4. It is false, that Christ doth not ascribe the divine works which he wrought, to himself, and his own divine Power, although that he often also make mention of the Father, as by whose Appointment he wrought those works, as Mediator. John. 5. 17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; v. 19. For whatsoever things the Father doth, these also doth the Son: v. 21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. Himself wrought the works that he did, though as to the End of his working them, which belonged to his Office of Mediation, He still relates to his Fathers designation and appointment. And this is the whole of our Catechists plea from Reason, and Scripture against the Deity of Christ. For the conclusion of the superfluousnesse, and needlessness of such a Divine Nature in the Mediator, as it argues them to be ignorant of the Scripture, and of the Righteousness of God, and the nature of sin, so it might administer occasion to insist upon the demonstration of the necessity which there was, that he who was to be Mediator between God and man, should be both God and Man; but that I aim at brevity, and the consideration of it may possibly fall in upon another account; so that here I shall not insist thereon.
Nextly then, they address themselves to that which is their proper work, (wherein they are exceedingly delighted) viz. in giving in exceptions against the Testimonies produced for the confirmation of the Truth under consideration, which they thus enter upon.
But they endeavor to assert the Divine Nature of Christ from the Scriptures.
A. They endeavor it indeed diverse ways; and that whilst they study, either to evince out of certain Scriptures what is not in them, or whilst they argue perversely from these things which are in the Scriptures, and so evilly bring their business to pass.
These it seems are the general heads of our Arguments for the Deity of Christ: but before we part we shall bring our Catechists to another reckoning: and manifest, both that what we assert is expressly contained in the Scriptures, and what we conclude by Ratiocination from them, hath an evidence in it, which they are not able to resist. But they say,
Q. What are those things which they labor to evince concerning Christ out of the Scriptures, which are not contained in them?
A.
That we do not only suppose, but have also as great an Assurance as the plain, evident, and redoubled Testimony of the Holy Ghost can give us, of the Eternity of Jesus Christ, shall be made evident in the ensuing Testimonies, both of the one sort and the other; especially such as are express thereunto; for in this matter we shall very little trouble the Reader with collections and arguings, the matter inquired after being express and evident in the words, and terms of the Holy Ghost himself. They say then.
Q. Which are those Testimonies of Scripture which seem to them to express his preeternity?
A.
Before I come to the consideration of the particular places proposed by them to be insisted on, I shall desire to premise one or two things. As
1. That it is sufficient for the disproving of their hypothesis concerning Christ, if we prove him to have been existent before his Incarnation, whether the Testimonies whereby we prove it, reach expressly to the proof of his Eternity or no. That which they have undertaken to maintain, is, that Christ had no existence before his conception, and birth of the Virgin: which if it be disproved, they do not, they cannot deny, but that it must be on the account of a divine nature; for as to the Incarnation of any preexisting creature, (which was the Arians madness) they disavow, and oppose it.
2. That these three places mentioned, are very far from being all, wherein there is express confirmation of the Eternity of Christ: and therefore when I have gone through the consideration of them, I shall add some others also, which are of no less evidence and perspicuity then these, whose vindication we are by them called unto.
To the first place mentioned they thus proceed.
i What dost thou answer to the first?
This place being express to our purpose, and the matter of great importance, I shall first confirm the truth contended for, from thence, and then remove the miserable subterfuge, which our Catechists have received from their great Apostles, Uncle and Nephew.
1. That John thus expressly insisting on the Deity of Christ, in the beginning of his Gospel, intended to disprove and condemn sundry that were risen up in those days, denying it, or asserting the Creation, or making of the world to another Demiurgus, we have the unquestionable Testimony of the first Professors of the Religion of Jesus Christ, with as much evidence and clearness of Truth as anything can be tendered on uncontroled Tradition: which at least will give some insight into the intendment of the Holy Ghost in the words.
2. That by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , howsoever rendered, verbum or sermo, or on what account soever he be so called, either of being the eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father, or as the great Revealer of his will unto us, (which yet of it self is not a sufficient cause of that Appellation, for others also reveal the will of God unto us, Act. 20. 27. Heb. 1. 1.) Jesus Christ is intended, is on all hands confessed, and may be undeniably evinced from the Context. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , came into the world, and was rejected by his own v. 11: yea expressly he was made flesh, and was the only begotten Son of God, v. 14.
3. That the whole of our Argument from this place, is very far from consisting in that Expression, in the beginning, though that, relating to the matter whereof the Apostle treats, doth evidently evince the truth pleaded for. It is part of our Catechists trade, so to divide the words of Scripture, that their main import and tendence, may not be perceived. In one place they answer to the first words, in the beginning: in another to, he was with God, and he was God; in a third to that, all things were made by him; in a fourth, (all at a great distance one from another) to, the Word was made flesh: Which desperate: course of proceeding, argues that their cause is also desperate, and that they durst not meet this one Testimony as by the Holy Ghost placed and ordered for the confirmation of our Faith, without such a bold mangling of the Text, as that instanced in.
4. I shall then insist upon the whole of this Testimony, as the words are placed in their Contexture by the Holy Ghost, and vindicate them from what in several places they have excepted against several parcels of them. Thus then from these words, (these divine words (whose very reading reclaimed as eminent a Scholar as the world enjoyed any in his days, from Atheism ) we proceed.
1. He that was in the beginning, before the creation of the world, before anything, of all things that are made, was made, Who was then with God, and was God, Who made all things, and without whom nothing was made, in whom was Life, He is God by nature blessed forever; nor is there in the whole Scripture a more glorious, and eminent description of God, by his Attributes, name, and Works, then here is given of him concerning whom all these things are spoken; but now all this is expressly affirmed of the Word that was made flesh, that is confessedly of Jesus Christ, therefore he is God by nature blessed forever. Unto the several parts of this plain and evident Testimony, in several places they except several things, thinking thereby to evade that strength and Light, which each part yields to other, as they lie, and all of them to the whole; I shall consider them in order as they come to hand.
1. Against that expression, in the beginning, they except in the place mentioned above, that it doth not signify preeternity, which hath no beginning. But
1. This imped's not at all the Existence of Jesus Christ before the Creation, although it denys, that his Eternity is expressly asserted. Now to affirm, that Christ did exist before the whole Creation, and made all things, doth no less prove him to be no more a Creature, but the Eternal God, then the most express Testimony of his Eternity doth, or can do.
2. Though Eternity have no beginning, and the sense of these words cannot be, in the beginning of Eternity, yet Eternity is before all things, and in the beginning may be the description of Eternity, as it is plainly, Prov. 8. 23. From everlasting, and in the beginning before the Earth was, are of the same import. And the Scripture saying, that in the beginning the word was, not, was made, doth as evidently express Eternity, as it doth in those other phrases, of, before the world was, or before the foundation of the world, which more then once it insists on.
3. By in the beginning, is intended before the Creation of all things. What will it avail our Catechists, if it doth not expressly denote Eternity? Why, the word beginning is to be interpreted variously, according to the subject matter spoken of, as Gen. 1. 1. which being here the Gospel, it is the beginning of the Gospel that is intended. But
1. Be it agreed, that the word beginning is to be understood according to the subject matter, whereunto it is applied; that the Apostle doth firstly, and nextly treat of the Gospel, as to the season of its preaching, is most absurd. He treats evidently and professedly of the Person of the Author of the Gospel, of the Word that was God, and was made flesh. And that this cannot be wrested to the sense intended, is clear; For 1. the Apostle evidently alludes to the first words of Genesis: in the beginning God created Heaven and earth: and the Syriac Translatour from the Hebrew, here places 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : so here, in the beginning the word made all things. 2. The following words, the word was with God, manifests the intendment of the Holy Ghost to be, to declare what, and where the Word, was, before the Creation of the world, even with God. 3. The Testimony that he was God in the beginning, will no way agree with this gloss: take his being God in their sense, yet they deny, that he was God in the beginning of the Gospel, or before his suffering, as hath been shown. 4. The sense given by the Socinians to this place is indeed senseless. In the beginning (say they) that is, when the Gospel began to be preached by John the Baptist, (which is plainly said to be, before the world was made) the word, or the man Jesus Christ (the Word being afterwards said to be made flesh, after this whole description of him, as the Word) was wi • h God, so hidden, as that he was known only to God, (which is false, for he was known to his Mother, to Joseph, to John the Baptist, to Simeon, Anna, and to others) and the word was God, that is, God appointed, that he should be so afterwards, or made God (though it be said, he was God, then, when he was with God) and all things were made by him; the new Creature was made by him, or the world by his preaching, and teaching, and working Miracles was made, or reformed; (that is, something was mended by him, ) such Interpretations we may at any time be supplied withal at an easy rate. 5. To view it a little farther. In the beginning, that is, when John preached Jesus, and said, behold the Lamb of God; was the word; or Jesus was, that is, He was, when John preached that he was: egregiam vero laudem! He was, when he was. The word was in the beginning: that is, Jesus was flesh and blood, and then was afterwards made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, when he had dwelt amongst us. And this is that interpretation which Faustus Socinus receiving from his Uncle Laelius first set up upon; in the strength whereof he went forth unto all the Abominations which afterwards he so studiously vented.
Passing by those two weighty & most material passages of this Testimony, the word was God, and the word was with God, the one evidencing his oneness of nature with, and the other his distinctness of Personality from his Father, our Catechists after an interposition of near 20 pages, fix upon the 3. verse, and attempt to pervert the express words and intendment of it, having cut it off from its dependence on what went before, that evidently gives light into the aim of the Holy Ghost therein: their words concerning this verse are;
Declare to me with what Testimonies they contend to prove, that Christ created the Heavens and the Earth?
But how dost thou answer to the first Testimony?
1.
But why doth John add, that without him nothing was made, that was made?
Thus to the 3. verse, of which afterwards. We shall quickly see how these men are put to their shifts, to escape the sword of this witness, which stands in the way to cut them off in their journeying to curse the Church and People of God, by denying the Deity of their blessed Savior.
1. The Connection of the words is wholly omitted, He was God, and he was in the beginning with God, and all things were made by him. The words are an illustration of his divine nature, by his divine power and works: He was God, and he made all things. He that made all things is God: Heb. 3. 4. The Word made all things, John. 1. 3. therefore he is God. Let us see what is answered.
1. It is not said, they were created by him, but made. But the word here used by John, is the same, that in sundry places the Septuagint (whom the writers of the New Testament followed) used about the creation. As Gen. 1. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . and v. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and if, as it is affirmed, he was in the Beginning ( before all things) and made them all, he made them out of nothing; that is, he created them. To create is but to produce something out of nothing, Nothing supplying the' term from whence of their production. But
2. They are said to be made by him: its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which denotes not the principal, but mediate, or instrumental cause.
But it is most evident, that these men care not what they say, so they may say something, that they think will trouble them whom they oppose.
1. This might help the Arians, who fancied Christ to be created, or made before all other things; and to have been the instrumental cause, whereby God created all other things; but how this concerns them to insist on, who deny that Christ had any Existence at all, before the world was some thousands of years old, is not easy to be apprehended.
2. In their own sense this is not to the purpose, but expressly contradictory to what they offer in the last place, by way of answer to the latter part of the third verse. Here they say, He is not the principal efficient cause, but the second, and mediate: there, that all things were either done by him, or in his Name, & Authority: which certainly denotes the principal cause of the thing done. But
3. This very expression is sundry times used concerning God the Father himself, whom our Catechists will not therefore deny to have been the principal efficient cause of the things ascribed to him: Rom. 11. 36. from him, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by him are all things 1 Cor. 1. 9. God is faithful 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by whom you are called: Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, nor by man, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by Jesus Christ, and God the Father Ephes. 1. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the will of God: So that this also is frivolous: thus far we have nothing to the purpose. But
4. Al things, are to be referred to the Gospel; all things of the Gospel whereof John treats: so are the words to be restrained by the subject matter: but
1. This is merely begged: John speaks not one word of the Gospel, as such; gives no description of it, its nature, or Effects: but evidently, plainly, and directly speaks of the Word, that was God, and that made all things, describing him in his Eternity, his Works, his Incarnation, his Employment, his Comming into the World and his business: and treats of the Gospel, or the declaration, of the Will of God by Jesus Christ, distinctly afterwards, from verse 14. and forwards.
2. For the expression, 2 Cor. 5. 17. all things are become new: it is expressly restrained to the new Creature, to them that are in Jesus Christ; but as to this general expression here, there is no color why it should be so restrained. The Expression it self everywhere signifying the Creation of all things; see Gen. 2. 1, 2. Psal. 33. 6. Psal. 121. 2. Isa. 37. 16. Chap. 44. 19. & 62. 2. Jen 32. 17. Acts 14. 15. Act. 17. 24. And this is it, which they plead to the first part of the verse, by him all things were made.
2. The other Expression, they say, is added, to manifest, that what was done after by the Apostles, was not done without him: and that is the meaning of these words, and without him was nothing made, that was made. But
1. Their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of referring the whole passage to the description of the Gospel, whereof there is not the least tittle, nor intimation in the Text, being removed out of the way, this following figment falls of it self.
2. This Gloss is expressly contrary to the Text. The all things here mentioned, are the all things that were made in the Beginning of the World; but this Gloss refers it to the things made in the End of the World.
3. It is contradictory to its self; for by the beginning, they understand the beginning of the Gospel, at the first preaching of it; but the things, that they say here were made by Christ, are things that were done after his Assension.
4. It is true, the Apostles wrought not any miracles, effected no mighty works, but by the presence of Christ with them, (though the Text cited to prove it John: 15. 5. be quite of another importance, as speaking of Gospel obedience, not Works of Miracles, or Conversions ) but that those works of theirs, or his by them, are here intended, is not offered to proof by our Catechists. And this is the sense of the words they give; Christ, in the beginning of the Gospel, made all things; or all things were made by him; even those, which he made by others, after his Assension into heaven: or thus: ( All things) that is, some things, (were made) that is, mended, (by him) that is, the Apostles, (in the beginning of the Gospel) that is, after his Assension.
5. Our sense of the words is plain and obvious: says the Apostle, He who was in the beginning, and was God, made all things; which he first expresseth positively; and then by an universal negative confirms, and explains what was before asserted in an universal affirmative, (without him was nothing made, that was made. ) And this is the sum of what they have to except against this part of our Testimony, then which nothing can be more vain and frivolous.
2. The 10 th verse is by them taken under consideration, and these words therein: The World was made by him: against which this is their proceedure.
What dost thou answer to the second?
1.
The two First Exceptions have been already cashiered: those which follow are of as little weight or consideration. For
1. It is confessed, that the word World hath in Scripture various acceptations; and is sometimes taken for men in the World: but that it can be so taken, when the World is said to be made, or created, when it is equivalent to all things, when it is proposed as a place, whereunto any comes, and where He is, as is the state of the Expression here, there can nothing more absurd, or foolish be imagined.
2. Heb. 1. 6. speaks not of the World to come; nor is there any place in the Scripture, where the word World doth signify immortality, or the World to come, nor anything looking that way. Heb. 2. 5. mention is made not simply of the World, but of the World to come; nor doth that expression of the Apostle relate unto that of Chap. 1. 6. where the word World is used, but to what goes before, and after in the same Chapter, where the thing it self is insisted on, in other terms. Nor is the future Immortality intended there by the world to come, but the present state of the Christian Church, called the World to come, in reference to that of the Jews, which was past, in that use of speech, whereby it was expressed before it came; as also Chap. 6. 5. Nor is the world to come, Life eternal, or blessed immortality; Life is to be had in it; but immortality, and the world to come, are not the same: nor is that World ever said to be made; nor is it anywhere described as made already, but as to come, as Math. 12. 32. Luk. 18. 30. Luk. 20. 35. Eph. 1. 21. nor can it be said of the world to come, that it knew not Christ, as it is of this that he made. Nor can Christ be said to come into that world in the beginning, which he did not until after his Resurrection; nor is the world to come, that whereof it is said in the next verse, which expounds this, he came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to his own, for then, his own, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , knew him not: so that there is not the least color, or pretence of this foppery, that here they would evade the Testimony of the Holy Ghost with all.
3. Those words Heb. 11. 5. coming into the world he said, &c. do not in the least intimate anything of the world to come, but express the present world, into which Christ came, when God prepared a body for him, at his Incarnation, and Birth, which was in order to the sacrifice, which he afterwards offered in this world, as shall be evidently manifested, when we come to the consideration of the Priesthood of Christ.
It remains only that we hear their sense of these words, which they give as followeth.
But what dost thou understand by these words, the World was made by him?
1. That these expositions are destructive to one another is evident: and yet which of them to adhere unto our Catechists know not: such good builders are they, for to establish men in the Faith. Pull down they will, though they have nothing to offer in the room of what they endeavor to destroy.
2. That the latter sense is not intended, was before evinced. The world, that was made in the Beginning, into which Christ came, in which he was, which knew him not, which is said to be made, is a World: is not immortality, or life eternal; nor is there anything in the Context, that should in the least give countenance to such an absurd gloss.
3. Much less is the first sense of the words tolerable: for
1. It is expressly contradictory to the Text. He made the world; that is, he reformed it, and the world knew him not; when the world is not reformed, but by the knowledge of him.
2. To be made, doth nowhere simply signify to be renewed, or reformed, unless it be joined with other expressions, restraining its significancy to such Renovation.
3. The world was not renewed by Christ whilst he was in it: nor can it be said to be renewed by him, only on the account of laying the foundation of its Renovation in his Doctrine. By him the world was made, that is, He preached that Doctrine, whereby some in the world were to be reformed. The world that Christ made knew him not: but the renewed world know him.
4. The Hebraism of making, for reforming, is commonly pretended; without any instance for its confirmation. John wrote in Greek, which language abounds with compositions above any other in the world, and such as on all occasions he makes use of.
There is one passage more, that gives strength to the Testimony insisted on, confirming the existence of Christ in his divine nature, antecedently to his Incarnation, and that is v. 14. The word was made flesh. Who the Word is, and what, we have heard. He who was in the beginning, who was God, and was with God, who made all things, who made the world, in whom was Light, and Life, He was made flesh. Flesh, so as that thereupon he dwelt amongst men, and conversed with them. How he was, and how he was said to be made flesh, I have declared in the consideration of his eternal Sonship, and shall not again insist thereon. This after the interposition of sundry Questions our Catechists take thus into consideration.
How do they prove Christ to have been incarnate?
How dost thou answer it?
This is the last plea they use in this case; the dying groans of their perishing cause are in it: which will provide them neither with succor, nor relief. For
1. It is not Words, or Expressions, that we contend about. Grant the thing pleaded for, and we will not contend with any living about the expressions, wherein it is by any man delivered. By the Incarnation of the Son of God, and by the Divine nature assuming the human, we intend no more then what is here asserted, the Word, who was God, was made flesh.
2. All they have to plead to the thing insisted on, is, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may, yea ought to be translated, fuit, WAS, and not factus est, was made. But
1. Suppose it should be translated WAS, what would it avail them? He that was a man, was made a man. In that sense it expresses what he was, but withal denotes how he came so to be. He who was the Word before, was also a man; let them show us any other way, how he became so, but only by being made so, and upon a supposition of this new Translation, they may obtain something. But
2. How will they prove, that so much as it MAY be rendered by fuit, was. They tell you it is so in two other places in the New Testament; but doth that prove that it may so much as be so rendered here? The proper sense, and common usage of it, is, was made; and because it is once or twice used in a peculiar sense, may it be so rendered here, where nothing requires, that it be turned aside from its most usual acceptation; yea much enforcing it thereunto,
3. That it ought to be rendered by fuit, was, they plead the mentioning before of things done after Christ's Incarnation (as we call it,) so that it cannot be, he was made flesh: but
1. Will they say, that this order is observed by the Apostle, that that which is first done, is first expressed, as to all particulars? What then becomes of their interpretation, who say the Word was made God by his Exaltation: and made flesh in his Humiliation; and yet how much is that, which in their sense was last, expressed before that which went before it? Or will they say, in him was the life of man, before he was made flesh? When the life of man, according to them, depends on his resurrection solely, which was after he ceased to be flesh in their sense. Or what conscience have these men, that in their disputes will object that to the interpretation of others, which they must receive, and embrace for the establishing of their own?
2. The Order of the words is most proper; John having asserted the Deity of Christ, with some general concomitants and consequences of the dispensation, wherein he undertakes to be a Mediator; in his 14. verse enters particularly upon a description of his entrance upon his Employment, and his carrying it on in, by the Revelation of the Will of God; so that without either difficulty or straining, the sense and intendment of the Holy Ghost falls in clearly in the words.
3. It it is evident, that the Word neither may, nor ought to to be translated according to their desire. For
1. It being so often said before, that the Word was, the Word is still 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : in the beginning the Word was, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God: The same was; he was in the world, he was the light; still the same word; so that if no more were intended, but what was before expressed, the terms would not be changed without exceedingly obscuring the sense; and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must signify somewhat more then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .
2. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 applied to other things in this very place, denotes their making, or their Original, which our Catechists did not question in the Consideration of the places where it is so used; as v. 3. all things were made by him, and without him was nothing made, that was made, and v. 10. the world was made by him.
3. This phrase is expounded accordingly in other places; as Rom. 1. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , made of the seed of David according to the Flesh. and Gal. 4. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , made of a woman; but they think to salve all by the ensuing exposition of these words.
How is that to be understood the word was Flesh?
That he by whom God perfectly revealed all his will, who is therefore called sermo by John, was a man subject to all miseries, and afflictions, and lastly to death it self. For the Scripture useth the word Flesh in that sense, as is clear from those places, where God speaks, my Spirit shall not always contend with man, seeing he is Flesh, Gen. 6. 3. and Peter, all Flesh is grass. 1 Pet. 1. 24.
This is the upshot of our Catechists exposition of this first Chapter of John, as to the Person of Christ. Which is
1. Absurd, upon their own suppositions, for the Testimonies produced affirm every man to be flesh; so that to say he is a man, is to say he is flesh: and to say that man was flesh, is to say that a man was a man, in as much as every man is flesh.
2. False, and no way fitted to the intendment of the Holy Ghost; for He was made Flesh antecedently to his dwelling amongst us; which immediately follows in the Text: Nor is his being made flesh suited to anything in this place, but his conversation with men, which answers his Incarnation, not his mediation; neither is this Exposition confirmed by any instance from the Scriptures, of the like expression used concerning Jesus Christ; as that we urge is, Rom. 1. 3. Gal. 4. 4. and other places. The place evidently affirms, the word to be made something, that it was not before, when he was the Word only; and cannot be affirmed of him, as he was man; in which sense he was always obnoxious to miseries and death.
And this is all which our Catechists in several places have thought meet to insist on, by way of Exception, or opposition to our undeniable, & manifest Testimonies from this first Chap. of John, unto the great & sacred truth contended for; which I have at large insisted on, that the Reader from this one instance, may take a taste of their dealing in the rest; and of the desperateness of the cause which they have undertaken, driving them to such desperate shifts, for the maintenance, and protection of it: in the residue I shall be more brief.
Joh. 6. 62. is in the next place taken into consideration. The words are, What and if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before. What we intend from hence, and the force of the Argument from this Testimony insisted on, will the better appear, if we add unto it those other places of Scripture, wherein the same thing is more expressly, and emphatically affirmed, which our Catechists cast (or some of them) quite into another place, on pretence of the method wherein they proceed, indeed to take off from the evidence of the Testimony, as they dealt with what we plead from John the first: the places I intend are
Joh. 3. 13. And no man hath assended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of man, who is in Heaven,
Vers. 31. He that cometh from above, is above all. He that cometh from Heaven, is above all.
John 8. 23. Ye are from beneath, I am am from above.
Joh. 16. 28. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; and again I leave the world, and go to the Father.
Hence we thus argue. He that was in Heaven before he was on the earth, & who was also in Heaven, whilst he was on the earth, is the Eternal God. But this doth Jesus Christ abundantly confirm concerning himself; therefore he is the Eternal God blessed forever.
In answer to the first place our Catechists thus proceed.
What answerest thou to the second Testimony, Joh. 6. 62.
Neither is here any mention made expressly of preeternity; for in this place the Scripture witnesseth, that the Son of man, that is, a man, was in Heaven, who without all controversy was not eternally preexistent. So they.
1. It is expressly affirmed, that Christ was in Heaven, before his coming into the world. And if we evince his preexistence to his Incarnation, against the Socinians, the task will not be difficult to prove that preexistence to be in an eternal divine nature against the Arians. It is sufficient as to our intendment in producing this Testimony, that it is affirmed, that Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Heaven, before his coming forth into the world; in what nature we elsewhere prove.
2. It is said indeed that the Son of man was in Heaven, which makes it evident, that he who is the Son of man, hath another nature, besides that wherein he is the Son of man, wherein he is the Son of God. And by affirming that the Son of man was in Heaven before, it doth no more assert that he was Eternal, and in Heaven in that Nature, wherein he is the Son of man, then the Affirmation that God redeemed his Church with his own Blood, doth prove, that the blood shed was the blood of the divine nature. Both the Affirmations are concerning the Person of Christ. As he who was God, shed his blood as he was man; so he who was man, was Eternal, and in Heaven, as he was God. So that the Answer doth merely beg the thing in question; viz. that Christ is not God and man in one person.
3. The insinuation here of Christ's being in Heaven as man, before his assention, mentioned in the Scripture, shall be considered, when we come to the proposal made of that figment by M. Biddle in his Chapter of the Prophetical office of Christ. In answer to the other Testimonyes recited, they thus proceed towards the later end of their Chapter, concerning the Person of Christ.
What answerest thou to Joh. 3. 13. chap. 10. 36. chap. 16. 28. chap. 17. 18.
1. That these expressions are merely figuratively to be expounded, they dare not assert; nor is there any color given that they may be so received from the instances produced from James 1. 17. and Revel. 21. 2. for there is only mention made of descending, or coming down, which word we insist not on by it self, but as it is conjoined with the Testimony of his being in Heaven before his descending; which takes off all pretence of a parity of Reason in the places compared.
2. All that follows is a perfect begging of the thing in question; because Christ is the Son of man, it follows that he is a true man; but not, that he hath the personality of a man, or an human personality. Personality belongs not to the Essence, but the Existence of a man. So that here they do but repeat their own Hypothesis, in answer to an express Testimony of Scripture against it. Their confession of the proper use of the word, is but to give color to the figment formerly intimated, which shall be in due place (God assisting) discovered.
3. They utterly omit, and take no notice of that place, where Christ says, he so came from Heaven, as that he was still in Heaven; nor do they mention anything of that, which we lay greatest weight on, of his affirming that he was in Heaven before; but merely insist on the word descending, or coming down, and yet they can no other way deal with that neither, but by begging the thing in question.
4. We do not argue merely from the words of Christ's being sent into the world, but in this conjunct consideration, that he was so sent into the world, as that he was in Heaven before, and so came forth from the Father, and was with him in Heaven before his coming forth, and this our Catechists thought good to oversee.
5. The difference of Christ's being sent into the world, and the Apostles by him, which they parallel, as to the purpose in hand, lies in this, that Christ was so sent of the Father, that he came forth from the Father, and was with him in Heaven before his sending, which proves him to have another nature, then that wherein he was sent: the similitude alleged consists quite in other things. Neither
6. Doth the Scripture in Joh. 18. 37. testify, that Christ's sending into the world was after his Nativity, but only that the end of them both, was to bear witness to the truth; And indeed, I was borne, and came into the world, are but the same, the one being exegetical of the other. But his being borne, & his coming into the world, is in the Testimonies cited, plainly asserted in reference to an Existence that he had in Heaven before. And thus as our Argument is not at all touched in this Answer, so is their Answer closed as it began, with the begging of that which is not only questioned, but sufficiently disproved, namely, that Christ was in his human nature taken up into Heaven, and instructed in the will of God, before his entrance upon his Prophetical office.
And this is the whole of what they have to except against this evident Testimony of the divine nature of Christ. He was in Heaven, with the Father, before he came forth from the Father, or was sent into the world; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was in Heaven, when he was in the Earth, and at his Assension returned thither where he was before. And so much for the vindication of this second Testimony.
John. 6. 62. is the second place I can meet with in all the Annotations of Grotius, wherein he seems to assert the union of the human nature of Christ with the eternal word: if he do so. It is not with the Man that I have any difference, nor do I impose anything on him for his Judgment; I only take liberty, having so great cause given, to discuss his Annotations.
There remains one more of the first rank, as they are sorted by our Catechists, for the proof of the Eternity of Christ, which is also from John Chap. 8. 58. Before Abraham was I am, That they insist on.
If our Adversaries can well quit themselves of this Evidence, I believe they will have no small hopes of escaping in the whole trial. And if they meet with Judges so partially addicted to them, and their cause, as to accept of such manifest juggling, and perverting of the Scriptures, I know not what they may not expect or hope for. Especially, seeing how they exult, and triumph in this invention; as may be seen in the words of Socinus himself, in his Answer to Erasmus Johannes p. 67. For whereas Erasmus says,
Of this esteem is this Interpretation of these words with them. They profess it to be one of the best, and most divine discoveries, that ever was made by them; whereto for my part I freely assent; though withal, I believe it to be as violent a perverting of the Scripture, & corrupting of the word of God, as the World can bear witness to.
1. Let the Christian Reader, without the least prejudicial thoughts from the Interpretation of this, or that man, consult the Text, and Context. The Head of the discourse, which gives occasion to these words of Christ, concerning himself, lies evidently and undeniably in v. 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death: upon this, the Jews rise up against him, as one that boasted of himself above measure, and preferred himself before his betters: v. 52. Then said the Jews unto him, now we know that thou hast a Devil; Abraham is dead, and the Prophets, and thou sayest, if a man keep my sayings he shall never taste of death. and v. 53. Art thou greater then our Father Abraham, who is dead, and the Prophets are dead, whom makest thou thyself to be. Two things are here charged on him by the Jews. First in general, that he preferred, exalted, and honored himself. 2. In particular, that he made himself better then Abraham their Father. To both which charges Christ answers in order in the following words: To the First, or general charge of honoring himself. v. 54, 55. Jesus answered, if I honor myself, my honor is nothing; it is my Father that honoreth me, of whom ye say, that he is your God. Ye have not known him, but I know him, and if I should say I know him not, I shall be a Lyar like unto you; but I know him, and keep his saying. His honor he had from God, whom they professed, but knew not. 2. To that of Abraham he replies, v. 56. Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Though Abraham was so truly great, & the Friend of God, yet his great joy was from his belief in me; whereby he saw my day. To this the Jews reply, laboring to convince him of falsehood, from the impossibility of the things that he had asserted, v. 57. Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Abraham was dead so many hundred years before thou wast borne; how couldest thou see him, or he thee? To this in the last place our Savior replies, v. 58. verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am. The Jews knowing that by these words he asserted his Deity, and that it was impossible on any other account to make good that he who in their esteem was not fifty years old, (indeed but a little above thirty) should be before Abraham, as in a case of blasphemy, they take up stones to stone him, v: 59. as was their perpetual manner, to attempt to kill him under pretence of blasphemy, when he asserted his Deity, as Joh. 5. 18. Therefore thought the Jews the more to kill him,—because he said, that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
This naked, and unprejudicate view of the Text, is sufficient to obviate all the operous and sophistical exceptions of our Catechists, so that I shall not need long to insist upon them. That which we have asserted may be thus proposed. He who in respect of his human nature, was many hundred years after Abraham, yet was in another respect existing before him; He had an existence before his birth, as to his divine nature. Now this doth Christ expressly affirm concerning himself. And nothing else is pretended but only his divine nature, wherein he should so exist. They say then,
1. That these words do not signify preeternity, but only something before Abraham. It is enough, that his Existence so many hundred years before his nativity is evidently asserted; his Eternity from thence will evidently be concluded, and they will not deny, that he may as well be eternal, as be before Abraham. But
2. The words may be rendered, prinsquam Abraham fiat, ego sum; before Abraham be made. But 1. They may be so rendered, is no proof at all that they ought to be so: and, as was before observed, if this be sufficient to evade the sense of a place, that any word in it may otherwise be rendered, because it is, or may be so in some other place, nothing certain can be concluded from any Testimony of the Scriptures whatever. But that they may not be so rendered, is evident. 1. From the Context, as before declared. 2. From the opposition between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I am, and Abraham was, which evidently denotes a time past, as it stands in comparison with what Christ says of himself. And 3. The words in such a construction as this, requires an Interpretation as to the time past. And 4. because this Interpretation of the words corrupts the whole sense of the place, and wrests it contrary to the design, and intendment of our Savior. But then they say,
3. The sense is excellent: for before Abraham be made, is as much as before he be Abraham, or the Father of many Nations, which he was when the Gospel was Preached to the conversion of the Gentiles. I am, that is, I am the light of the world, which you should do well to walk in, and attend unto.
1. That this Interpretation in general is altogether alien, and strange from the scope of the place, the Christian Reader, upon the bare view of it, will be able to judge. 2. It is false. 1. Because Abraham was the Father of many Nations, Jews, and Proselytes, before the Preaching of the Gospel, as Gen. 15. 5. 2. It is false, that Abraham was not Abraham, until after the assension of Christ, and Preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. He was made Abraham, from his first enjoyment of his name, and seed in Isaac, and is constantly so called. 3. It is frivolous; for if Christ was, before Abram was made Abraham, we obtain what we plead for, for he was made so, when God gave him that name. But, it should be, before Abram be made Abraham, or there is no sense in the words: nor then neither, unless Abraham be taken as a common Appellative for the Father of many Nations, and not a Proper name, whereof in Scripture there is not any example. 4. It is horribly wrested, 1. In making the words, I am, Elipticall; whereas there is neither need of, nor color for such a pretence. 2. In supplying the feigned Eclipsis with a word at such a distance, as from v. 12. to v. 58. 3. In making Christ to say, he is the Light of the world, before the Preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles, when the World is everywhere in the Gospel taken quite in another sense, for the Jews, and Gentiles, and not for the Jews only, which according to this Interpretation it must be. 4. It leaves no reason of the following attempt of the Jews to stone him, upon the particular provocation of this Assertion, he having before affirmed himself to be the Light of the World, which they were not moved at. There is indeed no end of the falsities, follies, and corruptions of this perverting, and corrupting of the word of God.
For the Grammatical vindication of the words, and the Translation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in a sense of that which is past, there is no occasion administered by our Catechists, and therefore I shall not trouble the Reader therewith.
And of the first sort of Testimonies, which they except against, and their exceptions, thus far.
A little Animadversion upon the Catechists good friend Grotius, shuts up this Discourse and Chapter. In the End he agrees with them, but fixes on a new medium for the accomplishment of it, not daring to espouse an interpretation so absurd in it self, and so abhorrent from the common sense of all men, that ever professed the name of Christ. He takes then another course, yet no less aiming then they, to disappoint this evidence of the preexistence of Christ before his Nativity: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Antequam esset, (saith he) before he was: and gives many instances to prove the propriety of so translating that expression. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : praesens pro imperfecto: eram: Syrus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nonnus: sit in Graeco Psal: 90. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . very good • before Abraham was, or was borne, Christ was, as in that of the Psalm, before the Mountains were made, thou art. And a little to help a friend at so good a work: It is no new thing for this Evangelist to use the present for the praeterimperfect tense: as Chap. 14. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I am so long, for I was, or I have been so long with you: &c. And Chap: 15. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : because you have been with me from the beginning: Thus far then we are agreed: but how should this be, that Christ thus was, before Abraham was, Fuerat (saith he) autem ante Abrahamum Jesus, divina constitutione. In God's appointment Jesus was before Abraham was borne: yea and so was Grotius, and Socinus, and every man in the World, for known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the World. And this is that great privilege in seems, that our Savior vindicates to himself, without any occasion, to no purpose, insisting on that, which is common to him with all the Elect of God in the best sense of the words. Of that other Text of Scripture John: 17. 5. which together with this he labors to corrupt, I shall speak afterwards. I shall only add that our great Doctors do not in this business agree. Grotius here makes no mention of Socinus his Gloss: and Socinus before hand rejects this of Grotius, as absurd and fond; and as such let it pass; as having no occasion given from the words foregoing, nor color from the matter, nor phrase of words, no significancy to the business in hand.
CHAP. IX.
The Preeternity of Christ farther evinced. Sundry texts of Scripture vindicated.
IN the consideration of the ensuing Testimonies I shall content myself with more brief observations upon, and discoveries of the corruption of our Adversaries, having given a large Testimony thereof in the Chapter foregoing. Thus then they proceed.
What are the Testimonies of Scripture wherein they think, that this Preeternity of Christ is not indeed expressed, but yet may thence be proved?
Those which seem to attribute to the Lord Jesus some things from Eternity, and some things in a certain and determinate time.
Let the Gentlemen take their own way and method; we shall meet with them at the first style, or rather brazen wall, which they endeavor to climb over.
What are the Testimonies which seem to attribute some things to the Lord Jesus from Eternity?
They are those, from which they endeavor to confirm that Christ was begotten from Eternity of the Essence of his Father.
These are some of the places wherein this Property of the God-head, Eternity, is ascribed to our Savior; it is confessed.
But from what places do they endeavor to prove, that Christ was from Eternity begotten of the Essence of his Father?
From these chiefly, Mic. 5. 2. Psal. 2. 7. and 110. 10. Prov. 8. 23.
These are only some of the Testimonies that are used to this purpose. 2. It is enough to prove Christ Eternal, if we prove him begotten of his Father, for no such thing can be new in God. 3. That he is the only begotten Son of the Father, which is of the same import, with that here opposed by our Catechists, hath been before declared and proved Chap. 6.
But how must we answer these Testimonies?
And this is the fruit of measuring Spiritual things by carnal; infinite by finite; God by ourselves; the object of Faith, by corrupted Rules of corrupted Reason. But 1. that which God hath revealed to be so, is not impossible to be so; let God be true & all men liars: that this is revealed, hath been undeniably evinced. 2. What is impossible in finite, limited Essences, may be possible & convenient to that which is infinite & unlimited; as is that whereof we speak. 3. It is not impossible, in the sense wherein that word must here be used, if anything be signified by it. It is not, it cannot be so, in limited things, therefore not in things infinite; we cannot comprehend it, therefore it cannot be so; but the nature of the thing, about which it is, is inconssistent with it; this is denied, for God hath revealed the contrary. 4. For the parting of the divine Essence, or receiving a part of the divine essence, our Catechists might have left out, as having none to push at with it, none standing in the way of that horn of their Dilemma. 5. We say then, that in the Eternal Generation of the Son, the whole Essence of the Father is communicated to the Son, as to a personal existence in the same Essence without multiplication or division of it; the same essence continuing still one in number; and this without the least show of impossibility in an infinite essence. All the Arguments that lie against it, being taken from the Propertys and attendencys of that which is finite.
Come we to the particular testimonys: The first is Mic. 5. 2. But thou Bethlehem-Ephratah though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me, that is to be a Ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, or the days of Eternity.
How must this first testimony of the Scripture be answered?
R. 1. Who necessitated our Catechists to urge this place to prove the Generation of Christ, when it is used only to prove his Generation to be Eternal: the thing it self being proved by other Testimonies in abundance. That he was begotten of the Father is confessed: that he was begotten of the Essence of his Father was before proved. Yea that which is here called * his going forth, is his Generation of his Father, or somewhat else that our Adversaries can assign: That it is not the latter shall immediately be evinced.
2. Here is no mention of the * Beginning; and those who in the latter words reject the vulgar edition, cannot honestly insist on the former from thence, because it serves their turn. Yet how that word is sometimes used, and in what sense it may be so, where Eternity is intended, hath been declared in the last Chapter.
3. That days are not used with, & to express Eternity in Scripture, though strictly there be no days, nor Time in Eternity, is absurd negligence and confidence to affirm, Job. 10. 5. Are thy days as the days of man? Are thy years as man's days? Hence God is called the Ancient of days Dan. 7. 9. Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail Heb. 1. 12.
4. For the word Gnolam, translated seculi: it hath in the Scripture various significations. It comes from a * word signifying to hide; and denotes an unknown hidden duration. Principally perpetuum, aeternum, sempiternum: That which is preeternall and eternal. Sometimes a very long time. Gen. 9. 12. & v. 16. that is perpetual: so Gen. 17. 13. and in other places, with a reference to the sovereignty of God. Gen. 21. 33. It is ascribed to God as a property of his, and signifies eternal: Jehovah Gnolam: so Psal. 89. 2. as also Isa. 45. 17. Let all places where the word in Scripture, in this sense is used, be reckoned up, (which are above 300) and it will appear, that in far the greatest number of them, it signifies absolutely Eternity. In the places of Isa. 63. 9, 11. and Mal. 3. 4. a long time indeed is signified; but yet that which reaches to the utmost of the thing, or matter treated of. And upon the same Rule where it is put absolutely it signifies Eternity. So doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the New Testament, by which the Septuagint often render Gnolam; whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may be from Eternity, 2 Tim. 1. 9. Tit. 1. 2. Wherein also with a like expression to that under consideration, the times of Eternity are mentioned, though perhaps with a peculiar respect to something at the beginning of the World. This then is here expressed. He that was in the fullness of time borne at Bethlehem, had his goings forth from the Father from Eternity.
5. The pretended sense of our Adversaries is a bold corruption of the Text. For 1. it applies that to David, and his being borne at Bethlehem, which the Holy Ghost expressly applies to Jesus Christ, Mat. 2. 6. and Joh. 1. 46. 2. The goings forth of Christ in this sense, are no more from Everlasting, then every other man's, who is from Adam: when yet this is peculiarly spoken of him, by way of incomparable Eminency. 3. They cannot give any one instance of the like expression; that his goings forth are from Eternity, should signify, he had his original from an ancient stock. 4. If only Christ's original of the Tribe of Judah, and of the house of David were intended, why was not that expressed in plain terms, as it is in other places, and as the place of his birth, viz. Bethlehem, is in this? So that we have already met our Catechists, and stopped them at this Wall, their attempt at it being very faint and absurd: and yet this is the sum of what is pleaded by Socinus against Wieck. cap. 7. p. 424. Smalcius against Smiglecius, Chap. 26. Osterod institut. Chap. 7. with the rest of them. He then, who was borne at Bethlehem in the fullness of time, of the House of David as concerning the flesh, had also his goings forth, his Birth, or Generation of the Father, of old, from the days of Eternity; which is that which this Testimony confirms.
Grotius on this place (according to his wont) outgoes his Companions one step at least, (as he was a bold man at conjectures) & applies this Prophesy to Zorobabell-Natus ex Bethlehem • Zerubbabel recte dicitur, quod ex Davidis Familia esset, quae orta Bethlehemo. Zorobabell is rightly said to be borne at Bethlehem, being of the family of David, which had its original from Bethlehem.
That Zorobabell is here at all intended, he doth not attempt to prove, either from the Text, context, circumstances of the place, design of the Prophesy, or anything else, that might give light into the intendment of the Holy Ghost. That it belongs properly to Christ we have a better interpreter to assure us then Grotius, or any of his Rabbins, Math. 2. 5. I know that in his Annotations on that place he allows the Accommodation of the words to Christ: But we cannot allow them to be spoken of any other. The Holy Ghost expressly fitting them to him. And if Zorobabell, who was borne at Babylon, may be said to be borne at Bethlehem, because David, from whom he descended, was borne there; what need all that labor and trouble, that our Savior might be borne at Bethelehem? If it could not be said of Christ, that he was borne at Bethelehem, though he were of the linage of David • nles he had actually been borne there indeed: certainly Zorobabell, who was borne at Babylon, could not be said on the account of his Progenitour five hundred years before, to be borne there.
For the second part of this Text, or the words we insist on for the proof of our intention, he useth the same shift in the same words with our Catechists; origo ipsi ab olim, a temporibus longis: id est, originem trahit a domo illustri antiquitus, & per quingentos annos regnatrice. His original is from of old, from a long time: that is, he hath his original from an ancient illustrious house, that had reigned 500. years.
Of the sense of the words I have spoken before. I shall only add, that the use of this note is to confute the other. F or if his being borne at Bethlehem signify his being of the Family of David, and nothing else, he being not indeed borne there, what need this addition, if these obscure words signify no more but what was spoken before? Yea and herein the learned man forsaketh his Masters, all generally concluding, that it is the Messiah who is here alone intended. The Chaldee Paraphrast expressly puts in the name of Messiah. His words are, out of thee shall the Messiah come forth before me. And some of them do Mystically interpret hedem of the mind of God, from whence the word, or wisdom of God is brought forth. Because as they say, the word denotes the first numeration of the Crown, or of that name of God which signifies his Essence.
The second is Psal. 2. 7. The Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee.
To this second what is to be answered?
1. There is mention in these words of Christ's Generation of his Father; of being begotten of him before his Incarnation, this being spoken of him under the Old Testament; and to deny that there is any such thing in the Text, as that which upon this consideration we urge it to prove, is only to beg the thing in Question.
2. To day, being spoken of God, of him who is Eternal, to whom all time is so present, as that nothing is properly yesterday, nor today, does not denote necessarily such a proportion of time, as is intimated. But is expressive of an Act eternally present, nor past, nor future.
3. It cannot be proved that the words are spoken at all of David, so much as Typically: nor anything else in that Psalm from v. 7. to the end. Yea the contrary is evident from every verse following; especially the 12. where Kings and Rulers are called to worship him, of whom he speaks, and threatened with destruction if they do not; and they are pronounced blessed who put their trust in him: which cannot be spoken of David; God declaring them to be cursed who put their trust in man: Jer. 17. 5, 6, 7.
4. It is granted that the Apostle makes use of these words, when he mentions the Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ: not that Christ was then begotten, but that he was then declared to be the only begotten Son of God: his Resurrection and Exaltation being manifestations of his Sonship, not causes of his Filiation, as hath been at large declared. So the Sun is said to arise when it doth first to us appear.
5. True, God hath other Sons, and Believers are said to be begotten of God, but how? by Regeneration, & turning from sin; as in the places quoted is evident. That Christ is so begotten of God, is blasphemous once to imagine. Besides, he is the only begotten Son of the Father, so that no other is begotten with a generation of the same kind with him. It is evident then by this Testimony, and from these words, that Christ is so the Son of God as no Angels are his Sons in the same kind: for that the Apostle produceth these words to prove, Heb. 1. 5. For unto which of the Angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son. Now the Angels are the Sons of God by Creation, Job. 1. 6. and 38. 7. He is also such a Son, and so begotten, as Believers are not. For they are begotten by Regeneration from sin, and Adoption into the Family of God: Therefore Christ who is the Son of God in another kind, then Angels and Men, who are so by Creation, Regeneration, and Adoption, is the natural Son of God by Eternal Generation; which is also proved from this place.
In this whole Psalm Grotius takes no notice of Jesus Christ: indeed in the entrance he tells us, that a mystical and abstruse sense of it may belong to Christ, & so the Rabbins acknowledge, & so the Apostle took it. But throughout the whole doth he not make the least application of it to Christ, but merely to David, although so many passages of it are urged in the New Testament to have their Accomplishment in Christ, and the things which concerned him. These words, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, he says may be thus rendered O fili mi, hodie (id est hoc tempore) ego te genui; novam vitam, scilicet regalem tibi contuli: but that the words may not aptly be so translated, that they are not so rendered by the Apostle ( Heb. 1. 5.) He knew well enough. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is filius meus tu, not fili mi: nor doth the rendering of it by the voca • ive, any way answer the words going before. I will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son: that is the thing I will declare. 2. That hodie should be hoc tempore, relating to any certain time of David's reign, cannot be reconciled to the Apostles Application of that expression on sundry occasions, as hath been manifest. 3. I have given thee a new, or a Regal life, is somewhat an uncouth exposition of genui • e; without warrant, without Reason, or Argument; and it is inconsistent with the time of the Psalms writing, according to Grotius himself: He refers it to 2 Sam. 8. when David had been King over Israel many years.
To serve his Hypothesis, the two last verses are miserably wrested. The command of worshipping Christ, v. 12. is a command of doing homage to David. And the last verse is thus glossed, beati omnes qui confidunt in eo, i. e. qui fidei ejus regis (id est, meae) se permittunt. They are blessed (says David) who commit themselves to my faith and care: doubtless the thought of any such thing was as remote from the heart of the holy man, as this Gloss is from the sense of the place. That they are blessed who trust in the Lord, that is, commit themselves to his care, he everywhere declareth; yea this he makes always the property of a blessed man: but that they are so who trust in him, not the least word to that purpose did the holy person ever utter: he knew they were cursed of God, who put their trust in man. The word here is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to repair to any one for protection; and it is used to express our trusting in God. Psal. 18. 30. as also Psal. 31. 19. on which men are frequently pronounced blessed; but that it should be applied to David, and a blessing annexed thereunto, we were to learn.
The third Testimony of Psal. 110. 10. we pass over with our Adversaries, as not to the purpose in hand; being a mistake of the vulgar Latin.
The 4th is Prov. 8. 23. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
What-dost thou answer to this Testimony?
1. Our Argument hence is: Christ the second Person of the Trinity is spoken of, Prov. 8. 22. under the name of Wisdom. Now it is said expressly there of Wisdom, that it was begotten from everlasting, and therefore the Eternal Generation of Christ is hence confirmed. Our Reasons are, 1. Because the things here spoken of can be applied to no other. 2. Because the very same things are affirmed of Christ, Joh. 1. 1. 3. Because Christ is the Wisdom of God, and so called in the Scripture; not only in the expression of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2: That by Wisdom, Solomon intended the Wisdom of God, and that that word may be supplied, is most evident from what is spoken of it: Let the place be read, 3. Christ is called not only the Wisdom of God, but also Wisdom, absolutely and simply; and that not only Prov. 1. 20. but Math. 11. 19. 4. The Wisdom that Solomon treats of, is evidently a Person, and such things are ascribed thereunto, as can be proper to none but a Person: such are those v: 30, 31. I was by him, one brought up with him, I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in the habitable part of the Earth, &c. That it is the same Wisdom spoken of Chap: 7. and here, is not evident. Yet is there not anything in that, attributed to it, but what suits well unto a Person. Much less in the beginning of the 9 Chapter, the Invitation there being such as may be made by a Person only: It is a Person who sends out Messengers to invite to a banquet, as Christ doth in the Gospel. Kings rule, and Princes decree judgment by the Authority of a Person; and without him they can do nothing.
3. The word translated, from everlasting, is the same with that considered before Mich: 5. 2. 2. The words following do so evidently confirm the meaning of the word to be as expressed, that it is marvelous the Gentlemen durst venture upon the exception in this place. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old: that is, before the Creation, as is at large expounded, v. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.
And this is all, the whole sum of what any of our Adversaries, or rather the Adversaries of Jesus Christ, have to object in their cause against these Testimonies: whence we thus argue.
He who was begotten of God the Father with an Eternal Generation, is Eternal; and so consequently God: but so is Jesus Christ begotten of God the Father, with an Eternal Generation; Therefore he is Eternal, and God blessed forever.
To clear what hath been spoken, I shall close my considerations of this Text of Scripture with a brief parallel, between what is spoken in this place of Wisdom, and what is asserted of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
1. It is Wisdom that is spoken of; so is Christ, Math. 11. 19. 1 Cor. 1. 24. Col. 2. 3. 2. Wisdom was set up from everlasting v. 23. Grace is given in Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from everlasting, 2 Tim. 1. 9. He is the beginning, Col. 1. 5. the first and last. Rev. 1. 17. 3. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, says Wisdom v. 23. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, John. 1. 1, 2. 4. Before the Mountains were settled, before the hills were brought forth, v. 25. He is the First borne of every Creature, Col. 1. 15. He is before all, v. 17. 5. I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him, v. 30. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Matth. 3. 17. The only begotten Son is in the bosom of the Father, John. 1. 18. 6. By me Kings reign, and Princes &c. v. 15, 16. He is the Prince of the Kings of the Earth, Rev. 1. 5. The King of Kings, and Lord of Lord's, Revel. 19. 16. 7. Rejoicing in the habitable part of the Earth, and my delights were with the Sons of Men, v. 31. For the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we saw his glory, as the glory of the only begotten Son of God. 8. Compare also v. 34. with John. 13. 17. Luk. 11. 28. John. 10. 9. And v. 35, and 36. with John. 6. 44, 47. and many the like instances might be given.
Grotius takes no notice of Christ in this place, yea he seems evidently to exclude him from being here intended; his first note on v. 1. is, Haec de ea sapientia, quae in lege apparet, exponunt Haebraei; & sane ei, si non soli, at praecipue haec attributa convenient. The Hebrews expound these things of that Wisdom which appears in the Law; and truly these Attributes agree thereunto, if not only, yet chiefly. Of this assertion he gives no reason. The contrary is evident from what is above said, and proved. The Authority of the Moderne Rabbins in the exposition of those places of Scripture, which concern the Messiah, is of no value. They do not only as their forefathers, err, not knowing the Scriptures; but maliciously corrupt them, out of hatred to Jesus Christ. In the mean time one no less versed in the Hebrew Authors, than our Annotatour, expounding this place, from them concludes, nec dubito, hinc Iohannem augustum illud & magnificum Evangelii sui initium sumpsisse. In principio erat verbum: nam verbum & sapientia idem sunt, & secundam Trinitatis personam indicant. I doubt not, but that John took that reverend and lofty entrance of his Gospel, In the beginning was the word, from hence: For the Word, and Wisdom are the same; and denote the second Person of the Trinity.
Before I proceed to those that follow, I shall add some of them which are produced, and insisted on usually for the same end and purpose with those mentioned before, and which in other places are excepted against by the Catechists, with whom we have to do; but properly belong to this head.
Of those is Joh. 17. 5. And now O Father glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee, before the World was. To this they put in their exceptions towards the end of the Chapter under consideration; saying.
A Divine Glory proves a Divine Nature. This Christ had from Eternity, for he had it before the world began; therefore He had a divine nature also. It is the manifestation of his Glory, which he had celipsed, and laid aside for a season, that here he desires of God. Phil. 2. 9, 10, 11, 12. He Glorifyed his Father, by manifesting the Glory of his Deity, his Name, to others; and He prays the Father to Glorify him, as he had glorified him on the earth. 2. There is not the same Reason of what is here asserted of Christ, and what is said of the Elect, 2 Tim. 1. 9. Christ here positively says, he HAD Glory with his Father before the world was; nor is this anywhere, in any one tittle in the Scripture expounded, to be any otherwise, but in a real HAVING of that Glory. The grace that is given to Believers, is not said to be, before the world was, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which may denote the first promise, Gen. 3. 15. as it doth Tit. 1. 2. and if it be intended of the purpose of God, which was from Eternity (as the words will bear) it is so expounded in 20. places. 3. Though the Divine Nature pray not, yet he who was in the form of God, and humbled himself to take upon him the form, and Employment of a Servant, might, and did pray: the Godhead prayed not, but he who was God prayed. 4. For the sense assigned, let them once show us in the whole Book of God, where this Expression I had ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) may be possibly interpreted, I had it in purpose, or I was predestinated to it; and not I had it really, and indeed, and they say something to the purpose. In the mean time they do but corrupt the word of God, (as many do) by this pretended interpretation of it. 5. If Predestination only be intended, here is nothing singular spoken of Christ, but what is common to him with all Believers; when evidently Christ speaks of something that belonged to him eminently. 6. The very express tenor of the words will not admit of this Gloss, (let what violence can be used:) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : The Glory that I had with thee, let me have it manifested with thee, now my work is done.
Grotius falls in with our Catechists: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , destinatione tua; ut 1 Pet. 1. 20. Rev. 13. 8. sicut Ephes. 1. 3, 4. & infra v. 24. Simile legendi genus: sic legem fuisse ante mundum dicunt Haebraei, Again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; refer ad illud 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & intellige ut diximus in decreto tuo.
But what intends the Learned man by those places of 1 Pet. 1. 20. Revel. 13. 8? Is it to expound the thing that he supposes to be expressed? Or to intimate, that the phrase here used is expounded by the use of it in those other places. If the first, he begs that to be the sense of this place, which is the sense of them, though neither the scope of the places, nor the sense of the Words themselves, will bear it. If the latter, it is most false; there is not one word, Phrase, nor expression, in any of the places pointed unto, at all coincident with them here used. Besides, the two places mentioned are of very different senses; the one speaking of God's purpose, appointing Christ to be a Mediator; the other of the Promise givē presently after the fall. 2. We grant, that Christ in respect of his human nature was predestinated unto Glory; but that he calls God's purpose, his Glory, the glory which he had, which he had with God, wherewith he desires to be Glorifyed with him again, is to be proved from the Text, or Context, or phrase of speech, or parallel place, or Analogy of Faith or somewhat, and not nakedly to be imposed on us. Let Prov. 8. 22, 30. Phil. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. be consulted, as parallel to this place. Eph. 1. 3, 4 speaks indeed of our predestination in Christ, that we should be holy, and so come to Glory: but of the Glory, that Christ had before the world was, it speaks not. Yea v. 3. we are said to be actually blessed, or to have the Heavenly blessings, when we do enjoy them, which we are elected to, v. 4. What the Jews say of the Law, and the like, we must allow learned men to tell us, that they may be known to be so, although the sense of the Scripture be insensibly darkened thereby.
To the same purpose is that of Peter 1 Ep. 1. v. 10, 11. Of which salvation the Prophets have inquired, and searched diligently, who Prophesied of the Grace that should come unto you; searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. To which add that more clear place, 1 Pet. 3. 18, 19, 20. quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the Spirits that were in prison, which sometime were disobedient—in the days of Noah. He who was in the days of the Prophets of old, and in the days of Noah, so long before his being borne according to the flesh, he was from everlasting; or had an Existence antecedent to his incarnation: but this is expressly affirmed of our Savior; It was his Spirit that spake in the Prophets; which if he were not, it could not be; for of him who is not, nothing can be affirmed. He preached by his Spirit in the days of Noah, to the Spirits that are in prison.
Of this latter place our Catechists take no notice; about the first they inquire. What answerest thou to this?
1. It is confessed, that if the Spirit that was in the Prophets, was the Spirit of Christ. then he hath a Divine nature: for the only evasion used, is, that it is not, or may not (possibly) be so meant in this place, not denying, but that if it be so, then the conclusion intended follows. 2. That this place is to be interpreted by 1 Joh. 4. 6. there is no color, nor pretence. Christ is a Person; He was so, when Peter wrote. Truth and Error are not; and the Spirit of them is to be interpreted according to the subject matter. 3. The Spirit in other places is called the Spirit of Christ, in the same sense as he is called the Spirit of God Ro. 8. 9. Gal. 4. 6. 4. The Spirit of Christ, is said directly, to take of him, & show it to his Apostles, Joh. 16. 15. & so he did to the Prophets. They may as well on the pretence of 1 Joh. 4. 6. deny him to be the Spirit of God the Father, as the Spirit of Christ, as being of him, and sent by him.
And thus far of the Testimonies proving the preexistence of Christ unto his incarnation, and so consequently his Eternity; whence it follows, that he is God over all blessed forever, having this evidence of his eternal power and God-head. Sundry others of the same tendency will fall under consideration in our progress.
CHAP. X.
Of the names of God given unto Christ.
IN the next place, as a third Head, our Catechists consider the Scriptural Attributions of the Names of God, unto our Savior Jesus Christ. Whence this is our Argument.
He who is Jehovah, God, the only true God, He is God properly by nature. But Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the true God, &c. Therefore he is God properly by nature.
The proposition is clear in it self; of the innumerable Testimonies which are, or may be produced to confirm the Assumption, our Catechists fix upon a very few, namely, those which are answered by Socinus against Weicke the Jesuit, whence most of their exceptions to these Witnesses are transcribed. To the consideration of these they thus proceed.
What are those places of Scripture, which seem to attribute something to Christ in a certain and definite time?
Which are they that respect the names of Christ?
Jerem: 23. 6. Zach. 2. 8. 1 John 5. 20. Jude 4. Titus 2. 13. Revel. 1. 18. and 4. 8. Acts 20. 28. 1 John 3. 16.
The first Testimony is Jerem: 23. 6. in these words: In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our Righteousness. To which add the next, Zech. 2. 8.
Before I come to consider their Exceptions to these Texts in particular, some things in General may be premised, for the better understanding of what we are about; and what from these places we intend to prove and confirm.
1. The end of citing these two places, is to prove, that Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament called Jehovah; which is by them denied; the granting of it being destructive to their whole cause.
2. It is granted, that Jehovah is the proper and peculiar name of the one only true God of Israel: a name as far significant of his Nature and Being, as possibly we are enabled to understand: yea so far expressive of God, that as the thing signified by it, is incomprehensible, so many have thought the very word it self to be ineffable, or (at least) not lawful to be uttered. This name God peculiarly appropriates to himself, in an eminent manner, Exod: 6. 2, 9. So that this is taken for granted on all hands, that he whose name is Jehovah, is the only true God, the God of Israel; when ever that name is used properly, without a Trope or figure, it is used of him only. What the Adversaries of Christ except against this, shall be vindicated in its proper place.
3. Our Catechists have very faintly brought forth the Testimonies, that are usually insisted on in this cause; naming but two of them; wherefore I shall take liberty to add a few more to them, out of the many that are ready at hand. Isa. 40. 3. The voice of him that crieth in the Wilderness, prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert an high way for our God. That it is Christ who is here called Jehovah, is clear from that farther expression in Mal. 3. 1. and the execution of the thing it self, John. 1. 23. Matth. 3. 3. Mark. 1. 2, 3. Isa. 45. 22, 23, 24, 25. Look unto me, and be ye saved all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is none else, I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in Righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall • ow, every tongue shall swear: surely, shall one say, in the Lord Jehovah have I Righteousness and strength; even to him shall men come, and all that are incensed against him, shall be ashamed; in Jehovah shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and Glory. The Apostle expressly affirms all this to be spoken of Christ, Rom. 14. 11, 12, &c. Hos. 13. 14. is also applied to Christ, 1 Cor. 15. 54, 55. He that would at once consider all the Texts of the Old Testament, chiefly ascribing this name to Christ, let him read Zanchius de tribus Elohim, who hath made a large collection of them.
Let us now see what our Catechists except against the first Testimony.
What dost thou Answer to the first Testimony?
The sum of this Answer is; 1. It may be these words are not spoken of Christ, but of Israel. 2. The same words are used of that which is not God. 3. If they be referred to Christ, they prove him not to be God. 4. Their sense is, that God will justify us in the days of Christ. Of each briefly.
1. The Subject spoken of all along is Christ; He is the subject matter of what ever here is affirmed. I will raise up a Righteous branch to David, He shall be a King, and he shall reign, and his name shall be called the Lord our Righteousness. 2. Why are these words to be referred to Israel only, and not also to Judah, (if to any but Christ) they being both named together, and upon the same account, (yea and Judah hath the preeminence, being named in the first place) and if they belong to both, the words should be, this is their name, whereby they shall be called. 3. Israel was never called our Righteousness, but Christ is called so upon the matter in the New Testament sundry times, and is so; 1 Cor. 1. 30. so that without departing from the propriety of the Words, intendment, and scope of the place, with the truth of the thing it self, these words cannot be so perverted. The violence used to them is notoriously manifest.
2 The expression is not the same in both places. Neither is Jerusalem there called the Lord our Righteousness; but He who calls her, is, the Lord our Righteousness; and so are the words rendered by Arias Montanus, and others. And if what Jerusalem shall be called be intimated, and not what His Name is that calls her, it is merely by a Metonymy, upon the account of the presence of Christ in her; As the Church is called Christ improperly, 1 Cor. 12. 12. Christ properly is Jesus only. But the words are not to be rendered, this is the name whereby she shall be called, but this is the name whereby he shall call her, the Lord our Righteousness; that is, he who is the Lord our Righteousness shall call her to peace and safety, which are there treated on. Christ is our Righteousness, Jerusalem is not.
3. It is evident that Christ is absolutely called Jehovah in this, as well as in the other places before mentioned, and many more. And it thence evidently follows, that he is Jehovah, as he who properly is called so, and understood by that name. Where God simply says, his name is Jehovah, we believe him: and where he says, the name of the Branch of the house of David is Jehovah, we believe him also. And we say hence, that Christ is Jehovah, or the words have not a tolerable sense: of this again afterwards.
4. The interpretation given of the words is most perverse, and opposite to the meaning of them. The Prophet says not, that Jehovah the one God shall be our Righteousness, but the Branch of David shall be the Lord our Righteousness. The subject is the Branch of David, not Jehovah. The Branch of David shall be called the Lord our Righteousness; that is, the Lord shall justify us, when the Branch of David shall be brought forth: Who could have discovered this sense, but our Catechists and their Masters, whose words these are. It remaineth then, that the Branch of David, who Ruleth in Righteousness, is Jehovah our Righteousness: our Righteousness, as being made so to us; Jehovah, as being so in himself.
Grotius expounds this place, as that of Micah. 5. 2. of Zorubbabel, helping on his friends with a new diversion, which they knew not of. Socinus as he professes being not acquainted with the Jewish Doctors, though some believe him not. And yet the learned Annotatour cannot hold out, as he begins, but is forced to put out the name of Zerubbabell, and to put in that of the People, when he comes to the name insisted on: so leaving no certain design in the whole words, from the beginning to the ending.
Two things doth he here oppose himself in, to the received Interpretation of Christians. 1. That it is Zorubbabell who is here intended. 2. That it is the People who is called the Lord our Righteousness.
For the first, thus he on v. 5. Germen justum, a Righteous Branch: Zorubbabelem qui 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ut hic appellatur, ita & Zechariae 6. 12. nimirum quod velut surculus renatus esset ex Arbore Davidis quasi • raecisa. Iustitiae nomine commendatur Zorubbabel etiam apud Zechariam, 9. 9. Zorubbabel who is here called the Branch, as also Zech. 6. 12. because as a Branch he arose from the Tree of David which was as cut off. Also Zorubbabel is commended for justice or Righteousness, Zech. 9. 9.
That this is a Prophesy of Christ, the circumstances of the place evince: The Rabbins were also of the same mind, as plentiful collections from them are made to demonstrate it, by Joseph de Voysin, pug. fid. par. 3. dist. 1. cap. 4. And the matter spoken of, can be accommodated to no other, as hath been declared. Grotius his proofs that Zorubbabell is intended, are worse then the opinion it self. That he is called the Branch, Zech. 6. 12. is most false: He who is called the Branch there, is a King and a Priest. He shall rule upon his Throne, and he shall be a Priest, which Zorubbabell was not; nor had anything to do with the Priestly office, which in his days was administered by Joshua, more evidently false is it, that he is spoken of Zech. 9. 9. which place is precisely interpreted of Christ, and the accomplishment, in the very letter of the thing foretold, recorded, Math. 21. 5. The words are, Rejoice greatly O Daughter of Zion, shout O Daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy King cometh to thee, he is just, and having Salvation, lowly, and riding upon an Ass, and upon a Colt the foale of an Ass. That a man professing Christian Religion, should afffirme any one but Jesus Christ to be here intended, is somewhat strange.
Upon the Accommodation of the next words to Zorubbabell, A King shall reign and prosper, &c. I shall not insist; they contain not the matter of our present contest, though they are pitifully wrested by the Annotatour, and do no ways serve his design.
For the particular words about which our contest is, this is his Comment. And this is the name whereby they shall call him: nempe populum: namely the people: they shall call the people. How this change comes, in his days Judah shall be saved, and this is the name whereby he shall be called, that is, the People shall be called, he shows not. That there is no color of Reason for it, hath been shown; what hath been said need not to be repeated. He proceeds. Dominus justitia nostra, i. e. Deus nobis benefecit, God hath done well for us, or dealt kindly with us. But it is not about the intimation of goodness that is in the Words; but of the signification of the name given to Jesus Christ, that here we plead. In what sense Christ is the Lord our Righteousness appears, Isa. 45. 22, 23, 24, 25. 1 Cor. 1. 30.
The second Testimony is Zech. 2. 8. in these words: For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, after the Glory, hath he sent me unto the Nations which spoiled you: for be that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye: for behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, &c. v. 9, 10, 11, 12.
Briefly to declare what this witness speaks to, before we permit him to the examination of our Adversaries: The Person speaking, is, the Lord of Hosts: Thus saith the Lord of Hosts: And He is the person spoken of; after the Glory (saith he) (or after this glorious deliverance of you my people from the captivity wherein you were among the Nations) hath he sent me, even me the Lord of Hosts hath he sent. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, he hath sent me; and it was to the Nations, as in the words following; and who sent him? ye shall know, that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me; The people of Israel shall know, that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me the Lord of Hosts to the Nations: but how shall they know that he is so sent? He tells them v. 11. it shall be known by the conversion of the Nations: Many Nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day; and what then? They shall be my people; mine who am sent; my people, the people of the Lord of Hosts that was sent; that is, of Jesus Christ, and I (saith he) whose people they are, will dwell in the midst of them, (as God promised to do,) and thou shalt know the Lord of Hosts hath sent me: I omit the circumstances of the place. Let us now see what is excepted by our Catechists.
What dost thou answer to this second Testimony?
These Gentlemen being excellent at cavils and exceptions, and thereupon undertaking to answer anything in the world, do not lightly acquit themselves more weakly, and jejunely in any place then in this. For
1. We contend not with them about the translation of the words, their exceptions being to the vulgar Latin only: We take them as they have rendered them. To omit that therefore.
2. That these words are spoken by him, who is called the Angel, we grant; but the only question is, who is this Angel that speaks them: It is evident from the former Chapter, and this, that it is the man, who was upon the red horse, 1. Chap. 8. v. who is called Angelus Jehovae, v. 11. and makes Intercession for the Church v. 12. which is the proper Office of Jesus Christ; and that he is no created Angel, but Jehovah himself, the second person of the Trinity, we prove, because he calls himself the Lord of Hosts; says he will destroy his enemies with the shaking of his hand, that he will convert a people, and make them his people, and that he will dwell in his Church, and yet unto all this he adds three times, that he is sent of the Lord of Hosts. We confess then all these things to be spoken of him, who was sent, but upon all these Testimonies conclude, that he who was sent was the Lord of Hosts.
Grotius interprets all this place of an Angel, and names him to boot. Michael it is; but who that Mitchaell is, and whither he be no more then an Angel, that is, a Messenger, He enquires not. That the ancient * Jewish Doctors interpreted this place of the Messiah is evident. Of that no notice here is taken, it is not to the purpose in hand. To the reasons already offered, to prove that it is no mere Creature that is here intended, but the Lord of Hosts, who is sent by the Lord of Hosts, I shall only add my desire, that the friends and Apollogizers for this learned Annotatour would reconcile this exposition of this place to its self, in those things which at first view present themselves to every ordinary observer. Take one instance. Ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me, that is, Michael. And I will dwell in the midst of thee; Templū meū ibi habebo. I will have my temple there. If he who speaks be Michael, a Created Angel, how comes the Temple of Jehovah to be his? and such let the attempts of all appear to be, who manage any design against the eternal glory of the Son of God.
The 3 Testimony is 1 Joh. 5. 20. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ; This is the true God and eternal life.
What dost thou answer to this?
1. It is well, it is acknowledged, that the only true God is here intended; and that this is proved by the prefixed Article, this may be of use afterward.
2. In what sense these men grant Christ to be a true God, we know: a made God, a God by office, not nature: a man Deifyed with Authority; so making two true God's, contrary to innumerarable express Texts of Scripture, and the Nature of the Deity.
3. That those words are not meant of Christ, they prove, because He is not the only true God, but only the Father: but Friends! these words are produced to prove the contrary; as expressly affirming it; and is it a sufficient Reason to deny it, by saying, He is not the only true God, therefore these words are not spoken of him; When the Argument is, these words are spoken of him, therefore He is the only true God.
4. Their instances prove, that in some cases a Relative may relate to the more remote Antecedent, but that in this place, that mentioned ought to do so, they pretend not once to urge: yea their Reason they give is against themselves; namely, that it refers to him chiefly spoken of, which here is eminently, and indisputably Jesus Christ. In the places by them produced, it is impossible from the subject matter in hand, that the Relative should be referred to any but the remoter Antecedent; but that therefore here we must offer violence to the words, and strain them into an Incoherence, and transgress all rules of construction, (nothing enforcing to such a proceedure) is not proved.
5 In the beginning of the 20. verse it is said, the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding: and we are said to be in him, even in Jesus Christ, on which it immediately follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this, this Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal Life.
6. That Jesus Christ is by John peculiarly called Life, and Life Eternal, is evident both from his Gospel, and this Epistle; and without doubt, by the same term, in his usual manner. He expresses here the same person; Chap. 1. v. 2. The Son of God is Life, eternal Life, He that hath the Son, hath life; we are in him, the Son Jesus Christ, this is the true God, and Eternal Life: so he began, and so he ends his Epistle.
And this is all our Adversaries have to say against this most express Testimony of the Divine nature of Jesus Christ; in their entrance whereunto they cry hail Master, as one before them did, ( he is a true God, ) but in the close betray him (as far as lies in them) by denying his divine nature.
Even at the light of this most evident Testimony the eyes of Grotius dazzled, that he could not see the Truth: His note is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . is nempe quem Jesus monstravit, colendum{que} d • cuit, non alius. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saepe refertur ad aliquid praecedens non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 8. 19. 10. 6. The very same plea with the former: only Acts 8. 19. is mistaken for Acts 7. 19. the place urged by our Catechists, & be fore them by Socinus against Wieke, to whom not only they, but Grotius is beholding. That citation of Acts 10. 6. helps not the business at all: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is twice used, once immediately at the beginning of the verse, secondly being guided by the first, the latter is referred to the same Person, nor can possibly signify any other. Here is no such thing. Not any one circumstance to cause us, to put any force upon the Constructure of the words: the discourse being still of the same Person without any Alteration: which in the other places is not.
Of the next Testimony, which is from those words of Jude, denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, v. 4. (not to increase words) this is the sum. There being but one Article prefixed to all the words, it seems to carry the sense, that it is wholly spoken of Christ. The Catechists reckon some places, where one Article serves to sundry things, as Math. 21. 12. but it is evident, that they are utterly things of another kind, and another manner of speaking, then what is here: but the judgment hereof is left to the Reader; it being not indeed clear to me, whether Christ be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anywhere in the New Testament, though he be Lord and God, and the true God, full often.
The 2 of Titus 13. must be more fully insisted on: Looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the Great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ.
What • ost thou Answer to this?
About the Reading of the words, with them we shall not contend; It is the Original we are to be tried by, and there is in that no ambiguity. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Appearance of the Glory, is an Hebraism, for the Glorious Appearance, cannot be questioned. An hundred expressions of that nature in the New Testament, may be produced to give countenance to this. That the blessed Hepe looked for, is the thing hoped for, the Resurrection to life and immortality, is not denied. Neither is it disputed whether the subject spoken of be Jesus Christ, and his coming to judgment. The subject is one; his Epithites here two. 1. That belonging to his Essence in himself, He is the Great God. 2. That of Office unto us: He is our Savior. That it is Christ which is spoken of, appears. 1. From the single Article that is assigned to all the words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which no less signifies one person, then that other expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the God and Father of Jesus Christ: Should I say, that one Person is here intended, and not two, (God, and the Father of Jesus Christ being the same) our Catechists may say no; for it is found in another place, that there is but one Article prefixed, where sundry Persons are after spoken of. But is it not evident in those places from the subject matter, that they are sundry Persons, as also from the several conditions of them mentioned, as in that of Math: 21. 12. he cast out the sellers and buyers. The proper force then of the expression enforces this Attribution to Jesus Christ. 2. Mention is made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the glorious appearance of him, of whom the Apostle speaks. That Christ is the Person spoken of, and his Employment of coming to judgment, primarily and directly, is confessed. This word is never used of God the Father, but frequently of Christ, and that in particular, in respect of the thing here spoken of. Yea it is properly expressive of his second coming, in opposition to his first coming under contempt, scorn, and reproach, 1 Tim. 6. 14. Keep this commandment 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : 2 Tim. 4. 18. which the Lord the Righteous judge shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but to them that love 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Neither (as was said) is it ever used of the Father, but is the Word continually used to express the second coming of Jesus Christ; sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath the same signification, and is therefore never ascribed to the Father. 3. It is not what MAY be said to be done, whether the Glory of the Father may be said to be illustrated by the coming of Christ, but what IS said. The Glorious Appearance of the Great God is not the manifestation of his Glory, but his Glory is manifested in his Appearance. 4. It is true, it is said that Christ shall come in the Glory of his Father, Math. 16. 21. Mark. 8. 38. but it is nowhere said, that the Glory of the Father shall come or appear. 5. Their whole Interpretation of the words will scarce admit of any good sense; nor can it be properly said, that two Persons come, when only one comes, though that one have Glory and Authority from the other. 6. Christ shall also judge in his own Name, and by the Laws, which as Lord he hath given. 7. There is but the same way of coming, and Appearance of the Great God, and our Savior, which if our Savior come really, and indeed, and the Great God only because he sends him; the one comes, and the other comes not; which is not doubtless they both come.
Grotius agrees with our Catechists, but says not one word more for the proof of his Interpretation, nor in way of exception to ours, then they say: as they say no more then Socinus against Bellarmine; nor He much more then Erasmus before him; from whom Grotius also borrowed his consent of Ambrose, which he urges in the exposition of this place; which, were it not for my peculiar respect to Erasmus, I would say were not honestly done, himself having proved that comment under the name of Ambrose, to be a Paltry, corrupted, depraved, foisted piece; but Grotius hath not a word but what hath been spoken to.
The next Testimony mentioned is Revel. 1. 8. I am ••• ha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, 〈◊〉 and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. To which is added that of Chap. 4. 8. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
1. There is not one place which they have mentioned, wherein the word here used, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may not properly be translated to come, which they seem to acknowledge at first to be peculiar to Christ: but 2. These Gentlemen make themselves and their Disciples merry, by persuading them, that we have no other Argument to prove these words to be spoken of Christ, but only because he is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which yet in conjunction with other things is not without its weight, being as it were a name of the Messiah, Math. 11. 3. from Gen. 49. 10. though it may be otherwise applied. 3. They are no less triumphant doubtless in their following Answer, that these words describe the Eternity of God, and therefore belong not to Christ, when the Argument is, that Christ is God, because amongst other things these words ascribe Eternity to him: is this an Answer to us, who not only believe him, but prove him Eternal? 4. And they are upon the same pin still, in their last expression, that these words are ascribed to the Father, v. 4. when they know that the Argument which they have undertaken to Answer, is, that the same names are ascribed to the Son, as to the Father, and therefore he is God equal with him. Their Answer is, this name is not ascribed to Christ, because it is ascribed to the Father. Men must beg, when they can make no earnings at work. 5. We confess Christ to be alius, another, another Person from the Father; not another God, as our Catechists pretend.
Having stopped the mouths of our Catechists, we may briefly consider the Text it self. That by this expression, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Apostle expresses that name of God, Ehejeh, Exod. 3. 14. which as the Rabbins say, is of all seasons, and expressive of all times, is evident. To which add that other name of God, Almighty, and it cannot at all be questioned, but that He, who is intended in these words, is the only true God. 2. That the words are here used of Jesus Christ, is so undeniable from the Context, that his Adversaries thought good not once to mention it: v. 7. His coming is described in Glory: Behold He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of the Earth shall wail because of him: whereupon himself immediately adds the words of this Testimony, I am Alpha and Omega: for 1. They are words spoken to John by him who gave him the Revelation, which was Jesus Christ: v. 1. 2. They are the words of him that speaks on to John, which was Jesus Christ, v. 18. 3. Jesus Christ twice in this Chapter afterwards gives himself the same title, v. 11. I am Alpha and Omega; and v. 17. I am the first and the last; But who was He? I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold I live for evermore, Amen: and have the keys of Hell and death, v. 18. He gave the Revelation; He is described; He speaks all always; He gives himself the same Titles twice again in this Chapter.
But our Catechists think they have taken a course to prevent all this, and therefore have avoided the consideration of the words, as they are placed, Chap. 1. v. 8. considering the same words in Chap. 4. 8. where they want some of the circumstances, which in this place give light to their Application. They are not there spoken by any that ascribes them to himself, but by others are ascribed to him that sits on the Throne, who cry (as the Seraphims Isa. 6. 3) Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which is, which was, and which is to come. But yet there wants not evidence to evince, that these words belong immediately in this place also to Jesus Christ. For 1. They are the name (as we have seen) whereby not long before he reveals himself. 2. They are spoken of him, who sits on the Throne, in the midst of the Christian Churches here represented. And if Christ be not intended in these words, there is no mention of his presence in his Church, in that solemn Representation of its Assembly, although he promised to be in the midst of his, to the end of the World. 3. The honor that is here ascribed to him that is spoken of, is because he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , worthy, as the same is assigned to the Lamb, by the same persons, in the same words, Chap. 5. 12. So that in both these places it is Jesus Christ who is described; He is, He was, He is to come, (or as another place expresses it, the same yesterday, today, and forever) the Lord God Almighty.
I shall not need to add anything to what Grotius hath observed on these places. He holds with our Catechists, and ascribes these Titles, and Expressions to God, in contradistinction to Jesus Christ, and gives in some observations to explain them: but for the Reason of his exposition, wherein he knew that he dissented from the most of Christians, we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : so that I have nothing to do, but to reject his Authority; which upon the experience I have of his design, I can most freely do.
Proceed we to the next Testimony, which is Act. 20. 28. feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. He who purchased the Church with his blood, is God: but it was Jesus Christ, who purchased his Church with his blood: Ephes. 5. 25, 26, 27. Tit. 2. 14. Heb. 9. 14. Therefore He is God.
What dost thou answer to this?
There is scarce any place, in returning an answer whereunto, the Adversaries of the Deity of Christ do less agree among themselves, then about this. Some say the name of God is not here taken absolutely, but with relation to Office, and so Christ is spoken of, and called God by Office: So Socin. ad Bellar. & Wieek. pag. 200. &c. Some, that the words are thus to be read: Feed the Church of God, which Christ hath purchased by his own blood: So Ochinus and Laelius Socinus, whom Zanchius Answers: de tribus Elohim. lib. 3. cap. 6. p. 456.
Some fly to the Syriach Translation, contrary to the constant consenting Testimony of all famous copyes of the Original, all agreeing in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , some adding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : so Grotius would have it; affirming that the manuscript he used had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; not telling them that it added 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the same with what we affirm. And therefore he ventures at asserting the Text to be corrupted, and in short writing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be crept in for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , contrary to the Faith, and consent of all ancient copies which is all he hath to plead. 2. Our Catechists know not what to say; necessarily this word God is not to be referred to Christ; it may be referred to God the Father. Give an instance of the like phrase of speech, and take the interpretation. Can it be said that ones blood was shed, when it was not shed, but another's, and no mention that that others blood was shed? 3. If the Fathers blood was shed, or said truly to be shed, because Christ's blood was shed; Then you may say, that God the Father died, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and God the Father rose from the dead, that he was dead, and is alive: That that blood that was shed, was not Christ's, but some bodies else, that he loved & was near unto him. 4. There is no Analogy between that of the Prophet, of the Apple of God's eye, and this here spoken of. Uncontrolably a Metaphor must there be allowed; here is no metaphor insisted on; but that which is the blood of Christ, is called the blood of God, and Christ not to be that God is their interpretation. There diverse persons are spoken of, God and Believers: here one only, that did that which is expressed. And all the force of this exposition lies in this, there is a figurative expression in one place, the matter spoken of requiring it, therefore here must be a figure admitted also, where there is not the same reason: what is this but to make the Scripture a nose of wax? This work of redeeming the Church with his blood, is ever ascribed to Christ, as peculiar to him, constantly without exception; and never to God the Father: neither would our Adversaries allow it to be so here, but that they know not how to stand before the Testimony wherewith they are pressed.
5. If because of the conjunction that is between God the Father and Christ, the Blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father; then the hunger and thirst of Christ, his dying and being buried, his rising again, may be called the hunger and thirst of God the Father, his sweating, dying, and rising. And he is a strange natural and proper Son, who hath a quite different nature and essence from his own proper Father, as is here affirmed.
6. Christ is called the Lamb of God, as answering and fulfilling all the Sacrifices, that were made to God of old: and if the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father, because he appointed it to be shed for us: then the blood of any Sacrifice was also the blood of a man, that appointed it to be shed, yea of God, who ordained it. The words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; if any words in the world can properly express, that it is one and the same person intended, that it is his own blood properly, that bought the Church with it, surely these words do it to the full. Christ then is God.
The next place they are pleased to take notice of, as to this head of Testimonies, about the name of God, is 1 Joh. 3. 16. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us. He who laid down his life for us was God: that is, he was so when he laid down his life for us, and not made a God since.
To the eight what sayest thou?
1. Our Catechists do very faintly adhere to the first exception about the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Original, granting that it is in some copies, and knowing that the like phrase is used elsewhere, and that the sense in this place necessarily requires the presence of that word. 2. Supposing it as they do, we deny, that this is a very just exception which they insist upon, that a Rel •• ive may sometimes, and in some cases, where the sense is evident, be referred to the more remote antecedent, therefore it may, or ought to do so in any place, contrary to the propriety of Grammar, where there are no circumstances, enforcing such a construction, but all things requiring the proper sense of it. 3. It is allowed of only where several Persons are spoken of immediately before, which here are not; one only being intimated, or expressed. 4. They can give no Example of the word God, going before, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 following after, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is referred to any thing or Person more remote: much less here where the Apostle having treated of God, and the Love of God, draws an Argument from the Love of God, to enforce our Love of one another. 5. In the places they point unto, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in every of them is referred to the next and immediate Antecedent, as will be evident to the Reader upon the first view.
Give them their great Associate, and we have done. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hi • est Christus ut supra v. 5. subintelligendum hie autem est, hoc Christum fecisse Deo sic decernente nostri causa quod expressum est, Rom. 4. 8. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Christ is confessed; but the word being a Relative, & expressive of some person before mentioned, we say it relates unto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the word going immediately before it. No says Grotius, but the sense is, Herein appeared the love of God, that by his a • pointment Christ died for us. That Christ laid down his life for us by the appointment of the Father, is most true; but that that is the intendment of this place, or that the Grammatical, construction of the words will bear any such sense, we deny.
And this is what they have to except to the Testimonies, which themselves choose to insist on, to give in their exceptions to, as to the names of Jehovah, and God, being ascribed unto Jesus Christ: which having vindicated from all their Sophistry, I shall shut up the discourse of them with this Argument, which they afford us for the confirmation of the sacred truth contended for. He who is Jehovah, God, the only true God, &c. He is God by Nature: But thus is Jesus Christ God; and these are the names the Scripture calls and knows him by: Therefore He is so, God by Nature, blessed forever.
That many more Testimonies to this purpose may be produced, and have been so, by those who have pleaded the Deity of Christ, against its opposers, both of old and of late, is known to all that inquire after such things. I content myself, to vindicate what they have put in exceptions unto.
CHAP. XI.
Of the Work of Creation assigned to Jesus Christ. &c. The confirmation of his Eternal Deity from thence.
THe Scriptures, which assign the Creating of all things to Jesus Christ, they propose as the next Testimony of his Deity, whereunto they desire to give in their Exceptions. To these they annex them, wherein it is affirmed, that he brought the people of Israel out of Egypt, and that he was with them in the Wilderness, with one particular out of Isaiah, compared with the account given of it in the Gospel, about the Prophets seeing the glory of Christ. Of those which are of the first sort, they instance in John. 1. 3. & 10. Col. 1. 16. Heb. 1. 2. & 10, 11, 12. verses.
The first, and second of these, I have already vindicated in the consideration of them, as they lay in their conjuncture with them going before in v. 1. (2.) Proceed we therefore to the third, which is Col. 1. 16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, whether they be Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers; all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
That these words are spoken of Jesus Christ, is acknowledged. The verses foregoing prevent all Question thereof. He hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the Image of the invisible God, the first borne of every creature: for by him were all things &c.
2. In what sense Christ is the Image of the invisible God, even the express Image of his Fathers Person, shall be afterwards declared. The other part of the description of him belongs to that which we have in hand. He is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The first borne of every Creature: that is, before them all; above them all; heir of them all: and so none of them. It is not said, He is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , first created, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉