The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined
Wonderful: ob summas quae in eo erunt virtutes. For the excellent virtues that shall be in him. But I pray why more then David, or Josiah? This is his name Wonderful, that is, he shall be very virtuous, & men shall admire him: How much better this name agrees to him, & how much more proper it is, whose Person is so great a Mystery 2 Tim. 3. 16. & whose name is so abstruse, Prov. 30. 4. & that upon the wonderful conjunction of two natures in one person here mentioned, (he who is the Mighty God, being also a Child given unto us) is evident to all.
Counselor, the Mighty God: imo consultator Dei fortis. id est, qui in omnibus negotiis consilia a Deo poscet, per Prophetas scilicet, ut jam sequetur. Yea he who taketh Council of the Mighty God: that is, who in all his affairs asks Council of God, namely by the Prophets.
And is not this boldness thus to correct the Text: Counselor, the mighty God; yea He that asketh Counsel of the mighty God. What color, what Pretence, what Reason or Plea, may be used for this perverting the words of the Text, our Annotator not in the least intimates.
The words are evidently belonging to the same Person, equally parts of that Name, whereby he is to be called, and the casting of them without any cause into this construction, in a matter of this importance (because it is to be said) is intolerable boldness. It is not without great probability of Truth pleaded by some, that the two first words should go together, the Wonderful Counselor, as those that follow do; not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 admirabilis, is an Epithet, or an Adjective, it being a Substantive, and signifying a Wonder or a Miracle, but that the weight of what is said, being laid much upon the force of Counselor, setting out the infinite Wisdom of Christ, in all his ways, purposes, and Counsels concerning his Church, this other term seems to be suited to the setting forth thereof. But this corruption of the Text is the more intolerable in our Annotatour, because in the close of his Observations on this place, he confesses, that all the things here mentioned have a signification in Christ, much more sublime and plain, then that which he hath insisted on; so that had he been any friend to the Deity of Christ, he would not have endeavored to have robbed him of his Proper name, the Mighty God, in this place; but this was necessary, that the Rabbinical accommodation of this place to Hezekiah might be retained. That this place then is spoken of Christ we have evinced, nor can it be waved without open perverting of the words; and he is here called the Mighty God, as was before declared.
Grotius proceeds to apply the Residue of this Glorious name to Hezekiah, The Everlasting Father; or as it is in the vulgar Latin, Pater futuri seculi; In Hebrae • non est futuri; Pater seculi est, qui multos post se relicturus sit posteros, & in longum tempus.
About the vulgar Latin Translation we do not contend. Of the meaning and use of the word Gnolam I have spoken already; when it is applied to God, it signifies Eternity; but the word here is not Gnolam, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly Eternity when applied to God, Psal. 10. 16. God is King, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seculi & aeternitatis, forever and ever; Instances might be multiplied to this purpose. That this should be, Hezekiah shall leave many Children, and that for a long season, credat Apella; what sons he left, besides one, and he a wicked one for the most part of his days, is uncertain; within an 130 years, or thereabout, his whole posterity was carried Captive; how exceedingly unsuited this appellation is to him, is evident. The Father of Eternity, that is, one that leaves a Son behind him, & a possibility for his posterity to continue in the condition wherein he was for an 130 years; many such Everlasting Fathers may we find out; what in all this is peculiar to Hezekiah, that this should so emphatically be said to be his Name?
The next is, Princeps Pacis, the Prince of Peace. Princeps Pacificus, & in pace victurus. A peaceable Prince, and one that should live in Peace.
1. On how much better, more Noble, and Glorious account this Title belongs to Christ, is known. 2. The Prince of Peace, is not a peaceable Prince, but the Author, Giver, Procurer, Establisher of Peace. 3. Neither did Hezekiah Rain in Peace all his days; His Kingdom was invaded, his fenced Cities taken, and himself and chief City delivered by a miraculous slaughter of his enemies.
Of the increase of his Government, and of Peace no end. Which he reads according to the vulgar Latin; Multiplicabitur ejus imperium, & Pacis ejus non erit finis. Litera • lie, for the multiplying▪ of his Kingdom, and of Peace no end; As to the first part, his exposition is; id est, durabit per annos 29. His Kingdom shall continue for 29 years. Who would believe such gross darkness should cover the face of so Learned a man. Of the increase of his Government there shall be no end; that is, He shall reign nine and twenty years. This might almost twice as properly be spoken▪ of his son Manasseh, who • aigned 55. And now let him that hath a mind to feed on such husks as these, go on with his Annotations in this place. I am weary of considering such trash. And let the pious Reader tremble at the Righteous Judgment of God, giving up men trusting to their own Learning and abilities, refusing to captivate their hearts to the obedience▪ of the truth, to such foolish and childish imaginations, as men of common sense must needs abhor.
It appears then that we have here a description of Jesus Christ, and of him only; and that the names here ascribed to him, are proper to him, and declare who he was, and is, even the mighty God, the Prince of Peace; &c. Let us proceed with our Catechists.
In the next place they heap up sundry places, which they return slight Answers unto; and yet to provide them in such manner, as that they might be the easier deal • withal, they cut off parcels, and Expressions in the middle of sentences, and from the Context, from whence the greatest evid • nce, as to the Testimony they give in this matter, doth arise. I shall •• nsider them apart as they are proposed.
1. Christ is called the Word of God, Joh. 1. 1. Revel. 19. 13. They say.
Christ is the Word of God; the Word or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the Word which outwardly is spoken of God: or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his Eternal Essentiall Word, or wisdom. Let our Catechists prove another acceptation of the Word in any place. That Christ is not the Word spoken by God, they will grant, for He was a Person that revealed to us the word of God. He is then God's Eternal Word, or Wisdom, and so consequently God. 2. Christ is so called the Word of God, ( John. 1. 1.) as that He is in the same place said to be God. And our Adversaries are indeed too impudent, whereas they say, if He be the word of the one God, He cannot be the One God; the Holy Ghost affirming the flat contrary, namely, that He was the Word, and was with God, and was God: that is doubtless the one true God, v. 1, 2, 3. He was with God, in his Person, as the Son, and He was God as to his nature. 3. Christ is not called the Word, John. 1. 1. upon the account of his actual revealing the word of God to us, in his own Person on the Earth, (which He did v. 18.) because he is called so in his everlasting residence with the Father, before the World was, v. 1. Nor is He so called on that account, Revel. 19. 13. it being applied to him, in reference to the work of executing Judgment on his enemies, as a King, and not his revealing the word of God, as a Prophet. So that notwithstanding this Exception, this name of the Word of God, applied to Christ, as in the places mentioned, proves him to have a divine nature, and to be God blessed forever.
The next place is Col. 1. 15. Christ is the Image of the Invisible God. To which they say only;
The same may be said of this, as of that foregoing. But, An Image is either an Essentiall Image, or Accidental. A Representation of a thing in the same substance with it, as a Son is the Image of his Father, or a Representation in some resemblance like that of a Picture. That Christ cannot be the latter is evident. Our Catechists refer it to his office, not his Person. But 1. It is the Person of Christ, that is described in that, and the following verses, and not his Office. 2. The Title given to God, whose Image he is, the invisible God, will allow there be no Image of him but what is invisible; nor is there any Reason of adding that Epithite of God, but to declare also the invisible Spiritual nature of Christ, wherein he is like his Father. And the same is here intended with what is mentioned in the third place.
Heb. 1. 3. He is the express Image of his Person.
This is to be understood, that▪ whatever God hath promised, He hath now really exhibited in Christ.
Well expounded; Christ is the Character of his Fathers person, that is, what God promised he exhibited in Christ▪ Would not any man admire these men's accumen, and readiness to interpret Scriptures? The words are part of the description of the Person of the Son of God: He is the brightness of his Fathers Glory, and the express Image of his Person, upholding all things by the word of his Power: that is, He reveals the will of God. This the Apostle had expressly affirmed v. 1. in plain & familiar terms; that he should now repeat over the same thing again in words so exceedingly insignificant of any such matter, is very strange. 2. The Apostle speaks of the Hypostasis of the Father, not of his Will: of his subsistence, not his mind to be revealed. We do not deny, that Christ doth represent his Father to us, and is to us the express image of his Person, but antecedently hereunto, we say he is so in himself. Grotius his corruption of this whole Chapter, was before discovered, and in part removed.
Joh. 14. 9. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; is next proposed. To which they say;
Christ so speaks of his Father and his Onenesse, whereby he that saw one, saw both, as he describes it to be in the verse following; where he says, the Father is in Him, and He in the Father. N • w that the Father is in him, and he in the Father, and that he and the Father are one in nature and Essence, hath been before sufficiently demonstrated. The seeing here intended, is that of Faith, whereby both Father and Son are seen unto Believers.
Col. 2. 9. is the last in this Collection. In whom dwelleth all the fu • lnesse of the God-head b • dily.
To this they say 1.
But, 1. It is not Divinity, but Deity, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is here spoken of; and that not simply neither, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the fullness of the God-head. 2. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is ever taken for the Will of God, they do not, they cannot prove. 3. How can it be said, that the Will of God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth dwell bodily in any, or what can be the sen • e of that expre • sion? Where they afterwards interpret the word Bodily I do not remember, when I meet with their exposition it shall be con • ider • d. 4. That the words are to be referred to the Person of Christ, and not his Doctrine, is manifest, not only from the words themselves, that will not bear any such sense, as whereunto they are wrested, but also from the Context. For not only the whole order, and series of words before and after, do speak of the Person of Christ, For in him are hid all treasures of wisdom and knowledge, v. 3. Him we receive, v. 6. In him we are built up, v. 7. In him we are complete, v. 10. In him we are circumcised, v. 11. With him we are buried. v. 12. Together with him are we quickened, v. 13. And it was He that was crucified for us, v. 14, 15. but also the design of the Holy Ghost enforces this sense; it being to discover a fullness and sufficiency in Christ, of all Grace and Wisdom, that men should not need to seek relief from either Law or Philosophy. The fullness of the God-head inhabiting in the Person of Christ substantially, He is God by nature. And of these places so far: the three following, of Joh. 17. 5. 1 Pet. 1. 10, 11. Joh. 3. 13. have been in their proper places already vindicated.
Grotius interprets that of Col. 2. 9. according to the Analogy of the Faith of our Catechists; Christi doctrina non modo Philosophiae sed & Legi plurimum praestat. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , should be Doctrina, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , should make it the Doctrine of Christ, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , should be no man knows what, is but a cross way of interpretation. And yet Augustine is quoted, with a saying from him to give countenance unto it; which makes me admire almost as much as at the interpretation it self. The words our Annotatour mentions are taken from his Epist. 57. ad Dardan. though he • enti • ns i • not. The reason will quickly appear to any one that shall consult th • place; for notwithstanding the expression here cropped off from his Discourse, he gives an interpretation of the words, utterly contrary to what this Learned man would h • re insinuate, and perfectly agreeing with that which we have now proposed.
Our Catechists proceed to the consideration of sundry places where Christ is called the only Lord, the Lord of Glory: the King of Kings, the Lord of Lord's; all which being Titles of the one true God, prove him to be so: and the first proposed is; To us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him, 1 Cor. 8. 6.
A little to give light to our Argument from hence, and that the strength of it may appear, some few observations concerning the Context, and the words themselves, will be necessary.
1. V. 7. The Apostle speaking of the Heathens, and their opinion of the Deity, says there be, that is, to them, in their apprehension, God's many, and Lord's many: that is, many supreme Powers who are God's and Lord's. The terms of God's many, and Lord's many are not expressive of several kinds of Deities, but of the same; whom they esteemed Lord's they esteemed God's, and so on the contrary: In opposition to this Polutheisme of theirs, he declares that Christians have but one God, one Lord; wherein if the Apostle did not intend to assert one only God unto Christians, in the different Persons of Father and Son, he had not spoken in such an opposition, as the Adversative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the beginning of the words, and the comparison instituted do require.
2. That this one Lord of Christians is the only true God, is manifest from Deut. 6. 4. The Lord our God is one Lord. So the Apostle here; to us there is one Lord: not many God's, as the Heathens fancied; in opposition also to wh 〈…〉 Idolatry is that assertion of Moses. And so Thom • s 〈◊〉 co • fe • sion joins these two together, intending one and the 〈◊〉 Person, my Lord, and my God.
3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being put to signify God, is the word which the Septuagint render Jehovah by, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is that only Jehovah.
4. The Attribution of the same Works in this verse to Father and Son, manifest them to be the same one God: Of whom are all things, and we in him; by whom are all things, and we by him. These things being premised, what our Catechists except to this Testimony may be considered: thus then they.
It is very evident, that they are much entangled with this Testimony, which necessitates them to turn themselves into all manner of shapes, to try whether they can shift their bonds, and escape or no. Their several attempts to evade shall be considered in their order,
1. It is true, Christ is differenced clearly from the Father, as to his Person, here spoken of; but that they have proved the Father to be the only God by nature, exclusively to the Son, and Holy Ghost, is but a boasting before they put off their harness. It is true, the Father is said here to be the one God, which no more hinders the Son from being so too, then the Assertion that the Son is the one Lord, denies the Fathers being so also.
2. That cavil at the word by, hath been already considered, and removed. It is enough for us to manifest, that this Assignation of the Creation of all things to Christ, by the Expression of, by him are all things, doth by no means depose him from the honor of principal efficient Cause in that work, the same Attribution being made to the Father in the same words. And to say as our Catechists do, that this Expression is ascribed to the Father, in such a sense, and not to Christ, is purely without any pretence of proof to beg the thing in Question. Neither is that anything to the purpose, which is urged from Ephes. 3. 9. for we confess, that as Christ is equal with his Father, as to his nature, wherein He is God, so as He is the Son in Office, He was the Servant of the Father, who accomplishes his own mind and will by him.
3. The subject matter in this place, as to the words under consideration, is the demonstra • ion of the one God, and Lord of Christians, asserted in opposition to the many God's, and Lord's of the Heathen, from the effects or works of that one God, and Lord; from him, and by him are all things. And this is the difference that God elsewhere puts between himself and Idols, Jer. 10. 10, 11. And if there be any such subject matter, as proves Christ not to be the one Lord absolutely, but in some respect, it proves also that the Father is not the one God absolutely, but in some respect only.
4. The words, to us, and Father, do one of them express the Persons believing the doctrine proposed, concerning the one true God and Lord, the other describes that one true God, by that name whereby He revealed himself to those Believers; neither of them at all enforcing the restriction mentioned. Christ then is absolutely the one Lord of Christians, who made all things, and so is by nature God blessed forever.
I should but needlessly multiply words particularly to animadvert on Grotius his Annotations on this place: I do it only where he seems to add some new shifts to the Interpretation of our Adversaries, or varies from them in the way, though he agree in the end; neither of which Reasons occurring in this place, I shall not trouble the Reader with the consideration of his words. By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to maintain his former Expositions of the like kind, he will have all the things of the n • w Creation only intended, but without color or pretence of proof; or anything to give light to such an expo • ition of the words.
Our Catechists next mention, 1 Cor 2. 8. for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.
Who is the Lord of Glory, or God of Glory, the Holy Ghost declares, Act: 7. 2. The God of Glory appeared to our Father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia: & Psal. 24. 9. Who is the King of Glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in Battle. Christ therefore is this God; and indeed is intended in that Psalm. But they say:
But,
1. Though the Divine Nature could not be Crucified, yet He that had a Divine Nature might be, and was Crucified in the nature of a Man, which He also had. Our Catechists know they do but beg in these things; and would feign have us grant, that because Christ had an Human nature, He had not a Divine. 2. He is called the Lord of Glory, as God is called the God of Glory, and these terms are equivalent, as hath been shown. 3. He was the Lord of Glory when the Jews crucified him; or else they had not crucified him, who was the Lord of Glory, but one that was to be so: for He was not Crowned with Glory and Honor, until after his crucifying.
Grotius his Annotation on this place, is worth our observation, as having somewhat new, and peculiar in it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Eum quem Deus vult esse omnium Judicem, nam Gloria Christi maxim illum diem respicit; 1 Pet. 4. 13. Christus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , praefiguratus per arcam, quae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psal. 24. 9. For the matter and substance of it, this is the same plea with that before mentioned; the Additions only deserve our notice: Christ is called the Lord of Glory, as God is called the God of Glory. And that term is given him to testify, that he is the God of Glory. If his Glory at the day of Judgment be intended, the Jews could not be said to crucify the Lord of Glory, but him that was to be the Lord of Glory, at the end of the World. Our participation of Christ's Glory is mentioned, 1 Pet. 4. 13. not his obtaining of Glory. He is Essentially the Lord of Glory, the manifestation whereof is various, and shall be eminent at the day of judgment. 2. That the Ark is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is little less then Blasphemy. It is he alone who is the Lord of Hosts, who is called the Lord of Glory, Psal. 24. 9. But this is another shift, for the obtaining of the end designed; namely to give an instance where a creature is called Jehovah, (as that King of Glory is) then which a more unhappy one could scarce be fixed on in the whole Scripture. The Annotations of the Learned man on that whole Psalm are very scanty; his design is to refer it all to the story of David's bringing home the Ark • , 2 Sam. 6. That it might be occasioned thereby I will not deny; that the Ark is called the King of Glory, and the Lord of Hosts, and not He, of whose Presence and Favor, the Ark was a Testimony, no attempt of proof is offered. Neither (by the way) can I assent unto his Interpretation of these words; Lift up your heads O ye Gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors: that is, Ye Gates of Zion, made of Cedar, that are made hanging down, and when they are opened▪ they are lifted up. Certainly something more sublime and Glorious is intended.
The process of our Catechists is unto Revel. 17. 14. & Chap. 19. 16. in both which places Christ is called the Lord of Lord's, and King of Kings. This also is expressly the name of God, 1 Tim. 6. 16. Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lord's: who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, &c. To this they say.
These are but drops, the shower is past. Because he who was the Lamb, who was slain, is King of Kings and Lord of Lord's, we prove him to have another nature, in respect whereof he could be neither killed nor slain. Therefore he is God; God only is so; And the Answer is; because He was the Lamb, He was killed, slain, therefore He is not God; that is, He is not King of Kings, & Lord of Lord's, which the Holy Ghost, who gave him this name will prove against them. 2. Our Adversaries have nothing to except against this Testimony, but that the King of Kings, and Lord of Lord's is not God; which they do not prove, nor labor to disprove our confirmation of it. 3. Kings and Lord's of the Wor • d, are not of the things of the New Covenant, so that Christ's absolute sovereignty over them, is not of the grant which he hath of his Father as Mediator, but as he is God by nature. And so much for this collection concerning these several Names of God Attributed to Christ.
What follows in the three Questions and Answers ensuing, relates to the divine Worship attributed to Christ in the Scriptures, though it be marvelous faintly urged by them. Some few Texts are named, but so much as the intendment of our Argument from them is not once mentioned. But because I must take up this elsewhere, viz. in Answer to M. Biddle (C. 10.) I shall remit the consideration of what here they except, to the proper place of it, where God assisting, from the Divine worship and Invocation of Jesus Christ, I shall invincibly demonstrate his Eternal power and God-head.
In the last place, they heap up together a number of Testimonies, each of which is sufficient to cast them down to the sides of the pit, in the midst of their Attempts against the Eternal Deity of the Son of God, and accommodate a slight general Answer to them all. The places are worth the consideration, I shall only propose them, & then consider their Answer.
The first is Is. 8. 13, 14. Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself, let him be your fear, & let him be your dread. And He shall be for a Sanctuary: but for a stone of stumbling, & a rock of offense, to both the houses of Israel. He that is to be for a Rock of offense, & a stone of stumbling, is the Lord of Hosts, whom we must sanctify in our hearts, and make him our dread and our fear. But this was Jesus Christ: Luk. 2. 34. This Child is set for the rising and fall of many in Israel: As it is written, behold I lay in Zion a stumbling block, a rock of offense; and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed: Rom. 9. 32, 33. the stone which the builders refused,—and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense: 1 Pet. 2. 7. In all which places that Prophesy is repeated. Christ therefore is the Lord of Hosts, whom we are to sanctify in our heart, and to make him our dread, and our fear.
Isa. 45. 22, 23. I am the Lord, 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 bow, every tongue shall swear. He who is God, and none else, is God by nature▪ But now, we must all stand before the Judgment seat of Jesus Christ, for it is written, as I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. Rom. 14. 10, 11, 12▪ It is the Judgment seat of Christ, that men must appear before, when they bow their knee to him, that is, to him who is God, and none else.
Isa. 41. 4. I Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he. Chap. 44. 6. I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. So Chap. 48. 12. That this is spoken of Christ we have his own Testimony, Revel. 1. 17. Fear not, I am the first, and the last. He who is the first and the last, He is God, and there is none besides him.
Zech. 12. 10. I will pour on the House of David, and upon the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of Grace and supplications, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced. He that speaks is unquestionably Jehovah the Lord of Hosts: So the whole context, so the promising of the Spirit in this verse evinces: but that Jesus Christ is here intended, that it is He who is spoken of is evident. Rev. 1. 7. Every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him: He then is Jehovah the Lord of Hosts. For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, not a bone of him shall be broken. And again, another Scripture saith they shall look on him whom they have pierced. Joh. 19. 36, 37. It is as I said beyond dispute, that it is Jehovah the only true God that spake, and what he spoke of himself is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Psal. 68. 17. The Chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of Angels: the Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy place: Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, that the Lord God might dwell among them. This also is a Glorious description of the triumphant Majesty of God; and yet the God here intended is Jesus Christ, Ephes. 4. 8, 9, 10. Wherefore he saith, when He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive and gave gifts to men▪ Now that he ascended, what is it, but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth; He that descended is the same that ascended.
Grotius on both these places says; that what is properly spoken of God, is by Paul mystically applied to Christ: to the same purpose with what our Catechists afterwards insist on. That it is the same person who is intended in both places, and not that applied to one, which was spoken of another (which is most evident in the Context) He takes no notice. There being nothing of plea or Argument in his Annotations, against our Testimonies from hence, but only an endeavor to divert the meaning of the places to another sense, I shall not insist longer on them.
But what say our Catechists to all these, which are but some of the instances of this kind that might be given? Say they;
And this is their defense: the Answer they fix upon to all the Testimonies recited: wherein how little Truth or strength there is, will quickly appear. 1. These Scriptures perhaps may be Answered thus or thus, as what will not the serpentine wits of men find out, to wrest the Word withal to their own destruction? But the question is, how they ought to be interpreted, and what is their sense and intendment. 2. We do not say, that what is spoken of God under the Law, is accommodated to Christ under the Gospel; but that the things instanced in, that were spoken of God, were then spoken of Christ, as to his nature wherein He is God; which appears by the event, expounded in the Books of the New Testament. The Scripture doth not say in the New Testament of Christ, what was said in the Old of God; but evinces those things which were so spoken of God, to have been spoken of Christ. So that 3. The folly of that pretence, that what was spoken of God is referred to Christ, upon the account of the conjunction mentioned, which whatever it be, is a thing of naught in comparison of the distance that is between the Creator and a mere creature, is manifest; for let any one be in never so near conjunction with God, yet if he be not God, what is spoken of God, and where it is spoken of God, and denoting God only, cannot be spoken of him; nor indeed accommodated to him. 4. The instances of Moses are most remote from the business in hand: It is said of Moses, that he brought the Children of Israel out of Egypt, and so he did, as their chief Leader and Ruler, so that he was a Redeemer to that people, as he was instrumental in the hand of God, working by his power and Presence with him those mighty works, which made way for their deliverance and Redemption. But where is it said of Moses, or any one else, that he was God; that what God said of himself, was said of Moses & accomplished in him? Or where ever did Moses speak in the name of God, and say, I Jehovah will do this, and this, or be so, and so, unto my people? 5. It is true, men may be said to do in their place and kind of operation, what God doth do; He as the principal efficient, they as the Instrumental cause, and so may every other creature in the world; as the Sun gives light and heat; but shall therefore that which God speaks in his own name of himself, be so much as accommodated unto them? 6. The Conjunction that is between God and Christ, according to to our Catechists, is but of Love and Favor on the part of God, of Obedience and dependence on the part of Christ; but this in the same kind, though not in the same degree, is between God & all Believr • s; so that of them also, what is spoken of God may be spoken.
And thus, through the presence of God, have I gone through with the consideration of all the Testimonies, given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ, which these Catechists thought good to take notice of; with a full Answer to their long Chap. de Persona Christi. The Learned Reader knows how much all the Arguments we insist on, and the Testimonies we produce in this cause, might have been improved to a greater Advantage of clearness and evidence, had I taken liberty to handle them, as they naturally fall into several heads, from the Demonstration of all the Names, and Properties, all the Works, and Laws, all the Worship, and Honor of God, to be given and ascribed to Jesus Christ. But the work I had to do cast my endeavor in this business into that order and method, wherein it is here presented to the Reader.
The conclusion of our Catechists is a long Harangue, wherein they labor to insinuate the prejudicialnesse of our Doctrine to the true knowledge of Christ, and the obtaining of Salvation by him, with the certain foundation that is laid in theirs, for the participation of all the benefits of the Gospel. The only medium they fix upon, for to gain both these ends by, is this, that we deny Christ to be a true man, which they assert. That the first of these is notoriously false, is known to all other men, and is acknowledged in their own Consciences. Of the truth of the latter elsewhere. He that had a perfect human nature, Soul and body, with all the natural and essential properties of them both; He who was borne so, lived so, died so, rose again so, was, and is a perfect man; So that all the benefits that we do, or may receive from Jesus Christ, as a perfect man, like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, there is a way open for, in this our Confession of him. In the mean time, the great foundation of our Faith, Hope, and Expectation lies in this, that He is the Son of the Living God, and so, that God redeemed his Church with his own blood; He who was of the Fathers, according to the flesh, being God over all, blessed forever: Which if He had not been, He could not have performed the work, which for us He had to do. It is true, perhaps as a mere man He might do all that our Catechists acknowledge him to have done, and accomplish all that they expect from him; but for us, who fly to him, as one that suffered for our sins, and made satisfaction to the justice of God for them, who wrought out a Righteousness, that is reckoned to all that believe, that quickens us when we are dead, and sends the Holy Ghost to dwell and abide in us, and is himself present with us, &c. It is impossible we should ever have the least consolation in our flying for refuge to him, unless we had this grounded persuasion concerning his Eternal Power and Godhead. We cannot think He was made the Son of God, and a God, upon the account of what he did for us; but that being God, and the Son of God, herein was his Love made manifest, that he was made flesh, took upon him the form of a servant, and became therein for us obedient unto death, the death of the Cross. Many indeed and inexpressible are the encouragements unto Faith, and Consolation in believing, that we do receive from Christ's being made like to us, a perfect man, wherein he underwent what we were obnoxious unto, and whereby He knows how to be compassionate unto us; but that any sweetness can be hence derived unto any, who do refuse to own the fountain, whence all the streams of Love and Mercy, that run in the human nature of Christ do flow, that we deny. Yea that our Adversaries in this business have any foundation for faith Love, or Hope, or can have any acceptance with God, or with Jesus Christ, but rather that they are cursed on the one hand for robbing him of the Glory of his Deity, and on the other for putting their confidence in a man, we daily demonstrate from innumerable Testimonies of Scripture. And for these men, the truth is, as they lay out the choicest of all their endeavoures to prove him not to be God by nature, and so not at all, (for a made God, a second-rank God, a Deifyed man, is no God, the Lord our God being one, and the conceit of it brings in the Polutheisme of the Heathen amongst the professors of the name of Christ) so they also deny him to be true man, now he is in Heaven, or to retain the nature of a man: and so instead of a Christ that was God from Eternity, made a man in one Person unto Eternity, they believe in a Christ, who was a man, and is made a God, who never had the nature of God, and had then the nature of man, but hath lost it. This M. B. after his Masters, instructs his Disciples in, in his lesser Catechism C. 10. namely, that although Christ rose with his fleshly body, wherein he was crucified, yet now he hath a spiritual Body, not in its qualities, but substance; a body that hath neither flesh nor bones. What he hath done with his other body, where he laid it aside, or how he disposed of it, he doth not declare.
CHAP. XV.
Of the Holy Ghost, his Deity, Graces, and Operations.
M r BIDDLE'S 5 th Chapter examined.
Q. HOW many Holy Spirits of Christians are there?
A. Eph. 4. 4.
Q. Wherein consists the prerogative of the Holy Spirit above other Spirits?
A. 1 Cor 2. 10, 11.
Q. Whence is the Holy Ghost sent?
A. 1 Pet. 1. 12.
Q. By whom?
A. Gal. 4. 6.
Q. Doth not Christ affirm that he also sends him? How speaketh he?
A. Joh. 16. 7.
Q. Had Jesus Christ always the power to send the Holy Ghost, or did he obtain it at a certain time?
A. Act. 2. 32, 33. Joh. 7. 39.
Q. What were the general benefits accruing to Christians by the Holy Ghost?
A. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Rom. 8. 16, 26, 27. Rom. 5. 5. Col. 1. 8. Eph. 1. 17. Rom. 15. 13. Rom. 14. 17. Act. 9. 31. Eph. 3. 16.
Q. What are the special benefits accruing to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost? What saith Christ to them hereof?
A. Joh. 15. 26. Joh. 16. 13.
Q. Should the Holy Ghost lead them into all truth, as speaking of Himself, and imparting of his own fullness? What saith Christ concerning him?
A. Joh. 16. 13, 14.
Q.. Do men receive the Holy Ghost while they are of the world, and in their natural condition, to the end that they may become the Children of God, may receive the word, may believe, may repent, may obey Christ? or, after they are become the Children of God, have received the word, do believe, do repent, do obey Christ?
A. Joh. 14. 16, 17. 1 Cor. 2. 14. Gal. 4. 6. Act. 8. 14, 15, 16. Joh. 7. 38, 39. Act. 19. 1, 2. Eph. 1. 13. Gal. 3. 14. Act. 15. 7, 8. Act. 2. 38. Act. 5. 32.
EXAMINATION.
Of the Deity of the Holy Ghost: and his Work, &c.
THE Fifth Chapter of our Catechist, is, concerning the Holy Ghost, for reducing of whom into the Order and rank of Creatures, M r B. hath formerly taken great pains; following therein the Macedonians of Old, and leaving his new Masters, the Socinians, who deny him his Personality, and leave him to be only the efficacy, or Energy of the power of God. The design is the same in both, the means used to bring it about differ. The Socinians not able to answer the Testimonies proving him to be God, to be no creature, do therefore deny his Personality; M r B. being not able to stand before the clear evidence of his Personality, denies his Deity. What he hath done in this Chapter I shall consider; what he hath elsewhere done, hath already met with a detection from another hand.
Q. How many Holy Spirits of Christians are there? Ans. One spirit. Eph. 4. 4.
I must take leave to put one Question to M. B. that we may the better know the mind and meaning of his: and that is; What he means by the Holy Spirits of Christians: If he intend that Spirit which they worship, invocate, believe, and are Baptized into his name, who quickens, and sanctifies them, and from whom they have their supplies of Grace; it is true, there is but one only Spirit of Christians, as is evident, Eph. 4, 4. and this Spirit is God blessed forever: nor can any be called that one Spirit of Christians, but he that is so. But if by the Holy Spirits of Christians, He intends created Spiritual beings, sent out of God for the good of Christians, of those that believe, there are then an innumerable company of Holy Spirits of Believers; for all the Angels are ministering Spirits, sent forth to minister for them, who shall be heirs of Salvation, Heb. 1. 13, 14 So that by this one Testimony, that there is but one Holy Spirit of Christians, that Holy Spirit is exempted from the number of all created Spirits, and reckoned as the object of their worship, with the one God, and one Lord; Ephes. 4. 4, 5, 6. When yet they worship the Lord their God alone, and him only do they serve, Mat. 4. 10.
His second Q. is, Wherein consists the Prerogative of that Holy Spirit above other Spirits. Ans. 1. Cor. 2. 10, 11.
The Prerogative of that Holy Spirit, of whom we speak, is, that of God above his Creature: the Prerogative of an Infinite, Eternal, Self-subsisting Being. Yea and that this is indeed his Prerogative, we need not seek for proof beyond that Testimony here produced by M r B. (though to another purpose) in Answer to his Question. He that searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God, is God. To search all things is the same with knowing all things; so the Apostle interprets it in the next verse: None knoweth the things of God, save the Spirit of God. To know all things, is to be omniscient. But he that is Omniscient, is God. His Angels he charged with folly. Omniscience is an essential Attribute of God▪ And therefore Socinus in his disputation with * Franken, durst not allow Christ to be omniscient, least he should also grant him to be Infinite in Essence. Again; He that searches, or knows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the deep things of God, is God; None can know the deep things of an Infinite Wisdom and Understanding, but He that is Infinite. All creatures are excluded from an acquaintance with the deep things of God, but only as he voluntarily revealeth them, Rom. 11. 34. Who hath known the mind of God, or who hath been his Counselor? That is; no Creature hath so been; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , John. 1. 18. Now the Spirit doth not know the deep things of God, by his voluntary Revelation of them. For as the Spirit of a man knows the things of a Man, so doth the Spirit of God know the things of God. This is not because they are revealed to the Spirit of a man, but because that is the Principle of Operation in a man, and is conscious to all its own Actions and A •• airs. And so it is with the Spirit of God; being God, and having the same Understanding, and Will, and Power with God the Father, and Son; as the Spirit of a man knows the things of a man, so doth He the things of God. Thus in the beginning of this, as in the close of the last Chapter, M r B. hath provided sufficiently for his own conviction, and the scattering of all his Paralogismes, and Sophisticall insinuations, running through them both.
The design of this present Chapter, being to pursue what M r B. hath some years since publicly undertaken, viz. to disprove the Deity of the Holy Ghost; his aim here being to divert the thoughts of his Catechumens from an apprehension thereof, by his Proposall and Answers of such Questions, as serve to his design, pretending to deliver the doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost from the Scripture, and not once producing any of those Texts, which are most usually insisted on, for the confirmation of his Deity, (with what Christian Candor and Ingenuity, is easily discovered) I shall briefly from the Scripture, in the first place, establish the Truth concerning the eternal Deity of the Person of the Holy Ghost; and then consider his Questions in their order, so far as shall be judged meet or necessary.
I shall not go forth unto any long discourse on this subject: Some plain Testimonies of Scripture will evince the Truth we contend for; being the Heads of as many Arguments, if any one shall be pleased to make use of them in that way.
I. Then, The spirit created, formed, and adorned this World; and is therefore God. He that made all things, is God. Heb. 3. 4. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the Host of them by the SPIRIT of his mouth: Psal. 33. 6. By his SPIRIT hath he garnished the Heavens. Job. 26. 13. The SPIRIT of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Chap. 33. 4. Psal. 104. 30. He that makes the Heavens, and garnisheth them; He that maketh man, and giveth him life, is God. So in the beginning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 motabat se, moved himself, as a Dove warming its young, as he afterward appeared in the form of a Dove. And hence that which is ascribed unto God absolutely in one place, is in another ascribed to the spirit absolutely, as Exod. 4. 15. Numb. 12. 8. what it is affirmed that God doth, will do, or did, is affirmed of the Spirit, Act. 1. 16. cap. 28. 25. so Numbers. 14. 22. Deut. 6. 16. What is said of God, is affirmed of the Spirit, Isa. 63. 10. Acts 7. 51. so also Deut. 32. 12. compared with Isa. 63▪ 14. innumerable other instances of the same kind might be added.
II. He Regenerates us; Unless we are borne again of Water and the Spirit, we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John. 3. 5. 2 Thessalon. 2. 13. 1 Pet. 1. 2. He also searcheth all things, even the deep things of God, as was before observed, 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11. From him is our Illumination, Ephes. 1. 17, 18. 2 Cor. 3. 18. John. 14. 26. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, he shall teach you all things, Chap. 16. 13. The spirit of Truth shall guide you into all Truth; The Holy Ghost shall teach you, Luk. 12. 12. And he foretelleth things to come. Joh 16. 13. 1 Tim. 4. 1. which is a property of God, whereby he will be known from all false God's, Isa. 41. 22, 23. &c. and he is in some of these places expressly called God: as also, 1 Cor. 12. v. 6. • ompared with v. 11. and he is immense, who dwells in all▪ Believers.
III. He dwelleth in us as God in a Temple, Rom. 8 9. 1 Cor. 3. 16. thereby sanctifying us 1 Cor. 6. 11. comforting us Joh. 16. 8. and helping our infirmities. Rom. 8. 26. Mortifying our sins, Rom. 8. 13. Creating in us Christian Graces, Gal. 6. yea he is the Author of all Grace; as is evident in that promise made of his presence with the Messiah, Isa. 11. 2. I say with the Messiah, for of him only are those words to be understood; to which purpose, I cannot but add the words of an old Frier to the shame of some amongst us, who should know more, or be more Christian in their expositions of Scripture; saith he (speaking of this place) Note that in innumerable places of the Talmud, this is expounded of the Messiah, and never of any other, by any one, who is of any Authority among the Hebrews: Wherefore it is evident, that some amongst, us, too much Judaizing, do err, whilst▪ they fear not to expound this literally of Josiah: but that this is to be understood of the Messiah only is shown by Rabbi Solomon, who expounds it of him, and not of Josiah; which according to his way, he would never have done, if without the injury of his Talmud and Targum, and the prejudice of all his predecessors, he could have expounded it otherwise. So far he.
It is not a little strange▪ that some▪ Christians should venture farther in perverting the Testimonies of Scripture concerning the Messiah, then the Jews dare to do.
IV. He makes, and appoints to himself, and his service, Ministers of the Church, Act. 13. 2. giving unto them Powers, and working various and Wonderful works, as he pleaseth, 1 Cor. 12. 8.
V. He is sinned against; and so offended with sin, that the sin against him shall never be forgiven, Math. 12. 31. Though it be not against his Person, but some especial Grace and Dispensation of his.
VI. He is the Object of Divine Worship; We being Baptized into his Name, as that of the Father and Son, Mat. 28. 19. And Grace is prayed for from him, as from Father and Son, 2 Cor. 13. 13. Revel. 1. 4. Rom. 10. 14. He is to be Head of Churches, Revel. 2. 3. But God will not give this glory to another, Isa. 42. 8. Also he hath the Name of God given him, Esa. 6. 9. compared with Acts 28. 25, 26. and Isa. the 63. ch. v. 13, 14. with Ps. 18. 41, 52. 2 Sam. 23. 2, 3. Act. 5. 3. & the Attributes of God are ascribed to him, as (1.) Ubiquity, or Omnipresence, Psal: 139. 7. 1 Cor. 3. 16. (2.) Omniscience, 1 Cor. 2. 10. John. 16. 13. His Omnipotency and Eternity are both manifest from the Creation.
To all this, in a word, it may be added, that he is a Person: the denial whereof is the only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Socinians. They acknowledge, that if He be a Person, he is God. But 1. He is a Person, who hath a Name, and in whose name something is done, as we are said to be Baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost, Mat. 28. 19. And (2) He is conjoined with the other Divine Persons, as one of them, 2 Cor. 13. 13, Revel. 1. 4, 5. Math. 28. 19. (3.) He hath an Understanding, 1 Cor. 2. 11. and a Will, 1 Cor. 12. 11. (4.) To him are Speaking, and Words ascribed, and such actions, as are peculiar to Persons, Acts 13. 2. Acts 20. 28. &c.
What remains of this Chapter will be of a brief and easy dispatch: The next question is.
Whence is the Holy Ghost sent? Answ. 1 Pet. 1. 12. Down from Heaven.
1. This advantageth not at all M. Biddles design against the Holy Ghost, to prove him not to be God, that he is sent down from Heaven, whereby he supposeth, that his coming from one place to another is intimated: Seeing he supposes God to be so in Heaven; yea in some certain place of Heaven, as at the same time not to be elsewhere; so that if ever he be in the Earth, He must come down from Heaven.
2. Nor is there anything in his being sent, prejudicial to the prerogative of his divine Being. For he, who is God, equal in nature to the Father, and the Son, yet in respect of the order of that dispensation, that these three who are in Heaven, who are also one, have engaged in for the Salvation of men, may be sent of the Father and the Son, having the Execution of that work which they respectively concur in, in an eminent manner to him committed.
3. Where ever the Spirit is said to descend from Heaven, it is to be understood according to the Analogy of what we have already spoken, concerning the presence of God in Heaven, with his Looking, and going down from thence, which I shall not repeat again. Essentially he is everywhere Psal. 139▪ 1, 2, 3, &c.
4. In that place of Peter alleged by M. Biddle, not the Person of the Spirit, but his gifts on the Apostles, and his Operations in them, whose great and visible foundations were laid▪ Act. 2. on the day of Pentecost, are intended.
The two next Question, leading only to an Expression of the sending of the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son, though M. Biddles Christians differ about the interpretation of the places produced for the proof thereof, and there lie no small Argument and Evidence of the Deity of Christ, in his sending of the Holy Ghost, as the Father sends him, yet there being an Agreement in the Expressions themselves, I shall not insist upon them. He proceeds.
Q. Had Jesus Christ always the power to send the Holy Ghost, or did he obtain it at a certain time. Ans. Act. 2. 32, 33. Joh. 7. 39.
The intendment of this Query is, to conclude from some certain respect and manner of sending the Holy Ghost to the thing it self: from the sending him in a visible, glorious, plentiful, eminent manner, as to the Effusion of his gifts and Graces, to the sending of him absolutely, which me thinks a Master of Arts should know to be a Sophisticall way of arguing. 2. It endeavors also, from the Exercise of Power to conclude to the receiving of the Power it self; and that not the absolute Exercise of it neither, but in some certain respect, as was spoken. This then is that, which M. Biddle concludes. Because Christ when he was exalted, or when he ascended into Heaven, had the acomplishment of the Promise actually in the sending forth of the spirit, in that abundant and plentiful manner which was Prophesyed of by Joel Cap. 2. 28. therefore he then first received Power to send the Spirit. Which 4. by the Testimony of Christ himself is false, and not the sense of the Holy Ghost in the places mentioned; seeing that before his Ascension he breathed on his Disciples, and bad them receive the Holy Ghost. Nay 5. that he had power of sending the Holy Ghost, and did actually send him, not only before his Ascension and Exaltation, but also before his Incarnation, is expressly affirmed 1 Pet. 1. 11. The Spirit that was in the Prophets of old, was the Spirit of Christ, and sent by him; as was that Spirit, by which he preached in the days of the old disobedient world; which places have been formerly vindicated at large. So that 6. as that place Act. 2. 32, 33. is there expounded to be concerning the plentiful effusion of the gifts of the Holy spirit in the times of the Gospel, according to the prophesy of Joel: so also is that of Joh. 7. 39. it being positively affirmed, as to the thing it self, that he gave the Holy Ghost before his exaltation, though not in that abundant manner as afterwards. And so neither of them conclude anything, as to the time of Christ's receiving power to send the spirit; which upon the supposition of such a work, as for the accomplishment whereof it was necessary the Holy Ghost should be sent, he had from Eternity.
About the next Question we shall not contend. It is,
Q. What were the general benefits accruing to Christians by the Holy Ghost? whereunto sundry texts of Scripture, that make mention of the Holy Ghost, his graces, and gifts, are subjoined. Upon the whole I have only some few things to animadvert.
1. If by the word general benefits, he limits the receiving of those benefits of the Holy Ghost to any certain time, (as suppose the time of his first plentiful effusion upon the Ascension of Jesus Christ, and the preaching of the Gospel to all Nations thereupon;) as it is a sacrilegious conception, robbing Believers of after ages, to the end of the world, of all the fruits of the efficacy of the Spirit, without which they can neither enjoy Communion with God in this Life, nor ever be brought to an eternal fruition of him: So it is most false, and contrary to the express prayer of our Savior▪ desiring the same things for them, who should believe on his name to the end of the world, as he did for those who conversed with him in the days of his flesh. But I will suppose this is not his intention: because it would plainly deny that there are any Christians in the world, (* which yet was the opinion of some of his friends heretofore,) for if we have not the Spirit of Christ we are none of his.
2. The things annumerated, may be called general benefits, because they are common to all Believers, as to the substance, Essence, or Being of them; though in respect of their degrees they are communicated variously to the several Individuals; the same spirit dividing to everyone as he will; they are so general to them all, that every particular Believer enjoys them all.
3. The Annumeration here given us, is very far and remote from being complete; there being only some few fruits of the Spirit, and privileges, which we receive by our receiving of him, recounted: and that in a very confused manner, one thing being added after another, without any order or coherence at all. Yea of the Benefits we receive by the spirit, of the Graces he works in us, of the Helps he affords us, of that Joy, and Consolation he imparts unto us, of the daily Assistances we receive from him, of the Might of his power put forth in us, of the Efficacy of his Operations, the Constancy of his presence, the privileges by him imparted, there is not by any in this life a full account to be given. To insist on particulars is not my present task: I have also in part done it elsewhere.
4. I desire M. Biddle seriously to consider, whether even the things which he thinks good to mention, may possibly be ascribed to a mere Creature, or that all believers are by such an one baptized into one body; that we are all made to drink into one Spirit, &c. But of these things before. Unto this he adds,
Q. What are the special benefits accruing to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost: and what saith Christ to them thereof? Answ. Joh. 15. 26. Act. 16. 13.
Besides the Graces of the Spirit, which the Apostles as Believers, received in a plentiful manner: they had also his Presence by his extraordinary gifts to fit them for that whole extraordinary Work, whereunto of him they were called. For as by his Authority they were separated to the work, and were to perform it unto him Act. 13. 2. So whatever work they were to perform either as Apostles, or as penmen of the Scripture of the New Testament; they had suitable Gifts bestowed on them, by him 1 Cor. 12. inspiration from him suitable to their work: 2 Pet. 1. 21. and 2 Tim. 3 17. the Scripture being of inspiration from God, because the Holy men, that wrote it, were inspired or moved by the Holy Ghost. And as this Holy Ghost, who is God, working all in all, that divideth of his gifts, as he will 1 Cor. 12. 6, 12. and giveth all Gifts whatever to the Church, that it doth enjoy; so did he in an especial manner with the Apostles.
Now our Savior Christ being to leave the World, giving gracious promises to his Disciples, he considered them under a twofold capacity or condition: 1. Of Believers, of such as followed him, and Believed in him, wherein their estate was common with that of all them, who were to Believe on him to the end of the World 2 Of Apostles & of such, as he intended to employ in that great work of planting his Church in the world, & propagating his Gospel to the ends of it. Under both these considerations doth he promise the Spirit to his Disciples. Joh. 13, 14, 15, 16. praying his Father for the Accomplishment of those promises: Chap. 17. that, as Believers they might be kept in the Course of their ob • dience to the end: in which regard he made those promises no less to us, then to them. And
2. That as Apostles they might be furnished for their work, preserved, and made prosperous therein. Of this latter sort, some passages in the verses here mentioned seem to be, & may have a peculiar regard thereunto, & yet in their substance are of the first kind, & are made good to all believers. Neither is there anymore said concerning the teaching and guidance of the Spirit into the Truth, in Joh. 15. 26. & 16▪ 13. then is said 1 Joh. 2. 20, 27. where it is expressly assigned to all Believers. Of that Unction and teaching of the Spirit, of his preserving us in all Truth needful for our Communion with God; of his bringing to mind what Christ had spoken for our Consolation and Establishment with efficacy and power, things I fear despised by M. Biddle, this is not a season to treat.
That which follows concerns the Order and way of procedure, insisted on by the Son, and Holy Ghost, in carrying on the Work of our Salvation, and propagation of the Gospel, whose sovereign fountain is in the bosom of the Father. His Query is.
Q. Should the Holy Ghost lead them into all truth, as speaking of himself, and imparting of his own fullness? What saith Christ concerning him? Ans. Joh. 16. 13, 14.
1. The Scripture proposeth the Holy Ghost in the Communication of his Gifts and Graces under a double consideration. 1. Absolutely: as he is God himself: and so he speaketh of himself, and the Churches are commanded to attend to what he so saith, Revel. 2. 29. and he imparts of his own fullness: the self s • me spirit dividing to everyone, as he will, 1 Cor. 12. 11. And in this sense what the Prophets say in the Old Testament, The word of the Lord, and thus saith the Lord; in the New, they are said to speak by the Spirit: Mat. 22. 43. Acts 1. 16. 2 Pet. 1. 21.
2. Relatively: and that both in respect of Subsistence and Operation, as to the great work of saving sinners by Jesus Christ. And as in the first of these senses, he is not of himself, being the Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeding from them both. So neither doth he speak of himself, but according to what he receiveth of the Father, and the Son. 2. Our Savior Christ says here, he shall not speak of himself: but he nowhere says, He shall not impart of his own fullness, which is M. Biddles Addition. To speak himself shows the original Authority of him that speaks, whereby he speaks to be in himself: which as to the words and works pointed to, is not in the Holy Ghost Personally considered, and as in this dispensation. But, to impart of his own fullness, is to give out of that, which is eminently in himself: which the Holy Ghost doth, as hath been shown▪ 3. Christ in the words insisted on, comforting his Disciples with the promise of the presence of his Spirit, when he should be bodily absent from them, acquaints them also with the Works that he should do, when he came to thē, & upon them in that clear, eminent, & abundant manner, which he had promised; which is not any new work, or any other, then what he had already acquainted them with, nor the Accomplishment of anything, but what he had laid the foundation of: yea that all the Mercy, Grace, Light, Guidance, Direction, Consolation, Peace, Joy, Gifts, that he should communicate to them, and bless them withal, should be no other, but what were procured and purchased for them by himself. These things is the Spirit said to hear and speak, to receive and communicate, as being the proper purchase, and Inheritance of another: and in so doing to glorify him, whose they are, in that peculiar sense, and manner. All that discourse which we have of the Mission, and sending of the Holy Ghost, and his proceeding or coming forth from the Father and Son, for the ends specifyed, Joh. 14. 26. & 15. 26. & 16. 7, 13. concerns not at all the eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, as to his distinct personality and subsistence, but belongs to that O • con • my or dispensation of ministry, that the whole Trinity proceedeth in, for the accomplishment of the work of our Salvation.
The last Query, by the heap of Scriptures, that are gathered in answer to it, seems to have most weight laid upon it: but is indeed of all the rest most weakly S • phisticall: The words of it are.
Q. Do men receive the Holy Ghost, while they are of the World, and in their natural condition, to the end that they may become the Children of God, may receive the Word, may Believe, may Repent, may obey Christ▪ or after they are become the Children of God, have received the Word, do Believe, do Repent, do obey Christ?
Ans. The Answer is as above. To the same purpose is that of the Racovian Catechism.
Is there not need of the internal Gift of the Spirit, that we may believe the Gospel.
Ans. By no means; for we do not read in the Scripture, that that gift is conferred on any, but him that believes the Gospel.
Remove the ambiguity of that Expression, Believe the Gospel, and those two Questions perfectly fall in together. It may then be taken either for, Believing the Doctrine of the Gospel, in opposition to the Law, and in this sense it is not here inquired after; or for the power of Believing in the subject, and in that sense it is here denied.
Now the design of this Question is, to deny the effectual Operation of the Holy Ghost, for, & in the Conversion, Regeneration, and Sanctification of the Elect, and to vindicate the whole work of Faith, Holiness, Quickening, &c. to ourselves. The way designed for the proof and establishment of this Insinuation consists, in producing sundry Testimonies, wherein it is affirmed, that those who do believe, and are the Children of God, do receive the Spirit for other ends and purposes, then those here enumerated. The sum of his Argument is this: If they who do believe, and are the Children of God, do receive the Spirit of God, for their Adoption, and the carrying on of the work of their sanctification, with the supply of new Grace, the Confirmation and enlargement of what they have received, with Joy, Consolation, and Peace, with other Gifts, that are necessary for any work or employment, that they are called unto; then the Holy Spirit doth not quicken, nor regenera • e them, nor work Faith in them, nor make them the Children of God, nor implant them into Christ. Now when M. B. proves this consequence, I will confess him to be Master of one Art, which he never learned at Oxford; unless it were his business to learn what he was taught to avoid.
2. But M r B. hath one fetch of his skill more in this Question. He asks, whether men do receive the Holy Ghost, when they are of the World; And for a confutation of any such Apprehension, produceth Testimonies of Scripture, that the world cannot receive the Holy Ghost, nor the natural Man the things of God. But who told this Gentleman that we say, men whilst they are in, and of the World, do receive the Spirit of God, or the things of the Spirit, in the Scripture sense of the use of that word, receiving? The expression is metaphorical, yet always in the case of the things of the Gospel denoting the Actings of Faith in them, who are said to receive anything from God. Now if this Gentleman could persuade us that we say, that we receive the Spirit by Faith, to the end that we may have Faith, he might as easily lead us about whether he pleased, as the Philistines did Sampson, when they had put out his eyes. A little then to instruct this Catechist; I desire him to take notice, that properly the spirit is received by Faith, to the Ends and purposes by him mentioned, with many such others, as might be added; but yet before men's being enabled to receive it, that Spirit by his power and the efficacy of his Grace, quickeneth, regenerateth, and worketh Faith in their hearts. In brief, the Spirit is considered, and promised, either as a Spirit of Regeneration, with all the concomitants, and essential consequents thereof; or as a Spirit of Adoption, and the consequents thereof. In the first sense he works in men in order of nature, antecedent to their believing; Faith being a fruit of the Spirit: In the latter, and for the ends and purposes thereof, he is received by Faith, and given in order of nature upon believing.
3. That the World cannot receive the Spirit, nor the natural Man the things of God, is from hence; that the Spirit hath not wrought in them, that which is necessary to enable them thereunto; which is evident from what is affirmed of the Impotency of the natural Man, as to his receiving the things of God; for if the Reason, why he cannot receive the things of God, is, because he is a natural Man, then, unless there be some other Power, then what is in himself, to translate him from that condition, it is impossible, that he, who is a Natural Man, should ever be otherwise; for he can only alter that condition, by that, which he cannot do. But,
4. That the Spirit is given for, and doth work Regeneration, and Faith in men, I shall not now insist on the many Testimonies, whereby it is usually, and invincibly confirmed. There is no one Testimony given to our utter impotency, to convert, or regenerate ourselves, to believe, repent, and turn to God; no promise of the Covenant, to give a new Heart, new Obedience through Christ; no assertion of the Grace of God, and the efficacy of his power, which is exalted in the vocation and conversion of Sinners, but sufficiently evinces the Truth thereof. That one eminent instance shall close our Consideration of this Chapter, which we have Titus 3. 5, 6. Not by works of Righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of Regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly by Jesus Christ our Savior.
Of the First head made by men, professing the Religion of Jesus Christ, unto the Deity of the Spirit, attempting to rank him among the works of his own hand, of the peculiar espousing of an enmity against him by Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople, from whom the ensuing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 took their name, of the Novell inventions of Faustus Socinus and his followers, denying the Personality of the Spirit, making him to be nothing, but the efficacy of the Power of God, or the Power of God, this is no place to treat. Besides, the Truth is, until they will speak clearly what they mean by the Spirit of God, and so assert something, as well as deny, they may justly be neglected. They tell us it is virtus Dei: but whether that virtus be substantia or accidens, they will not tell us; it is they say potentia Dei: this we confess; but say, he is not potentia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and that because we prove him to be God. What then hath been spoken of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I shall shut up with that Distich of Gregor. Naz. Sent. Spir. lib. 3.
CHAP. XVI.
Of Salvation by Christ.
M r Biddles 6 th Chapter Considered.
THis is a short Chapter, and will speedily receive its Consideration. That Christ is a Savior, and that He is so called in Scripture, is confessed on all hands. M. B's Masters were the first, who directly called into question amongst Christians, on what account principally he is so called. Of his Faith in this business, and theirs, we have the Sum, with the Reasons of it, in the Book of their great Apostle, De Jesu Christo Servatore. This Book is Answered throughout with good success, by Sibran • us Labba • us. The Nerves of it cut by Grotius, De satisfaction Christi; and the reply of Crell • us thereunto thoroughly removed by Essenius in his Triumphus Crucis. The whole Argumentative part of it, sum'd up into five heads, by Michael Gittichius, is answered by Ludovicus Lucius, and that Answer vindicated from the Reply of Gittichius. And generally those who have written upon the Satisfaction of Christ have looked upon that Book, as the main Master-piece of the Adversaries, and have made it their business to remove its Sophistry, and unmaske its pretensions.
M. B. is very slight and overly in this business, being not able in the method of Procedure imposed on himself, so much as to deliver his mind significantly, as to what he does intend. The denial and rejection of the satisfaction, and merit of Christ, is that which the man intends, as is evident from his Preface, where he denys them name and thing. This he attempts▪ partly in this Chapter, partly in that concerning the Death of Christ, and also • hat of Justification. In this he would attempt the notion of Salvation, and refer it only to deliverance from death, by a glorious Resurrection. Some brief Animadversions may possibly rectify the man's Mistakes. His first Question we pass, as a principle in the terms of it on all sides confessed, namely, that Christ is our Lord and Savior.
His Second is.
Q. Is Christ our Savior originally, and of himself; or because he was given, exalted, and raised up by another to be a Savior?
Ans. Act. 4. 12. & 5. 31. & 13. 23.
The intendment of this Quere is, to pursue the former insinuations of our Catechist against the Deity of Christ; as though his appointment to his Office of Mediation, were inconsistent with his Divine Nature: the vanity of which pretence hath been sufficiently already discovered. In brief, Christ is considered either absolutely, with respect to his Divine Nature, and Person, as he is God in himself: and so he is a Savior originally, of himself: For as for our Redeemer the Lord of Hosts is his Name, the Holy one of Israel, Isa. 47. 4. For thy Maker is thine Husband, the Lord of Hosts is his Name, the Holy one of Israel, Ch. 54. 5. In this sense was Christ a Savior originally, and of himself; But as He took flesh, to accomplish the work of our Redemption, by tasting death for us, though his own merciful and gracious Will did concur therein, yet was he eminently designed to that work, and given by his Father, in Love, and Mercy, contriving the work of our Salvation. And this latter is mentioned not only in the places cited by our Catechist, but also in an hundred more, and not one of them lying in the least subserviency to M. B's design.
Q. How do the Saints expect to be saved by Christ?
Ans. Rom. 5. 10. Philip. 3. 20, 21.
The intendment of this Question, must be to Answer the general proposal, in what sense Christ is our Savior, and how his People are saved by him. Now however that be true in it self, which is here asserted, and is the exurgency of the Question & Answer, as connected, the Saints expecting Salvation by Christ, in the complete accomplishment of it by his Power in Heaven, yet as here proposed to give an account of the whole sense, wherein Christ is our Savior, is most false and deceitful. Christ is a Savior principally, as he was promised, and came to save his people from their Sins, whence he had his name of Jesus, or a Savior, Mat. 1. 21. and that by his death, Heb. 2. 14, 15. or laying down his life a Ransom for us, Math. 20. 28. and giving himself a price of Redemption for us, 1 Tim. 2. 6. by whom we have Redemption by his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, Eph. 1. 7. so saving or delivering us from the wrath, that is for to come; 1 Thes. 1. last. The Salvation, which we have by Christ, which this Chapter in Title pretends to discover, is from Sin, the World, Satan, Death, Wrath, Curse, the Law, bearing of us unto Acceptation with God, Peace, Reconciliation, and Glory. But that the Doctrines before mentioned, without which these things cannot once be apprehended, may be obscured or lost; are these wholly omitted. Of the sense of Rom. 5. 10. and what is there intended by the Life of Christ, I shall farther treat, when I come to speak about Justification: and of the whole business under our Consideration of the death of Christ.
CHAP. XVII.
IN his Seventh Chap. he proposeth two Questions in general, about the Mediation of Christ: Answering first, that he is a Mediator, from 1 Tim. 2. 5. 2. That he is the Mediator of the New Covenant, Heb. 8. 6. & 12. 24. But as to his work of Mediation, what it is, wherein it doth consist, on what account principally Christ is called our Mediator, whether he be a Mediator with God for us, as well as a Mediator with us for God; and how he carries on that work; wherein he knows the difference between us, and his Masters, about this matter doth lie, he speaks not one word, nor gives any occasion to me, to enter into the consideration of it. What I suppose necessary to offer to this head, I shall do it in the ensuing discourse of the Death of Christ, the ends thereof, and the satisfaction thereby.
And therefore I shall hereunto add his Ninth Chapter also, which is concerning Bemission of Sins by Jesus Christ. The difference between his Masters and us, being about the meritorious and procuring Cause of Remission of Sins by Christ, which here he mentions not; What is farther to be added thereabout, will fall in also under our Consideration of the Death of Christ, and our Justification thereby.
His first Question is altogether out of Question, namely, Wh • shall have remission of sins by Christ? It is granted, All, and only Believers. He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned, Mark. 16. 16. To as many as receive him, power is given to become the Sons of God, even as many as believe in his name, Joh. 1. 12.
To his next Question an Answer may be given, that will suit that following also; which is the whole of this Chapter; The Question is; Doth not Christ forgive sins? Ans. Christ forgave you, Col: 3. 13.
That Christ forgives sins, is taken for granted; And yet forgiveness of Sin is the supremest Act of Sovereign Divine Power, that God exerciseth in the World. Now Christ may be considered two ways. 1. Absolutely, as God over all, blessed forever; So he forgave sins by his own Original Authority and power, as the Law-giver, who is able to save and to destroy. 2. As Mediator, God and Man; and so his Power was delegated to him by God the Father, as himself speaks: All power is given unto me, in Heaven and in Earth, and Mat. 9. he saith, that he had Power on earth to forgive sins, i. e. given unto him. Now forgiveness of sins, is either Autheritative, or declarative. The latter Christ delegated to his Apostles, and all their successors in the Work of Preaching the Gospel: and it is such a Power, as a mere man may be invested withal. Forgiveness of sins, which we term Authoritative, being an act of Sovereign Divine Power, exercised about the Law, and Persons concerned therein, may be said to be given to Christ two ways. 1. As to the possession of it: And so he hath it from his Father, as God; as he hath his Nature, Essence, and Life from him. Whence whatever works the Father doth, He doht likewise; quicken, as he quickens; Pardon, as he Pardons; as hath been declared. 2. As to the Execusion of it, for such an end and purpose; as the carrying on of the Work of Mediation committed to him. And so it is given him in Commission from the Father, who sent him into the World to do his will; and in this sense had He, the Son of Man, power to forgive sins, whilst he was in the Earth. And to M r B's Ninth Chapter this may suffice.
CHAP. XVIII.
Of Christ's Prophetical Office.
THE eighth Chapter in M. Biddle is of Christ's Prophetical Office; or his entrance into a dealing with Christ, in respect of his Office, as he hath done with him in respect of his Person already.
His first Quest. is. Is not Christ dignifyed as with the title of Mediator, so also wiih that of Prophet. Ans. Act. 3. 20, 22.
M. Biddle tells us C. 4. that Christ is dignifyed with the title of God, though he be not so; and here that he is dignifyed with the Title of a Prophet, but leaves it at large, whether he were so indeed or no. We are resolved in the case. The first promise made of him by God to Adam, was of him, generally as a Mediator, particularly as a Priest, as he was to break the Head of Satan, by the b • using of his own heel. The next solemn renovation of it to Abraham, was of him as King, taking all nations to be his Inheritance. And the third by Moses after the giving of the Law, as a Prophet, to teach and instruct his redeemed people. And a Prophet he is; the great Prophet of his Church; not only dignifyed with that Title, but so he is indeed.
2. But says M. Biddle, he is dignifyed with the title of a Prophet, as well as of Mediator. As though his being a Prophet were contradistinguished from his being a Mediator. Christ's teaching of his people is part of the Mediation he hath undertaken. All that he doth on their part, in offering gifts and sacrifices to God for them, all that he doth on the part of God towards them, by instructing and ruling of them, He doth, as he is the Mediator between God and man, the surety of the Covenant. He is not then a Mediator and a Prophet, but He who is the Mediator, is the High Priest and Prophet of his Church. Nor are there any acts, that he exerciseth on the one, or other of these accounts, but they are all acts of his Mediation, and of him as a Mediator. M. B. indeed tells us not, what he understands by the Mediation of Christ His Masters so describe it, as to make it all one with his Prophetical Office, and nothing else: Which makes me somewhat to wonder, why this man seems to distinguish between them.
Many more notions of M. Biddles Masters are here omitted; as that Christ was not the Prophet of his People under the Old Testament, though by his Spirit he preached even to those that were disobedient in the days of Noah's, and it was the Spirit of Christ, that was in all the Prophets of old, whereby God instructed his Church: That he is a Prophet only, because he hath given unto us a New Law; though he promise effectually to open blind eyes, and to send his Spirit to teach us, and to lead us into all truth▪ giving us understanding, that we may know him that is true. But he lays dirt enough in our way, so that we shall not need farther to rake into the dunghill.
4. I should not have thought that M. Biddle could have taken advantage for his End and purpose from the place of Scripture he mentions Act. 3. 20, 22. For Moses said truly, a Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your Br • theren like unto me, but that I find him in his next Query repeating that expression [ like unto me ] and wresting of it to be the foundation of a conceit plainly jocular. Christ was like to Moses, as he was a Prophet, and like to Aaron, as he was a Priest, and like to David, as he was a King. That is, he was represented and typified, by all these, & had that likeness to them, which the Antitype (as the thing typified is usually, but improperly called) hath to the Type: But that therefore he must not only be like them in the General Office wherein the correspondency doth consist, but also in all the particular concernments of the Office, as by them administered, is to confound the Type and (the Antitype, or rather) thing typified. Nor do the words used either by Moses, Deut 18. 18. or by Peter, Acts 3. 22. intimate any such similitude or likeness between Christ and Moses, as should extend to such particulars, as are afterw • rds intimated. The words of Peter are, God shall raise you up a Prophet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : rather as he raised up me, then like to me: not the least similitude being intimated between them, but in this, that they were both Prophets and both to be hearkened unto. And so the word used by God to Moses: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sicut tu, (a Prophet as thou art) doth import: I will raise up one that shall be a Prophet, as thou art a Prophet: The likeness is only in the Office. For such a similitude as should give the least occasion to M: Biddles following figments there is no color. And so the whole foundation being rooted up, the tottering superstruction will easily fall to the ground. But then to proceed;
For as much as Christ was to be a Prophet like unto Moses, and Moses had the privilege above other Prophets, that God made not himself known to him in a vision, nor spake to him in a dream, but face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend, and shown to him the similitude of▪ the Lord Exod. 33▪ 11. Numb. 12. 6, 7, 8. Can you tell any passage of Scripture which intimateth, that Christ did see God before the discharge of his Prophetical Office. Ans. John 6. 45, 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is from God, he hath seen the Father.
1. This passage is indeed very pretty; whether the principles, or the inferences of it are considered.
The principles of it are sundry: 1. That God hath a bodily shape, and similitude, face, and hands, and the like corporeal Properties. 2. That Moses saw the face of God, as the face of a man. 3. That Christ was in all things like Moses, so that what Moses did, He must do also▪ Therefore, 1. Christ did see the face of God, as a man: 2. He did it before he entered his Prophetical Office; whereunto add 3. the proof of all; no man hath seen the Father, save he which is from God: That is, Christ only saw the face of God, and no man else; when the ground of the whole fiction is, that Moses saw it before him.
2. Of the bodily shape of God, of Moses seeing his face, I have already spoken that, which M: B: will not take out of his way. Of Christ's being like Moses, something also hath now been delivered.
That which Exod: 33. 11. in the Hebrew is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , panim all panim, the Septuagint have rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, praesens praesenti, as one present With him: and the Chaldee Paraphrast verbum ad verbum. That is, God dealt with him kindly, and familiarly, not with astonishing terror; and gave him an intimate acquaintance with his mind and will. And the same expression is used concerning God's speaking to all the people; of whom yet it is expressly said, that they saw no likeness at all: Deut. 5. 4.
If from the likeness mentioned, there must be a sameness asserted unto the particular attendencys of the discharge of that Office; Then Christ must divide the Sea, lift up a Brazen Serpent, and die in a Mountain, and be buried by God, where no man could ever know. Moses indeed enjoyed an eminency of Revelation above other Prophets, which is called his conversing with God, as a friend, and beholding him face to face; but even in that wherein he is exalted above all others, he is infinitely short of the great Prophet of his Church; for Moses indeed as a servant was faithful in all the house of God, but this man is over his house, whose house we are, Heb. 3. 5, 6▪
3. This figment is forever, and utterly everted by the Holy Ghost, John 1. 17, 18. where he expressly urges a dissimilitude between Moses, and the only begotten son, in that particular, wherein this Gentleman would have the likeness to consist. Herein says M. B. is Christ like to Moses, that as Moses saw God face to face; so He saw God face to face: No saith the Holy Ghost; the Law indeed was given by Moses, but no man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten • son in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. It is true, that it is said of Moses, that God spake to him face to face, that is, in a more clear and familiar manner, then he did to other Prophets; though he told him plainly, that he should not, or could not see his face, Exod. 33. 18, 19. though he gave him some lower manifestations of his glory. So that notwithstanding the Revelations made to him, no man hath seen God at any time, but the only begotten son; He who is of the same nature and Essence with the Father▪ & is in his bosom love, He hath seen him, Joh. 6. 46. & in this doth Moses, being a man only, come infinitely short of the only begotten Son, in that he could never see God, which He did. Which is also asserted in the place of Scripture cited by M. Biddle.
4. To lay this axe then also to the Root of M. B's. Tree, to cut it down for the Fire; The Foundation of Christ's Prophetical Office, as to his knowledge of the will of his Father, which he was to reveal, doth not consist in his being taken up into Heaven, and there being taught the will of God in his Human Nature: but in that He was the only begotten Son of the Father, who Eternally knew him, and his whole Will and Mind, and in the dispensation which he undertook, revealed him, and his mind, according as it was appointed to him. In respect indeed of his Human Nature, wherein he declared and Preached the Will of God, He was taught of God, being filled with Wisdom and Understanding, by the Spirit, whereto he was anointed for that purpose; but as the only begotten Son, in the bosom of the Father, He always saw him▪ knew him, and revealed him.
I shall only add, that this fancy of M. B. and the rest of the Socinians, (Socinianism being indeed a kind of modest, and subtle Mahumedisme ) of Christ's seeing God, as did Moses, seems to be taken from, or taken up to comply with the Alcoran, where the same is affirmed of Mahomet. So Beidavi, on those words of the Alcoran: Et sunt ex iis quibuscum locutus est ipse Deus. saith he. Est hic Moses: aut juxta alios Moses & Mahumed, super quibus Pax: Mosi Deus locutus est ea nocte, qua in exstasi quasi fuit in monte Sinai. Mahumedi vero locutus est illa nocte, qua s • alis coelo admotis, Angelos vidit ascendere, tunc enim vix jactum duarum sagittarum ab eo fuit. How near Moses came is not expressed; but Mahomet came within two bow-shoot of him: how near the Socinian Christ came, I know not, nor doth M. B. inform us.
But yet as M. B. eats his word, as to Moses, and after he had affirmed, that he saw the face of God, says, he only saw the face of an Angel, so do the Mohammedans also, as to the vision of their Prophet, and tell us▪ that indeed he was not able to see an Angel in his own proper shape, as Socinus says we cannot see a Spiritual Body, though M. B. thinks, that we may see God's right hand and his left: But of this you have a notable story in K • ssaeus. Saith he:
They who know anything of the Mahumedan forgeries and abominations, in applying things spoken of in the Scripture to their Great Impostor, will quickly perceive the composition of this fiction, from what is spoken of Moses and Daniel. This lying Knave it seems was of M. B's mind, that it was not God indeed, but an Angel, that appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai; and thence is this Tale, which came to pass once upon a time.
He proceeds.
From whence doth it appear, that Christ like Moses heard from God the things that he spake?
Ans. John 8. 40. John 8. 26, 28. Joh. 15. 15. Joh. 14. 8.
All the difficulty of this Question ariseth from those Words, like Moses, and the sense by M. B. put upon them: how falsely▪ how inconsistently with himself, with what perverting of the Scripture, hath been declared. The Scriptures in the Answer affirm only that Christ heard, and was taught of the Father: which is not at all denied, but only the modus, that M. B. would impose upon the words, is rejected: Christ heard of the Father, who taught him as his Servant, in the work of his Mediation, by his Spirit, wherewith He was anointed; but it is his going into Heaven, to hear a lesson with his bodily • ares, which M. B. aims at; and labors under the next Query to prove, how unsuccessefully shall briefly be demonstrated.
Saith he.
Can you farther cite any passage to prove, that Christ as a man ascended into Heaven, and was there, and came from God, out of Heaven, before he shown himself to the World, and discharged his Prophetical office: So that the talking of Moses with God, in the person of an Angel, bearing the name of God, was but a shadow of Christ's talking with God?
Ans. John 3. 13. Chap. 6. 38, 51. Chap. 7. 32, 33, 41, 42, 57, 58. Chap. 8. 29. Chap. 13. 1, 2. Chap. 16. 28, 29, 30. Chap. 17. 8.
We are come now to the head of this Affaire; to that which ha's been aimed at all along in the former Querys. The sum is: Christ until the time of his Baptism, was ignorant of the Mind, and Will of God, and knew not what he was to do, or to declare to the World, nor what he came into the World for, at least only in General. But then when He was led into the Wilderness, to be tempted, He was wrapped up into Heaven, and there God instructed him in his Mind and Will, made him to know the message that he came to deliver, gave him the Law that he was to promulge, and so sent him down again to the Earth to Preach it. Though the Scripture says, that he kn • w the Will of God, by being his only begotten Son, full of Grace and Truth, and that he was full of the Spirit, when he went to the Wilderness, being by him anointed to Preach the Gospel; though at his solemn entrance so to do, the Heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended on him in the form of a Dove, God giving solemn Testimony to him, and charge to hear him, yet because M. B's Masters are not able to answer the Testimonies of Scripture, for the Divine Nature of Christ, which affirm that he was in Heaven before his Incarnation, and came down to his work, by Incarnation▪ this figment is set on foot to the unspeakable dishonor of the Son of God. Before I proceed farther in the Examination of this Invention, and detection of its falsehood, that it may appear, that M. B. made not this discovery himself, by his impartial study, (as he reports) of the Scripture, it may not be amiss to inquire after the mind of them in this business, whose Assistance M. B. ha's in some measure made use of.
The Racovian Catechism gives us almost the very same Question and Answer. (Unde apparet Christum Dei voluntatem perfect manifestasse? Hinc, quod ipse Jesus perfectissima ration • , eam, a Deo in coelis sit edo • tus, & Deum hominibus pub •• candum e coelo magnifice sit • issus, & eam perfect iisdem annu •• iavit. Ubi vero Scriptum est Christum fuisse in coelo, & a coelo missum. Joh. 6 38. Chap. 3. 13. Catech. Ra • ov. de Offic. Christi Prophetico Qu. 4, 5.)
To return to our Catechists, and to the thing it self, the Reader may take of it this brief account.
1. There is indeed in the New Testament abundant mention of our Savior's coming down from Heaven, of hi • coming forth from God, which in what sense it is spoken hath been fully before declared. But of his being taken up into Heaven after his Incarnation befo • e his death, and being there taught the mind of God, and the Gospel, which he was to preach, there is not one word nor syllable. Can it be supposed▪ that whereas so many lesser things are not only taken notice of, but also to the full expressed with all their circumstances; that this which according to the Hypothesis of them with whom we have to do, is of such importance to the confirmation of his doctrine, and upon a supposition of his being a mere man, eminently suited to the Honor of his Ministry, above all the Miracles that he wrought, that He, and all his followers, should be utterly silent therein? That when his doctrine was decried for novelty and folly, and what ever is evil and contemptible, that none of the Apostles in its vindication, none of the Ancients against the Pagans should once make use of this defensative, that Christ was taken up into Heaven & there instructed in the mind of God. Let one word, Testimony, or • xpre • sion be produ • ed to this purpose, that Christ was take • n up into Heaven, to be instructed in the mind of God, before his entrance upon his Office, & let our Adversaries take the cause. If not, let this story be kept in the old Golden Legend, as a match for any it contains.
2. There was no cause of this R • pture or taking of Christ into Heaven; That which is assigned, that there He might be taught the Gosp • ll, helps not in any measure; For the Scripture not only assigns other causes of his acquaintance with the mind, and Will of God, namely, his oneness with the Father, being his only begotten Son, hi • Word, and Wisdom, as also (in respect of his condescension to the Office of Mediation) his being anointed with the fullness of the Spirit, as was promised, and P • ophesied of him; But also affirms, that this was accomplished both on him, and towards him, before such time as this fiction is pretended to fall out.
Instantly upon his baptism Luke tells you, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , full of the Holy G • ost, Chap. 4. 1. which was all that was required to give him a full furnishment for his Office, and all that was promised on that account. This answers what he expresses to be necessary for the discharg of his Prophetical Office: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Isa. 61. 1. and upon that he says, He hath sent me to preach: God also solemnly bare witness to him from Heaven, to the same purpose, Ma • . 3. 17. And before this, John affirms, that he was the Light of the world, the true light, which lighteth every man coming into the world (Joh. 1. 9.) which how he should be, and yet himself be in darkness not knowing the will of God, is not easily to be apprehended.
3. To what purpose served all that Glory at his Baptism: that solemn Inauguration, when he took upon him the immediate administration of his Prophetical Office, in his own person, if after this he was to be taken up into Heaven, to be taught the mind of God? To what end were the Heavens opened over him? To what end did the Holy Ghost descend upon him in a visible shape, which God had appointed as a sign, whereby he should be known to be the great Prophet Joh. 1. 32, 35? To what end was that voice from Heaven, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased? I say to what end were all these, if after all this he was ignorant of the Gospel, and of the Will of God, and was to be taken up into heaven to b • instructed?
4. If this must be supposed to be, without any mention, yet why is it said always, that Christ came from heaven to the earth? If he was first on the earth, & was taken into heaven, & came again to the earth, he had spoken to the understanding of men, if he had said I am returned frō Heaven; & not as he doth, I am come frō Heaven. This in lesser matters is observed▪ Having gone out of Galilee to Jordan & coming again it is said, he returned frō Jordan, Luk. 4. 1. & having been with the Gadarenes, upon his coming to the other side from whence he went, it is said, he returned from the Gadarenes back again Luk. 8. 40. But where is it said that he returned from Heaven, which on the supposition that is made, had alone in this case been proper? which propriety of speech is in all other cases everywhere observed by the holy writ • rs.
5. It is said, that Christ entered once into the Holy place, and that having obtained eternal Redemption▪ Heb. 9. 12. yea, and expressly that he ought to suffer before he so entered, Luk. 24. 26. but according to these men, he went twice into Heaven: once before he suffered, and had obtained Eternal Redemption, and once afterward. It may also be observed, that when they are pressed to tell us some of the circumstances of this great matter, being silent to all other, they only tell us that they con •• cture the Time to be in the space of that forty days, wherein he was in the wilderness; on purpose through the Righteous judgment of God to entangle themselves in their own imaginations, the Holy Ghost affirming expressly, that he was the whole forty days in the Wilderness, amongst the wild beasts, Mark. 1. 13.
Enough being said to the disprovement of this fiction, I shall very briefly touch upon the sense of the places, that are produced to give countenance thereunto. In most of the places insist • d on, there is this expression. He that came down from Heaven, or, I came down from Heaven, so Joh. 6. 32, 33, 38, 41, 42, 51, 57, 58. Joh. 3. 30, 31, 32. hence this is the Conclusion, If our Savior came down from Heaven, then after he had lived some time in the world he was taken up into Heaven, there to be taught the mind of God: He that hath a mind to grant this consequence, is willing to be these men's Disci • le. The Scripture gives us another account of the intendment of this phrase. Namely, that the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and his glory was seen, as the glory of the only begotten Son of God; so that it is not a locali descension, but a gracious condescension, that is in • imated, with his voluntary humiliation, when he who was in the form of God humbled himself to take upon him the form of a Servant, therein to learn obedience. So that these expressions yield very little relief to our Adversarie.
2. The second sort are those, wherein He is said to come forth from God, or from the Father; this is expressed. John. 3. 42. John. 13. 1, 3. John. 16. 28, 29, 30. John. 17. 3. John. 16. 27. from whence an Argument of the same importance with the former, doth arise. If Christ came from God, from the Father, then after he had been many years in the world, he was taken into Heaven, and there taught the Gospel, and sent again into the world. With such invincible demonstrations do these men contend. That Christ came from God, from the Father, that is, had his Mission and Commission from God, as he was Mediator, the great Prophet, Priest, and King of his Church, none denies, and this is all that in those places is expressed. Of which afterwards.
3 Some particular places are yet remaining. The first is Joh. 3. 13. No man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, the Son of man whi • h is in Heaven. That, which is, M. B. renders rather, whi • h was: whether with greater prejudice to his caus • , or conscience I know not. To his cause, in that he manif • st, that it cannot be d • fended without corrupting the word of God: To his Conscience, by corrupting it to serve his own ends and turn accordingly. The words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which will by no means admit of his corrupting gloss.
I say then, let the words speak themselves, and you need no other to cut the throat of the whole cause, that this man hath undertaken to manage. He that speaks is the Son of man, and all the time of his speaking he was in Heaven. He (saith he) is in Heaven: in his human Nature he was then on the Earth, not in Heaven; therefore he had another nature, wherein at that Time he was in Heaven also; He who was so, being the Son of man; and what then becomes of M. B's Christ? And what need of the Rapture whereof he speaks.
For the Ascending into Heaven, mentioned in the beginning of the verse, that it cannot be meant of a local ascent of Christ in his human nature, antecedent to his Resurrection, is evident, in that he had not yet descended into the lower parts of the earth, which he was to do before his local ascent. Eph. 4. 9, 10. The ascent there mentioned, answers the discourse that our Savior was then upon, which was to inform Nicodemus in Heavenly things; To this end he tells him ( v. 12.) that they were so slow of Believing▪ that they could not receive the plainest Doctrine, nor understand even the visible things of the Earth, as the blowing of the wind, nor the causes, and issue of it: much less did they understand the Heavenly things of the Gospel, which none (saith he, v. 13.) hath pierced into, is acquainted withal, hath ascended into Heaven, in the knowledge of, but he who is in Heaven, and is sent of God into the world to instruct you. He who is in Heaven in his Divine nature, who is come down from Heaven, being sent of God, having taken flesh, that he might reveal, and do the will of God, He, and none but he, hath so ascended into Heaven, as to have the full knowledge of the Heavenly things whereof I speak. Of a Local ascent to the end and purpose mentioned, there is not the least syllable.
Thus I say the context of the Discourse seems to exact a metaphorical interpretation of the words: our Savior in them informing Nicodemus of his acquaintance with Heavenly things, whereof he was ignorant. But yet the propriety of the word may be observed without the least advantage to our Adversaries; For it is evident, that the words are eclipticall; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . ascend, must be repeated again to make the sense complete: and why may not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be inserted, as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So are the words rendered by Theophilact: and in that sense relate not to what was before, but what was to be. And an instance of the necessity of an alike supplement, is given in Math. 11. 27. moreover some suppose, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , affirming the want of a potential conjunction, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the like, (which the following exceptives 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , require) in the place, is not to be taken for the act don, but for the power of doing it: of which examples may be given: So that the propriety of the word may also be preserved, without the least countenance afforded to the figment under consideration.
The remaining place is, Joh. 6. 62. What and if you shall see the Son of man ascending up where he was before: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That Christ was in Heaven before his local ascent thither in his human nature, is part of our plea to prove his divine nature, and what will thence be obtained I know not.
And this is the first Attempt that these Gentlemen make upon the Prophetical Office of Christ; He did not know the will of God, as the only begotten Son of the Father in his b • some; He was not furnished for the declaring of it, in his own immediate Ministry, by the unction of the Holy Ghost, and his being filled therewith; He was not solemnly inaugurated thereunto by the glorious presence of the Father, and Holy Ghost with him, one in a voice, the other in a bodily shape, bearing witness to him, to be the Prophet sent from God; but being for many years ignorant of the Gospel, and the will of God, or what he came into the world to do, He was, no man knows where, when, nor how, wrapped into Heaven, and there taught and instructed in the mind of God, (as Mahomet pretended he was also,) and so sent into the world, after he had been sent into the world many a year.
What is that will of God which by Christ is revealed?
It is the new Covenant, which Christ, in the name of God, made with human kind, whence also he is called the Mediator of the new Covenant.
It seems then that Christ was taken into Heaven, to be taught the new Covenant, of which before he was ignorant; though the very name that was given him before he was borne contained the substance of it: Math. 1. 21. (2.) Christ did not make the Covenant with us as Mediator; but confirmed & ratified it: Heb. 9. 15, 16, 17. God gave him in the Covenant which he made; and therefore is said to give him for a Covenant, Isa. 42. 6. (3.) The Covenant of Grace is not made with all mankind, but with the seed of the woman: Gen. 3 15. Gal. 3. 16. Rom. 9. 7, 8. (4.) Christ is not called the Mediator of the Covenant, because he declared the will of God concerning it, but because he gave his life a Ransom for those with whom it is made, 1 Tim. 2. 5, 6. and the promises of it were confirmed in his blood, Heb. 9, 15. ch. 10. 16. 28. (5.) This covenant was not first made, & revealed, when Christ taught it in his own Person. It was not only made, but confirmed to Abaham in Christ 430. years before the Law, Gal. 3. 17. yea ever since the entrance of sin, no man hath walked with God but in the same Covenant of Grace: as elsewhere is declared.
Let us see what follows in M. B. says he.
You have already shown that Christ was like unto Moses, in seeing God, and hearing from him the things which he speak, but Moses exceeded all other Prophets likewise in that he only was a Law giver; was Christ therefore like unto Moses in giving of a Law also, and is there any mention of this Law. Ans. Gal. 6. 2. fulfill the Law of Christ, Rom. 3. 27. by the Law of Faith, Jam. 2. 12. by the Law of liberty, Jam. 1. 25.
That Moses did not see the face of God hath been shown, and M. Biddle confesseth the same. That Christ was not wrapped into Heaven for any such end or purpose as is pretended, that He is not compared to Moses as to his initiation into his Prophetical Office, that there is no one word in the Scripture giving countenance to any of these figments hath been evinced. Nor hath M. Biddle sh • wed any such thing to them, who have their senses exercised to discern good and evil; what apprehensions soever his Catechumens may have of his skill and proofs.
2. What is added to this question will be of an easy dispatch. The word [ Law ] may be considered generally, as to the nature of it, in the sense of Scripture, for a Revelation of the mind of God; and so we say Christ did give a Law, in that he revealed fully and clearly the whole mind of God, as to our Salvation and the Obedience he requireth of us. And so there is a Law of Faith; that is, a doctrine of Faith, opposite to the Law, as to its Covenant ends simply so called. And he also instituted some peculiar significant Ceremonies, to be used in the worship of God; pressing in particular in his teaching, and by his example the duty of love, which thence is particularly called a new Commandment, and the Law of Christ, Gal. 6. 2. even that which he did so eminently practice: As he was a Teacher, a Prophet come out from God, He taught the mind, and will, and worship of God; from his own bosom Joh. 1. 18. Heb. 1. 1. And as he was, & is the King of his Church, he hath given precepts and Laws, and Ordinances, for the Rule and government thereof, to which none can add, nor from them may detract. But take the word Law, strictly, in reference to a Covenant end, that He which performs it shall be justified by his performance thereof; So we may say, he gave the Law originally as God, but as Mediator he gave no such Law, or no Law in that sense, but revealed fully and clearly our justification with God upon another Account; and gave no new precepts of Obedience, but what were before given in the Law, written Originally in the heart of man by nature, and delivered to the Church of the Jews by Moses in the Wilderness; of which in the chapter of Justification.
For the places quoted by M. Biddle, that of Gal. 6. 2. Bear one another's burden, and fulfill the Law of Christ, speaks only of that one command of brotherly love and forbearance; which is called peculiarly; as I said, a new commandment, though the Jews had it from the beginning; and the Law of Christ, because of the eminent accomplishment of it by him, who loved us, and gave himself for us, transmitting it a new to us, with such new motives, and inducements, as it had not received before, nor ever shall again. The Law of Faith mentioned Rom. 3. 27. is no more but the Doctrine of the Gospel, and of Justification without the works of the Law, that is, all works commanded by what Law soever: as the whole doctrine of the word of God is called the Law, near an hundred times in the Psalms. The law of Faith is that which is opposed to the law of works, as a means of obtaining Righteousness, which is not by obedience to new Commands.
The places in Ja. 2. 12. Ja. 1. 25. speak directly of the Moral Law, which is manifest by that particular annumeration of its precepts, which we have subjoined, v. 13, 14.
3. But M. Biddles Masters have a farther reach in the asserting Christ to have given a new Law: namely, whereas they place Justification as a Consequent of our own obedience, and observing how impossible it is to do it, on the Obedience yielded to the Moral Law, the Apostle having so frequently, & expressly decried all possibility of Justification thereby, they have therefore feigned to themselves, that Christ Jesus hath given a New Law, in Obedience whereunto we may be justified; which when they attempt to prove, it will be needful for them to produce other manner of evidences, then that hereby M. B. insisted on which speaks not one word to the purpose in hand: But that this is the intendment of the man is evident from his ensuing discourse.
Having reckoned up the Expositions of the Law, and its vindication given by our Savior Math. 5. in the next Query, he calls them very ignorantly the Law of Faith, or the New Covenant. If M. B. knows no more of the New Covenant, but that it is a New Law given by our Savior Mat. 5. 6, 7. (as upon other accounts) I pity the man: He proceeds.
Doth not Christ then partly perfect, partly correct the Law of Moses, what is the determination of Christ concerning this matter. Math. 5. 21, 22, 23, 24.
1. The reason of this Query, I acquainted the Reader with before. These men seeking for a Righteousness as it were by the works of the Law, and not daring to lay it upon that, which the Apostle doth expressly so often reject, they strive to relieve themselves with this; that our Savior hath so dealt with the Law as here is expressed; so that to yield obedience to it now as mended, perfected, and reformed, must needs be sufficient to our justification.
2. Two things are here affirmed to be done by the Lord Christ, in reference to the Law of Moses, as it is called; that is, the Moral Law, as is evident by the following instances, given to make good the Assertion; first that he perfects it, secondly that he corrects it; and so a double imputation is • aid on the Law of God. 1. Of Imperfection. 2. Of Corruption, that needed Amendment or Correction.
Before I proceed to examine the particular instances, whereby the man attempts to make good his insinuation, the Honor of God, and his Law, requires of us, that it be vindicated from this double Calumny, and demonstrated to be neither imperfect, nor to stand in need of correction.
For its perfection we have the Testimony of God himself expressly given thereunto, Psal. 19. 7. The Law of the Lord is PERFECT converting the Soul. It is the perfect Law of liberty, Jam. 1. 25. Yea so perfect, as that God hath forbidden anything to be added to it, or to be taken from it Deut. 4. 1, 2. Deut. 12. 32.
2. If the Law wants Perfection, it is in respect of its essential parts, or its integral parts, or in respect of degrees. But for its essential parts it is perfect, being in matter, and form, in sense, and sentence, Divine, Holy, Just, Good. For its Integrals, it compriseth the whole Duty of man Eccles. 12. and the last; which doing he was to live; And for the degrees of its commands, It requireth that we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, and all our souls, and our neighbors as ourselves; which our Savior confirms as a Rule of perfection. Math. 22. 37.
3. If the Law of God was not perfect, but needed correction it is either because God could not, or would not give a perfect and complete Law: To say the first, is Blasphemy: for the latter, theres no pretence for it. God giving a Law for his Service, proclaiming his wisdom and Holiness to be therein, and that if any man did perform it, he should live therein, certainly would not give such a Law, as by its imperfection should come short of any of the ends and purposes, for which it was appointed.
4. The perfection of the Law is hence also evinced; that the precepts of Christ wherein our obedience requires us to be perfect, are the same, and no other then the precepts of the Law: his new commandment of love is also an old one, 1 John 2. 7, 8. which Christ calls his new command, Joh. 13. 34. and the like instances might be multiplied, neither will the instance of M. B. evince the contrary which he argues from Mat 5. for that Christ doth not in that chapter correct the Law, or add any new precept thereunto, but expounds and vindicates it from the corrupt Gloss of the scribes and Pharisees, appears,
1. From the Occasion of the discourse, and the Proposition which our Savior makes good, establisheth, and confirmeth therein: which is laid down v. 21. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. In pursuit of this proposition. He manifesteth what their Righteousness was, by examining their Catechism upon the Commandments, and the Exposition they made therein of them. It is not the Righteousness of the Law that our Savior rejects, and requires more in his Disciples, but that of the Pharisees whom he everywhere called Hypocrites: But for the Law he tells them a Tittle of it shall not pass away, & he that keeps it shall be called great, or be of great esteem in the Kingdom of God: and the good works; that our Savior then required in his Disciples, are no other but those that were commanded in the Law.
2. The very Phraseology, and manner of speech here used by our Savior, manifests of whom, and concerning what he speaks; you have HEARD that it was SAID to them of old time; you have heard, not you have read; you have heard it of the Scribes and Pharisees, out of Moses chair they have told you, that it was thus said; and you have heard that it was SAID to them of Old; not that it was written, that it was written in the Law, the Expression whereby he citeth what wa • written. And it was said to them of Old; the common pret • nce of the Pharisees in the imposing their Traditions, and Expositions of the Law. It is the tradition of the Elders; it was said to them, by such and such blessed Masters of old.
3. Things are instanced in, that are nowhere written in the Law, nor ever were; as that, thou shalt love thy Neighbor, and hate thine enemy; which is so remote from the Law, as that the contrary is directly commanded, Levite. 19. 18. Exod. 23. 4, 5. Prov. 21. 21, 22. To them who gave this Rule, thou shalt love thy Neighbor, and hate thine enemy, doth Christ oppose himself. But those were the Scribes and Pharisees in their corrupt Glosses, from which God's Law is vindicated, not in its self before corrupted.
4. Whose saying Christ rejects, their sayings He did not come to fulfill; But he came to fulfill and accomplish the Law, and therefore it is not the Law, and the sentence thereof, that he rejects in that form of speech, but I say unto you.
Before I come to the consideration of the particular instances given by M. B. a brief Consideration of what is offered to this purpose by Smalcius, in his Racovian Catechism, may be premised. His first Chapter about the Prophetical Office of Christ, is de praeceptis Christi, quae legi addidit, Of the Precepts of Christ, which he added to the Law. And therein this is his first Question and Answer.
What are the Perfect commands of God, revealed by Christ?
The commands of God, revealed by Jesus Christ, are here referred to three heads. 1. The Ten Commandments given by Moses: for so that part is explained in the next Question, where they are said to be the Decalogue. 2. The additions made by Christ thereunto. 3. His own peculiar institutions.
As to the first, I desire only to know how the ten Commandments were revealed by Jesus Christ. The Catechist confesseth that they were given to Moses, and revealed by that means; how are they then said to be revealed by Christ: if they shall say, that he may be said to reveal them, because he promulgated them anew, with new Motives, Reasons, and Encouragements, I hope he will give us leave to say also, that what he calls a new Commandment, is not so termed in respect of the matter of it, but its new enforcement by Christ: we grant Christ revealed that Law by Moses, with its new Covenant Ends, as he was the great Prophet of his Church, by his Spirit, from the foundation of the World; but this Smalcius denies.
2. That Christ made no new additions to the Moral Law, hath been partly evidenced from what hath been spoken concerning the perfection thereof, with the intention of our Savior in that place, and those things wherein they say these additions are found and do consist; and shall yet farther be evinced, from the consideration of the particulars by them instanced in.
3. It is granted, that our blessed Savior did for the times of the New Testament institute the two Ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in the room of them, which together with their representation of the benefits, which Believers receive by him, did also prefigure him as to come. But 1. these are no new Law, nor part of a new Law, with a Law design in them. 2. Though there is an obedience in their performance yielded to God & Christ, yet they belong rather to the Promise, th • n the Precepts of Christ; to our privilege, before unto our duty.
In the progress of that Catechist, after some discourse about the Ceremonial and Judicial Law, with their abolition, and his allowance of Magistrates among Christians notwithstanding, (which they do, upon condition he shed no blood for any cause whatever) He attempts in particular, to show what Christ added to the Moral Law, in the several Precepts of it. And to the first he says, that Christ added two things. 1. In that he prescribed us a certain form of Prayer; of which afterwards in the Chapter designed to the consideration of what M r B. speaks to the same purpose. 2. That we acknowledge himself for God, and Worship him; of which also in our discourse of the Kingly Office of Christ. To the Second, he says, is added in the New Testament, not only, that we should not worship Images, but avoid them also; which is so notoriously false, the avoiding of Images of our own making, being no less commanded in the Old Testament, then in the New, that I shall not insist thereon. The residue of his plea is the same with M. B's from Mat. 5. where what they pretend shall be considered in order.
To consider then briefly the particular Instances: The first is in reference to the Sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not Kill. This the Pharisees so interpreted, as that if a man kept himself from blood, and from causing the death of ano • her, He was Righteous, as to the keeping of this Commandment. Our Savior lets his Disciples know, that there is a closer, and nearer sense of this Law: I say unto you, in the Exposition of this Commandment, that any rash anger, anger without a cause, all offense given, proceeding from thence, in light vilifying expressions, such as Racha, much more all provoking taunts and reproaches, as thou fool, are forbidden therein, so as to render a man obnoxious to the judgment of God, and condemnation in their several degrees of sinfulness; as there were amongst themselves several Councils, according to several Offences; the judgment, the Council, and utter cutting off, as a child of Hell. Hence then having manifested the least breach of Love and Charity towards our Brother to be a breach of the Sixth Commandment, and so to render a man obnoxious to the judgment of God, in several degrees of sin, according as the eruptions of it are, he proceeds in the following verses to exhort his Disciples to Patience, Forbearance, and Brotherly Love, with readiness to Agreement and Forgiveness, verses 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.
2. In the next place, he proceeds to the vindication, and Exposition of the Seventh Commandment, v. 27. Thou shalt not commit Adultery: which the Pharisees had so expounded, as that if a man kept himself from Actual uncleanness, however he lived loosely, and put away his Wife at his Pleasure, he was free from the breach thereof. To give them the true meaning, and Sence of this Commandment, and farther to discover the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, he lets them know;
1. That the Concupiscence of the Heart, and inordinate desire of any Person, is the Adultery here no less forbidden, then that of actual uncleanness, which the Law made death. And certainly, he must needs be as blind as a Pharisee, who sees not, that the uncleanness of the Heart, and Lust after Women, was forbidden by the Law, and under the Old Testament.
2. As to their living with their Wives, he mentions indeed the words of Moses, whosoever shall put away his Wife, let him give her a Bill of Divorcement; but opposeth not himself thereunto at all, but only shows, that, that permi • sion of Divorce is to be interpreted according to the Rule and Instruction given in the first Institution of Marriage, (as afterward, on another occasion he explains himself Math 19) And not that men might therefore for every cause, that they would, or could pretend, instantly put away their Wives, as the Pharisees taught men to do; And as Josephus, one of them testifies of himself, that he did. I put away my Wife (saith he) because she did not please me. No, saith our Savior, that permission of Moses is not to be extended beyond the just cause of divorce, as it is by the Pharisees, but made use of only in the case of Fornication, v. 27, 28. And thereupon descends to caution his Disciples, to be careful and circumspect in their walking in this particular, and not be led by an offending eye, or hand, (the beginning of evil,) to greater Abominations.
3. In like manner doth he proceed in the vindication of the third Commandment; The Scribes and Pharisees had invented, or approved of Swearing by Creatures, the Temple, Altar, Jerusalem, the Head, and the like; and thereupon raised many wicked and cursed distinctions, on purpose to make a cloak for hypocrisy, and lying, as you may see Math. 23. 16, 17, 18. If a man swear by the Temple, it is nothing; he is not bound by his Oath; but if he swear by the Gold of the Temple, he is obliged. In like manner did they distinguish of the Altar, and the Gift; and having mixed these swearings, and distinctions, in their ordinary conversations, there was nothing sincere, or open, and plain, left amongst them. This wicked gloss of theirs (being such as their successors abound withal to this day) our blessed Savior decry's; and commands his Disciples to use plainness, and simplicity in their conversation, in plain Affirmations, and Negations, without the mixture of such profane, and cursed execrations, v. 34, 35, 36, 37. which that it was no new duty, nor unknown to the Saints of the Old Testament, is known to all that have but read it.
4. In matter of Judgment between man and man, he proceeds in the same manner; because the Law had appointed the Magistrate to exercise talionem in some cases, and to • ache an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, the blind Pharisees wrested this to countenance private men in revenging themselves, and pursuing them who had injured them with an hostile mind, at least until the sentence of the Law was executed on them. To root out the rancor and malice of the minds of Men, which by this means were nourished, and fomented in them, our Savior lets them know, that notwithstanding that proceedure of the Magistrate by the Law, yet indeed all private revenges were forbidden, and all readiness to contend with others: which he amplifieth in the proposal of some particular cases; and all this by virtue of a Rule, which himself affirms to be contained in the Law; Thou shalt love thy Neighbor as thyself, v. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. pressing also lending, and giving, as works of charity, whereunto a blessing is so often pronounced in the Old Testament.
5. His last instance is in the matter of Love, concerning which the Pharisees had given out this note; Thou shalt Love thy Neighbor, and Hate thine Enemy. For whereas there were certain Nations whom God had appointed to utter destruction; at his people's first coming into Canaan, he commanded them to show them no mercy, but utterly to destroy them, Deut. 7. 2. This the wretched Hypocrites laid hold of, to make up a Rule, and Law for private men to walk by, in reference to them, whom they accounted their Enemies, in express contradiction to the command of God, Ex. 23. 4, 5. Levite. 19. 18. Wherefore our blessed Savior vindicates the sense of the Law from this cursed Tradition also, and renews the precept of loving, and doing good to our Enemies, v. 43, 44, 45. So that in none of the instances mentioned, is there the least evidence of what was proposed to be confirmed by them, namely, that our Savior gave a new Law, in that he did partly perfect, partly correct the Law of Moses; seeing he did only vindicate the sense and meaning of the Law, in sundry precepts thereof, from the false Glosses and Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, invented and imposed on their Disciples, to be a cloak to their hypocrisy and wickedness. And this also may fully suffice to remove what on this account is delivered by the Racovian Catechism. But on this foundation M. B. proceeds.
You have made it appear plainly that the Law of Faith, or the New Covenant, whereof Christ was the Mediator, is better then the Law of Works, or the Old Covenant, whereof Moses was the Mediator in respect of Precepts, is it also better in respect of Promises? A. Heb: 8. 6. Heb. 7. 19.
This is indeed a comfortable passage, for the better understanding whereof I shall single out the several noble Propositions, that are insinuated therein, and evidently contained in the words of it: as
1. Christ was the Mediator of the Law of Faith, the new Law, in the same sense as Moses was Mediator of the Old Law, the Law of Works.
2. Christ's Addition of Precepts and Promises to the Law of Moses, is the Law of Faith, or the New Covenant.
3. The People, or the Church of the Jews, lived under the Old Covenant, or the Law of Works: whereof Moses, not Christ was the Mediator▪
4. The difference betweenthe Old, and the New Covenant, lies in this; that the New hath more Precepts of Obedience, and more Promises then the Old.
And now truly he that thinks, that this man understands either the Old Covenant, or the New, either Moses, or Christ, either Faith, or Works, shall have liberty from me to enjoy his opinion, for I have not more to add, to convince him of his mistake, then what the man himself hath here delivered.
For my part, I have much other work to do, occasioned by M. B. and therefore I shall not here divert to the consideration of the two Covenants, and their difference, with the twofold Administration of the Covenant of Grace, both before, and after Christ's coming in the flesh; but I shall content myself with some brief Animadversions upon the forementioned Propositions, and proceed.
1. In what sense Christ is the Mediator of the new Covenant, I shall (God assisting) at large declare, when I come to treat of his death, and satisfaction; and shall not here prevent myself in anything of what must then, and there, be delivered.
2. That there are precepts, and Promises attending the new Covenant, is granted; but that it consists in any addition of precepts to the Mosaical Law, carried on in the same tenor with it, with other promises, is a figment directly destructive of the whole Gospel, and the mediation of the Son of God. By this means the whole undertaking of Jesus Christ, to lay down his Life a Ransom for us, our justification by his blood, his being of God made Righteousness to us, the free pardon of our sins, and Acceptation with God, by, and for him, as he is the end of the Law for righteousness, all communication of effectual grace, to work in us new Obedience, the giving of a new clean heart, wi • h the Law of God written in it by the Spirit, in a word, the whole promise made to Abraham, the whole new Covenant, is excluded from the Covenant, and men left yet in their sins. The Covenant of works was, do this and live, and the tenor of the Law, if a man do the things thereof, he shall live thereby; that is, if a man by his own strength perform, and fulfill the Righteousness that the Law requires, he shall have Eternal Life thereby. This Covenant saith the Apostle, God hath disanulled, because no man could be saved by it: The Law thereof through sin was become weak, and insufficient as to any such end and purpose; what then doth God substitute in room thereof: why a new Covenant, that hath more precepts added to the old, with all those of the Old continued, that respected Moral Obedience. But is this a remedy? Is not this rather a new burden? If the Law could not save us before, because it was impossible through sin that we should perfectly accomplish it, and therefore by the deeds of the Law shall no man be justified: Is it a likely way to relieve us, by making an addition of more precepts to them, which before we could not observe? But that through the Righteous hand of God, the interest of men's immortal souls is come to be concerned therein; I should think the time exceedingly lavishit, that is spent in this Discourse. Let him that is ignorant, be ignorant still, were a sufficient answer. And this that hath been said, may suffice to the fourth particular also.
3. That Moses was a Mediator of a Covenant of works, properly▪ & formally so called, & that the Church of the Jews lived under a Covenant of works, is a no less pernicious figment then the former. The Covenant of works was, do this and live; on perfect obedience you shall have life. Mercy, and pardon of sins were utter strangers to that Covenant, and therefore by it the Holy Ghost tells us, that no man could be Saved. The Church of old had the Promises of Christ, Rom. 9. 5. Gen. 3. 15. Chap. 12. 3. were justified by Faith, Gen 15. 6. Rom. 4. Gal 3. obtained Mercy for their sins, and were justified in the Lord, Isa. 42. 24. had the Spirit for conversion, Regeneration, and Sanctification, Ezek. 11. 19. Chap. 36. 26. expected, and obtained Salvation by Jesus Christ: things as remote from the Covenant of Works as the East from the West.
It is true, the Administration of the Covenant of Grace, which they lived under, was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that, which we now are admitted unto, since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the covenant wherein they walked with God, and that wherein we find acceptance, is the same; and the Justification of Abraham their Father, the pattern of ours.
Let us now see what answer▪ M. B. Applyes to his Query: The first text he mentions is, Heb. 8. 6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent Ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, built upon better promises. That which the Holy Ghost here affirms, is, that the New Covenant, whereof Christ is the Mediator, is better then the Old; and that it hath better Promises: which I suppose none ever doubted. The Covenant is better, seeing that could by no means save us, which by this Christ doth to the uttermost. The promises are better, for it hath innumerable promises of Co • version, Pardon, and Perseverance, which that had not at all; and the promise of Eternal life, which that had, is given upon infinitely better, and surer, terms. But all this is nothing at all to M. B's purpose.
No more is the second place which he mentioneth, Heb. 7. 19. The Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did.
Not that by the Law, in that place, the Covenant of works is intended, but the legal Administration of the Covenant of Grace. This saith the Apostle, made nothing perfect; men were kept under Types, and Shaddowes, and though they were Children of God by Adoption, yet in comparison, they were kept as servants, being under Age until the fullness of time came, when the bringing in of Jesus Christ, that better hope, made the Administration of Grace perfect, and complete. M r B. all along obscures himself under the ambiguous term of the Law; confounding its covenant & subsequent use; For the Covenant use of the Law, or as it was the tenor of the Covenant of works, the Saints of the Old Testament were no more concerned in it, then are we. The Subsequent use of it, may be considered two ways. 1. As it is purely Moral, exacting perfect Obedience, and so the use of it is common to them and us. 2. As attended with ceremonial and judicial institutions in the Administration of it, and so it was peculiar to them: And this one observation will lead the Reader through much of the Sophistry of this Chapter, whose next Question is.